This just in: North Korea to End armistice!

[ranskaldan]

The idea of a surgical strike that immediately cuts off command and communications is kinda attractive, actually.

You'd need to level all the weapons being pointed at SK and Japan in the first few hours too, though.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
with a massive force-shield.

meaning, it won't happen.

any attack on skorea has to go through seoul; the mountains in the east prevent much fast movement, and is far to easily defended.

meaning you have to go through a major city. which would also be easily defended.

why do you think nkorea has so many artillery emplacements near seoul? because in the event of any armed conflict, the easiest, and probably the only way, of "capturing" seoul would be to level it entirely.

any pre-emptive strike will result in the destruction of seoul.

i don't like that so much.

hi ,

actually in a pure military operation one would go around seoul and concentrate on military targets , ....

example , 1940 the battle of britain air campaign , the germans where doing a good job in bombing airfields , factories , military targets , etc , ..... so far so good , then all of a sudden they start to bomb civilian targets , results , the brits can re-arm and strike back , winning the war , ....

and who would want to be responsable for such a large population centre , ..... the north cant even feed its own people , ... let alone the whole south , ....

if they nuke seoul they are going to get some nukes back , the chinese shall do it it the US of a shall not do it , .....

have a nice day

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
The idea of a surgical strike that immediately cuts off command and communications is kinda attractive, actually.

You'd need to level all the weapons being pointed at SK and Japan in the first few hours too, though.

Is it possible that those troops would have orders launch their missiles in the event of and attack. In that case cutting off command and communications wouldn't stop them from launching the missiles.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by panag
if they nuke seoul they are going to get some nukes back , the chinese shall do it it the US of a shall not do it , .....

You bet.

hi ,

actually in a pure military operation one would go around seoul and concentrate on military targets , ....

example , 1940 the battle of britain air campaign , the germans where doing a good job in bombing airfields , factories , military targets , etc , ..... so far so good , then all of a sudden they start to bomb civilian targets , results , the brits can re-arm and strike back , winning the war , ....

Mmm, but isn't this whole situation about NK disintegrating one day and trying to go out with a bang? If that's the case, then they would want to cause as big a bang as possible.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by DuncanK


Is it possible that those troops would have orders launch their missiles in the event of and attack. In that case cutting off command and communications wouldn't stop them from launching the missiles.

Exactly...

[Panag]

Originally posted by ranskaldan


You bet.



Mmm, but isn't this whole situation about NK disintegrating one day and trying to go out with a bang? If that's the case, then they would want to cause as big a bang as possible.

hi ,

the leaders maybe , yes they would or could go for that , not the people in the street , .....

crazy commies

blackmailing the whole free world , ...... get rid of them

have a nice day

[ranskaldan]

I myself prefer delaying this "bang" as long as possible.

Heck, NK has been making some steps (not too much though), and its current nuclear program isn't an imminent threat yet. Considering that all four of NK's neighbours have flourished after equally crappy situations, I wouldn't be too eager for an attack yet.

[Q Classic]

panag:

hi ,
actually in a pure military operation one would go around seoul and concentrate on military targets , ....
example , 1940 the battle of britain air campaign , the germans where doing a good job in bombing airfields , factories , military targets , etc , ..... so far so good , then all of a sudden they start to bomb civilian targets , results , the brits can re-arm and strike back , winning the war , ....
and who would want to be responsable for such a large population centre , ..... the north cant even feed its own people , ... let alone the whole south , ....
if they nuke seoul they are going to get some nukes back , the chinese shall do it it the US of a shall not do it , .....
have a nice day

north korean military doctrine for the past 50 years has been reunification of the peninsula by any means necessary.
naturally, this would involve capturing seoul, the heart of south korea, by any means necessary.
south korea, being a metropolis, is insanely well defended: boulevards are lined with defensive points, highways with tank traps, and the like; to capture seoul using troops would be an insane and idiotic proposition. thus, to capture it, one must level it.
north korea has therefore placed a large number; indeed, a good portion of their forward-reaching artillery, within range of seoul. thus, in the opening moments of any armed confrontation, north korea would begin firing at what is a) the financial center of skorea; b) the technological center of skorea; c) the military center of skorea; d) the industrial center of skorea; e) the cultural center of skorea; f) the governmental center of skorea.
because seoul is the financial, military, governmental, and industrial center, it is going to be an objective of the north korean army. seoul is therefore a pure military target.

i highly doubt that nkorea would want to nuke skorea; nuclear weapons and other wmds are immaterial to the amount of conventional ordinance that nkorea could pour on skorea. surgical strikes will not prevent this, unless you manage to take out virtually all of the AA batteries, all of the troop emplacements, all of the missile bases, all of the artillery emplacements, and all of the radar installations.
no surgical strike could do all of that.

it is a false analogy to compare the battle of britain, which was an AIR campaign, to any armed conflict on the korean peninsula. for one, much of nkorea's military hardware is focused on the army; their airforce is technologically at least two generations behind, and their navy is relatively negligible. any combat in skorea will be predominantly land, because a) the terrain is extremely mountainous; b) air power, although clearly on the american side, will not add too much to the military's efforts on land; c) naval power is also negligible, because nkorea is so secretive that it will be difficult to target anything extremely accurately.

there is no doubt that skorea would eventually win a war; their reserves are comparable to nkorea's (iirc, around 4mill), better trained and equipped. this doesn't mean that seoul and any other major skorean city will be ignored, however. my bets are that if nkorea attacks, seoul will have much rebuilding to do; taejon and taegu, if they get that far, will be leveled as well. many other major cities in between, such as ch'ongju and suwon for instance, will not be spared.

[Q Classic]

let me also say this:

there are two main ways into south korea that don't go through mountain. one is in the east, along the back of the taebaek mountains. because it is sandwiched between the mountains and the sea, and that very little is there until you get far south (p'ohang (steel center), ulsan (industrial center), and pusan (industrial, commercial, shipping center)), it's very unlikely that the vast majority of the nkorean army will head that way. indeed, if it did, it would also fail miserably; the narrowness of the passage would be a defender's dream.

the other way is through seoul. that is where the major korean highway, connecting seoul in the NW to Pusan in the SE ends. this highway, naturally, goes straight through seoul and a good portion of the rest of flat korea. in fact, there are no other major paths from the north to the south between the neutral zones.

panag, fact is, any military confrontation between the two koreas will result in much of seoul being destroyed, no matter how "purely military" or "precision strike" driven it might be.

also, it's ROK: "republic of korea". not ROSK, which i assume you mean "republic of south korea". there is no ROSK.
it's always been ROK. north korea's official abbreviation is DPRK, or "democratic people's republic of korea".
much like how west and east germany were not "Democratic People's Republic of East Germany" or "Federal Republic of West Germany", but rather "DPR Germany" and "Federal Republic of Germany".

[Seeker]

Have you lived in Seoul Q? That's obvious to anyone from the greater Seoul metro area.

[Ned]

Q Cubed, I have the feeling that the US knows that Seoul is vulnerable to artillery and probably plans massive use of airpower to suppress it.

The only problem is, if are tied up in Iraq, NK has a free hand.

This is why NK is escallating the crisis now, while both SK and the US are vulnerable.

[Q Classic]

seeker: no, my family's from ch'ongju. as for the stuff regarding seoul, it's also obvious to anyone who has a map.

ned: i know that the us knows that seoul's vulnerable to artillery. but i was explaining to panag why surgical strikes wouldn't really help seoul, or south korea, nor would any attack occur around seoul and not in it.

[Ned]

Well, Q Cubed, what we need to do is keep things from getting out of hand while our attention is diverted to Iraq. After than, I wouldn't be surprised to see three or four carriers and a couple of wings of airforce do a visit to "Japan."

[Q Classic]

even so, i'd much rather not have to worry about whether my family is about to get shelled or not. meaning, anything but war is an ideal solution.

case of nimby, i suppose, but.

[DinoDoc]

So long as we get the nuclear material they have and manage to get real penalties into any deal struck, I wouldn't be oppossed to bribing them again.