BREAKING NEWS: North Korea claims nuclear test!

[Elok]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Iraq was authoritarian, NK is totalitarian.

WRT the loyalty-of-soldiers point, how loyal were Hitler's troops after D-Day? Didn't they stove in pretty quickly for the most part once they saw it was hopeless?

[LordShiva]

IIRC, two NK submarines were captured in the 90s, one near an SK port I believe, and in both cases the crew either fought (and were killed) or committed suicide. Only one seaman was captured.

[RGBVideo]

That doesn't mean they can't still do an inordinate amount of damage during their brief use. A full 1/4 of Korea's population lives in Seoul, within 50km of the border; imagine New York, Chicago, LA, Washington, and heck, another large city, all wrapped up into one. The majority of SKorean financial concerns, business concerns, industrial affairs, and the like, are within striking distance.

I'm happy that you're optimistic about the ability of the US to eliminate all of these threats in mere minutes.

If US gets time to prepare for the attack and wants to defend RoK, DPRK will not advance to Söul. IMO you are a fool if you consider otherwise.

If DPRK pulls off a surprise attack (which some here are thinking is a good thing by hoping that international economic sanctions provocate Kim into a "last stand of glory"), things will get tricky since US currently only has living speed bumps deployed near the DMZ. Even so, US would have plenty of options to deal with the situation without letting RoK to lose Söul. They'd just be less than ideal for the long-term future of the region.

It's the risk versus reward game, and the risk is far too great to gamble it like that.

Not really. In this post of mine, I have already presumed that all the factors currently unknown favour Kim as much as possible. There is no real risk.

WRT the loyalty-of-soldiers point, how loyal were Hitler's troops after D-Day? Didn't they stove in pretty quickly for the most part once they saw it was hopeless?

Loyal enough to organize a disciplined defense immediately and a major counter-offensive more than five months later. There was no real collapse in morale until 1945.

[Nubclear]

North Korea need not march into Seoul in order to do damage.

[RGBVideo]

War always means damage. It's a question of which side will be damaged most.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VJ
War always means damage. It's a question of which side will be damaged most.

No, it's not. It's a question of how much damage your side is willing to take.

[lord of the mark]

we're certainly NOT going to attack until we see how far China is willing to go on sanctions, and what effect that has. If China and S Korea are willing play ball, we can knock off Kimmie without the onus of starting a war (though Kimmie might start one) - if theyre NOT, then even if we win (and S Kor would go along cause they have no choice) the post war political situation, in which South Korea inherits the North, and hates and resents the US for starting the war, would be disastrous.

Note that if Kimmie starts the war, this has major advantages over a war started by the US. Better support in the region and around the world, greater unity at home, and greater disunity on the Nkor side.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by VJ
If US gets time to prepare for the attack and wants to defend RoK, DPRK will not advance to Söul. IMO you are a fool if you consider otherwise.

I never mentioned anything about whether SKorea would be able to hold Seoul or not.

It doesn't matter if it stays in SKorean hands the entire time if the artillery is able to deal enough damage to it.

Yes, Seoul's had 50 years to prepare. That's why the northern walls are without exception, 2-5 inches thicker than on the southern side of a building, at least. It's why every single street decoration was designed in mind to be dual-use--as cover and as art.

That doesn't change the fact that the instant hostilities break out, Seoul will be under attack, as constantly as NKorea can make it.

Through some enormous folly (history, etc...), the Koreans have placed their jugular, their spinal column, and their spleen in that city. To damage it is to damage all of SKorea.

Now, SKorea is quite able to fight whether or not Seoul is lost, damaged, or whatever. That's not what I'm concerned with. It's the aftermath.

If DPRK pulls off a surprise attack (which some here are thinking is a good thing by hoping that international economic sanctions provocate Kim into a "last stand of glory"), things will get tricky since US currently only has living speed bumps deployed near the DMZ.

I can't imagine anyone thinking that it's a good thing, and I haven't seen that in the thread. Simply people saying that that's the only option they can see.

Even so, US would have plenty of options to deal with the situation without letting RoK to lose Söul. They'd just be less than ideal for the long-term future of the region.

It's 50km distant. Even with tank traps, even with a powerful resistance, Seoul will likely be shattered.

Not really. In this post of mine, I have already presumed that all the factors currently unknown favour Kim as much as possible. There is no real risk.

Based on what research, based on what facts, based on what logic?

Gut feeling and skepticism of years of research done by numerous experts on the subject? Once I get home, I can point you to plenty of sources which contradict the very thesis of your argument, which is that in any armed conflict, that there's "no real risk" for SKorea.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
we're certainly NOT going to attack until we see how far China is willing to go on sanctions, and what effect that has. If China and S Korea are willing play ball, we can knock off Kimmie without the onus of starting a war (though Kimmie might start one) - if theyre NOT, then even if we win (and S Kor would go along cause they have no choice) the post war political situation, in which South Korea inherits the North, and hates and resents the US for starting the war, would be disastrous.

Very, very, very true.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
we're certainly NOT going to attack until we see how far China is willing to go on sanctions, and what effect that has. If China and S Korea are willing play ball, we can knock off Kimmie without the onus of starting a war (though Kimmie might start one) - if theyre NOT, then even if we win (and S Kor would go along cause they have no choice) the post war political situation, in which South Korea inherits the North, and hates and resents the US for starting the war, would be disastrous.

Note that if Kimmie starts the war, this has major advantages over a war started by the US. Better support in the region and around the world, greater unity at home, and greater disunity on the Nkor side.

What "disunity" in the North Korean side???

[GePap]

Militarily, the South korean military would bear the brunt of the fighting just as it did back in 1950-1953, and the South korean military is large enough and technologically advanced enough to beat NKorea without a single US soldier on the ground.

Any war between North and South Korea would be short (less than six months), end in a decisive South Korean victory, and be horribly costly in human lives and money.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What "disunity" in the North Korean side???

Im assuming that if Kimmie attacks in response to sanctions, sanctions that in turn were a response to his nuke test, some Nkor generals might turn on him, or at least be more prepared to surrender as the war progressed. Less so, perhaps than if he attacked without the provocation of sanctions, but much more so than if we attacked.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by GePap
Militarily, the South korean military would bear the brunt of the fighting just as it did back in 1950-1953, and the South korean military is large enough and technologically advanced enough to beat NKorea without a single US soldier on the ground.

Any war between North and South Korea would be short (less than six months), end in a decisive South Korean victory, and be horribly costly in human lives and money.

And, that's excluding the fact that then they'd have the whole rebuilding of both SKorea to pay for, and the building of NKorea...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Militarily, the South korean military would bear the brunt of the fighting just as it did back in 1950-1953, and the South korean military is large enough and technologically advanced enough to beat NKorea without a single US soldier on the ground.

Any war between North and South Korea would be short (less than six months), end in a decisive South Korean victory, and be horribly costly in human lives and money.

I wouldnt disagree. I would suggest though that for SKor the key to minimizing damage will be neutralizing the artillery aimed at Seoul in the opening hours and days of the war, and that the support of US air power especially would be very helpful in doing that.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Im assuming that if Kimmie attacks in response to sanctions, sanctions that in turn were a response to his nuke test, some Nkor generals might turn on him, or at least be more prepared to surrender as the war progressed. Less so, perhaps than if he attacked without the provocation of sanctions, but much more so than if we attacked.

Entirely possible, but lacking any solid sort of intelligence (worse than what we had with Iraq), we could also assume that we'd be welcomed in P'yongyang as liberators with flower garlands and a mass card-shuffling demonstration in the grand stadia.