The next Korean War

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 05:41
by OleRusty
Does anybody have any comments on what would happen if Kim sent his flock south?

RE: The next Korean War

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2008, 03:35
by Mushmouth
We would stomp his a$$ right in his tracks. That's why we there, right? He see that we are ready and preparing all the time just in case he does get any balls. I know I slept well know he was under the bullseye (not gonna say how, but you get the picture), courtesy of our army friends.

Re: The next Korean War

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2008, 05:46
by Ozzy_Blizzard
OleRusty wrote:Does anybody have any comments on what would happen if Kim sent his flock south?


Huge ROK casualties, both civilian and military, probably in the millions. 3-4 weeks of hard core warfare until NK collapsed IMO, but that month would be bloody. Their C3ISR capability would be cut to pieces by US air power, but that much fire power is going to kill allot of people even without C3, and that terrain means they cant be easily out maneuvered. It wont be a repeat of Desert Storm, but they wouldn't last long. As the state imploded the Chinese would move in from the north, shooting this time if they had to, to secure NK's nukes (if they weren't used). The north korean state would cease to exist and there would be a humanitarian disaster in the aftermath. Not cool at all... :(

Unread postPosted: 30 Jan 2008, 10:26
by ATC
I knew someone who was there with the Marine Corps for the last Korean war. He had some stories to tell that lead me to believe that it would be a horrible, long, bloody mess if we had to do it again. I hope it never hapens.

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2008, 06:16
by Spartan-120
Don't forget, we've got a lot of new toys to play with this time around. The Air war I think would be fairly short, especially once the F-22s from Elmendorf arrived on scene. Then we'd get A-10s and B-1Bs flying CAS missions to great effect in support of US, ROK, and Allied troops.

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2009, 09:56
by skyhigh
To the detriment of Kim Jong-il's KPA (Korean People's Army).

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2009, 22:58
by ptplauthor
Well, giggety, giggety, another thread that I know something about. All right.

Going off the data from GlobalSecurity that I'm using for my book:
North Korean AF has:
100+ EACH:
J-5/MiG-17 Fresco
J-6/MiG-19 Farmer
J-7/MiG-21 Fishbed

They also have 45 Floggers and +/-20 Fulcrums (they're tasked with Pyongyang Air Defense)
GlobalSecurity also estimates they have 40 SA-2 (if that's total systems or just missiles, I don't know)

That being said, this is my viewpoint:

I call North Korea's Army a "parade army" because that's what they're good at--and little else. I separate militaries into two categories: Parade Armies and Working Armies, the latter is South Korea and the US. Even with that said, sending enough of a Parade Army into battle against a Working Army, the Parades could win just by having more people left when the Working Army runs outta bullets.

Even with deploying all the Raptors from Elmendorf and Langley, culling that much force is going to take some time, especially if they manage to launch a preemptive strike, and knock out the Kun or Osan. The USN can help--but if Kim's gonna be bad, he's probably going to wait until a point where the US doesn't have a carrier around, and the USAF is providing the backup from Korea or Japan. We CAN win the air war, it's the ground war that's going to be a nightmare, and if we end up getting overrun, remember the two Soviet Generals in Paris....

If Kim Jong-il's going to try and make a grab for S. Korea, he'd send I, II, V, and VI KPA Corps flooding into the ROK, and even with the combined airpower from Kunsan and Osan--if that is, Osan's able to last for more than a day--the Army and Marines are going to have a heck of a time trying to get troops in, and stop the invasion before it reaches Seoul. He's unlikely to use nuclear weapons, because if he's going to invade, it's going to be for economic reasons, and unless he's building the Mall of Korea in Seoul, he's not going to be in much need for the big parking lot that a nuke would make.

At sea, the USN can take on the ancient technology of the KPN and not break a sweat, it's getting the MPSRONs to Pusan that's the problem--something like I'm thinking would probably require a full-on CRAF call-up and putting everything the MSC has to sea.

One other consideration is China, if Kim Jong is insane enough to launch an invasion, I think the PRC's going to distance themselves so fast, it'll make a Blackbird look like a garden slug. For a while, I've thought that the PRC might even launch their own attack against North Korea like what they did to Vietnam after the US pullout.

As far as timing would go, I'd say if he's going to go off his nut, he's going to do it in the next five years, while we only have ONE stealth fighter in the inventory, going up against Raptors and JSFs, I think he'd realize that that's a little out of his league.

The aftermath? I'd say it could go one of two ways, South Korea shows compassion and reunites the country, or they look at what happened to Germany when they reunited, and the mess that was left there and say. "No freaking way are we touching that mess." Ultimately, the ROK would help out in the second scenario, but something tells me that they would want to see North Korea make an effort at cleaning it up first themselves.



307

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2009, 23:25
by Meathook
It would be sad for all involved, no real turkey shoot, I have no doubt the "South with US backing would prevail" but at what cost to both military and civilians....damn shame, that whole situation sucks, shame the North just wont let go of the old school "Commie" mindset - jerks, many of them - dont forget, these guys fought hard in the Korea conflict (as it was called).

Their tough and sneaky, I am sure, they would do what ever they felt they needed to do to win or cause problems for us. Chemicals, Nukes (if available)...I think we should not think of them as soft at all. If we must go, it needs to be very hard and very fast, like in Gulf War 1, maybe even harder and faster to get it done as quick as possible (if it comes to that).

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2009, 08:05
by skyhigh
Shorten the conflict to as short as 30 days or less?

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2009, 15:20
by ptplauthor
Not if the four corps on the border cross the DMZ--the CFC's going to be overwhelmed quick, and that's going to pose a serious problem for the US reinforcements.

I'm not so sure it's going to be a month-long war, sky, it took from August to right before the shooting started in the PGW to get every piece in place. We're certainly going to need as much if not more troops to counter the KPA. Just to get the MPSRON from Guam it's going to take over a week. And if there's fierce fighting after the KPA crosses into South Korea (and why wouldn't there be?) losses are going to be heavy on both sides--the Army might be able to give better than they take, but there's only about 30-40K troops in the AO--that means we can't afford to lose anyone when the bullets start flying.

As a sidenote, my book features a pullback all the way to Pusan--where they fight a holding action because the ROKA refuses to be pushed off the peninsula, and the Abrams can't swim anyway. The USAF--from Japanese bases--and the ROKAF--from Jeju Island and Pusan AP--are able to punish the forces trying to collapse Pusan and they try and cut off the army's logistics tail (with armies, cutting off the head may not always work (War of 1812), but chopping the tail to bits will starve the body to death).

When a war kicks off, the Air Mobility Command has to move a lot of stuff: beans, bullets, bodies, bandages, armor, choppers, and (sometimes) even ordinance for the AF pilots to drop.

It would be sad for all involved, no real turkey shoot, I have no doubt the "South with US backing would prevail" but at what cost to both military and civilians....damn shame


I agree, it would be a shame, and I'm sure by the end of the first week, the newsies are going to be screaming to get rid of the entire military for all the casualties that would be inflicted....but then it could serve as a reminder that the US Armed Forces aren't omnipotent and invincible. Chuck Horner said it best, he loves the thrill of combat, but hates war. I hate war too, but sometimes it's the only option that will get results.


307

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2009, 23:14
by Meathook
Sad but true, when communicate efforts fail, diplomats fail, the military is often the next option (historically speaking) we all know the "UN" is useless, so why should we even try other then to get those deligates to side with us.

I am afraid, it could very well lead to war, having been three times myself in the past...lets just say I hope we dont have to go there, too many will be lost because of a few fools in the North - shame they have not grown out of that pure hate and not enjoyed life without acting as puppet masters with their citizens.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 00:05
by ptplauthor
I think Kim knows the US policy on WMD--a germ is a gas shell is a nuke--since we don't have gas or germs, we're gonna go nuclear if he gasses or infects anybody. I also think the DPRK doesn't have much in the way of CBRN defense, so Kim may not want to risk his fat little neck to wipe out the South.

The UN is--in my eyes--a useless waste of money, time, and energy. They manage to screw up more than they get right. If push comes to shove on the Peninsula, the UN isn't going to do a darn thing--even with a South Korean as Secretary-General. If they don't stand with us, I say the US should leave the UN, and the POTUS should hang an eviction notice on the door of the UNHQ--have France keep the rogues in line, and see how far it gets them then. I know that will never happen, though, because if the US leaves, the system will dissolve from lack of support.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 00:12
by StolichnayaStrafer
I just hope that NOTHING happens in Korea- and anywhere else for that matter.

Our military is busy enough in other areas that hopefully will come to an end somewhere in the near future.

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 02:14
by TC
I'm with Meathook and Stoli on this one. I don't think that war with the NoKos will be anywhere as easy as some would like to think. They have an army, strong in manpower, and an invasion will be far from a walkover.

As Stoli said, right now we're busy fighting two other wars. I don't want to see us get involved in a third or fourth with N.Korea or Iran if we don't have to.

Next war?

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 04:34
by Gums
Salute!

Reminds me of when the Chinese came across the border after a few months of success by the U.N. forces:

“How many Chinese are attacking you?” asked Marine General Chesty Puller.
Many, many Chinese!” replied the excited Korean officer.
Puller asked for another count and got the same answer, “Many, many Chinese!”
“Goddamnit!” swore Puller, “Put my Marine liaison officer on the radio.”
In a minute, an American voice came over the air. “Yes sir?”
“Lieutenant”, growled Chesty, “exactly how many Chinese you got up there?”
“General, we got a whole shitload of Chinese up here!”
“Thank God” exclaimed Puller, “at least there’s someone up there who knows how to
count.”

Gums sends ....

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 04:37
by TC
You hit the nail on the head Gums! The Chinese helped the NoKos last time. It would not be a huge surprise to see the exact same thing again.

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 05:09
by Meathook
Roger that, too good...

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2009, 12:20
by StolichnayaStrafer
Chesty Puller, NOT your candy coated substitute for straight answering leadership.

Thanks for the real perspective, Gums- we seem to be missing it more and more in the 21st century.
:salute:

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 01:02
by tank_top
OK, what "if" we did first strike with assets in place? Say maybe we have two Aircraft carrier battle groups doing "maneuvers" in the Sea of Japan and a half dozen subs all started lobbing Tomahawks while S Korean and US forces over there all opened up on the North? Would that signi9ficantly reduce casualties in the South and greatly shorten ground ops? Would a large enough chunk of the North Koreans just waive the flag?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 01:04
by Meathook
The world might turn on us even more then they have already

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 01:11
by tank_top
Well that's just two of our Aircraft carriers... Just kidding...

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 01:13
by TC
First strike is never a good option. Just as Meathook said, it would likely cause more problems than it would solve. Since we have plenty of assets directly across the fence from N.Korea, we will know when or if they plan to take any act of aggression against the US or our allies.

Starting trouble right now, is trouble we don't need.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 02:07
by ptplauthor
I, too, do not see the US taking a chance on restarting the Korean War (for those that don't know, the Korean War has never ended officially), the current leader is possibly mentally unstable and has access to chemical weapons, including nerve agents. Any strike against the DPRK would require a massive first strike that would eliminate Kim.

We may not start the trouble, but if it does start, we're going to have to finish it.

But, since this thread is geared towards what might happen, and not what WILL happen, here's a small sampling of what would be definite targets on any ATO--this is also the target list I used when writing my book:

WMD targets:
Musudan-ri missile facility
any known chemical plants
Yongbyon nuclear facility

Airbases--all would be hit, but these would be the most in need of attention--aircraft capable of carrying nuclear weapons:
Uiju AB: H-5 Beagle
Orang AB: H-5 Beagle
Taetan AB: H-5 Beagle
Koksan AB: Q-5 Fantan

Other targets:
C3I
Government ministries
IADS

This list isn't all-inclusive, but it touches on some of the most vital areas that would be hit--I used Wikipedia, Google, and GlobalSecurity as sources--so it shouldn't violate OPSEC.

Just with those targets in mind, I'd guess the number of aircraft that would have to be deployed would be more than what the US sent to kick off OIF.

Don't underestimate the power of two CVWs--that's nearly 200 top-of-the-line strike aircraft, enough to blunt a good portion of the KPAF. The USAF would likely stage aircraft out of the bases on Japan, and pack them tighter than sardines. Army Patriot batteries and Navy Aegis ships would protect the bases from TBMs.



307

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 02:16
by Meathook
You seem pretty informed, what's the source of your research - just wondering?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 02:45
by ptplauthor
I used Wikipedia, Google, and GlobalSecurity as sources--so it shouldn't violate OPSEC.


Wikipedia's article on the KPAF includes links to the Google Maps imagery where the aircraft are visible on the flightlines. Musudan-ri imagery is available through Globalsecurity, and I'm using a couple of the references for my term paper on Japanese reaction to North Korea going Nuclear. I'm looking to become an intel analyst after college, so stuff like this has become a hobby.

On top of that, I used the book I'm reading now on Chuck Horner as a basis for target selection.

Also, I'm a repository of useless information, that's why when you see me on Jeopardy, I'll be demolishing Ken Jennings's record like it was nothing, just gotta hope I don't get a game where they give me Opera, Shakespeare, Greek Mythology, Ballet, and Black & White Movies as categories.

Aww, nuts, that's my Achillies heel, better not let Trebek see this...

307

P.S. Say this out loud, "Kebert Xela"

That should get rid of him.....

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 03:00
by Meathook
Humm...good job, I think I'll nick-name you "Snoops", research was well done, have a good weekend - The Hook

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 04:13
by PhillyGuy
ptplauthor wrote:I used Wikipedia, Google, and GlobalSecurity as sources--so it shouldn't violate OPSEC.


You might want to search on Google Books for the GAO (Unclass) report on Air Power during Desert Storm. The detail, in terms of targets attacked and considered etc., is pretty good for a white report.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 04:25
by ptplauthor
You might want to search on Google Books for the GAO (Unclass) report on Air Power during Desert Stormm. The detail, in terms of targets attacked and considered etc., is pretty good for a white report.


Sounds like a good source, I'll look it up after I finish my term paper, when I have the time to devote to my book.

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 09:51
by skyhigh
I have this article from Above Top Secret.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212394/pg1

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 17:06
by ptplauthor
Sierra Hotel, sky, Bravo Zulu

I've found some of the airfields but never had time to do a proper analysis.

The poster on ATS makes out the presence of Mi-26s to be an earth-shattering revelation, a few extra cargo eggbeaters isn't going to help them very much--if it had been Su-27s or Su-30+s I could see it being a problem.

Looks like we're starting up our own little intel-shop here--sweet.

He has another interesting point where he circles a picture of what appears to be a tank turret. In The Bear and The Dragon, bunkers built into a hillside topped with JS-3 and KV-2 tank turrets are mentioned as a key Russian defensive position. Seeing as how DPRK was allied with the Big Red Bear for some forty years, could it be possible that these are the same type of installation?

I'm considering the Soviet/Russian installations as real--until I learn otherwise--due to the fact the layout given in the novels seems very plausible, and I believe the author did some on-site recce.

7B\/
307

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2009, 18:26
by Scorpion1alpha
It won't be pretty.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 02:34
by PhillyGuy
ptplauthor wrote:I've found some of the airfields but never had time to do a proper analysis.


Planeman is good, he also did the North Korean navy a while ago with his own illustrations, pretty cool.

Also, I happen to originally be from a country where you cannot go a few miles into the country side without seeing reinforced concrete and partially buried bunkers all over the hillsides. But no tank turrets on them though, just openings for heavy machine guns. They're no longer in use, and that country is now in NATO... the organization those bunkers were originally designed for. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 03:00
by ptplauthor
The NKN isn't a worry, except for the Sang-O midget subs, but enough 688Is and Virginias should be able to take out the old rustbuckets.

I'll look up some of those North Korean targets on Google Maps and then do some analysis of my own, then link it here. It'll take some time, but meh, I can say it's for my paper. :D

The main SSK of the North Koreans is the Romeo--subs don't get much older than that, it was an evolution of the U-boats. Their surface force isn't much either, mostly missile boats and old tin cans. The USN won't have a problem taking them out, the biggest threat would be Styx/Silkworm missiles from coastal batteries--the Sea of Japan isn't that big, and some variants of that stovepipe can probably hit land targets on Honshu.



I'll take Foreign Countries for $400 Alex

A former Warsaw Pact country that's in NATO now, that was close enough to have the Russians worried that NATO would be able to overrun the territory.

Ahh, Alex, What is East Germany?


78\/
307

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 03:08
by PhillyGuy
ptplauthor wrote:Ahh, Alex, What is East Germany?


It is in NATO's Southern Sector...directly East of Italy.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 03:33
by ptplauthor
Rats, I automatically figured that the country would have been in the Warsaw Pact, thus I ignored Yugoslavia--most likely what is now Slovenia.

It seems like bunkers to defend against NATO would be a waste of money, there wasn't much worth taking, Yugoslavia was basically a thorn in NATO's side, but when you got a Bear staring you down, you don't worry about the bramblebushes.



As a side note. I'm going to be finishing up a synopsis of an air battle for my manuscript tonight, when I get it done, I'll post it here for your collective enjoyment/criticism.


78\/
307

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 03:48
by That_Engine_Guy
We're all great at criticism; topped with a healthy layer of sarcasm. :lmao:

:cheers: TEG

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 03:59
by ptplauthor
oh, that's just grrreeeeeaaat!

Not only are you guys pilots, maintainers, and assorted aviation buffs, you're also literary snobs....Sierra Hotel I guess I finally found a place to fit in....

I know the #1 criticism is probably going to be that I even mention Eagles in the synopsis, but hey, 24 Eagles vs. 72 Vipers is still pretty good, and the character telling the story is a Viper pilot. It's about a massive airstrike against 7 ammo dumps inside the ROK, taking them out will relieve artillery pressure on Pusan, allowing for the CFC to breakout and head north to relieve a Marine force around Sokcho.

Oh, yeah, and there's no dialogue either, I suck at coming up with realistic dialogue.

I started a new thread for the synopsis snippet: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 184#148184

78\/
307

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 05:54
by johnwill
ptplauthor,
The correct spelling of the large city at the southeast corner of ROK is Busan, not Pusan. That's a relatively recent change, but you might consider making the change in your writings.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 06:15
by ptplauthor
The correct spelling of the large city at the southeast corner of ROK is Busan, not Pusan. That's a relatively recent change, but you might consider making the change in your writings.


10-4, thanks for noticing that. It's a different Romanization of the Hangul characters, that results in Busan vs. Pusan, I also use the N. Korean spellings sometimes, Nason/Rason, Taejon/Daejon.

When I get the whole thing consolidated into one document, I'll run a Find/Replace on the spellings. I figured not many people would have known of the different spelling, so I used the old one, but I'll switch it eventually.

RE: Re: RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 17:01
by tank_top
http://www.icao.int/icao/en/nr/2009/pio200902_e.pdf

http://closingvelocity.typepad.com/.a/6 ... 61f970c-pi

Any validity to this? Is this the actual flight path rocket took or was this only expected flight path?

RE: Re: RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 17:05
by LordOfBunnies
It did fly over Japan, but it was confirmed at a space entry trajectory and not a weapons trajecotry but it splashed down in the Pacific and never made it to space (according not NORAD, Japan, South Korea, etc. but not the North Korea lol). So guess who gets to examine it?

I still think Japan should have shot it down.

RE: Re: RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 18:31
by skicountry
With this latest launch Kim has provided a great advert for the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) proposal. That rocket had been a sitting duck on its launch pad for weeks. A well-placed SLBM based missile would have taken care of Mr. Kim's space-faring ambitions. And, as it is increasingly appearing that Missile Defense and Obama do not mix, PGS might not be as far off as might be thought.

Regarding the original topic, if there was ever a scenario to dust off the Army's Cold War-era AirLand Battle doctrine, this is it. Just follow the doctrine's tenets of Initiative, Depth, Agility, and Synchronization up the yellow brick road to victory. Modern maneuver warfare at its finest.

Ski

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 18:37
by TC
ptplauthor wrote:I've found some of the airfields but never had time to do a proper analysis.


What analysis? Hate to sound harsh here, but you don't have the proper training to "analyze" anything. You haven't been through the schooling at Goodfellow, or Langley, VA to qualify yourself as an intelligence "analyst". It takes a lot more than just hitting the ZOOM feature on Google Earth.

ptplauthor wrote:Looks like we're starting up our own little intel-shop here


No we're not! :nono:

If any sensitve information is passed on these boards, you can bet the farm that not only will it be deleted, but the poster(s) will have a bad day.

I'm keeping an eye on this thread especially. This is treacherous water, so tread very lightly.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 18:43
by skicountry
PhillyGuy wrote:Also, I happen to originally be from a country where you cannot go a few miles into the country side without seeing reinforced concrete and partially buried bunkers all over the hillsides. But no tank turrets on them though, just openings for heavy machine guns. They're no longer in use, and that country is now in NATO... the organization those bunkers were originally designed for.


Hey Philly, I'll take a stab at this one. Considering I just came in on the red-eye from Strasbourg where NATO welcomed Croatia and Albania in to the fold, I should know this. Since Albania is known to be peppered with bunker and mountain fortifications, I'll have to take Albania as my final answer. How about it? Where do I collect my prize?

Ski

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 19:33
by ptplauthor
If any sensitve information is passed on these boards, you can bet the farm that not only will it be deleted, but the poster(s) will have a bad day.


I'm not after any classified info, anything off of Google Maps can be accessed by anyone. I didn't mean professional analysis anyway, just a quick inventory of what they have, I'm building off of what Planeman did, because sites may have added newer data. Besides, if I want to go to college for this kinda stuff, I figure picking on the NoKos is a good place to start. I know the latest NRO photo-recce sats are a ton better than anything that was oreleased to TerraServer (some was even Soviet, iirc) or Google or Live Search Maps. And I'm not looking to get a job with Big Brother doing BDAs. I'm not looking to expose where the US is deployed, but where the North has their guys.

Heck when I posted that stuff about NoKo's bomber bases I thought the post would be deleted. I'm not going to be counting tanks, and my monitor resolution isn't good enough to spot a tank barrel buried into the mountainside. I already use a map plotted with stuff for my book, it's the easiest way I can keep locations straight, NK's SAM sites, etc, etc. Wikimapia has a lot of stuff located already in North Korea, if they're decoys it doesn't say, but like Planeman pointed out on ATS, they don't have F-5s--and especially F-5s with two different wing shapes on the same aircraft. It's not exactly that difficult to tell the difference between a MiG-15, -17, and -19, as long as you can find a confirmed -17, going off the wing sweep angle you can figure the others out.

Amateur analysis.

-------

Depending on how deep the water is where that rocket went down, the US Navy might have to call in one of their deep-diving research subs to get it--I know there's a big trench just east of Japan--it's at least 4 miles deep.


78\/
307

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 19:35
by Meathook
Part of me wishes we had shot the damn thing down, I think if we make threats, we should follow through on them or I feel it makes us look weak, I hate that feeling.

I would rather the world give us crap for shooting it down then us doing nothing at all (as we did), it is embarrassing as far as I am concerned, guss I am too much of a hawk at times.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 20:25
by tank_top
I bet we had plenty of ships tracking the Missile while doing simulated intercepts. If N Korea really does want to lob one this way we'll have plenty of time to react. Apparently they are difficult to hide.

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2009, 21:18
by Meathook
I agree with you, we could have taken it out at any time, I am betting the same thing...part of me wishes we had so those SOB's know we mean what we say...oh well, we folded out hand this time

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2009, 00:42
by ptplauthor
part of me wishes we had so those SOB's know we mean what we say...oh well, we folded out hand this time


Me too, but then that risks upsetting Kim, and you don't want to have him throwing a tantrum..anyone else picturing him laying on the floor pounding his fists :lol:

I'm guessing that our technology is advanced enough that we tracked the thing from liftoff, and could tell something wasn't right. The Japanese probably would have shot it down if it looked like it was heading for a landing in their territory.


GS has some pics of Musudan-ri--it shows the missile on the pad, and some other things: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world ... 090402.htm

Their article on the site itself says the site is nothing like Canaveral in terms of capability to support a worthy missile program. It's not surprising, the NoKos only have one pad.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nodong.htm

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2009, 00:49
by Meathook
Agreed...we bluffed and got called...sadly

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2009, 03:04
by PhillyGuy
They failed to get anything in orbit, now the entire missile, and its payload, will be retrieved from the Pacific and Sea of Japan for examination. Besides, who really though Barry would give a shoot down order? :lmao:

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2009, 03:12
by Meathook
You make a great point, guess there is a bright side to this game for the US

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2009, 15:49
by tank_top
Even if NoKo gets a nuke or even several, I don't believe they pose a real or imagined threat directly to the US for at least ten years. Anything they build between now and then could be easily shot down at any time by our forces. I also think it will take at least 15 years for NoKo to proliferate any functional ICBM. Since Kim is old and in poor health I don't think he will last that long. Our only real worry is will he lose the two remaining marbles he has left and go after Japan or S Korea.

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2009, 16:02
by ptplauthor
That Type-O-Dung missile they fired off is supposed to be their ICBM that can hit California, problem with that is all they've managed to do was to kill a few fish when it splashed down. They've yet to have a TD-2 missile that has had a successful launch. Their Nodong missiles are the real worry, those Scud-type stovepipes can still threaten US troops on Japan and in the ROK.

Kim'll be dead inside ten years, if not cirrhosis from all the cognac he drinks (supposedly) or lung cancer from all the Cuban cigars he smokes (again, supposedly according to Nat. Geo.) he'll be put against a wall by one of his comrades for screwing the North Koreans over since he started. There's no coincidence that the famines got real bad after his daddy died and he started calling the shots.


78\/
307

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 00:32
by skyhigh
Then one of Kim Jong-il's sons would become the next North Korean dictator, and I don't know if he will be as competent as his predecessor or just too egomaniac.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 01:05
by Meathook
That country has raised hell with its own citizens (both sides of that nation, one way or the other) now since...what....1955 (Cease Fire, that date correct)?

In any event, I see no sign of any positive or changing times in that region any time soon with the attitude that exists there today. I see just more of the same as their technology is being enhanced, the stronger stance they may take in future (especially since we did nothing) dealing with the globe.

I dont feel Korea is more isolated as the "media" promotes due to this event, I think they consider this event another feather in their cap and part of me agrees (they will see it as such) thus giving them another moment to feel pride in their twisted government as they "finger" the West and her Allies!

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 01:21
by skyhigh
July 27, 1953 - date of ceasefire.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 01:39
by ptplauthor
Korea isn't more isolated now than before the missile launch, probably because they're already as isolated as they can get.

CNN was saying that the North Korean media reports that the satellite is sending back music.


When the North Korean people get their eyes wrenched open to see the real world, it is going to be a nasty surprise for them. When they see that North Korea's stuck in the 40s, and the rest of the world is in the 21st Century, I wouldn't want to be in the NoKo government.


Oh, yeah that sat's first song on the playlist? Under the Sea


78\/
307

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 02:16
by Meathook
thanks for the date correction ...skyhigh.

Crazy times we live in for sure ptplauthor

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 04:10
by PhillyGuy
What I worry is that the delusional military generals who are second only to Kim will take over once he passes, well you can see where that might lead.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 09:47
by shep1978
ptplauthor wrote:When the North Korean people get their eyes wrenched open to see the real world, it is going to be a nasty surprise for them. When they see that North Korea's stuck in the 40s, and the rest of the world is in the 21st Century, I wouldn't want to be in the NoKo government.


Thing is most of the populace are said to be weak and malnourished from what i understand, I wouldn't hold to much hope in them having the strength to rise up and take over the government and its military enforcers.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 18:38
by muir
This seems to be going a bit off-topic but ok. I don´t think we have to worry about the North koreans trying hard to pick a fight. The people may be uneducated, poor and hungry but the leaders aren´t and they sure as hell wanna keep their lifestyle intact.

Thay may keep their tails in the air and rattle whatever sables they got but I for one think they know very well they can´t withstand a full on war with the US or, for that matter, China. On the other hand they also know that no US administration is likely to sacrifice US lifes unless they actually attack the US or a close ally. So what we end up with is what we´ve seen in the last couple of years. A bit of negotiating, then they do something slightly stupid, enough to stall and reset all negotiations but not stupid enough to start up the korean war ver. 2.0. If the negotiations actually went anywhere they would end up with reforms and sooner or later the now ruling class would lose their priviliges which they don´t want. Same equation pretty much applies to Burma or whatever they call themselves nowadays.

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2009, 20:28
by ptplauthor
It's not off topic the way I see it--didn't Sun Tzu say something about knowing the enemy being the best way to defeat him? (not saying that I know the North Koreans, but I'm learning as much as I can)

For decades, the North Korean citizens have been led to believe that the US is the big bad aggressor, when in reality, they're holding back the truth that America has done a lot to help their fraternal Socialist allies in the PRC. Instead of appealing to the North Korean leadership, maybe we need to look into countering the anti-American propaganda. The best way to do that is to heal the North Korean economy, but most of them involve Kim Jong-il giving up his nuclear dreams. That isn't going to happen unless foreign countires invest heavily in the DPRK. He must feel backed into a corner, and that's not a good thing for either side. We cannot count on Kim's successor being more willing to work with the outside world, chances are the next in line is going to be worse.

We need to put the war-club away and pull out the olive branch and carrots, but we still need to remain vigilant.

However:

If there's any time that he's going to take advantage of the war-weary American public, it's going to be soon. The military is fighting two wars, and he might consider taking his chances now, because it could seem like a very promising chance. He knows we've got a commitment to the ROK, but if the KPA can seize enough of the peninsula, he could think that the US won't attempt to take the country back because it would be too costly. That's where he's got the advantage--he doesn't give two Sierras about what the public opinion is.

If there's going to be belligerence, Kim's going to put his cards on the US not wanting to risk another war. And if it starts, all he has to do is threaten Japan, and they'll probably fold like, well Origami. We lose Japan as a place to base our troops, we also lose the most convenient place to use as a jumping-off point, since the USN doesn't have enough ships to launch another Incheon landing.

Kim Jong-il has got the mind of a five year old, problem is, he's got control of a country with chemical weapons, ballistic missiles, and a million-man Army.

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2009, 04:01
by PhillyGuy
Due to this thread I've been looking at the DMZ on Google Earth and it's funny but the foremost outposts on the South Korean sides are all on miniature hills providing maximum field of view and fire. And the stacked defense lines look like 21st century versions of trench dig outs.

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2009, 04:31
by ptplauthor
How much you wanna bet the KPA knows that and the Big Book o' Targets for their artillery puts those defense sites at the top?

Check out the Uiju Airfield--there's a Beagle bomber playing snowblower:
40°8'42"N 124°29'37"E

Guess with the lack of jet fuel, they can't fly, but don't want to let the planes go to waste.... :D

Looks like some dispersal--off away from the main field there's some Fishbeds and possibly an underground hangar--guess they got one message from ODS--HASs are overrated, but bunkerbusters can still probably bust those bunkers.

I use Wikimapia, it uses the same imagery from Google Maps but people have pointed out some points of interest--there's even a platoon of tanks somewheres in the US on a road march, and one guy looks like he took the turn a little tight (he's kinda far off the road, but meh, that's what tanks is for)

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2009, 14:46
by tank_top
I thought with current events this topic may warrant a revisit.

I just saw this quote and I personally think its crap, but others here may differ on their opinions.

[quote]
But short of having the ability to reach US territory, part of North Korea's strategy may be to become enough of a threat to its neighbors that the US is hesitant to commit to defending them, says Sheila Smith, senior fellow for Japan studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"The North Koreans are willing, within limits, to use capabilities they do have to create instability within the region," says Ms. Smith. "There is a potential here of discriminating between the US and its allied partners in the region.... The main aim of the North Korean missile program is to delink the US from its willingness to defend Japan."
[quote]

Does anyone here think the US would ever NOT protect one of its closest allies like Japan?

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2009, 15:54
by ptplauthor
Does anyone here think the US would ever NOT protect one of its closest allies like Japan?


Japan is certainly nervy with the possibility of a whackjob like Kim Jong-mentally-il possessing nuclear TBMs, IRBMs, or ICBMs. They're hoping the US will still cover them under our nuclear umbrella, but they have their doubts.

Japan has the technology to have a sound nuclear weapon inside ten years if they so choose. They already refine Uranium and Plutonium, it's just a matter of getting their hands on schematics--they can easily find the other components for a weapon, and can easily obtain machinery to manufacture such weapons. With their state of technology, they could go right into developing bombs able to be carried by fighters.

They have a breeder reactor--Monju--that I think was started when Mr. Peanut was POTUS, now with another genius in the White House, they're probably rethinking their situation vis-a-vis the US nuclear umbrella--I certainly would, if I was the Japanese PM.

Their citizens would certainly have a fit when they find out, but they're already holding on pretty tight to the ol' worry beads over North Korea.

I can't remember if I posted this before, but I think Japan is the only feasible target of North Korea.

You can eliminate the other countries in range like this:
Russia: not much population within range of their currently fielded missiles, and a definite Strategic Rocket Forces response.
China: Their economic buddy and their most relateable Commie ally....plus nukes
South Korea: Even with the saber-rattling across the 38th Parallel, both countries are still Korea, and Kim isn't gonna lob a nuke at Seoul. It would go better for them if they use conventional forces--they're pobably not good at operating in a CBRN environment.
US: North Korea's missiles fall short of major population centers, though they can probably hit Guam or Hawaii, they'd end up not having much to show in exchange for total national death by lobbing one at American rocks in the Pacific. They're 0-for-2 when it comes to long-range ICBM launches.

Japan, on the other hand, is a historical enemy going all the way back to the Imjin War, if not farther back. They're also a capitalist society on top of the 3+ invasions over their history.

Feel free to pick this apart--it was for my term paper in East Asian history, I already passed, so it's no problem. It's a big part of the reason I wasn't on much since January.

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2009, 22:45
by muir
ptplauthor

I pretty much concur with most of your analysis but ten years? I remember reading somewhere that (no, don´t remember where) the japanese could build nukes in less than a year if really pressed to. Sure, it would probably be something like the ones NK has tested but still nukes. You may very well be right and I´m dead wrong, just curious about your reasoning here. i mean, even NK and Pakistan have built some, surely it´d be easy for Japan to follow line ÍF they really wanted to?

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2009, 00:16
by ptplauthor
The capability is there for a one-year nuke, but it'd be as covert as the sunrise, they'd certainly want to keep their own people in the dark for a while--public unrest isn't good going off of Japanese history. Also, any bomb completely designed and fielded inside a year may have flaws (think of the terrorists in Sum of All Fears: He-3 contamination fizzled the bomb).

I factored in a slow, deliberative, and thus likely covert process. Rapid acquisition of so much dual-use technology--even if it is already in-country would be noticed and commented on. Someone could stumble to what they're up to and blow their cover.

Any Japanese bomb is going to yield more than North Korea's May 2009 test. The Japanese have much better scientists that have broader access to pertinent data. They would likely come up with a variable-yield weapon similar (if not a direct copy of) the B61.

The delivery system is predictable--due to Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, the JSDF cannot possess cruise or ballistic missiles, leaving fighters as the only option. The B61 can (according to Wikipedia) be used by the F-15 and F-16. The J-model Eagles or the F-2s (as a derivative of the Viper) can be fitted with domestically-produced upgrades to make them capable of nuclear delivery.

One other thing I pointed to in my term paper is the possibility of setting off an Asian nuclear arms race.

South Korea may see Japanese nuclear weapons as a threat in itself, and begin its own nuclear program using highly-enriched Uranium in lieu of Plutonium.

The People's Republic of China may look at the three new nuclear states as a threat as well, and up the ante by increasing its own stockpile.

The Republic of China may begin its own nuclear program (if they don't already have a secret one) and if that is discovered by the mainland, the PLA may move more weapons into the southern part of their territory.

China's response as outlined above may cause Southeast Asian countries to think about adopting nuclear weapons of their own. As the race spreads westward into Central and South Asia things would get very tense, especially India and Pakistan who may already be in a race of their own thanks to China increasing its stockpile to better counter the Koreas and Japan. Should it spread as far as the Middle East, the chances of these weapons being used again goes up into a near eventual certainty.

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2011, 14:46
by Gamera
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 81742.html

Korea had 950 nuclear warheads till 1991

02-20-2011 17:53

Nuclear weapons had been deployed on the Korean Peninsula for 33 years from 1958 until 1991 when the United States withheld the last 100 heads of tactical nuclear weapons, a local daily has reproted.

According to declassified document of the United States, there was training by the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing which possessed 48 F-16C/Ds at the U.S. Air Base in Gunsan during the first half of the year.

The fighter wing held a special training of loading and manipulating nuclear warheads.
The special training consisted of nuclear attack session and single-ship strike session.
This means that in case of emergency, the fighter jets which carried or were able to carry B-61 warheads were ready for war, while completing a variety of training.

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 05:36
by geogen
Wow, didn't know those details of history. Thanks for the info, G. God speed and respects to all korean people and for a good, peaceful future. I think the time is now.

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2011, 08:11
by Gamera
FYI, tac nukes and a TDY of US F-4s to carry them were in Taiwan until the 1970s, if you didn't know.

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2011, 18:25
by irishlad
One thing worth putting thought to;
(bare with me)Iran wants to buy the S-300/HQ-9 missile systems (most likely HQ-9)
North Korea supplies most of the Iranian Navy ships
so China sells them the HQ-9 Russia probably wouldn't
North Korea ends up with HQ-9
Poses serious threat to South Korean air force
not so much of a paper force now.
:pint:

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2011, 21:55
by irishlad
nuclear weapons aren't the main source of worry,(but they are still a threat), its the chemical weapons he has amassed in the shadow of the nuclear program.
:pint:

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2012, 21:35
by OleRusty
Anybody who may still be interested in this topic should try a copy of my book. It's based on the current events following KJIs death and encompasses a lot of the topics we covered on this thread. If you're interested, give me a shout and check out Penalty of Pride on Amazon. I guarantee you'll enjoy the book.

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2012, 18:16
by archeman
This is a good thread thanks for bringing it up.

I think that it would be a good idea to try to view the East China/Yellow Sea area the same way that China does (if that is at all possible for a 'westerner').
I am not at all certain that China looks at the Korean peninsula the same way that westerners do.
When western based folks look at the Korean peninsula we see two countries:
1) A North Korea completely AFU backwards, and a vassal state to China
2) A South Korea growing fast as an economic power both regionally and globally
We believe that eventually the two nations will resolve their differences with the South prevailing and rejoining with the North somewhat like Germany did.

I think that China looks at the Korean peninsula as a single entity that should serve the same role that it did for about the last thousand years. A vassal state that serves as a shield to protect the mother country (China) from invasion from outsiders (primarily Japan).
China's actions in the Korean War served to protect it's buffer zone without going so far as to bring a threat to it's homeland.
I think that any expectations that China would run away from a conflict on the peninsula ignore this core requirement.
The Chinese have repeatedly demonstrated over the last 60 years that they are very willing to commit thousands of lives in battle to push away any foreign army that gets too close to their homeland. Russia, Vietnam, the United States and India have all felt the sting of this commitment.

When China looks at re-unification of the Korea peninsula, they have their priority on controlling their buffer zones so the outcome of that re-unification has a different outcome in their minds. Failing to understand this priority of this very powerful regional state could lead to a very embarrassing and costly repeat of mistakes made during the Korean War.

RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2012, 05:30
by OleRusty
Archeman,
I absolutely agree with most everything that you said.

I've studied that region for many years in the research of my book and the answers won't be found in western thinking. I also agree that China looks at the peninsula as a buffer, but I don't know if they would risk their new world standing for the wills of a child like Kim Jong un. Since the 70s ping pong democracy, china has worked steadily to become a world leader. I'm not a china fan, but it would be tough to argue against their success.

Grab my book on amazon while it's still at $0.99. Tell me what you think of it.

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2012, 23:34
by count_to_10
ptplauthor wrote:Not if the four corps on the border cross the DMZ--the CFC's going to be overwhelmed quick, and that's going to pose a serious problem for the US reinforcements.

I'm not so sure it's going to be a month-long war, sky, it took from August to right before the shooting started in the PGW to get every piece in place. We're certainly going to need as much if not more troops to counter the KPA. Just to get the MPSRON from Guam it's going to take over a week. And if there's fierce fighting after the KPA crosses into South Korea (and why wouldn't there be?) losses are going to be heavy on both sides--the Army might be able to give better than they take, but there's only about 30-40K troops in the AO--that means we can't afford to lose anyone when the bullets start flying.

As a sidenote, my book features a pullback all the way to Pusan--where they fight a holding action because the ROKA refuses to be pushed off the peninsula, and the Abrams can't swim anyway. The USAF--from Japanese bases--and the ROKAF--from Jeju Island and Pusan AP--are able to punish the forces trying to collapse Pusan and they try and cut off the army's logistics tail (with armies, cutting off the head may not always work (War of 1812), but chopping the tail to bits will starve the body to death).

When a war kicks off, the Air Mobility Command has to move a lot of stuff: beans, bullets, bodies, bandages, armor, choppers, and (sometimes) even ordinance for the AF pilots to drop.

It would be sad for all involved, no real turkey shoot, I have no doubt the "South with US backing would prevail" but at what cost to both military and civilians....damn shame


I agree, it would be a shame, and I'm sure by the end of the first week, the newsies are going to be screaming to get rid of the entire military for all the casualties that would be inflicted....but then it could serve as a reminder that the US Armed Forces aren't omnipotent and invincible. Chuck Horner said it best, he loves the thrill of combat, but hates war. I hate war too, but sometimes it's the only option that will get results.


307

Book?
I read a book called Red Phoenix that was a fictional account of a NK invasion of the south.
It started with the North infiltrating suicide assassin teams to off every SK leader and US ranking officer.

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2012, 23:38
by count_to_10
ptplauthor wrote:I think Kim knows the US policy on WMD--a germ is a gas shell is a nuke--since we don't have gas or germs, we're gonna go nuclear if he gasses or infects anybody. I also think the DPRK doesn't have much in the way of CBRN defense, so Kim may not want to risk his fat little neck to wipe out the South.

The UN is--in my eyes--a useless waste of money, time, and energy. They manage to screw up more than they get right. If push comes to shove on the Peninsula, the UN isn't going to do a darn thing--even with a South Korean as Secretary-General. If they don't stand with us, I say the US should leave the UN, and the POTUS should hang an eviction notice on the door of the UNHQ--have France keep the rogues in line, and see how far it gets them then. I know that will never happen, though, because if the US leaves, the system will dissolve from lack of support.

I got the impression that North Korea had everything set up so that, were we to carpet bomb their entire country with nukes, they would still have enough force to overrun the south. Everything is buried in a network of underground bunkers.

Unread postPosted: 13 Apr 2012, 02:57
by southernphantom
count_to_10 wrote:
ptplauthor wrote:I think Kim knows the US policy on WMD--a germ is a gas shell is a nuke--since we don't have gas or germs, we're gonna go nuclear if he gasses or infects anybody. I also think the DPRK doesn't have much in the way of CBRN defense, so Kim may not want to risk his fat little neck to wipe out the South.

The UN is--in my eyes--a useless waste of money, time, and energy. They manage to screw up more than they get right. If push comes to shove on the Peninsula, the UN isn't going to do a darn thing--even with a South Korean as Secretary-General. If they don't stand with us, I say the US should leave the UN, and the POTUS should hang an eviction notice on the door of the UNHQ--have France keep the rogues in line, and see how far it gets them then. I know that will never happen, though, because if the US leaves, the system will dissolve from lack of support.

I got the impression that North Korea had everything set up so that, were we to carpet bomb their entire country with nukes, they would still have enough force to overrun the south. Everything is buried in a network of underground bunkers.


I've done some looking on Google Earth around KPAF airbases, and let me tell you, those guys are so into digging underground fortifications that they may or may not be evolving into moles.

As for the newsies- if they think Korea Part II would be bad, they obviously haven't even contemplated what would happen if the fit hit the shan in the Med/ME. That's the kind of thing that keeps me up at night.

Re: RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 14 Apr 2012, 04:37
by archeman
OleRusty wrote:I've studied that region for many years in the research of my book and the answers won't be found in western thinking. I also agree that China looks at the peninsula as a buffer, but I don't know if they would risk their new world standing for the wills of a child like Kim Jong un. Since the 70s ping pong democracy, china has worked steadily to become a world leader. I'm not a china fan, but it would be tough to argue against their success.



I haven't seen a lot of evidence that the Chinese really care all that much about who maintains their buffer zone. I mean they don't seem to mind if the ruler is a nut job. I think that their priorities are 1) Primary loyalty must be to Beijing 2) Must maintain suffient military power to deter any outsider army from nearing the China border.

If you fail any of the above two tests you get invaded by the peoples army for corrective action. If you pass the above two tests it's totally OK to declare yourself a living god who listens to disco and claims to have played a perfect game of golf on their very first time on the links (true claim).

RE: Re: RE: Next war?

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2012, 16:55
by OleRusty
Archeman,
Have you looked at 'Penalty of Pride' on Amazon? You are very sharp on this region and seem very interested in it. I think you might like it. Of course, that could be some shameless self-praise, but it's worth the read. I'd even be willing to gift you a copy of it. PM me if you're interested.