Korea : Military Concerns and Summaries

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

BULL! We don't have honey wagons.Remember the honey wagons? I remember the huge concrete pillar road blocks where detonation stations were located..Korea was all hills,steep hills.It rains hard and in the winter the cold goes right through clothing.In Camp Stanley we ran lift alerts all the time.On one occasion new years, I think we barely made formation with gear drunk off our butts on Soju...making us more aggressive.
As an Air Cav scout I would be flown to a mountainous area and take up an OP on a critical route and secure that route by radio coms. Me a map and a pair of binos and a compass along with a line of artillery can kill a division in a large valley if I get air.

ROFL!

You had it hard. I was living in housing on South Post (76-79) in Seoul. If it got too cold, we went inside.

About the worst I had it was when the spray trucks would drive around in the evenings spraying that damn skitter spray. Stunk to high heaven!

To tell the truth, if we didn't leave the base and go out to the market at Etaewon, I would never I known I was in another country back then.

About the worst that I had it there was the time that me and some friends cut through some woods, and ended up in the front lawn of Gen. Vessey's house. I found out when I got home (and the butt whipping that ensued) that you're not suppose to play kickball in the front yard of the commander of all armed forces Korea, hehehehehe.

Originally posted by all2human
NATO to defend Skorea..
www.acus.org...

And why does the US need to activate the article 5 against NK since well... they're so weak and so outdated and it will be all so silky smooth so much easier than a walk in the park?

This has probably the same answer has these questions:

Why the US didnt attack nk yet?
Why the US attacked afghanistan and iraq without even asking anyone about it?

Interesting turn of events.

It seems someone got new intel and maybe those analysts got a clue and maybe little kim does pose some degree of serious threat.

And bringing nato into the game, that puts china on a different position also.

Like I said - nice change of pace.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Nice work lots of info but not needed. Everyone knows its a beat up. North Korea has never been a true threat it is a cabal design scenario wake up Americans and throw out your government get your country back.

Her e is article 5 of the NATO agreement www.fas.org...

SUMMARY

Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty does not guarantee the use of force to assist an ally under attack. Nonetheless, the U.S. pledge to assist an ally under attack has been the core of the alliance. Despite growing political functions, the NATO views collective defense, and not collective security, as its core function.

ARTICLE V

A collective security organization settles disputes among its members. In contrast, a collective defense organization assists a member state under attack by an outside country. NATO is a collective defense organization. Article V states that NATO members must consider coming to the aid of an ally under attack. However, it does not guarantee assistance. Article V is the Treaty's key provision and the linchpin binding the United States to its NATO allies. It states, in part, that "an armed attack against one or more [allies] shall be considered an attack against them all." Additional language makes clear that the commitment to assist an ally is not unconditional. Rather, each signatory will assist the ally under attack with "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force ......"(1) Since the early 1990s, NATO has begun to adopt "new missions," such as crisis management and peacekeeping, sometimes referred to as "non-Article V missions." Current members and candidate states, however, believe collective defense, as expressed in Article V, remains the core of the alliance, a view likely to endure as long as the possibility of a nationalistic, aggressive Russia remains.

As with the 50'- 53' war, the UN will most likely be the ones going in not NATO, for NATO is a European war organization North Korea is a pacific theater country out side of NATO operations , it could give aid if the US main land was to be attacked, if it is it will be nukes not ground nor air troops, nor by sea. DPRK ode snot have the invasion forces needed for such an operation . Now if China was to get in the act that, in it self, is a different matter.

Very informative thread but I remember Iraq having the 5th best Military in the World.....and it wasnt even close.

I am pretty sure that the US has something up its sleeve if the intention of NK is to lay SK to waste. I dont think it would even get that far to be honest. Not knowing the true capabilities of the US and not knowing the true capabilities of NK I pretty much can come to the conclusion that SK would be just fine and China wouldn't do anything if NK tried something dumb.

Remember, the stealth fighter was only brought out 10 or so years after it was already invented. The Bomber wasn't even known....or was it the other way around Either way, the US has countermeasures for pretty much everything and maybe some we haven't even thought of.

I think the true Military tech is only brought out when its needed. If your fighting the 5th best Military in the World and dominating with F16's I really think NK would be a walk in the park.

My 2cents = .01cents for inflation.

well if little Kim Un was not POed before, then he sure as h311 is now or will be www.koreaherald.com... from the link

‘Tactical nukes only means to deter N.K. nuclear ambitions’

Published : 2013-03-31 20:27
Updated : 2013-03-31 20:27
The ruling Saenuri Party has long supported taking a hard-line approach to North Korean provocations.

Some of the most prominent members of the ruling party are the staunchest supporters of redeploying tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea as a deterrent to Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.

Among them, the party’s former chairman Rep. Chung Mong-joon has been the most outspoken.

“The question is, for South Koreans, can we live peacefully with a nuclear-armed North Korea? The answer is ‘no.’ Nuclear deterrence can be the only answer. We have to have nuclear capability,” Rep. Chung Mong-joon of the Saenuri Party said in a recent interview with CNN.

Chung has brought up the idea time and again as a possible way to bring Pyongyang to heel.

“The reason I have called for redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons is that nuclear (weapons) are the only way to stop North Korea’s nuclear development,” Chung said at forum hosted by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in February. At the time Chung also played down the significance of such developments saying that “it is only reversing the situation to before 1992.” He added that he also suggested the measure to the government two years ago.

“South Korea would not be violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the tactical nuclear weapons belong to the U.S. The U.S.’ nuclear umbrella is sometimes referred to as a torn umbrella, and it is now time to repair it.”

Chung is not alone in calling for nuclear armament of South Korea within the Saenuri Party.

Rep. Won Yoo-chul, who has served as the chair of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee, has also called for redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons.

“It is urgent that the nuclear imbalance between the South and the North is addressed,” Won said at conference of senior Saenuri Party lawmakers in February.

“Declaration of South Korea’s nuclear armament needs to be reviewed on condition of ‘immediate dismantlement following resolution of North Korean nuclear (situation).’”

Saenuri Party chairman Hwang Woo-yea has also indirectly supported the idea.

“We have to establish a response system against nuclear weapons in order to regain military balance,” Hwang said in February.

“We need to prepare even for the undesirable situation of ‘nuclear dominos’ in northeast Asia. In the face of nuclear weaponry, a weapon of mass destruction, we cannot be depending only on talks.”

Although the Saenuri Party has so far stopped short of calling for Seoul to begin its own nuclear weapons program, some of its members have already raised concerns over such developments.

“(South Korea) arming itself with nuclear weapons would bring about economic and diplomatic isolation, and have a critical impact on the country’s economy,” Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun said in a statement earlier this year.

“In addition, it would shake the South Korea-U.S. alliance to its roots and lead to security insurance disappearing.”

By Choi He-suk ([email protected])

That's not good! Bad enough the North has them now the South wants them????, this means one thing China would come in if the South used just one TNW [Tactical Nuclear Weapon's ] on the North.
Little Un is bound to act soon, if he doesn't, then it is all a bluff!

All yelping! No bite? Oh Un, no one likes a yelping pup, your to young to be a dog!

The South needs to throw him out of any position of power or influence, then the US needs to throw him into a prison cell.

I read and reread that. I may still be off on his use of tense and terms but I swear he's NOT talking about redeployment from the United States or outside the Korean theater. Now if any such things existed, there would be serious problems with all kinds of people. The Korean Peninsula is a Nuclear Free Zone, after all. The North never paid attention to that, but the South sure pledged to it.

The U.S. could never have moved such things there, if such things existed, of course. If these fantasy weapons he's talking about DID exist in that area, then he'd be babbling openly about things that I am certain occupy the highest levels of U.S. Security classifications.

I'd really hope Kim doesn't pick up on the subtle things like that. Deployment vs. Redeployment and couched in the terms he put that into. Misunderstandings could certainly follow for things that aren't even there.

---

As far as the ROK making their own? They agreed in 1992 they wouldn't produce nukes. They said it clearly and agreed to it. I JUST read about that and there wasn't anything vague in that at the time or the agreements since. It was stated right out in a 1992 news story on it that they retained "latent capability to produce nuclear weapons", but I think that describes about every nation with reactors and a high technology base. They'd be utterly insane though. Nuke WHAT?! Their capital city is 30 miles from the first positions nukes would be useful for.

This is not as easy as a scenario as it is being presented. Kim's greatest weapon is his knowledge that geopolitical conditions prevent the US from conducting total war. Specifically, a) the US populace will reject a costly protracted land war which may cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of soldiers b) the US will not utilize it's nuclear arsenal because of China and Russia and c) Kim believes China will intervene on his behalf if the US attempts to occupy the North.

Kim is crazy enough to use nuclear weapons. He controls a brainwashed populace who will fight to the last man. Most dangerously, he actually believes that the destruction of South Korea and the United States is a noble objective. Kim's grand strategy is stay alive long enough so that he can cause enough enough death and carnage to convince the US that his demise isn't worth untold thousands of American lives. The questions to ask are 1) At what point do we deem war not worth it? 1,000 dead 100,000 dead, 1 million dead? 2) How long could the regime survive against the obviously superior US led forces. A week? A month? A Year?

War + One Hour- Seoul would come under tremendous artillery bombardment, causalities could well be in the tens of thousands in the opening salvos of the war.

War + 3 Hours- Though North Korea's military is woefully outdated, it is more than equipped to drop tens of thousands of special forces troops into the south. 40,000 brainwashed nut jobs trained to conduct terrorist like activities all throughout the south will bored old prop planes, shoddy subs, civilian cars, and traverse desolate mountain crossings. Many of these SF troops will be successful in infiltrating and serve as snipers, plant IED's, and conduct suicide bombings, raids, and assassinations. Al Queda and the Taliban cause significant causalities and they are, for the most part, goat herders. Identifying friend of foe would be impossible and American forces will be targeted when they are defenseless. For the duration of the conflict, nowhere would be safe.

W + 12 Hours- A half million man army or more would be within marching distance of Seoul. Allied forces would be vastly outnumbered. Allied fighter aircraft would have by this point achieved total air superiority. The first sorties of long range tactical bombers would have begun dumping their payloads on the advancing NK forces. Not enough planes are within range to totally route the zealous advancing army which only needs to cover a 35 mile area. American Special Forces Units will tasked with impossible missions to destroy the Norths Nuclear/Chemical/Biological arsenal, these men know that most of them will not come back from these high danger missions.

W+ 24 Hours- The enemy, in force, would be at the gates of Seoul. A decision will be made to either retreat or engage in street to street fighting in the city. The loss of Seoul would lead to mass civilian casualties and would give the NK the first victory of the war. Engaging in mass urban combat would render many US tactical assets largely ineffective. Bloody street to street fighting would begin.

W + 48 Hours- Holding Seoul would prove to be too costly. Casualties at this point will be approaching at least 100,000 (assuming only conventional weapons have been used by the North at this point). American and SK forces will retreat to a more open position to allow US aircraft, naval assets and armor to better engage the inferior NK forces. This retreat will be plagued by mines, IED's, and snipers from the special forces soldiers dropped during the opening hours of the war. It is conceivable that American forces suffer a 5-10% (perhaps even a much higher) causality rate during the first 48 hours.

W + 72 H- While under continued harassment by guerrilla fighters, the US and SK will begin to organize a counter offensive to recapture Seoul. By this point in time, American aircraft would have taken a significant toll on artillery positions on the DMZ. The NK advance will have been fully halted. Having lost contact with command and running low on rations, NK units will disperse into small guerrilla groups and fight to the death as ordered.

W+ 5 days- Marine Expeditionary, the 101st and/or 82nd Airborne and an in theater army division will join up with existing friendly forces to launch a counter offensive and/or to open up a second front.

W+ 10 days- All lost territory will have been recaptured by this point. The fight to retake Seoul or invade into the north will be incredibly bloody. Causalities would be well over a million people. (including the North)

Pyongyang will be taken within two weeks - twenty days but Kim will long be gone and the city will be empty. Small guerrilla units would operate similar to how the Taliban operates. Loosing one thousand american troops a month would become commonplace. China would not allow the US to establish bases in the north and would begin placing its own troops into the country to secure a northern boarder. If Kim is still alive and China does not choose to support him, I have no doubt that a desperate regime will use its entire remaining Nuclear, Chemical and Biological arsenal. If China chooses to back Kim we return to the status quo, just like what happened 60 years ago. America, tired of war on a scale which has not been scene since the last world war would capitulate and not risk starting WW3 with China. So who really wins? Surely not the US or SK. ]

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Sadly he is, before 1992 the South did have TNW , supplied by and for use under US command, here is the link of that history. Lets not repeat it.
Just the fact that it was stated or thought of, makes this whole situation that much worse, Are they, the South Korean Gov trying to bring this to a head once and for all ? link www.nukestrat.com... short history lesson

Nuclear Brief September 28, 2005
A history of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in South Korea

The United States deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea for 33 years. The first weapons arrived in January 1958, well after the ending of the Korean War, and four years after forward deployment of nuclear weapons began in Europe. Over the years the numbers and types of nuclear weapons in South Korea changed frequently. At one point in the late 1960s, as many as eight different types were deployed at the same time (see chart).

Even before the weapons began arriving in January 1958, the U.S. Far East Command Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) from November 1956 identified two locations in Korea (Uijongbu and Anyang-Ni) with a capability to receive and handle nuclear weapons if necessary.

Actual deployments began in January 1958, four and a half years after the end of the Korean War, with the introduction of five nuclear weapon systems: the Honest John surface-to-surface missile, the Matador cruise missile, the Atomic-Demolition Munition (ADM) nuclear landmine, and the 280-mm gun and 8-inch (203mm) howitzer.

if one in out there it is not form the US stock pile unless they brush the dust off or make a new one.
In this link i did not see any active or in service TNW for field guns or howitzers nuclearweaponarchive.org...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Where are the links to the first two parts?

Wow.This should be on Wiki

What a Great Thread from the OP

Followed by a vast series of assumptions by nearly everyone else the majority of which are based on political reasoning's of eras gone by, comparisons to the first Korean war which the current situation has nothing truly in common with and the public statements of world leaders which are nothing more than political cat and mouse games....

The biggest thing I see in all these threads is this... belief that China and Russia are going to turn out or are on the opposite page as us...

It's always hard for me to understand how the big picture in all of this is missed on everyone.

In the time since the Korean War, we have grown together, our banks our intertwined, the technology to control our populaces depends on global trade. The UN security council nations make the rules for the whole world...

Minus a few "problem locations"

How anyone fails to see the game being played.... That all the talk against and votes for and against each other at the UN are complete BS and contrived and that the nations you have fighting each other are all actually allies is beyond my capability to comprehend.

Why fight each other when you already control the globe?

NK... is being set up

There is nothing else here... they aren't "part of the program"

They want people to think these differences of the past still exist between us... sells a lot of 30 year old arms technology... good money to be made, but all these proxy wars aren't against each other lol...

Nato, Russia, China... Even Sk, Japan... Every player involved.... BIG GLOBAL TRADE PLAYER.... BANKING NATIONS

This kids Dad was Savy..he knew how to keep his kingdom...

Now NK is Doomed... it's going to literally be goaded into attacking while an inexperienced hot headed kid is in charge.... he's a Threat to Global trade.... he's not NWO, he's not in the banking system, he could potentially do something crazy and screw things up

However it plays out NK will be gone soon...

Will we have show down time with China and Russia? ON TV... at the expense of aggro males who join the service maybe sure.... but they periodically bleed those guys by intent anyway... assures there's never a revolution... gets people working harder, makes jobs...

But it's BS

More global Gentrification of certain "neighborhoods"

All options are and will be on the table,i believe tactical nukes could be used within the first hour of a nkorean attack and I think it's entirely possible chemical and biological ordiinaace will be used also,any one who thinks there will be restraint by either side is kidding themselves.This Hypothetical conflict is going to involve 26 NATO countries and very likely draw in Japan,Australia and China,so i seriously doubt an engagement is going to happen,it truly is a powder keg and everybody involved is going to get burnt.

America seems to struggle to win wars, regardless of hardware and expenditure.
How can NK, be pacified without a spanking ?
I think a collective global giggle may do the trick.

Originally posted by all2human
All options are and will be on the table,i believe tactical nukes could be used within the first hour of a nkorean attack and I think it's entirely possible chemical and biological ordiinaace will be used also,any one who thinks there will be restraint by either side is kidding themselves.This Hypothetical conflict is going to involve NATO countries and very likely draw in Japan and China,so i seriously doubt an engagement is going to happen,it truly is a powder keg and everybody involved is going to get burnt.

edit on 1-4-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

I agree with everything until

"everybody is going to get burnt"

Just North Korea... and whatever they hit in the initial attack...

Virtually the whole world will side against NK far from predictions of doom... I'd put a 50/50 bet on this working out to be a hallmark NWO/Global Government moment of cooperation.... UNs attack a killing of Millions will be used as all the more reason "rouge" regime's need to be handled by "global" cooperation...

Bombers: 80 Fighters: 541 Transports: 361 Transport Helicopters: 588 Attack Helicopters: 24 Trainers: 228

Is this active, serviceable, or the sum total of all aircraft types purchased by North Korea over the past 50 years?

I'm sure they'll count them all the same, even when 80% of those listed lack pilots, ground crew, spare parts or even fuel.

Japan,Australia engaging Nkorea bank
news.yahoo.com...

reply to post by penninja


Good theory.

Every empire believes in its invincibility. You said nothing new.

We hope it is only desperation on the part of a "boy" leader.

If it is more than that, then ...

reply to post by Golf66


Korea - Part 1

Korea - Part 2

They'll also be in my signature for at least a couple weeks I imagine.

Hope that helps.

reply to post by IndianaJoe


So according to your theory, they go on a mission to capture a capital city, they capture it, yet they are running out of rations by the third day of war?

What did they sent in? McDonald's Finest? I mean... with the stuff you carry with you, the convoys, the massive tunnel system and Seoul captured... really? If you manage to run out of anything by the third day it must be your local black friday...

That is wrong in so many ways that I dont even know where to begin...