I have a spare set.

Ashton Black wrote:"Dogma is the enemy, not religion, per se. Rationality, genuine empathy and intellectual integrity are anathema to dogma."
AshtonBlack wrote:Want to borrow some body armour and a helmet?
I have a spare set.
'The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested.
Well, I should have chosen my words a bit more carefully.Don Juan Demarco wrote:'The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested.
As ineffectual as North Korea's weapons may have been, they are certainly effective enough to strike at South Korea. Yes it will be a big deal.
If it's a full-scale war, it would be a very, very big deal. The ROK and the US have a huge advantage over the North in terms of quality of equipment, communications, logistics, etc. Their air forces and navies would rule the skies and seas by the 2nd day. But as a wise bastard once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The North's ground forces are massive, even if they're outmoded. And their artillery could reduce Seoul -a modern, global city of 12 million people- to rubble by the end of Day #1 of the war.Coito ergo sum wrote:The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested. The bigger problem is the humanitarian crisis when the entire fragile infrastructure of the DPRK is shut down, and the ground forces of the DPRK decimated. Given the superior naval and air forces of the South and the US, giving air and sea superiority to the the ROK/US, there will be little the DPRK can do save try to hold out. Within a couple of weeks, all power in the DPRK would be down, all effective communications would be gone, and the chain of command would be severely threatened.
There will then be an immediate and growing problem of starvation and mass casualties on a scale we haven't seen since the Khmer Rouge and the communist North Vietnamese and their proxies after the fall of Saigon.
That's my guess, anyway.
Situation calls for Old Painless.Ian wrote:If it's a full-scale war, it would be a very, very big deal. The ROK and the US have a huge advantage over the North in terms of quality of equipment, communications, logistics, etc. Their air forces and navies would rule the skies and seas by the 2nd day. But as a wise bastard once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The North's ground forces are massive, even if they're outmoded. And their artillery could reduce Seoul -a modern, global city of 12 million people- to rubble by the end of Day #1 of the war.Coito ergo sum wrote:The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested. The bigger problem is the humanitarian crisis when the entire fragile infrastructure of the DPRK is shut down, and the ground forces of the DPRK decimated. Given the superior naval and air forces of the South and the US, giving air and sea superiority to the the ROK/US, there will be little the DPRK can do save try to hold out. Within a couple of weeks, all power in the DPRK would be down, all effective communications would be gone, and the chain of command would be severely threatened.
There will then be an immediate and growing problem of starvation and mass casualties on a scale we haven't seen since the Khmer Rouge and the communist North Vietnamese and their proxies after the fall of Saigon.
That's my guess, anyway.
The North most likely cannot finish the war themselves. But the South and the US won't be able to push the North back beyond Pyongyang until huge US reinforcements arrive. And that takes time. To affect a quick cease-fire on terms favorable to them, the North might end up doing something as crazy as start smashing Seoul.
"...the free world will conquer communism. With the aid of God, and a few Marines."Gawdzilla wrote:Situation calls for Old Painless.Ian wrote:If it's a full-scale war, it would be a very, very big deal. The ROK and the US have a huge advantage over the North in terms of quality of equipment, communications, logistics, etc. Their air forces and navies would rule the skies and seas by the 2nd day. But as a wise bastard once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The North's ground forces are massive, even if they're outmoded. And their artillery could reduce Seoul -a modern, global city of 12 million people- to rubble by the end of Day #1 of the war.Coito ergo sum wrote:The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested. The bigger problem is the humanitarian crisis when the entire fragile infrastructure of the DPRK is shut down, and the ground forces of the DPRK decimated. Given the superior naval and air forces of the South and the US, giving air and sea superiority to the the ROK/US, there will be little the DPRK can do save try to hold out. Within a couple of weeks, all power in the DPRK would be down, all effective communications would be gone, and the chain of command would be severely threatened.
There will then be an immediate and growing problem of starvation and mass casualties on a scale we haven't seen since the Khmer Rouge and the communist North Vietnamese and their proxies after the fall of Saigon.
That's my guess, anyway.
The North most likely cannot finish the war themselves. But the South and the US won't be able to push the North back beyond Pyongyang until huge US reinforcements arrive. And that takes time. To affect a quick cease-fire on terms favorable to them, the North might end up doing something as crazy as start smashing Seoul.
That I disagree with. But, it is all speculation. North Korea is no duck-walk like Saddam Hussein's army was, but there are some similarities. The first similarity is that the massive army you refer to are sitting out in the open. The ROK/US forces would have complete ownership of the skies, and the artillery positions and missile positions would be bombed from the air, and hit with missiles and bombardment from the sea.Ian wrote:If it's a full-scale war, it would be a very, very big deal. The ROK and the US have a huge advantage over the North in terms of quality of equipment, communications, logistics, etc. Their air forces and navies would rule the skies and seas by the 2nd day. But as a wise bastard once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The North's ground forces are massive, even if they're outmoded. And their artillery could reduce Seoul -a modern, global city of 12 million people- to rubble by the end of Day #1 of the war.Coito ergo sum wrote:The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested. The bigger problem is the humanitarian crisis when the entire fragile infrastructure of the DPRK is shut down, and the ground forces of the DPRK decimated. Given the superior naval and air forces of the South and the US, giving air and sea superiority to the the ROK/US, there will be little the DPRK can do save try to hold out. Within a couple of weeks, all power in the DPRK would be down, all effective communications would be gone, and the chain of command would be severely threatened.
There will then be an immediate and growing problem of starvation and mass casualties on a scale we haven't seen since the Khmer Rouge and the communist North Vietnamese and their proxies after the fall of Saigon.
That's my guess, anyway.
If they were to fire at Seoul, that would be a death sentence for Kim Jong Il. If they pull that trigger, the regime is gone. Period. It has to be. To settle on any terms under those circumstances is something that the US cannot afford. If Seoul is hit - the US will, I would put money on it, destroy Jong Il's palace.Ian wrote: The North most likely cannot finish the war themselves. But the South and the US won't be able to push the North back beyond Pyongyang until huge US reinforcements arrive. And that takes time. To affect a quick cease-fire on terms favorable to them, the North might end up doing something as crazy as start smashing Seoul.
And,Gawdzilla wrote:Situation calls for Old Painless.Ian wrote:If it's a full-scale war, it would be a very, very big deal. The ROK and the US have a huge advantage over the North in terms of quality of equipment, communications, logistics, etc. Their air forces and navies would rule the skies and seas by the 2nd day. But as a wise bastard once said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." The North's ground forces are massive, even if they're outmoded. And their artillery could reduce Seoul -a modern, global city of 12 million people- to rubble by the end of Day #1 of the war.Coito ergo sum wrote:The war would not be as big a deal as many have suggested. The bigger problem is the humanitarian crisis when the entire fragile infrastructure of the DPRK is shut down, and the ground forces of the DPRK decimated. Given the superior naval and air forces of the South and the US, giving air and sea superiority to the the ROK/US, there will be little the DPRK can do save try to hold out. Within a couple of weeks, all power in the DPRK would be down, all effective communications would be gone, and the chain of command would be severely threatened.
There will then be an immediate and growing problem of starvation and mass casualties on a scale we haven't seen since the Khmer Rouge and the communist North Vietnamese and their proxies after the fall of Saigon.
That's my guess, anyway.
The North most likely cannot finish the war themselves. But the South and the US won't be able to push the North back beyond Pyongyang until huge US reinforcements arrive. And that takes time. To affect a quick cease-fire on terms favorable to them, the North might end up doing something as crazy as start smashing Seoul.
Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable, let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. -Douglas Adams
If push comes to shove, Kim Jong-Il may only need to threaten to bombard Seoul. Like I said, the counterinvasion would take time. In the meantime, the Blue House would be desperate to keep casualties low and its economy intact. Hence suing for peace while under threat of destruction. Maybe this risk doesn't seem entirely rational for Pyongyang... but then again, neither does slamming a heavyweight torpedo into a small warship during peacetime.Coito ergo sum wrote:If they were to fire at Seoul, that would be a death sentence for Kim Jong Il. If they pull that trigger, the regime is gone. Period. It has to be. To settle on any terms under those circumstances is something that the US cannot afford. If Seoul is hit - the US will, I would put money on it, destroy Jong Il's palace.Ian wrote: The North most likely cannot finish the war themselves. But the South and the US won't be able to push the North back beyond Pyongyang until huge US reinforcements arrive. And that takes time. To affect a quick cease-fire on terms favorable to them, the North might end up doing something as crazy as start smashing Seoul.
We do not need to have 140,000 men in North Korea, and would not be stupid enough to do that. We would devastate the North Korean forces from the air and the sea. We would do that until Jong Il is dead, and/or there is unconditional surrender.
Yes, he can and does threaten to bombard Seoul. The stalemate there - the check - is the certainty that Jong Il knows that if he crosses that line, he's dead - personally. He and his whole family, and every top guy in his regime. Dead.Ian wrote:If push comes to shove, Kim Jong-Il may only need to threaten to bombard Seoul.Coito ergo sum wrote:If they were to fire at Seoul, that would be a death sentence for Kim Jong Il. If they pull that trigger, the regime is gone. Period. It has to be. To settle on any terms under those circumstances is something that the US cannot afford. If Seoul is hit - the US will, I would put money on it, destroy Jong Il's palace.Ian wrote: The North most likely cannot finish the war themselves. But the South and the US won't be able to push the North back beyond Pyongyang until huge US reinforcements arrive. And that takes time. To affect a quick cease-fire on terms favorable to them, the North might end up doing something as crazy as start smashing Seoul.
We do not need to have 140,000 men in North Korea, and would not be stupid enough to do that. We would devastate the North Korean forces from the air and the sea. We would do that until Jong Il is dead, and/or there is unconditional surrender.
Sure, it takes months to build up a ground invasion. It doesn't take months to sidle up a couple of aircraft carriers, and start launching Stealth Bombing runs around the clock from Wyoming and Diego Garcia, among other places.Ian wrote:
Like I said, the counterinvasion would take time.
They already threaten bombardment. But, there would be no capitulation to any ultimatum by the DPRK. That's why the DPRK always veils their threats in language like -- "if you do X, Y or Z, then we will bombard Seoul."Ian wrote:
In the meantime, the Blue House would be desperate to keep casualties low and its economy intact. Hence a capitulation to the threat of a bombardment.
That was a ballsy move. I think Jong Il must have calculated that he could either have plausible deniability, or that it would not be enough of an act of war to make Obama move militarily. The ROK simply can't act without US backing because the North could, without the US involved, have a good likelihood of taking the South. The North's army is just massive compared to the south. So, the ROK must follow Obama's instructions.Ian wrote:
May this doesn't seem entirely rational... but then again neither does launching a heavyweight torpedo into the side of a small warship during a time of peace.
I said they would soften the north up, take out its command, control, communications and supply, and devastate any large masses of troops that the DPRK attempts to move, while taking out major artillery and missile emplacements. We wouldn't move ground forces in until the North had been depleted and softened. We have a capability we did not have in 1951 - complete air superiority and complete naval superiority. That is a huge difference.Ian wrote:
You obviously haven't read OPLAN 5027. I have. The US & ROK ain't gonna win by virtue of ships and planes alone, take my word for it.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 24 guests