Springtime in Korea too?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Recently, the army of the DPRK increased its military capability close to the border with South Korea:

North Korea has recently moved fighter jets near the Northern Limit Line, the de facto maritime border, and ground-to-air missiles close to Baeknyeong Island. There is speculation that it plans a minor provocation while South Korean president Lee Myung-bak visits the U.S. since any show of unity between the two allies tends to incense the North. “The North Korean military was seen moving mobile missile launchers at a ground-to-ship missile base near the NLL,” a government source said. “There’s likelihood that the North will launch a military provocation” while Lee is away. The government is closely watching movements of North Korean artillery units. An intelligence source said, “The North Korean Army is showing movements similar to those seen right before it shelled Yeonpyeong Island last year.”

The ROK has declared a high state of alert. It may have been principally in response to DPRK movements, to the visit of ROK President Lee Myung Bak, to Washington or to both. After President and Mrs. Lee were welcomed at the White House on October 13th, President Lee became the first Korean president to visit the Pentagon, where he and

Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin, presidential secretary for foreign affairs and national security Chun Young-woo, and secretary for national security strategy Kim Tae-hyo . . . met U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, and most of the chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Forces, according to Cheong Wa Dae.

They are said to have received “an unplanned briefing on the security situation on the Korean Peninsula from top military officials,” unrelated to any “special and pending issues.” It is not credible that such a briefing was unplanned and unrelated to pending issues. Is “unplanned” the same as “unexpected”?

The start of the Korean conflict, on June 25, 1950, was “unexpected” and shouldn’t have been; there were plenty of signals but we were not looking. A synopsis of the beginnings of that Korean conflict and the events leading up to it is provided here. Importantly, under President Truman’s Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson, military spending had been cut drastically:

...

These comments should apply with no less force to the situation in Korea. A weak and ambiguous response to a less than substantial DPRK incursion into the ROK would invite another, more substantial, probably quickly. Could the U.S. response then be less than the U.S. response to the “unexpected” June 1950 invasion? If there is a massive invasion, mounting even a proportional military response will be difficult; it was in 1950 when, in anticipation of world peace and tiredness with war, military spending had been cut “to the bone and through the bone.” However, there will be no credible excuse for an ambiguous response to a “surprise” attack.

This article from the New York Times argues, fairly persuasively, that

The United States has too many commitments today to conduct a successful foreign policy. Perpetual crisis management contributes to confusion, waste and overall ineffectiveness. To re-establish focus, the nation needs clear and disciplined priorities. To re-establish leadership, the nation needs the courage to say it will do some things well, while practicing self-restraint everywhere else.

If and when the DPRK invades the ROK, we will need to do something and speeches expressing international displeasure won’t cut it.

The exact figures are not available, but approximately 26,000 U.S. troops (plus dependents and civilian contractors) is probably as reasonable a guesstimate as any. Whatever the number, it will likely be necessary to get more involved militarily, if only to keep them from being killed or captured. Since many of the U.S. forces there are non-combat troops (again, no reliable numbers), more combat troops will probably be needed if only to protect the non-combat troops and American civilians. Where will they come from? Putting them on line and entering even a small war would cost big bucks. Where will they come from? What are the alternatives

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-another-conflict-coming-to-korea/?singlepage=true

 

[Wok]

I guess that's where the troops from Iraq will go next...

 

[eyer]

If South Koreans can't defend themselves against North Koreans by now...

...they don't deserve to sell us cars.






[Interpreted as, for all you wanktards: they don't deserve to exist as a nation.]

 

[Peregrinator]

Time to plus up the speedbump, I guess.

 

[1sickbastard]

The big question is; What will the PRC do?

On it's own, I don't think NKorea can beat the South in a conventional fight. If they do have a working atomic bomb, and they do use it (likely if they start a fight and it goes badly for them), then that would change the equation significantly.

However, the US is treaty bound to assist SKorea. US Airpower is specifically designed to neutralize a highly centralized command and control structure like NKorea's.

But let's see how the political situation resolves itself. This should be interesting...

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

The big question is; What will the PRC do?

On it's own, I don't think NKorea can beat the South in a conventional fight. If they do have a working atomic bomb, and they do use it (likely if they start a fight and it goes badly for them), then that would change the equation significantly.

However, the US is treaty bound to assist SKorea. US Airpower is specifically designed to neutralize a highly centralized command and control structure like NKorea's.

But let's see how the political situation resolves itself. This should be interesting...

All eyes will turn to China, for starters.

 

[Wok]

It is a vulnerable time. Food shortages and Kim Jong Eun.

Oh fuck it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[1sickbastard]

The threat of a nuclear response is about all we have to hold them back, and it would, but they will be holding 110,000 American hostages if hostilities break out. Something to think about.

I'm thinking if general hostilities do break out again, N Korea's nuclear facilities will be the top priority targets. That little bastard, Kim Jong Ill, is just batshit crazy enough to actually use the things, assuming they've actually been able to produce a nuclear weapon. Devilering the weapon to a target is another matter.

I'm fairly certain if the situation does get to that point, N Korea attempting to use a nuke will cause all sorts of negative fallout (in a political sense). I'm not convinced the PRC would be willing to back that play. Once the PRC abandonds N Korea, that state is finished. They don;t have the reserves or oil production capacity to sustain a conventional effort for more than a weeks worth of fighting.

And this isn't 1950. The DMZ runs all the way across the peninsula. The North doesn't have any easly flanking options, especially with the US Navy about.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

And the navy's air arm could make their lives a merry Hell on earth until combat troops showed up . . .



which, I imagine, the rational minds in the north know.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wok]

There is only so much food to go around.

 

[mercury14]

North Korea has an insane military. All males have ten years of mandatory service.

But no, they're a real threat. They have about 200,000 special forces, heaps of chemical weapons, and a handful of nukes. And they'd target civilian centers.

Part of the problem is that they're so close to major population centers...

 

[Wok]

North Korea has an insane military. All males have ten years of mandatory service.

But no, they're a real threat. They have about 200,000 special forces, heaps of chemical weapons, and a handful of nukes. And they'd target civilian centers.

Part of the problem is that they're so close to major population centers...

For most, not all males.

 

[1sickbastard]

And the navy's air arm could make their lives a merry Hell on earth until combat troops showed up . . .



which, I imagine, the rational minds in the north know.

You're assuming there are rational minds in control of the country. Maybe there are. Military leaders tend to be more pragmatic by necessity. Their political leadership, not so much.

They do have one thing working for them, Seoul is within artillery range and a blitz into that city would take an all out effort of both the U.S. and the ROK to stop. Once they are in the city, the game changes. The U.S. would have to be willing to pull out all of the stops. Right now we have an atmosphere of defense cutting in the present administration, but they never want to trim the mission or abrogate a treaty, which are the law of the land. I suspect we'd be hard pressed to play this incrementally as we would prefer. I think it calls for a massive response on all aspects of North Korean war making capability. If the North gets into Seoul, I'd think the only thing that would draw them back out would be an invasion of the North ala Inchon.

True about the artillery and WMD stockpiles. It would take one hell of a push to breech the DMZ. Also, stated US policy is that any use, by another nation of WMD will earn a similar response. I hope and pray it never comes to that.

North Korea has an insane military. All males have ten years of mandatory service.

But no, they're a real threat. They have about 200,000 special forces, heaps of chemical weapons, and a handful of nukes. And they'd target civilian centers.

Part of the problem is that they're so close to major population centers...

According to the CIA World Factbook, S Korea has twice the military in terms of numbers and equipment, and twice the reserves to draw on. In addition, the South has much newer, far more lethal equipment. As I mentioned above, I hope it doesn't come down to an all out war. I don't see any real winners in that scenario, but I do see plenty of losers.

Again, let us all hope and pray it never comes to an all out war.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

You're assuming there are rational minds in control of the country. Maybe there are. Military leaders tend to be more pragmatic by necessity. Their political leadership, not so much.

There are, I imagine, just not in charge.

 

[Wok]

Little is known about Kim Jong Il. Even less is known about Kim Jong Eun. He was recently promoted to a general/vice chairman of the NDC. Does he have to prove himself to daddy, his cronies, internal/external propaganda purposes, etc.? Nobody knows. One thing is sure, DPRK shelled Yeonpyeong and torpedoed the Cheonan. Who issued the orders, or more importantly, who took the credit? Apparently, Jang Song Theak has some sway in the grooming process. Anyway, Kenji Fujimoto knew of Kim Jong Il's intention to anoint Kim Jong Eun for quite some time. Putting that aside, it appears Kim wants his regime to survive. If that's the case, he knows he will not win a war. His old man understood that too as the South far surpassed the North. Which is why the North commits acts of terror/espionage/covert shit.

 

[mercury14]

According to the CIA World Factbook, S Korea has twice the military in terms of numbers and equipment, and twice the reserves to draw on. In addition, the South has much newer, far more lethal equipment. As I mentioned above, I hope it doesn't come down to an all out war. I don't see any real winners in that scenario, but I do see plenty of losers.

Well, the thing is N. Korea maintains an absurdly huge reserve force of soldiers who have all been active duty before. I think when you include them N.Korea probably has superior numbers.

North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world in terms of numbers according to the US Dept of State. 8.2 MILLION solders in reserve, and the 3rd-largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm

Definitely the ROK has much more modern equipment. The North certainly has a ton of spies in the south though which means they'd know where to hit.

 

[neci]

the subscription is in the mail.

*perves*

 

[1sickbastard]

Well, the thing is N. Korea maintains an absurdly huge reserve force of soldiers who have all been active duty before. I think when you include them N.Korea probably has superior numbers.

North Korea has the 4th largest army in the world in terms of numbers according to the US Dept of State. 8.2 MILLION solders in reserve, and the 3rd-largest chemical weapons stockpile in the world:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm

Definitely the ROK has much more modern equipment. The North certainly has a ton of spies in the south though which means they'd know where to hit.

All ture about N Korea. However, the South also has compulsory military duty and has a large trained reserve force. But I think you're right about the North's reserves being more highly and regularly trained. It's not like those guys have burgeoning econony to maintain or anything. Besides, training means extra food rations.

Still hoping it never comes down to that.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I imagine China would see this as a golden opportunity to push our sphere of influence back to Pearl to make room for their expansion as they do in the Middle-East and Africa, I could easily see them sending Naval assets to support their clients especially in light of our reactions to the Arab Spring and increased isolation in the UN.

I'm wondering, as Wat boasted, if our air assets are really adequate to deal with a fairly unmechanized, disbursed army flooding through the valleys eating and destroying everything they encounter upon the way...

I wonder if we have the political will-power for a major war and how and where we will find the funding knowing China could economically collapse us in order to teach us our place after so many years of Western humiliation.

 

[sufisaint]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp6cB7BGj48&feature=related

 

[eyer]

ror












































[raughing out roud]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I KNOW WHAT WILL KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE!

Call them "reckless..."

(Don't call them high-handed!)

http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111024/ap_on_re_as/as_panetta_asia

While we're at it, let's throw a few barbs at China too...