DPRK expels UN inspectors.... again...

[Steel_Tomb]

How many times is this going to happen? And every time the UN just walks away... que Hans Blix (sp?) "We are very angry with you, and we will write you a letter telling you how angry we are".

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090414/twl-north-korea-expelling-nuclear-inspec-3fd0ae9.html

Is anyone actually going to do anything about North Korea any time soon? Its a complete and utter farce that Kim Jong Il is still in power, you would have thought someone would have come to their sences and put a bullet in his head by now... or at least poison the booze he gets (I can't spell Conag... :damn:)

Your views gentlemen? I for one would like to see our "friends", namely the Chinese and the Sovie... I'm sorry Russia pull their weight for once instead of blocking any international move against the Pyonyang regime.

[Zachstar]

It is coming closer to the point where limited military power may be needed to fix this.

Negotiations have failed. We thought NK was licked and would SLOWLY start to reform towards a better country in the future but alas it seems not to be so.

Unlike Iran that has zero means of actually building an effective nuke and delivery system. NK does

The UN is useless here. They arent feared anymore.

[Platapus]

I was not aware that the United Nations was supposed to be feared.

[Zachstar]

Any union is supposed to be feared because its a "group" a common thinking etc...

Tho with the UN they have absolutely no means of ANY kind of military action because SOMEBODY on the security council can overrule.

Yes they are needed because they do manage to do some good in smaller nations but with negotiating with NK... Ya... Not working anymore.

[FIREWALL]

The United Nations has outlived it's usefullness.

It could be used as a power source tho...

A Hot Air Generator. :har:

[Platapus]

I agree completely that the Single Veto concept should go away. However we have to be careful about what we wish for. The US makes fine use of its veto power when it is politically advantageous for it.

It is the classic political paradox.

A veto we agree with is a wise decision
A veto we disagree with is obstructionist.

Seven of the last nine vetoes on the UNSC have been by the US. And six of them have been about Israel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2828985.stm

The good news is that the Soviet Union/Russia still hold the record for UNSC vetoes at 120. However the US is moving from second place to challenge with 76 vetoes so far.

However none of the "big five" are gonna give up the power of the veto so we are stuck with an imperfect system that both sides use to their advantage and the other side whines about.

[Tchocky]

Will a forceful action by the UN do anything except violate it's founding principles?


It's difficult to read this action by the DPRK as anything but another bid for world attention. The rocket launch (sic) made them look bad, so the big stick has come out. Thankfully, the only major weapon left to them is to expel UN inspectors.
So mark this as a positive step.

[Platapus]

The one thing that Kim Jong Il wants more than anything is to garner the international respect (good or bad) that will elevate him to a higher level of domestic respect than his father had. Kim Jong Il wants to be known as the leader of an important country. Unfortunately for him, he is not. He is, and in my opinion, will always be, the son of Kim Il Sung. Hence this posturing.

Part of me wonders if the best thing the world can do to North Korea is to just ignore these little outbursts as one would ignore the tantrums of an emotional child until they calm down. Then, as adults, restart the talks.

But like other international issues, the complexity of the relationships of North Korea can be complicated.

[Kapt Z]

Part of me wonders if the best thing the world can do to North Korea is to just ignore these little outbursts as one would ignore the tantrums of an emotional child until they calm down. Then, as adults, restart the talks.


My feelings exactly. Note their actions, don't make a big fuss about it and let them see us not making a big fuss about it.

[Skybird]

Nobody in the West wants a conventional war North versus South Korea - and that this would happen in case of a fix by "limited military power" remains to be an uncalculatable risk. The cities of South Korea are highly populated areas, there can be no doubt that N-Korea has the means needed to bring a blood festival upon many of them. Parts of Seoul and the densly populated satellite cities surrounding it are in the crosshairs of possibly the most intense massing of artillery tubes on earth currently. And the primitiveness of Northkorean artillery may work to their advantage - it is easier to hide and more difficult to be found and hit in the terrain - which combines hills and mountains with forests. That an initial rush by North Korean ground forces en masse towards Seoul could not be repulsed, can't be ruled out. Falcon in 4 made it look somewhat easy. Don't live by that dream. Low grade infantry that outnumbers you totally is hard to stop by technological superiority alone. And with every mile North Korea pushes south towards Seould, their artillery can reach one mile deeper into South Korea, and destroy more of the city. Seoul would be the one top one attack target for them, not to seize it, but to destroy it. Ending the war in an acceptable way for North Korea would be to make the enemy agree into a seize fire accepted by the south and america to avoid any higher civilian casualties. That is the northern military calculation.

It's a problem, yes. But who wants to start the bloodbath of Southkorean civilians that a Korean war necessarily would turn into? Would you be willing to put the area of New York and surrounding cities with all their population of several millions at risk and accept the constant shelling of these places and the indiscriminatory killing and wounding of thousands and tens of thousands just because some bastard somewhere tries to provoke you?

[Zachstar]

North Korea would not dare launch an attack.

Yes Falcon 4 makes it look easy but today it actually IS easy. This is not Iran where the people have tons of experience and terrain to hide them.

Heavy Artillery is 100 percent useless today. The moment the first shell is launched counter radar has its origin marked and shells and rockets underway within a few seconds. Every gun that dares fire will be blasted within moments with our EXTREMELY accurate arty. they don't have computers taking into account over 100 different variables PER shot.

Yes in Falcon 4 the air force was rather difficult to defeat but today they are cannon fodder for even F-18s F-22s would instantly down anything that could fire a missile more than a few miles and within hours we would own the skies.

And when we own the skies its game over. Unlike Iran where it is QUITE easy to hide from our sensors. NK would be completely reconed within hours as SAM after SAM falls.

After that its simply a game of "Is that target worth the cost to the taxpayers for a maverick?"

And launching arty against civvies? That would be a disaster for their PR. And get most of the civilized world to deploy forces against them.

[Max2147]

There's not really much anybody can do about the North Korean situation. Anything short of military action isn't going to have any real effect, and military action is basically out of the question because it would just trigger a North Korean invasion of South Korea.

Would the US/South Korea eventually win a 2nd Korean War? Probably. The North would basically exhaust itself and literally run out of fuel. But the cost would be massive in military, humanitarian, and financial terms. One of the world's biggest financial centers (Seoul) would be laid to waste, and one of the world's most important economies (South Korea) would be devastated. All of East Asia's economies would be hit very hard by the fear of instability, and as we've seen with this Global Financial Crisis, it the ripple effects would be felt around the world in a big way.

Given the relative forces that each side has along the DMZ, there's no way the US/South Korean forces would be able to stop a North Korean attack on the border. The North Koreans would just trample over the defenders in human waves. As Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. As I said earlier the North would eventually lose the war, but the damage will have been done.

[Zachstar]

Bull no human wave can survive waves of gunship fire.

And we have planned for any invasion attempt the only thing we cant plan for is nukes and it seems NK wants nukes more then ever to give them the chance. We cant let that happen and military will likely be on the table soon.

This is not Vietnam the weapons we have are designed to kill cannon fodder. A single F-16 can blast a line of tanks to pieces.

[Max2147]

Bull no human wave can survive waves of gunship fire.

And we have planned for any invasion attempt the only thing we cant plan for is nukes and it seems NK wants nukes more then ever to give them the chance. We cant let that happen and military will likely be on the table soon.

This is not Vietnam the weapons we have are designed to kill cannon fodder. A single F-16 can blast a line of tanks to pieces.
I'm not saying we wouldn't inflict a lot of casualties on them. We would, and eventually we'd defeat them. But the damage would still be done.

I'm not afraid of a North Korean attack on South Korea because I'm afraid of North Korea controlling the entire Korean peninsula. That wouldn't happen. What I'm afraid of are major military losses, massive civilian casualties, total disruption of one of the world's most important economies, and a massive ripple effect on the global economy that would make the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the current Global Financial Crisis look tiny.

Even if we inflict 50% casualties on the North Koreans in the first day, they'd still have millions of men pouring into Seoul within hours. We could take out their artillery within a few days, but that would still be enough time for them to lay waste to Seoul. The only way to stop a North Korean invasion on the border would be to use tactical nukes, and the US would never do that on Korean soil, especially so close to major population centers.

The North Koreans have almost a 2-1 advantage over South Korea in terms of standing army size (1.2 million men vs. 650,000), and that rises to almost 3-1 when you take reserves into account (9 million vs. 3.7 million). It's hard to imagine the North Koreans attacking without their reserves. The US presence in Korea is tiny - we have less than 30,000 people on the ground there. The purpose of our presence there isn't to stop a North Korean invasion on the border, because our planners know that's impossible. Instead, our troops are there to act as a tripwire - to ensure that any North Korean invasion of South Korea would result in Americans being killed, thus giving the US no choice but to respond militarily.

In the end, the US and our allies would come in with more assets and we would win the day, but it would be a long and horribly bloody fight that would leave the entire Korean peninsula in shambles. It would be a disaster for everybody involved, even the victors.

[Zachstar]

Only bloody for the north Koreans.

Do you understand how accurate our Arty is? There is no placement fire with a radar guided computer controlled fire sequence. There is a boom silence and then the distant thunder of enemy ammo cooking off.

Counter battery fire is extremely accurate because not only is our radar measuring where the shell came from it uses data from its trajectory to adjust our own shot! (Saw that on TV so what is classified must be much more me thinks) As a result the return fire ends up almost right on top of where the first started. and when I mean almost I mean its accurate to within a few yards.

As they fire like mad each gun will be picked off one by one (More like 20-30 at a time every 30 seconds or so)

Also I HIGHLY doubt they will continue to just throw themselves into fire like that these people live on the brink of starvation each and every day and unlike the middle east. They usually do not think that if they die for dear leader they will get 40 virgins.

No this is one of the few times it would be in our extreme advantage because they only thing they have before the nuke is soviet style shock attacks. Which is EXACTLY what the armed forces is trained to deal with.

[Dowly]

@Zachstar

I really cant tell if your pulling everyone's leg here, but if you REALLY think it wouldnt be quite about what Max described... well... then tell me the pills your taking because I want to live in a dreamworld too.

[XabbaRus]

I'm waiting to see what happens when Kim dies. I wonder if there will be a thaw or a further freeze.

[baggygreen]

I'm waiting to see what happens when Kim dies. I wonder if there will be a thaw or a further freeze.
it'll stay the same - after all, there are a half dozen of them floating around the place!!!

People say that he has so many doubles for his security - I say its to further enhance his image of being immortal, by never appearing to age much and having a huge line of 'Kim's ready to replace him.

[Enigma]

@Zachstar

I really cant tell if your pulling everyone's leg here, but if you REALLY think it wouldnt be quite about what Max described... well... then tell me the pills your taking because I want to live in a dreamworld too.Absolutely agree. These comments show a real lack of understanding. I can't tell if it's a joke, either! :o

It would be a disaster for everybody involved, even the victors. Without question...

[Oberon]

Mweh, it's just the usual game from Pyongyang, give it another couple of months and when the world has gotten bored of listening to the DPRK, then they'll come crawling back to the table and promise not to do it again. :yawn:

[August]

@Zachstar

I really cant tell if your pulling everyone's leg here, but if you REALLY think it wouldnt be quite about what Max described... well... then tell me the pills your taking because I want to live in a dreamworld too.

I think Zachstar is right. This isn't 1950.

[Max2147]

I think Zachstar is right. This isn't 1950.
It's not 1950, and we probably won't be pushed all the way back to Pusan. But do you really think the South Koreans can defend Seoul from an invasion by the North?

Remember, they won't have substantial American help right away, and they have practically zero strategic depth (the Blue House is less than 25 miles from the border).

[Steel_Tomb]

Could we defeat NK? Yes, but after what cost? Even if we had return fire that destroyed 100% of their artillery batteries... Seoul would be a smoking wasteland. They have thousands of artillery pieces along the DMZ... most of which already pointed towards Seoul, not to mention the rumoured biological/chemical weapons the north has in its possestion. The only way to eliminate North Korea QUICKLY and hopefully without a too great a loss of life to the south would be tactical nuclear strikes... which so close to China and Russia isn't just dangerous its mad. Catch 22, unfortunately I don't think there is an easy solution to the problem... not whilst the Chinese and Russians support the North.

[August]

It's not 1950, and we probably won't be pushed all the way back to Pusan. But do you really think the South Koreans can defend Seoul from an invasion by the North?

Remember, they won't have substantial American help right away, and they have practically zero strategic depth (the Blue House is less than 25 miles from the border).

Yeah I think so. Especially with naval and air support from us. Unlike 1950 the SKs today have a pretty decently equipped and trained army and of course they'd be fighting for their home.

[Zachstar]

Bingo!

Does one HONESTLY think SK thinks that America will solve all their problems? Um no...

Their forces are highly trained to do exactly what they need to do. Stall the NK Military and smash their Arty and front line units.

As for chemical weapons. If they started to fire on cities with chemical weapons. Not only would most of the civilized world declare war on them but would likely lead to tactical nuke strike. We don't screw around with nations that are willing to exterminate millions of people with chemical weapons. Think of calls for the use of nukes after 9/11 times a thousand. And that was just from a few thousand dead.


However all this goes to **** if NK gets a nuke that can fit in any kind of aircraft. If military action has to be done to prevent it so be it. Negotiations have failed.

[Max2147]

They don't need to fit a nuke onto an aircraft. Heck, they can practically roll it down the hill and have it in Seoul.

The South Koreans may be good, but I don't think they can put up a successful point defense against an army 3 times their size.

[Zachstar]

When you got a threat that close to you.. You learn how to fight REALLY fast.

The SK armed forces have extremely advanced equipment. NK has swarms of starving people and old equipment. Size simply does not matter in this case. There is no other way for them to gain ANY ground at all but to run into a hail of advanced fire.

Ask Israel they have fought back against MUCH worse odds..

[Schroeder]

Bingo!
As for chemical weapons. If they started to fire on cities with chemical weapons. Not only would most of the civilized world declare war on them but would likely lead to tactical nuke strike. We don't screw around with nations that are willing to exterminate millions of people with chemical weapons. Think of calls for the use of nukes after 9/11 times a thousand. And that was just from a few thousand dead.


The NK government knows exactly that it would be their eventual doom to attack SK but some people have the "if I have to go down I'll take as many with me as possible" mentality. I'm sure that if they should ever attack SK they will use their full arsenal to cause as much death and destruction as possible before being smashed. They don't care for their people to survive.

[Skybird]

"Wenn das deutsche Volk diesen Kampf nichtg gewinnt, dann verdient es nicht, zu überleben, denn es hat sich als unwürdig erwiesen." (Adolf Hitler, quoted in The Fall).

Regarding the high training level and technical superiority and wonder-super-dooper superiorirty of focres - i have all heraed that with regard to Israel twice in recent years. The first war they lost, and the second did not acchieve it's objectives either - despite all that enormous destruction levels acchieved and superiroity here and F-16s there. Same is true in Afghanistan. Same was true with the French in Vietnam, who said it was impossible to pull that heavy artillery up that mountains in rain and jungles. but they did, and shot the French superior pieces.

North Korea can easily afford high casualties. The West cannot. The West cannot even afford to inflict high casualties on the enemy. And that is what North Korea would aim for: public opinion in the US. Casualties for them are close to irrelevant. the more successful ameircan forces fight inKorea and the more enemies they kill, the higher the pressure on the government to end the war.

And anyway, North Korea would have more time than enough to launch a wall of terror shells against southern metropoles, namely Seoul. the terrain in that part of Korea is nice for them, mountains, hills and dense forests, btw. I once had a girlfriend at university who came from Korea, close to Seoul. She said it looks like Southern "Bavaria, just with denser jungles". Or look at Google Earth, area between Seoul and Kesong North of it. That is no open prairie.

In the Balkan air war, according to the Britsh, 90% of their armour-breaking smart ammunitions delivered via aircraft were fooled by and successfully killed rubber tanks and dummies. The MOD was quoted with that by British media within 24 hours after hostilities ended.

[Oberon]

I think people put too much emphasis on Seoul. Ok, it is the center of administration but administrations can move, and they'd probably pull back all the government to Pusan.
The DPRK is a steamroller, but one with a small gas tank, my reckoning is they'll get as far as perhaps Chonan, maybe even as far as Taejon before they run out of steam. Then it all depends on whether the Chinese get involved, I don't think that they would if the DPRK started the conflict, but one can never really tell what Beijing is thinking these days... :hmmm:
By the time the DPRK gets to Taejon the bulk of the US force will have arrived and together with the ROK which would have held the DPRK up as long as they can, which I reckon is quite some time considering their training, they will set out to push the DPRK back up to the 38th parallel and, who knows, perhaps beyond it...and if they do go beyond it, will China then get involved ala the last war? :hmmm:

Far too many variables. :damn: But the positioning of nations such as China and Russia would be critical to the DPRKs campaign, and they know it.

[Skybird]

They must not roll far, Oberon. They just must kill and get killed in as high numbers as possible. And totalitarian regimes are not shy in stripping individuals off any existential rights of their own. Have a nice, tasty part of Seoul population getting killed in a first sudden outburst of artillery barrages, and then see Northkorean troops getting mowed down like leaves of grass, and emotions would go hysteric in the West. Shoot some pictures of huge, sad children'S eyes and have some reports broadcasted about how much the poor victims of war are suffering, and it works more in your favour than wiping out a complete US division. Achieving this media victory would swing global opinion in their favour, and against Southkorea and America.

[Oberon]

They must not roll far, Oberon. They just must kill and get killed in as high numbers as possible. And totalitarian regimes are not shy in stripping individuals off any existential rights of their own. Have a nice, tasty part of Seoul population getting killed in a first sudden outburst of artillery barrages, and then see Northkorean troops getting mowed down like leaves of grass, and emotions would go hysteric in the West. Shoot some pictures of huge, sad children'S eyes and have some reports broadcasted about how much the poor victims of war are suffering, and it works more in your favour than wiping out a complete US division. Achieving this media victory would swing global opinion in their favour, and against Southkorea and America.

Eh, that is true, one of the most important war in the television era is the war of the media :yep:

[August]

No way is world opinion going to swing in favor of the attacker. What Skybird ignores is that if war comes to the Korean peninsula it will be the North that starts, it and any propaganda value that pictures of mowed down NK soldiers might have will be more than offset by pictures of dead SK civilians killed by NK artillery.

[Max2147]

I think people put too much emphasis on Seoul. Ok, it is the center of administration but administrations can move, and they'd probably pull back all the government to Pusan.
The DPRK is a steamroller, but one with a small gas tank, my reckoning is they'll get as far as perhaps Chonan, maybe even as far as Taejon before they run out of steam. Then it all depends on whether the Chinese get involved, I don't think that they would if the DPRK started the conflict, but one can never really tell what Beijing is thinking these days... :hmmm:
By the time the DPRK gets to Taejon the bulk of the US force will have arrived and together with the ROK which would have held the DPRK up as long as they can, which I reckon is quite some time considering their training, they will set out to push the DPRK back up to the 38th parallel and, who knows, perhaps beyond it...and if they do go beyond it, will China then get involved ala the last war? :hmmm:

Far too many variables. :damn: But the positioning of nations such as China and Russia would be critical to the DPRKs campaign, and they know it.
Sure, the SK government can move. But Seoul is also a major world financial center and home to millions of civilians. Those can't move easily.

As you say, the US/SK forces would eventually win. But the costs would be so high that it would be hard to call the end result a victory.

A cardinal rule of warfare is to respect your enemy. I see a lot of people failing to do that here, which makes me glad that they're not the ones making the decisions. The greatest military disasters of all times have been the result of underestimating the enemy.