![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]()
No real surprises there, you don't put all your eggs in one basket after all, and the DPRK is damn good at building stuff underground. Of course, their nukes are about the size of a small house, but I know the Dear Leader won't be satisfied until they can plonk a nuke on top of a Taepodong.
Another use TLAM Strike is a denial of advance. Put nukes in fake houses along the north side of the DMZ, if the US or ROK advances north, set them off. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]()
Ten Taepodongs taped together? Heck, I'd pay to see that, the explosion would probably be bigger than the nuclear bombs (which would probably be a dud).
True, as a denial weapon I guess it would be rather limited, but then again in the media game, you've got to just inflict as much casualties as you can and last as long as you can until the US and EU media shows enough dead bodies coming home to set in war weariness. Pictures of mushroom clouds rising up over the DMZ, particularly if it's done on North soil, would make people question the decision to head north into the DPRK. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |||
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Quote:
There are going to be a lot of dead bodies but most are going to be North Korean. But then again there are a lot of people dieing in North Korea right now with no war. If the balloon goes up US and ROK response is going to be amazingly swift and deadly, by the time the amount of dead bodies makes the west queasy it could be over. We took out the Iraqi army in a month with almost nothing prepositioned, we have had 60 years to plan and stockpile for the North Korean Army. Now if the DPRK does do this, and some South Korean reporter digs up my assessment and sticks it on the news I'm hiding at your house Oberon. ![]() Quote:
|
|||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]() Quote:
![]() Now, even those problems aside, the DPRK is going to suffer extremely heavy casualties, however casualties on the Allied side might not be as light as you'd think, technology can only go so far and if the Koreans have learnt anything from the Vietnam war, then they will have plenty of roadside bombs and other traps as well as Korean undercover agents who stay behind in DPRK villages when the front line overtakes. Now, if the US public can be so divided over 629 average US soldier KIAs per year in Iraq (estimate), how many casualties will there be in a second Korean war? Now, the first Korean war put out 36,516 US KIA, over a three year period of fighting, so an average of 12,712 per annum. Now, this is a completely different war to the one that we would fight if it all kicked off today, for one thing, the DPRK has no arms parity with us, back in the last war they had T-34s and lots of them, and the ROK was hideously unprepared, and their leader a murdering lunatic. However, we pulled off the Incheon landing and kicked them back over the DMZ and went north, only getting pushed back when the Chinese got involved. Now, it's very unlikely the Chinese will get involved, the latest wikileaks indicate that they want a more stable government in Korea and reckon that a unified government under the ROK is that much more stable. So, we can march up to the Chinese border with no threat of the Chinese coming to meet us. That's good. However, casualties are still going to be at the level of or higher than the Iraqi war, that much surely must be certain, I mean, the DPRK may be years behind in technology but a bullet is still a bullet and a bomb is still a bomb. The Taliban is decades behind us in technology but they've still been damn hard to subdue. Perhaps the North Korean people will welcome us with open arms? But then...we thought that of the Iraqis didn't we? And the Afghanis, and yes, some did, but others welcomed us with AKs and IEDs. Now, there's religion behind that, yes, and nothing drives a crowd like faith, but Kims personality cult day in and day out over sixty odd years must be a powerful force of its own, particularly if it is enforced by DPRK loyalist commandos, perhaps hiding in China and using the Chinese border to operate over into the former DPRK, just like Afghanistan and Pakistan...but we can't bomb over Chinas border, China wouldn't like that, but China wouldn't like the Allied forces to get away completely scot-free with an invasion and occupation/liberation of the DPRK and would encourage the US to tie down more forces in Korea and overstretch itself. I do find it hard to believe that China would be happy with US forces that close to the Chinese border though...but likewise, the DPRK has been nothing but a continued annoyance. Unless China agrees to move in and take the north under its control when the war gets back to the DMZ, and then install a new more stable and easier to control government in Pyongyang...that's another idea. However, there is one other factor which none of us have brought in whilst discussing a resumption of the Korean war. The economy. Now, the Asian markets are on a fine line as it is, China is strong (ish), Japan is attempting to recover from the global slump which hit it so soon after the bubble burst, a resumption of the Korean war would smash the markets completely, and that's something China really does not need, and likewise America because if Chinas economy goes down the pan the America follows. Ok, America can pull itself out of the pan faster than China can, but it's still a side effect that's not going to be needed or wanted when coupled to news stories showing coffins draped in flags arriving back in airports in one shot, and market crashes and price rises in another. Basically, if it was as easy as some people make out, I'm confident that it would have been done already. Therefore, other factors must be in play which discourage both Democrats and Republicans alike (bear in mind that the DPRKs been an absolute ass since 1953) from finishing the Korean job. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]()
One thing I think we need to do is bring China in to this on our side. (Might be so difficult as some might think). After the huge air/missile/arty plastering the North gets drag them in to the UN (Korea is still a UN matter since the 1950 war) and demanded disarmament with Chinese forces compromising half the disarmament/peacekeeping force. China has a huge problem with people fleeing the DPRK in to China and ending up in all sorts of criminal activity (mostly against their will), and the North is providing WMDs and other weapons to nations in China's sphere of influence, and I doubt China wants that to continue. Their leadership must see that a unified and free Korea is in their best interests. Most of the Ideologues in the Chinese government are gone and they now mostly don't care that one nation is communist or not.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Navy Seal
![]() |
![]()
Well said, Oberon.
Much of the discussion has centered around scenarios where the U.S., the U.N., SEATO, or some other combination of some or all these, invades NK first. Given this then, yes, there will be as neat and clean an invasion as possible (I do agree with Oberon that a rear-guard/guerilla action would probably happen after the invasion). But what if NK strikes first? Remember, NK and its military is ruled by a family of fanatical madmen. If Kim Il-jong [or his son, an even bigger wildcard than his father] decides to invade SK, it will not be a classic military invasion to which the world has become accustomed. If Kim is in such a position that he feels he must invade, it will be full-force and savage. After all, in such a situation, he will have nothing to lose and he will probably choose to go down with one last hurrah. NK has a standing army of over 1.1 million with a reserve of over 4.7 million and they are all, relatively, in the same place, not spread over vast areas or in armed conflicts like the U.S. and its allies. An assault on SK would literally be the opening of the flood gates supported by armor, artillery, and air support going full-out (or in poker terms, “all-in”). Additionally, it has been long known that NK has placed operatives in SK with the purpose of not only spying on SK activities but to also actively sabotage or disrupt operations in SK, both military and civilian in the event NK invades. The amount of destruction would be immense before SK or its allies even had a chance to respond. As far as the troops, both SK and U.N. on the border are concerned; they are in a position akin to that of the NATO troops on the East/West Germany border. An Army friend of mine who was sent to West Germany during the height of the Cold War related how during the orientation the commanding NCO pointed across the border and told the troops the USSR troop and equipment outnumbered them by as much as 2:1 and that if war broke out, NATO troops in the area were basically done for. As pointed out by Oberon, sophistication does not always equate to superiority. NK missiles do not have to be the most modern or technologically advanced. Seoul is only about 30 miles from the DMZ, roughly the distance from the Civic Center of Los Angeles to Long Beach. The missile just has to get there, no more no less and that NK can do in first strike. What happens after the invasion will probably be the obliteration of Kim and his reign. China may not like NK and its current government but, I don’t see them getting chummy with the U.N. or the U.S. anytime soon. There is still a lot of ego in the Chinese government and they are very protective of the perception the world has of their place in international relations. There is still a strong sting of havng been second best to the U.S. and the West over the past century. Going in together with the U.N. with the U.N., and by extension the U.S., in the lead would be a bitter pill indeed. China would probably just deal with NK militarily on its own rather than being perceived as submitting to outside influences, much as it did with the slap down it gave Vietnam in the late 70’s. As far as the criminality and proliferation of WMD’s is concerned, after China takes out Kim, it all becomes a moot point. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Lucky Jack
![]() |
![]()
Agreed, working with China rather than against it is key here, but the question is, is the US willing to do that? They've had the knowledge for a while, after all, that the Chinese are irritated with Kim and yet they've seemingly failed to exploit it as fully as they should, instead choosing to send US carrier groups into the South China Sea and a frigate to Vietnam, both aimed at pushing at Chinas sphere of influence in South East Asia. I mean, I know there's the whole economic situation going on here, but if a prolonged war on the Korean peninsula breaks out, then China is going to lose as much as America in terms of the economy...more so in fact, so it's in Beijings best interests to work with the US on removing Kim, and they've admitted that a unified Korea under an ROK style leadership is the better and more stable option, and China likes stability, it can't handle instability at this point, so that's a key card to play in any talks with China, a long(er) war vs a short one and a greater Chinese say in the future of the Korean peninsula as opposed to having US and UN troops sitting on its border.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|