|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: ajosshi.com
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| fermentation wrote: |
I just hope this isn't another excuse by the US to start another war. I'm always wary of these sorts of news.
| Julius wrote: |
Any strike on DPRK would bring down a massive barrage of artilery on Seoul.
|
I'm not so sure of that. They know that any sort of aggressive action on the scale would prompt a similar response. I'm assuming the North Korean leadership isn't stupid and knows what kind of capabilities the combined force of the ROK and US military has. They would be signing their death warrant. It's the same reason I don't believe they have the balls to use a nuke other than as a last ditch effort.
| ajosshi wrote: |
If the US did that, NK would target a US carrier with their nukes. |
That seems highly unlikely. A carrier can sit comfortable outside the range of NK theatre ballistic missiles. Even if they have long range capabilities, it's extremely difficult to hit a moving naval vessel, which is why it's such a big deal that China is making such a missile. This is also assuming they can spare the tactical nuclear warheads which they may not even have.
If you're talking about striking nuclear facilities, the US doesn't even need to send a carrier. They can send stealth fighters to do the job. I bet the Air Force would jump at the chance to finally use the F-22 in combat and justify it's ludicrous price tag. |
The chance of hitting is low, but NK won't sit back. They also have subs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ajosshi wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
So theyd launch thousands of missiles and a couple of Nukes at a carrier??
I'm not a war strategist, but something seems way off there.
As well, their ability to continue with said volleys would be in question after the first launch, no? Especially if a nuclear devise was in the mix. |
NK couldn't fire 1 or 2 and expect a hit. They'd likely be shot down.
200+ missiles fired at the same time would throw off any defense system. They'd merely be decoys to improve the odds for a nuke or 2 to strike.
NK nukes are at the ready. |
And you know this, how? |
1. Common sense. Any cop or military person will agree that any weapon you have needs to be ready to go. If not, you don't keep it.
2. I worked with people in intelligence. Still have family and friends that are active. |
Well then...if cops and your (K)CIA coworkers are saying that they KNOW the North's exact capabilities, who am I to argue. lol
Oh, wait, my best friend has an aunt who is married to a guy that delivers the laundry to the Blue House, and he said....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ajosshi
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: ajosshi.com
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
| ajosshi wrote: |
| Captain Corea wrote: |
So theyd launch thousands of missiles and a couple of Nukes at a carrier??
I'm not a war strategist, but something seems way off there.
As well, their ability to continue with said volleys would be in question after the first launch, no? Especially if a nuclear devise was in the mix. |
NK couldn't fire 1 or 2 and expect a hit. They'd likely be shot down.
200+ missiles fired at the same time would throw off any defense system. They'd merely be decoys to improve the odds for a nuke or 2 to strike.
NK nukes are at the ready. |
And you know this, how? |
1. Common sense. Any cop or military person will agree that any weapon you have needs to be ready to go. If not, you don't keep it.
2. I worked with people in intelligence. Still have family and friends that are active. |
Well then...if cops and your (K)CIA coworkers are saying that they KNOW the North's exact capabilities, who am I to argue. lol
Oh, wait, my best friend has an aunt who is married to a guy that delivers the laundry to the Blue House, and he said....
|
You are no one.
Let us know if you got any thing better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
As opposed to the wonderful sources you've provided?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ajosshi wrote: |
The chance of hitting is low, but NK won't sit back. They also have subs. |
Well that makes more sense than trying to hit a carrier with a nuke but those subs will be useless against a stealth aircraft.
I would also like sources that state NK nukes are ready to go at any moment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Julius wrote: |
Any strike on DPRK would bring down a massive barrage of artilery on Seoul.
I suppose at some point the sacrifice may be necessary if ROK finds themselves in an Iran-Israel type of scenario. But so far no evidence of a deliverable nuclear device. |
Any artillery strike on Seoul would result in the annihilation of the DPRK. This artillery strike has been threatened as a last ditch measure in the prospect of a full-scale invasion. They are not going to throw away their trump card and their lives over a strike. They will huff and puff and throw a tantrum. Maybe fire a few shots across the border. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TL
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just read these tweets by Steve Herman:
| Quote: |
| North Korea vows military "special action" soon against #ROK president Lee, his followers "including the conservative media." |
| Quote: |
| #DPRK TV broke into programming to make the special announcement. This is not one of those "routine" nasty threats from Pyongyang it seems. |
| Quote: |
| DPRK: Attack on #ROK will be carried out by "special operation action unit" under the military high command. #Korea |
| Quote: |
KCNA: #DPRK special military action group vows to "burn to the ground within 3 to 4 minutes" #ROK "group of rats and provocation sources." |
Seems odd to me. Has NK interrupted regular TV programming in the past to make threats? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sallymonster
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Location: Seattle area
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TL wrote: |
Just read these tweets by Steve Herman:
| Quote: |
| North Korea vows military "special action" soon against #ROK president Lee, his followers "including the conservative media." |
| Quote: |
| #DPRK TV broke into programming to make the special announcement. This is not one of those "routine" nasty threats from Pyongyang it seems. |
| Quote: |
| DPRK: Attack on #ROK will be carried out by "special operation action unit" under the military high command. #Korea |
| Quote: |
KCNA: #DPRK special military action group vows to "burn to the ground within 3 to 4 minutes" #ROK "group of rats and provocation sources." |
Seems odd to me. Has NK interrupted regular TV programming in the past to make threats? |
I'm scheduled to go on a DMZ tour this weekend. . . <gulp> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I believe North Korean artillery would pose a much greater problem than people think. Conventional wisdom is North Korea would get one or two volleys off and then their capabilities would be wiped out.
However, if you look at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, it gives an idea of how difficult it is to silence surface to surface weapons. Israel had the best military technology available. Hezbollah, a small militia, had no fighter jets, no bombers, no tanks, no helicopters, no surface to air missiles, or anything else to adequately defend itself.
Yet, at no point did Israel have any success whatsoever in limiting Hezbollah's ability to fire missiles at will into Israel. And the Israeli-Lebanese border is much smaller than the border between North and South Korea. Hezbollah is a primative fighting force compared to the North Korean military. Hezbollah won with an estimated fighting strength of 5,000 men. North Korea has an estimated 1,106,000 active personnel and over 8,000,000 reserve personnel.
It would not be the less than 48 hour victory we like to think it would be. And we can only speculate who would win and what the aftermath would look like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
I believe North Korean artillery would pose a much greater problem than people think. Conventional wisdom is North Korea would get one or two volleys off and then their capabilities would be wiped out.
It would not be the less than 48 hour victory we like to think it would be. And we can only speculate who would win and what the aftermath would look like. |
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Hezbolla was a guerilla type force that used home-made rockets for pot shots against targets in close proximity.
When people think of a NK vs SK conflict, most of us are thinking in terms of a defensive war. The objective for "victory" being repelling a NK invasion. Here, the problem NK artillery would pose is supporting fire for invading NK ground forces and the potential level of destruction on Seoul. In theory, they would be rendered ineffective by our more advanced anti-artillery radar/counter battery fire and air force.
In order to hit Seoul from North Korea, you need very large long range artillery systems, not home-made rockets. It's also a very different type of war. If we were trying to occupy North Korea and the North Koreans resort to guerilla warfare, you have a point. As far as beating back a North Korean invasion force, I think the ROK-US forces can acheive that "easily" enough.
If we go into North Korea (which would probably happen if they attack us) and try to win, that might be a different story depending on what kind of support the Norks get from China. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ajosshi wrote: |
The chance of hitting is low, but NK won't sit back. They also have subs. |
1. How many nuclear weapons do you think NK has? Especially taking into consideration that they can just waste them on attempting to take out a single ship.
2. How many tests/demonstrations has NK done that gives you any confidence in their long-range missile program?
3. If NK goes nuclear/chemical/biological, it gives the U.S. and ROK just cause to do the same. I cannot imagine the U.S. and/or ROK using those kinds of weapons first.
Someone mentioned China, but I don't think they are much of a concern. China is too big and too smart to support NK if they are the aggressor. The more likely scenario, and one backed by what was released by Wikilinks, is that if NK acts as aggressor, China will strengthen its border while striking a deal with the U.S. that states China will not aid NK as long as after the fighting is finished no U.S. troops are stationed above the 38th parallel. It seems pretty clear to me that the Chinese government has very little genuine love for NK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Reggie wrote: |
I believe North Korean artillery would pose a much greater problem than people think. Conventional wisdom is North Korea would get one or two volleys off and then their capabilities would be wiped out.
However, if you look at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, it gives an idea of how difficult it is to silence surface to surface weapons. Israel had the best military technology available. Hezbollah, a small militia, had no fighter jets, no bombers, no tanks, no helicopters, no surface to air missiles, or anything else to adequately defend itself.
Yet, at no point did Israel have any success whatsoever in limiting Hezbollah's ability to fire missiles at will into Israel. And the Israeli-Lebanese border is much smaller than the border between North and South Korea. Hezbollah is a primative fighting force compared to the North Korean military. Hezbollah won with an estimated fighting strength of 5,000 men. North Korea has an estimated 1,106,000 active personnel and over 8,000,000 reserve personnel.
It would not be the less than 48 hour victory we like to think it would be. And we can only speculate who would win and what the aftermath would look like. |
How successful we're those land to land attacks?
Not so much if my memory is right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fosterman
Joined: 16 Nov 2011
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
North Korea would do devastating damage to Seoul.
the war would be over with an American Victory of the North.
but the price for victory would be a destroyed Seoul with half of it's citizens dead! Seoul would be turned into ash! Seriously
North Korea would unleash hell on Seoul before North Korea surrenders.
every missile, every payload, every bomb, just one push of a button and 10's of thousands of rockets, bombs and what ever will be lighting up the night sky and turning Kangnam and Cityhall into a set from the flintstones!
I wonder if Korean mothers will pay more for English lessons then?
I mean I would guess 90% of the teachers and foreigners would be out of here, so the ones who remain could be charge 100+ an hour yeah? LOL
maybe take payment in gold? LOL you know there will be some ajumas who will still be trying to send their kids to school the next day after the war hahahaha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reggie
Joined: 21 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fermentation wrote: |
I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Hezbolla was a guerilla type force that used home-made rockets for pot shots against targets in close proximity.
When people think of a NK vs SK conflict, most of us are thinking in terms of a defensive war. The objective for "victory" being repelling a NK invasion. Here, the problem NK artillery would pose is supporting fire for invading NK ground forces and the potential level of destruction on Seoul. In theory, they would be rendered ineffective by our more advanced anti-artillery radar/counter battery fire and air force.
In order to hit Seoul from North Korea, you need very large long range artillery systems, not home-made rockets. It's also a very different type of war. If we were trying to occupy North Korea and the North Koreans resort to guerilla warfare, you have a point. As far as beating back a North Korean invasion force, I think the ROK-US forces can acheive that "easily" enough. |
You're thinking about the Palestinian group Hamas and its homemade Qassam bottle rockets. I'm talking about the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and its Iranian missiles.
During the war in 2006, Hezbollah rockets hit as far south as 45 miles inside Israel. Hezbollah fired thousands of various types of missiles into Israel during the course of the war and the Israeli military was totally incapable of eliminating or even reducing Hezbollah's ability to fire those rockets into Israel at will.
South Korea would be having to deal with a much stronger opponent than Israel fought and South Korea's defense technology and military commanders are probably inferior to Israel's.
| Captain Corea wrote: |
How successful we're those land to land attacks?
Not so much if my memory is right. |
Hezbollah ground troops accomplished their objectives on both sides of the border.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18389634/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/israel-report-blasts-olmert-over-lebanon-war/
From the article: The war erupted July 12 when Hezbollah guerrillas killed three soldiers and captured two others in a cross-border raid. In 34 days of fighting, Israel failed to retrieve the captured soldiers, destroy Hezbollah or prevent the group from firing thousands of rockets into Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This sounds more like the "all options are on the table" rhetoric that has become U.S. SOP since Bush. Plus reassuring SK and making NK aware that the U.S. has its eye on the ball.
Don't forget Romney has been trying to paint Obama as weak defense-wise and has been using his NK policies as one example. He's got to at least sound tough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
