|
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 |
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:58 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
You may not like Steelrails' tone, but that doesn't make him incorrect.
Capability of forces and weapons systems is well known.
The only real unknowns for the above are to do with the latest American systems. In Gulf War it came as a surprise to me at least to see bombs dropped down airshafts.
The Geography of Korea is well known.
The advantages and disadvantages of possible courses of action that each side may take is reasonably well known.
Kim Jong Eun's best interests are reasonably well known.
His intentions, and the current power balance within North Korea are not.
That's about it really. Nothing else to discuss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EZE
Joined: 05 May 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
We don't know who is correct or incorrect in this thread because it's all just speculation. It's anyone's guess how long a Korea War II would last or what the outcome would be.
The thing that I'm tired of is arguments that sound like the optimistic ones before Afghanistan and Iraq. Before Afghanistan, pessimists were ridiculed and asked questions like, "Don't you think Mullah Omar would trade his equipment and manpower with the US military's in a heartbeat if he could?" Before Iraq, pessimists and skeptics were ridiculed when talking about the difficulty in Afghanistan and were told, "But Iraq will be a lot different. Afghanistan is a guerrilla war, but Iraq will be an easy conventional war." And the optimists were right about it being an easy conventional war...until the war evolved because the enemy adapted and would not give up.
It's not as predictable as 2+2 equalling 4. There are many, many important variables such as determination, the willingness to make sacrifices, and so on. There are many, many unknowns. There's a lot of talk about math and numbers, but we can only speculate how many dead GIs the American people would accept before pulling out. We can't do the math because we don't know the number. We don't even have a clue. We don't know how a possible war in the Middle East or a terrorist attack in the USA could affect our commitment in Korea.
We know very little. Maybe the war would last less than a week. Maybe it would grind on for over a decade. We just don't know, so we should stop pretending like we do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
Please don't counter realistic estimations with equally improbable defense fantasies that the CFC is going to be able to stop all DPRK forces with little effort or loss of life.
|
Good post. I agree. This was just released by NBC news:
| Quote: |
How would North Korea attack?
Probably with a massive ground assault backed by artillery fire. That's because North Korea's standing military, according to the best U.S. and U.N. intelligence assessments, is the fourth largest in the world, at 1.1 million members. South Korea's, by contrast, is about 690,000 strong.
That ratio � a manpower superiority of roughly 3-to-2 for the North � is remarkably consistent across calculations of the countries' weaponry, too. By about the same proportion, the North has more tanks, more artillery, more planes, more ships, more missiles.
In a 2008 report commissioned by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress depicted North Korea as, in essence, one giant military installation. |
| Quote: |
So if a traditional assault is unwinnable, what are Kim's options?
Very scary ones.
The Center for International Studies and Research, a nonpartisan French research agency, calculated in October that the North can deploy "a full array of what are typically described as weapons of mass destruction" � one of the biggest chemical and biological stockpiles in the world at 2,500 to 5,000 metric tons, mostly tabun (a nerve agent) and mustard gas.
In a technically secret process, South Korea is believed to have told the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that it had destroyed its chemical weapons in 2008.
And then there are North Korea's own nuclear weapons � the real wild card in the deck.
U.S. officials and other researchers say, North Korea may already have a few dozen warheads that could be fitted atop its vast fleet of ballistic missiles. They're fully capable of hitting targets in Japan, South Korea or elsewhere in the northern Pacific, the officials said.
Kim may be bluffing, as his father and grandfather did before him. But those weapons mean he must always be taken seriously. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cabeza
Joined: 29 Sep 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EZE wrote: |
The thing that I'm tired of is arguments that sound like the optimistic ones before Afghanistan and Iraq. Before Afghanistan, pessimists were ridiculed and asked questions like, "Don't you think Mullah Omar would trade his equipment and manpower with the US military's in a heartbeat if he could?" Before Iraq, pessimists and skeptics were ridiculed when talking about the difficulty in Afghanistan and were told, "But Iraq will be a lot different. Afghanistan is a guerrilla war, but Iraq will be an easy conventional war." And the optimists were right about it being an easy conventional war...until the war evolved because the enemy adapted and would not give up.
|
Aye? I can remember very, very few analysts (at least who didn't have a political axe to grind) that thought either of those campaigns would be easy. Anyone could see that the conventional "battles" would be done with in weeks. It was always going to be the nation building/counter-insurgency that was going to be the problem. As has been the case.
I remember the word "quagmire" coming up consistently pre-both of those wars. Who, outside of the idiot neo-cons who had their own world view, was ever optimistic about Iraq or Afghanistan?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
"Don't you think Mullah Omar would trade his equipment and manpower with the US military's in a heartbeat if he could?" Before Iraq, pessimists and skeptics were ridiculed when talking about the difficulty in Afghanistan and were told, "But Iraq will be a lot different. Afghanistan is a guerrilla war, but Iraq will be an easy conventional war." And the optimists were right about it being an easy conventional war...until the war evolved because the enemy adapted and would not give up.
|
Again, please stop with the ignorant comparisons.
Afghanistan and Iraq are both highly fractured, heterogeneous tribal societies with a variety of ethnic groups and religious factions. In the case of Afghanistan the Afghan Army was barely a regular force, more so a government militia that had already been waging a back and forth guerrilla conflict. In the case of Iraq we're dealing with shifting alliances and ethnic groups with historical connections to various neighbors, including one, the Kurds, who want to form their own independent nation.
This is a completely different demographic and political situation from North Korea. North Korea has no major religion, it has no ethnic divisions, it has no persistent guerrilla conflict, it has a single neighbor which it shares its ethnicity and language with and one that hopes for reunification on both sides (albeit under vastly different means). While the lines dividing Korea are made from recent power brokerings, the historical area of Korea is relatively well defined.
Now, certainly one could say that a guerrilla conflict might ensue in North Korea, with various warlords taking to the mountains and such. That is a fine argument to make, but has no bearing on the "Seoul turned into a sea of fire" or "130,000 commandos on the beaches of Jeolla".
| Quote: |
| It's not as predictable as 2+2 equalling 4. |
But what 2+2=4 does allow us to do is to rule out possibilities that are mathematically impossible.
Again our "lack of information" doesn't change the fact that every self-propelled 155~170mm artillery piece around the world has a predictable range and rate of fire.
And unless you are a blathering idiot, you don't believe in things like some massive 300mm artillery gun suddenly emerging from Dr. Kim's mountain.
Saying "We just don't know" is being intellectually lazy. It's not bothering to do things like calculate figures of what would be necessary and measuring distances, rates of fires, researching historical military actions and such.
Is that what we're supposed to do? Throw our hands in the air and just say "We don't know, maybe some smart guy in the Pentagon does, but we can't have the slightest idea".
| Quote: |
| We just don't know, so we should stop pretending like we do. |
Again, my posts are not so much about predicting what WILL happen its about dismissing the stuff that clearly cannot happen.
Instead of just saying "We don't know and there is no way we can", why don't you try to seriously educate yourself about the subject at hand. Say spend, 200 hours reading up on military history and how military operations are executed and another 200 on current military systems.
You might reach far different conclusions if you were to do so.
| Quote: |
Probably with a massive ground assault backed by artillery fire. That's because North Korea's standing military, according to the best U.S. and U.N. intelligence assessments, is the fourth largest in the world, at 1.1 million members. South Korea's, by contrast, is about 690,000 strong.
That ratio � a manpower superiority of roughly 3-to-2 for the North � is remarkably consistent across calculations of the countries' weaponry, too. By about the same proportion, the North has more tanks, more artillery, more planes, more ships, more missiles.
|
A person with some critical thinking skills might wonder, why S. Korea, with twice the population and 40X the GDP, in addition to spending twice the percentage of its budget on the military as North Korea, has fewer numbers. Are they insane?!?!?!?! Of course not. It's clear that they retain such a qualitative, as opposed to quantitative edge, over the North that what they have is sufficient to deter attack.
Most of that numerical advantage in manpower would be offset for two reasons- South Korea would be on the fortified defensive, and would be able to focus its entire military along the DMZ. North Korea on the other hand would be on the attack (attacks typically need a historical force ratio of at least 3:1 assuming equal quality and capability, more so if there is a decrease in quality). In addition, North Korea would not be able to deploy its entire forces as it would have to keep significant reserves to deal with A) Refugees at the Chinese border B) Possibility of internal upheaval and C) Forces held in reserve to deal with a potential amphibious assault.
As for the difference in numbers in terms of tanks and planes, the qualitative difference is staggering. 4/5ths of its air force is wretchedly obsolete. The equivalent of taking off in a Sopwith Camel against a P-51. Likewise for its tanks.
Please, do some research before falling for that hype.
| Quote: |
The Center for International Studies and Research, a nonpartisan French research agency, calculated in October that the North can deploy "a full array of what are typically described as weapons of mass destruction" � one of the biggest chemical and biological stockpiles in the world at 2,500 to 5,000 metric tons, mostly tabun (a nerve agent) and mustard gas.
In a technically secret process, South Korea is believed to have told the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons that it had destroyed its chemical weapons in 2008.
And then there are North Korea's own nuclear weapons � the real wild card in the deck.
U.S. officials and other researchers say, North Korea may already have a few dozen warheads that could be fitted atop its vast fleet of ballistic missiles. They're fully capable of hitting targets in Japan, South Korea or elsewhere in the northern Pacific, the officials said.
Kim may be bluffing, as his father and grandfather did before him. But those weapons mean he must always be taken seriously.
|
Well, one can never rule out the use of WMDs, especially by a desperate regime facing defeat. What is clear is that the use of WMDs, especially biological agents, would have massive diplomatic consequences for North Korea, involving most likely the immediate entry of China in a regime change operation and potentially the use of American nuclear weapons (though this would be unlikely as the Chinese would move in and make it difficult for the US to deploy them without risking injury to Chinese troops).
I think some posters here don't really grasp how serious the use of WMDs is diplomatically. Ever since the collapse of the USSR, the global order has been pretty clear- no overt use of WMDs. There's a reason an Assad regime facing a serious struggle has not engaged in mass chemical warfare, unlike Iran & Iraq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cabeza wrote: |
| Who, outside of the idiot neo-cons who had their own world view, was ever optimistic about Iraq or Afghanistan?? |
I think a lot of people were. Initially, the majority of the American public was supportive of both.
War is too hard to predict. The Libyan conflict was supposed to be over in "days, not weeks", yet the Gaddafi forces held on for many, many months, all the while with the best aircraft in the world helping the rebel side. That was a surprise. Analysts had not expected that. (Not sure about Syria, as I haven't been following that story closely, but I remember a lot of experts a while ago saying it was almost endgame for the regime. They are still in power, more than two years later after the uprising began.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OneWayTraffic
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the invasion of Poland went pretty much as expected, WT.
And the Invasion of Berlin did as well.
We're talking a qualitative edge at least as big as the quantitative edge was back then.
Warfare is unpredictable. But only between equals. An M1 Abrams equivalent vs a twenty plus year old tank is about as easy to predict as the All Blacks vs Japan in rugby. Ditto for the air battle.
I just don't see any currently realistic scenario where NK even gets close to defeating the South, without destroying itself as well.
If America decided to remove the regime in NK they could do it in a week. 30 minutes if they don't care about killing 22 million people. It's like saying the Civil War was unpredictable. It wasn't. The North fought that battle with one arm behind its back. If the South had won more battles then out comes the other hand.
NK is like that. It's only unpredictable because we are rightfully squeamish about killing people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The North fought that battle with one arm behind its back. If the South had won more battles then out comes the other hand.
|
A Shelby Foote fan I see. Nice!
| Quote: |
I think a lot of people were. Initially, the majority of the American public was supportive of both.
|
The American Public asks you if you're going to teach in North or South Korea and thinks Iranians are Arabs. The American Public doesn't even know the difference between a semi-auto and a selective-fire rifle. The American Public couldn't pick out a MIG-25 from an F-15.
Who gives a crap what they thought?
| Quote: |
| The Libyan conflict was supposed to be over in "days, not weeks" |
Who in the world thought that in a country the size of Libya? Some idiot/shill (many shills know the real truth and are certainly not idiots) on CNN? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Message sent out by American Embassy (they don't see imminent threat):
The U.S. Embassy informs U.S. citizens that despite current political tensions with North Korea there is no specific information to suggest there are imminent threats to U.S. citizens or facilities in the Republic of Korea (ROK). The Embassy has not changed its security posture and we have not recommended that U.S. citizens who reside in, or plan to visit, the Republic of Korea take special security precautions at this time. The U.S. Embassy takes as its highest priority the welfare of American citizens in Korea. Should the security situation change, the Embassy will issue updated information.
We urge U.S. citizens to keep in regular contact with family and friends. U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad are encouraged to enroll in the Department of State's Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), to receive the latest travel updates and information and to obtain updated information on travel and security issues. We encourage you to read the Emergency Preparedness Section of the Embassy website. You can also get global updates at the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs website where you can find the current Worldwide Caution, Travel Warning, Travel Alert, and Country Specific Information. Follow us on Twitter and the ACS Seoul page on Facebook as well, or you can download our free Smart Traveler App, available through iTunes and the Android marketplace to have travel information at your fingertips. U.S. citizens without Internet access may register directly with the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consulate. By registering, U.S. citizens make it easier for the U.S. Embassy or Consulate to contact them in case of emergency...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atwood
Joined: 26 Dec 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RTeacher, that message was sent before the news of North Korea being found to have been moving missile launchers to the East Coast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lots of blathering by steelrails on here.
Seems that much of it is incorrect, from where I'm standing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
Lots of blathering by steelrails on here.
Seems that much of it is incorrect, from where I'm standing. |
How and why? In detail please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hiamnotcool
Joined: 06 Feb 2012
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| OneWayTraffic wrote: |
You may not like Steelrails' tone, but that doesn't make him incorrect.
Capability of forces and weapons systems is well known.
The only real unknowns for the above are to do with the latest American systems. In Gulf War it came as a surprise to me at least to see bombs dropped down airshafts.
The Geography of Korea is well known.
The advantages and disadvantages of possible courses of action that each side may take is reasonably well known.
Kim Jong Eun's best interests are reasonably well known.
His intentions, and the current power balance within North Korea are not.
That's about it really. Nothing else to discuss. |
I disagree, there is a lot to discuss. North Korea is always up to some kind of mischief and that is why the world is always paying attention to North Korea. It's a dangerous situation so it needs to be continuously observed and caution needs to be taken whenever it seems like it is teetering on the brink. There will always be intellectuals trying to go against the grain talking about how it isn't a threat, how the outcome is so obvious there is no reason to worry, and how the whole situation is a joke. Then there are the people that don't have the luxury of debating in coffee shops and classrooms. They actually have to make sure these things don't get out of hand. Forgive them for being on the safe side and overestimating N Korea's capabilities (if that is what they do) to make sure North Korea doesn't ever come close to shifting the balance of power in it's favor. As weak as it is, it is already killing South Koreans. So yes, right now USA and S Korea have the advantage, but a lot of that is because they aren't listening to the SR of the world that tell them to chill out and quit worrying about things. They have maintained that advantage through not letting up for a day and not underestimating N Korea. Anyone living in South Korea should acknowledge there is always a possibility something bad might go down.
I only listed 7 things that have to be maintained to keep North Korea at bay. There are plenty of more. I'm not getting into an argument about firepower, tactics, or strategy because I accept that I don't have the necessary information to analyze them. One article that is available to the general public like Nautilus isn't enough to determine that North Korea isn't a legitimate threat to Seoul. I'm not saying people should panic and go home or anything like that, but they should know what the plan is in case something happens. It may be nice to call people alarmists or idiots, but in my opinion this isn't the type of situation where people shouldn't be watching the news or just getting the occasional update on what is going on.
According to SR the former 1st Special Forces Group Commander in Korea is a guy that can barely read powerpoint and only cares about getting funds for cool shiny equipment his boys can play with. If that's the case then we really are screwed. |
|
| 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
