|
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 |
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
 Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: NK vs US |
 |
|
| Quote: |
"Washington is considering launching a preemptive attack on the North's Yongbyon nuclear plant."
|
http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20050511/610000000020050511190203E2.html
Ahem...  I do wonder who we have to worry about: The US or North Korea. I don't want to be caught in the middle of a freakin' war! If there was a war here, it would be the most difficult war the U.S. has fought in ages. Defeating a million man army is not as easy as some of the posts on this message board claim. The U.S. has gotten away with lots, but do you really think it could get away with killing millions with neutron bombs? This war would have millions of casualties on both sides. If NK was prepared to fight back, they've got their share of problems crossing that DMZ, but it could eventually happen (the number of underground tunnels are still a mystery). If North Korea captured Seoul, it would be very scary, especially if NK brought a nuclear weapon with them they could use as a bargaining chip: "don't attack us, U.S., or we destroy Seoul." That seems the NK style to me.
I think this situation in Korea is much more serious than the media is playing it, or common people realise. It's an example of how the world is becoming a very dangerous place; will this kind of scenario always take place when a small nation develops nuclear energy/weapons?
If North Korea were to attack, it's most likely it would be due in response to a U.S. strike on one of their nuclear facilities. The North Koreans would not likely attack first, because they would want it to look like the U.S. was the instigator. They would first launch as many missiles as they could at the nearby U.S. bases, then try to "secure" South Korea from the "evil" U.S. "imperialists," "saving" the South Koreans. It is likely South Korea would be caught in the middle of this, and be forced to fight back against North Korea.
How would North Korea invade the South?
| Quote: |
A furious debate has been raging among intelligence, military, and national security experts. Will North Korea attempt to militarily invade South Korea? And if so, how will they try to do it?
The official view of the Clinton Administration is that North Korea will not attempt a suicidal attack against the South. On the other hand, there are several experts and analysts that say the North will attack -- in the near future.
South Korean forces are taking the threat seriously. In March, they went on their highest state of alert in recent memory. Every evening soldiers rake the beaches along the South Korean shoreline -- not to just keep the beaches clean, but to see if there were any infiltrators entering the country via the coastline in the middle of the night. Footprints in the sand could be a warning of a breakout of hostilities.
There is one thing that all of the experts agree upon, and that is that no one really knows what is going on in North Korea. Just about any good analyst can provide justifications for why North Korea should not invade, but it's not certain if North Korea, itself, is even aware of the reasoning. The North Korean government and its motivations remain shrouded in a cloud of mystery behind the Demilitarized Zone that has existed now for four decades.
There are many possible explanations why the North Koreans may launch an invasion of the South; what's not known is which of these reasons may be correct. What is known is that the economy in the North is in ruin. Floods have ruined crops and agriculture is in a dismal state. Food and other essentials may be in short supply. Economic isolation of North Korea by the West has negatively impacted the economy and their exports are often restricted.
Aside from trade with other rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, and Libya, North Korea has few legitimate trading partners. Some experts think that the North Koreans might launch an attack in a desperate gamble to avoid economic collapse. That gamble may lead to negotiations with the U.S. that could, in the end, lead to a formalized peace treaty and normalized political and trade relations. But if that's the end goal-wouldn't it be easier to go another route other than war?
General Gary E. Luck, the commander of U.S. forces in South Korea told Congress in March, "We worry that in a very short period, this country will either collapse or take aggressive actions against the South in a desperate attempt to divert attention from its internal situation. It is entirely possible that the leadership in Pyongyang is not, or will not remain, cohesive enough to make rational decisions."
INVASION METHODS
Even though there is a lot of disagreement about whether or not the North Koreans will invade, there is a lot of agreement about how they would do it.
The first step, in all probability, will be that the North Korean Army would send its special forces into many areas of the South. Military experts say that many of these Special Operations Force (SOF) units would infiltrate far fr om the front lines. The 80,000-strong force would arrive via boats, submarines, hovercraft and light planes. This is the reason why the South Koreans rake their beaches every night.
The North Korean special forces would attack South Korean and U.S. command posts, communications centers, and supply depots. They would try to destroy and damage military aircraft and generally create chaos in the South. These special forces units, as in most armies, comprise some of the best troops in the North Korean Army.
While the special forces were launching their attacks, it is expected that North Korean artillery and short-range missiles would open up. The artillery would be targeted against key South Korean and U.S. forces and the capital of Seoul, which is located only 30 miles south of the border.
Next, masses of North Korean tanks and trucks would pour across the border. Of course the South Koreans have always expected this and have constructed very intricate defenses for this eventuality. Anti-tank ditches, concrete walls and other barriers woul d force the North Korean tanks into narrow "killing zones" where the defenders of the South would focus their firepower.
But the North Koreans also know about these defenses and have figured out other ways to get their troops across the border. Most likely, the North Koreans would use underground tunnels to move their troops into the South. The South Koreans have discovered four of these tunnels, one as deep as 450 feet below the surface. Even though four of the tunnels have been discovered, it is believed that the North Koreans may have 20 more such tunnels at their disposal. These tunnels are very important to the overall invasion plan. Some experts believe that the four discovered tunnels were capable of allowing 10,000 troops per hour to enter South Korea.
Other defenses that the South Koreans have established may include explosives already built into strategic sections of bridges and roads. Built above key roads are very large rock fields that can be explosively triggered, sending giant boulders to block roads necessary for travel to the South.
The North Koreans have also built formidable river crossing units, as water does block any number of access routes into the South. Intelligence sources have indicated that the North has built 2,300 pre-fabricated sections of bridge and has more than 600 amphibious vehicles at its disposal. The South Koreans can be expected to use the natural terrain to maximum advantage in their defense.
Military experts say that the North Koreans would try a blitz-krieg-type attack to capture the capital of Seoul. They would try very hard to accomplish their military objectives before United States reinforcements can arrive from Japan, the U.S. and Europ e. Many experts told ERRI that missile attacks on U.S. air bases and forces in Japan could be expected. It is believed that North Korea has a few nuclear weapons, but it is not certain how they might be delivered. What is more e xpected is a chemical weapons attack-North Korea reportedly has several tons of chemical weapons in their stockpile.
One U.S. military expert, who fully expects that the North will invade the South, said "I think you would probably see the first major use of chemical agents since World War I. If they were to decide to depopulate Seoul before taking it, they could probab ly do it with very little defense on our part." At least one military expert says that "Tokyo-style" subway poison gas attacks and other sabotage efforts could proceed an actual assault on the South.
Just about all of the military experts interviewed said that the United States and South Korea could quickly establish air and naval superiority over the North. While it might take some time to then decimate ground units, superior allied firepower and tec hnology practically assures the eventuality. In the end, North Korea would be destroyed.
The scenario outlined above is not much different than what happened in 1950, when the Korean War broke out. One difference today is that the South Korean military is no longer a pushover, and the South Koreans are backed by about 35,000 U.S. troops. Many more allied troops and planes are stationed only a short distance away in Japan. Another difference could be, and not all analysts agree with this assessment, that China would not come to the aid of the North Koreans, as they did during the Korean War. Relations between North Korea and China are not described as overly cordial at the present time.
Again, many experts say that the North will not invade because it would be "suicide" for them. But, other experts say, the North may think that the risk is worth it. Said one national security analyst in the U.S., who believes that the North will invade t he South, "The problem is not that North Korea can defeat us, but that they think they can." In their self-imposed isolation, the North Koreans may be suffering the delusion that they can actually win a conventional war against South Korea and the United States.
"The situation for the regime in North Korea is not sustainable, because their economy and their agriculture are continuing to get worse and worse, and then they had those horrible floods last summer," Colonel John Reitz, the spokesman for U.S. military f orces in South Korea, said. "The end for that regime is in sight. We just don't know when."
Last fall, the North Koreans repositioned heavy artillery and aircraft closer to the border. One group of North Korean bombers can reach Seoul in approximately six minutes. That doesn't allow much warning. On the other hand, North Korean military exercise s have been at a low levels recently. U.S. intelligence sources say no unusual troop movements have been observed.
Last Thursday in Singapore, Gen. John Shalikashvili, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a news conference that the tension on the Korean peninsula was the greatest security concern currently in Asia. "That's probably the security issue o f most concern to us. Certainly, Korea is an issue that requires careful watching because of those massive conventional forces that are in such close proximity to each other and the conditions of the economy that we read about in North Korea. It is a bot hersome issue that we need to watch, without being alarmist about it," the four-star general said.
Will the North invade the South? Most experts and analysts tell ERRI that it will probably happen at some point in time. They say that the North Koreans may believe that they have few other logical alternatives. If it does happen, they predict that it wo n't be as easy as the 1991 Gulf War. The experts say it will be a difficult, demanding, and bloody conflict. The bodies on both sides will pile up. Most professional warriors tell ENN that they pray that there is a diplomatic resolution to the increasing tensions in Korea, but that they will be prepared for a military solution should one become necessary.
|
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nk-army.htm
Who will win the war? Well, there won't be any winners per se after everyone is peeking out of the rubble... but everyone can agree, the U.S. wouldn't be alone on this one... the world would be outraged at a NK strike on peaceful Japan & South Korea. Nobody can predict if NK would have much success in this war, a good post is here by Rapier on the subject: http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=36052
Not exactly World War III, but pretty damn close... 
I didn't mean to scare you with some of those above posts, but come on, we do live in a pretty dangerous place if you think about it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: NK vs US |
|
|
A very recent article called "War With North Korea: Possibility or Reality?" More food for thought here. 
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=225753&rel_no=1&back_url=
| Quote: |
As the North Korean nuclear situation worsens, all sorts of "rumors" are circulating.
There are many unconfirmed or dubious reports such as rumors of a North Korean nuclear test, a U.S. preemptive strike on the North, or a Chinese suspension of food shipments to the North.
Some of these rumors make "possibility" appear as "reality," glossing over the intrinsic nature of the issue.
The rumors, which for the most part are spread through the U.S. and Japanese media quoting unnamed U.S. administration officials, appear to be strongly intended to internationally isolate North Korea and rationalize the U.S. hard-line position.
The U.S. has been trying to create a structure of confrontation with the North, either 5 on 1 with the North on one side and South Korea, the U.S., China, Russia and Japan on the other, or 2 of 4 with the North and China on one side and the other participants on the rest.
The rumor being discussed the most is the one of an impending North Korean nuclear test. There's been a flood of reports, and it's almost as if the test were an established fact.
On April 22, the Wall Street Journal reported rumors of preparations for an underground nuclear test, and the New York Times reported on May 6 that the tunnel construction in the North Korean town of Kilju was similar to the tunnel built by Pakistan for its nuclear test in 1998. On the same day, the AP, quoting a Japanese Self-Defense Agency official, said it had obtained information suggesting North Korea was preparing to test a nuclear device.
On Monday, the Chosun Ilbo quoted a key Korean affairs official at the Pentagon as saying North Korea was advancing its preparations to the point that it could test a nuclear device by mid-June, and it was possible that a nuclear warhead was placed in the suspected tunnel.
Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told CNN in an interview Sunday that it appeared North Korea was preparing for a nuclear test. On the same day, former CIA acting director John McLaughlin said he wouldn't be surprised even if North Korea conducted a nuclear test. He added that it would be a more surprising development if the North, as its next move, chose to test a long-range missile.
North Korean nuke test reports an 'established fact'?
The Japanese press contributed to this trend. The Mainichi Shimbun reported Monday that Park Hyon Jae, the vice head of the North Korean Foreign Ministry think tank "Disarmament and Peace Research Institute," made statements to visiting Japanese Korea researchers hinting at a nuclear test.
Despite the flood of reports, the rumors of North Korean preparations for a nuclear test point to just a "possibility," not a confirmed fact. The sources of many of the reports are U.S. administration officials. One cannot rule out the possibility that the reports are an intentional play.
Former Minister of Unification Jeong Se Hyun appeared on Pyeonghwa Broadcasting on April 25 and said rumors that the North Korean nuclear issue would be submitted to the UN Security Council and North Korea would test a nuclear device were "calculated moves by the U.S. to pressure Korea, China and Russia, and China in particular, into getting North Korea back to the six-way talks."
Dr. Kang Jeong Min of the Seoul National University's Nuclear Energy Policy Center said, "If North Korea were to test a nuclear device in Kilju, North Hamgyong Province, it would seem the radiation would fall into the East Sea. But looking at the reports concerning Kilju in the local and foreign press, it's hard to judge their veracity just from the reports themselves."
Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said Monday about reports North Korea was preparing for an underground nuclear test, "They (the reports) haven't been confirmed, and we aren't at the stage where we can say for certain whether the reports are true or false."
The New York Times said Sunday that there were instances when some officials in the Bush administration used conclusions concerning intelligence to pressure the White House into adjusting its policy directions. Accordingly, it said, some of the North Korea-related intelligence, such as the rumors of a nuclear test, could be exaggerations or distortions.
Japan's Asahi Shimbun said Monday that rumors of an impending nuclear test could be intentional exaggeration on the part of North Korea or fabrications on the part of the U.S. government.
Tragedy brought by U.S. strategy of ignoring NK
On Aug. 17, 1998, the New York Times reported that North Korea was constructing a large underground nuclear facility in Kumchang-ni, Daegwan County, located about 40 kilometers northwest of Yongbyon. Because of this, serious tensions were sparked between the U.S. and North Korea. Ultimately, two direct inspections of the area by the U.S. revealed that the report wasn't true.
The biggest problem with the rumors of a nuclear test is a lack of analysis of the essential reasons why the situation has deteriorated to this point.
North Korea has said its development of nuclear weapons is for self-defense and has demanded the U.S. drop its hostile attitude toward Pyongyang. The U.S. has ignored the North's demands, however, and used the six-way talks as a framework in which "there's dialogue, but no agreement."
Even when the North declared on Feb. 10 that it possessed nuclear weapons and it would indefinitely suspend its participation in the six-way talks until the U.S. adopted a sincere attitude, Washington dismissed Pyongyang's claims as "for use in negotiations," "a strategy to boost its self-worth" and "an attempt to draw attention."
Ultimately, the next step in the progression was for North Korea to show off its nuclear capacity in a way "that you could see it with your own eyes," said Dr. Kang. "Among nations that have successfully tested high explosives, there's never been a case in which a nuclear test has failed. North Korea is known to have already conducted more than 100 high-explosive tests during the 1970s and 1980s."
Baek Hak Sun, head of the Sejong Institute's center on inter-Korean relations, said, "The U.S. has pursued as its goal not the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but regime change in North Korea. In this situation, North Korea thought the only way to stop this from happening was to possess nuclear weapons."
Rumors of a U.S. preemptive strike on North Korea have also cropped up. On Friday, U.S. broadcaster NBC reported that the U.S. had already drawn up an emergency operational plan calling for preemptive strikes on North Korean nuclear facilities to stop a possible nuclear test.
The report said the Pentagon has put U.S. B-2 stealth bombers and F-15s deployed to Guam and Diego Garcia on alert since September so that if a contingency plan to take out North Korea's nuclear facilities is put into motion, those aircraft could bomb North Korea at any time.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on May 2, "The United States maintains significant -- and I want to underline significant -- deterrent capability of all kinds in the Asia-Pacific region." Her statement was interpreted as meaning that the U.S. could at any time retaliate against North Korea.
Meaning of rumors that China will 'give up' on the North
These rumors of a preemptive strike are a strong warning and threat to North Korea from the U.S. They suggest that just as Israel attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, the U.S. could cleanly take out only what it needed to through a "surgical strike."
The talk of a preemptive strike may have been to warn North Korea not to do anything that might worsen the situation, but the rumors have in fact greatly increased tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
Yet even if the U.S. were to limit itself to bombing only the nuclear facilities, a full-scale situation would erupt on the Korean Peninsula. Because of this, for the U.S. to turn a preemptive strike from a "possibility" to "reality," there are many things to consider, the first of which is the lack of U.S. fighting strength.
On May 5, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers said in a closed-door report submitted to Congress that an aftereffect of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was that U.S. troop strength, equipment and weapons were exhausted, greatly limiting the U.S. military's ability to carry out a war.
What draws attention are reports that China would start to directly pressure North Korea. The Washington Post reported Saturday that China was considering placing all sorts of import restriction on the North, including food, as a way to pressure North Korea to return to the six-way talks.
If China were to place economic sanctions on North Korea, it would constitute such great pressure that the Kim Jong Il regime would find it difficult to survive. There were observations that had China cooperated in an economic blockade of North Korea during the nuclear crisis of 1994, the North Korea regime wouldn't have lasted nine months.
There is much debate, however, over whether China would naturally put pressure on the North. Many experts say China would rather tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea that see it collapse and U.S. influence work its way all the way up to the Yalu River.
One diplomacy and security expert said, "There are constant rumors coming from the U.S. administration claiming China was begin to put pressure on the North Korean regime. This is intended to show off how isolated and pressured North Korea is and to draw South Korea [to support certain policies]."
He added, "The problem is that the Roh Moo Hyun administration, which has almost no idea what North Korea intentions are with communication channels to the North completely shut off, could come under the influence of talk emanating from the U.S. that China may give up on North Korea and as a result get swept up into hard-line U.S. policies toward Pyongyang."
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
suwonteacher
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Hwaesodong
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scary stuff. I'm living a mere 40km from NK. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wintermute
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| suwonteacher wrote: |
| Scary stuff. I'm living a mere 40km from NK. |
Can't you make your inane comments on something that is actually current? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is Suwon actually 40 km from the DMZ?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Very annoying, especially on the CE forum - I actually started reading the thread for a minute before noticing the date of the OP. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually the US presence has never been here to defend against NK as NK is actually not a threat to the US.
NK lost the war, China brought it to a stalemate and then made an agreement that allowed NK to still exist.
In all fairness SK could defeat NK. would it hurt? of course.
But NK would end, China has always been the defender of NK just as the US has been the defender of SK against the Chinese.
China still defends NK, are you saying that if NK collapsed tomorrow SK wouldn't move in? Take over and deal with the cost through loans.
They would accept China taking over? (HELL NO)
I looked at a map showing Suwon, wondered what was wrong with it and realised it showed Suwons position in regards to where it is in all of korea not just the south.
If thats a government map, then you can be sure that SK expects one country some day and so do I. China proves every day by thier support of NK concentration camps that they should never have a major role in the world.
Before you quote the US issue to me, forget it (I am not an american) and I am not thier greatest supporter either. Though it doesn't justify Chinese support of NK because the US might do it.
Though lets be honest, NK and SK both offer the same wage to teach english, which do you want to work for? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tefain
Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Location: Not too far out there
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| caniff wrote: |
| Very annoying, especially on the CE forum - I actually started reading the thread for a minute before noticing the date of the OP. |
Agreed. Pulling up the old stuff can be mildly entertaining, but not on CE please. |
|
| 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
