If North and South Korea went to war ?

PatsytheNazi

If all out war ever broke out between North and South Korea would -

A) It be left to the two of them ( which I think unlikely) and what would be the outcome ?

At what level would it take before American/West get invovled and likewise the Chinese ( I presume the Russians with their new relations to USA would keep out ? )

C) What is the chances of chenical or even nuclear weapons been used ?

Here is some details on both countries :

South Korea - Population 49 Million
Active personnel 655,000 (2008)
Reserve personnel 3,040,000 (2008)
More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Armed_Forces

North Korea - Population 24 Million
Active personnel 1,106,000 *
Reserve personnel 8,200,000 *
More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army


* Both look a bit dodgy to me, but that's just an ameteur's opinion.

Delancey

Alas the artillery exchange early today moves the 2 countries closer to conflict.
My guess is that once North Korean forces crossed into Southern territory the U.S. would go into combat - given the fears about China getting involved I would be unsure if U.S./Southern forces would cross the 38th paralell ( ie. any war would be one of self-defence from the South and NOT a war of re-unification )

virmilitaris

Perhaps someone from here could go to this thread on the same subject in politics and answer an artillery related question ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056098328

I'll post the relevant part here just fyi.

From other thread;

The North has claimed that;

North Korean Military wrote:

"The South Korean enemy, despite our repeated warnings, committed reckless military provocations of firing artillery shells into our maritime territory near Yeonpyeong island beginning 1300 (0400 GMT),"

The South has admitted it did indeed conduct live fire exercises at that time but that the shots were pointed West, not North.

South Korea wrote:

"We were conducting usual military drills and our test shots were aimed toward the west, not the north,"

Now I'm not defending the North for one second but when I look at the map above and look at the situation I can't help thinking two things to myself;

1. Why do the South conduct live fire exercises right on the border ? It seems to me to be provocative.

2. Why did they fire the rounds off to the West ? One can clearly see that if they indeed fired directly west from the island shells could have fallen into the Norths maritime territory, effectively firing over the most militarised border in the world. I know very little about artillery but I'd assume that a strong breeze can change the trajectory significantly.

If the South did indeed fire into the Norths territory first by accident then was the response justified ?

Manic Moran

1. Why do the South conduct live fire exercises right on the border ? It seems to me to be provocative.

That's where the guns are, and where they're expected to fight from. You'll never get a drill better than one in the actual location. Such drills were routinely held near the Inter-German border by both sides during the cold war, but it never seemed to cause too much angst.

2. Why did they fire the rounds off to the West ? One can clearly see that if they indeed fired directly west from the island shells could have fallen into the Norths maritime territory, effectively firing over the most militarised border in the world. I know very little about artillery but I'd assume that a strong breeze can change the trajectory significantly.

Met conditions both at surface and at altitude are taken into account when calculating the firing solution. Barring human error (which happens, people transpose numbers or otherwise screw up sometimes), the round will be within about 100m even after flying 25 km. (Over two and a half minute's flying time, it's quite impressive a feat when you think about it). If there is a human screwup, it is very easy to determine where the round actually did land.

If the South did indeed fire into the Norths territory first by accident then was the response justified ?

The CCTV video on the other thread shows impact in a shopping area parking lot. Even if the ROK did have some rounds land on the other side of the maritime border, is shelling an urban area justified?

NTM

virmilitaris

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's where the guns are, and where they're expected to fight from. You'll never get a drill better than one in the actual location. Such drills were routinely held near the Inter-German border by both sides during the cold war, but it never seemed to cause too much angst.

Thank you. I didn't think of it like that. But I have a few more points and questions.

1. Surely It would be better to point the guns in a South-Westerly direction as opposed to due West ? I have no idea what kind of range they were firing at but if you look at the map you can see clearly that due west the peninsula seems to zig and zag a lot.

2. The Northern limit line has never been ratified by the two Koreas. The North claims their territory extends further South. I don't believe there was any such issue with the German borders during the cold war. Open to correction though.

Met conditions both at surface and at altitude are taken into account when calculating the firing solution. Barring human error (which happens, people transpose numbers or otherwise screw up sometimes), the round will be within about 100m even after flying 25 km. (Over two and a half minute's flying time, it's quite impressive a feat when you think about it). If there is a human screwup, it is very easy to determine where the round actually did land.

Indeed it does sound very impressive. But taking a look at the map again.



The blue line been the border that the South and the UN accept, the red line being the one that the North claims. It seems to me that it would be quite easy for a round fired from the island travelling due west to fall into the Norths waters even using the South's and UN's line.

Moran maybe you know because I don't but does the North also conduct such live fire exercises on the border ?

If they were to conduct such exercises with rounds falling close to or into the Souths maritime waters what would the response be ?

The CCTV video on the other thread shows impact in a shopping area parking lot. Even if the ROK did have some rounds land on the other side of the maritime border, is shelling an urban area justified?

In fairness while I fully accept that the South's artillery is quite accurate perhaps you are giving the North too much credit. From all accounts I've read the vast majority of their artillery hit a military base on the island with only a handful hitting an urban area.

Surely the Norths artillery is antiquated and their intelligence on coordinates unreliable ?

Could the rounds hitting the urban area have been accidental ?

Again I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to defend the North. I'm quite worried about recent events as I live quite close to where all this has taken place.

Orizio

What is the actual likelihood of war breaking out between both countries?

virmilitaris

Orizio wrote: »

What is the actual likelihood of war breaking out between both countries?

Remote. Both have too much to lose.

Victor

While both sides might claim the bay, I suspect a lot of it is actually international water.

Orizio wrote: »

What is the actual likelihood of war breaking out between both countries?

There are constant spats, with artillery or small arms fire exchanged a few times per year, every year, for more than 50 years. While this incident seems to be serious, by itself, I don't think it indicates anything.

There are other issues, the sinking of the ship and disagreements over the North's nuclear programme that are more serious.

Avgas

virmilitaris wrote: »

Surely the Norths artillery is antiquated and their intelligence on coordinates unreliable ?

Some of their weapons are old designs but still regarded as impressive-the 130mm guns in particular are of Russian origin and well noted for range. Enough are probably kept in good working order or have been modified. South Koreans would have better fire control technology without question, but we do not know enough about North Korean fire control technology-for elite artillery units it could well be much better than expected. Also their human intelligence on coordinates for fixed position might be also much better than is realized. They have had years to fix such coordinates and train the relevant crews.

The big issue is whether this is just a 'mistake', a 'communication escalation' to warn the west that the new Korean regime will have resolve/or they want more food/money as usual, or maybe it really marks some kind of longer term 'strategy of tension'.

Kingdom_of _oriel

My opinion would be that South Korea would use it's superior Air force to bomb the living crap out of North Korean military assests and for its naval forces to blockade the sea lanes. I doubt very much that China would take sides and risk engaging with the United States and her allies.
It is a scary prospect that Asia might be hotting up again. I wonder if Japan will now look to acquire the "bomb". I remember reading somewhere a few years back when North Korea announced it's Nuclear ambitions and test fired one of the Nuclear launch vehicles, Japan saying that it couldn't risk a nuclear armed North Korea threatening Japanese security.

Don Juan DeMagoo

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

My opinion would be that South Korea would use it's superior Air force to bomb the living crap out of North Korean military assests and for its naval forces to blockade the sea lanes.

Yep that really worked well in the past didn't it? As for the blockade.... aren't they already blockaded, or is that embargo I am thinking off?

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

I doubt very much that China would take sides and risk engaging with the United States and her allies.

I would think that your statement may be back to front, it is the United States and her allies who don't want engage with China.

Has China not already loaned major assets to the Western "Super Powers"

If all the present forces of Nato joined together, they wouldn't make a dent on the Chinese military. It should be noted that this is not the same force that just threw men at the allies in Korea in the 50's. You may say that the allies have superior technology, but how can you be sure. Just because they don't boast like Israel Europe and America about their technology doesn't mean they don't have it.

Why do you think North Korea acts the way it does, it knows China has to honour their treaty, if the west or South Korea incurs into the Norths territory. The North Koreans are all talk but they do really know their benefits. As for China they would seriously like to reform North Korea to their liking, but that would look like they are blinking to the west. So they will maintain the status quo as long as this buffer state (which is all that china sees it as) serves its purpose. Besides it gives China propaganda rights, telling their people that they are defending their communist brother neighbours from the imperial powers.

I would wish the Allies would reprimand South Korea if they ever try and launch exercise close to North Korea territory again. Sometimes I wonder if they are trying to provoke the North Koreans into action, thus dragging the allies into the fray.

Everyone realizes the North is a tyranny. But some times it is worth realizing that some battles aren't worth fighting. Trying to save 29 million north Koreans from abject tyranny could cost 10 times more lives.

On a final note, why would Japan need a nuclear deterrent, the west has thousands... What is one more going to do? In my opinion it is usually the isolated/insulated paranoid countries that look for nuclear arms. As a form of validity for their cause. So even if North Korea ever tried to launch a missile at Japan. By the time it lands North Korea would be obliterated from the map.

ReacherCreature

Orizio wrote: »

What is the actual likelihood of war breaking out between both countries?

Low. The amount of 'small scale' incidents such as the Choenen sinking and now this still make it a persistant issue. Without these and if nothing happened on the pennisula for the last fifty years there would be no chance but the recurring incidents make war a small possibilty.

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

My opinion would be that South Korea would use it's superior Air force to bomb the living crap out of North Korean military assests

After bombing 'the crap' out of North Korea, what about her, at max nine million ground troops? It's all well and good to cripple the North's defenses and military installations but you've to deal with the ground too. The North far overwhelm the South in terms of numbers.

It is a scary prospect that Asia might be hotting up again. I wonder if Japan will now look to acquire the "bomb".

Not totally sure. They keep relatively 'quiet' and are mainly defense orientated I think.

virmilitaris

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

My opinion would be that South Korea would use it's superior Air force to bomb the living crap out of North Korean military assests and for its naval forces to blockade the sea lanes. I doubt very much that China would take sides and risk engaging with the United States and her allies.

Unfortunately the days of that are long gone. China would never allow the US to come into North Korea nor even a US backed state like the South to come in. North Korea is a buffer between China and the US and it will not let it go.

If the US attacked North Korea with an aim to occupy it make no mistake, China would not allow it and would intervene and that's something that the US and it's allies really fear. China is more than a match for the US in conventional warfare.

Ping Chow Chi

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

If all the present forces of Nato joined together, they wouldn't make a dent on the Chinese military.

I agree with large parts of what you have said, but I find this quite strange, what do you base the above quote on?

virmilitaris

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I agree with large parts of what you have said, but I find this quite strange, what do you base the above quote on?

Perhaps he was talking about numbers as opposed to infliction of damage ?

Manic Moran

virmilitaris wrote: »

1. Surely It would be better to point the guns in a South-Westerly direction as opposed to due West ? I have no idea what kind of range they were firing at but if you look at the map you can see clearly that due west the peninsula seems to zig and zag a lot.

Two immediate reasons might come to mind.

Firstly, the location of the guns. If they're on the Northern part of the island (which would make sense, as it allows them to reach further into North Korea), then firing in a more Southerly direction would result in flying over the island. Firstly, this is going to be rather inconvenient for the locals, the arty makes a substantially louder 'boom' when it's pointed in your direction (ask me how I know). Secondly, artillery are known as 'dropshorts' for a reason. If there is a technical issue, such as some of the propellant charges failing to detonate correctly and the round doesn't travel as far as it was supposed to, you want as little as possible under the intended line of flight.

Secondly, the impact area. The ROK maintains a 'militarised zone' south of the Demarcation line a few miles deep that only military and specially authorised civilians can enter. If they were to fire more Southerly, they're going to end up in waters that are frequented by the ROK's fishing fleet. Certainly a Notice to Mariners could be put out saying 'don't be here at this time', but why go through the hassle or run the risk that someone won't read it when you have a part of the sea that you have exclusive access rights to that you can shell instead?

2. The Northern limit line has never been ratified by the two Koreas. The North claims their territory extends further South. I don't believe there was any such issue with the German borders during the cold war. Open to correction though.

This is true, but I think the DPRK is just going to have to deal with it.

It seems to me that it would be quite easy for a round fired from the island travelling due west to fall into the Norths waters even using the South's and UN's line.

Possible. That's assuming that they were aiming due West and not West by SouthWest or some other variation which the PR guy referred to as 'West' for simplicity's sake. He's not likely to announce "We fired at 4,200 mils grid" in a civilian press briefing.

Moran maybe you know because I don't but does the North also conduct such live fire exercises on the border ?

Such is my understanding.

If they were to conduct such exercises with rounds falling close to or into the Souths maritime waters what would the response be ?

The ROK would get the UN to write Kim a letter expressing how angry they are. Note that the ROK's President was very specific that it was the first artillery attack against the ROK's land since the Armistice, the implication being that there have been maritime incidents in the past but as they don't immediately come to mind, I presume they kindof fizzled out without escalation.

In fairness while I fully accept that the South's artillery is quite accurate perhaps you are giving the North too much credit. From all accounts I've read the vast majority of their artillery hit a military base on the island with only a handful hitting an urban area.

Surely the Norths artillery is antiquated and their intelligence on coordinates unreliable ?

Could the rounds hitting the urban area have been accidental ?

Insufficient data. We'd need to know the dispersion of the impacts and their locations relative to the base. The age of the artillery is fairly irrelevant, the ballistics of the systems have remained unchanged in decades. The big improvements in artillery technology have been in range, rate of fire, time-to-shoot (including both piece setup and ballistics calculation), time-to-scoot, and overall weight of the piece. If I may give an analogy, my bolt-action Lee Enfield rifle is heavier, more cumbersome, with a slower rate of fire and smaller magazine capacity than my modern semi-auto AUG, but that in no way means that when it does fire a round it's less accurate. It would still make an adequate sniper rifle today.

However, there are always variables. If only one or two rounds out of the 200 fired landed substantially outside the base but under the expected line of flight, it's quite possible there were just irregularities with the consistency of the charges, it happens. If, however, the rounds were well off in azimuth, only human intervention is likely to be the cause (barring incompetency at the firing end, such as unstable basing of the pieces).

Again I hope this doesn't sound like I'm trying to defend the North. I'm quite worried about recent events as I live quite close to where all this has taken place.

Reasonable enough. When my family lived in Songbuk-Dong I paid a lot more attention to the North Koreans than I did before! (I was in Seoul the day the Great Leader died, and the DMZ the day afterwards. That was a fairly tense time, as we had no idea what might happen, the military was on a higher state of alert)

NTM

Wolfe Tone

Quick question, how does artillery actually work? Is it basically a giant gun?

virmilitaris

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two immediate reasons might come to mind.

But even taking your reasons into account. It does seem unnecessarily provocative to me. Surely some other way could be devised to conduct these exercises when your neighbouring country whom you are not on friendly terms with asks you not to do it ?

I realise though that it's a fine line between this and appeasement.

Possible. That's assuming that they were aiming due West and not West by SouthWest or some other variation which the PR guy referred to as 'West' for simplicity's sake. He's not likely to announce "We fired at 4,200 mils grid" in a civilian press briefing.

No but surely he would have said West by SouthWest then ?

Such is my understanding.

I've never heard of it. Nor has it been mentioned in the recent news articles.

The ROK would get the UN to write Kim a letter expressing how angry they are. Note that the ROK's President was very specific that it was the first artillery attack against the ROK's land since the Armistice, the implication being that there have been maritime incidents in the past but as they don't immediately come to mind, I presume they kindof fizzled out without escalation.

Really ? From recent incidents such as the Cheonan I thought the two Koreas generally contacted each other directly.

Insufficient data. We'd need to know the dispersion of the impacts and their locations relative to the base.

So we can find this out from an investigation ?

Manic Moran

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Quick question, how does artillery actually work? Is it basically a giant gun?

Pretty much. The breech is going to be a slightly different design (sliding or screw block instead of tilting or rotating), different aiming systems (i.e. using ballistic tables, angle measurements and spirit levels vs iron sights or optics) and usually some form of recoil mechanism involving hydraulics vs none at all on a rifle, but ultimately it comes down to a round being loaded into the breech, pushed out, through the rifling, by expanding propellant gasses ignited by a primer.

Surely some other way could be devised to conduct these exercises when your neighbouring country whom you are not on friendly terms with asks you not to do it ?

That's a political question. From the military's point of view, drills in situ are the best course of action, and as long as we keep to our side of the line and you keep to your side of the line, we're all good.

No but surely he would have said West by SouthWest then ?

I'm speculating, but I presume he just wanted to emphasise that they were aiming somewhere other than at the DPRK land, and 'West' is good enough for PR work.

Really ? From recent incidents such as the Cheonan I thought the two Koreas generally contacted each other directly

Team America Fail.

Bottom line is that to my (admittedly not all-encompassing) knowledge the ROK has never shot back unless actually shot at or otherwise physically interfered with (such as rammed)

So we can find this out from an investigation ?

Theoretically, at least a reasonable speculation could be constructed. In actuality, I stongly doubt that the ROK military will release any maps with the impact locations superimposed on the base and surrounding environment. (Why tell the opposition how good they were?)

NTM

Don Juan DeMagoo

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

I agree with large parts of what you have said, but I find this quite strange, what do you base the above quote on?

Sorry yeah I meant the current standing army of China (even pre mass mobilization) of 2.3 million active troops. A rapidly improving navy and air force. From what I have been reading on the web, very strong anti air technology.

China is, if not one of the world leaders in industrial manufacturing. But again numbers can mean nothing sometimes, but I think this is the exception.

As Virmilitaris has stated the western powers presently have the technological upper hand (but that is changing rapidily).

Another point is that the western so called democratic countries would not let suffer the losses that had happened in the past, such as was the case in Stalingrad. So I would fear (I am only expressing my opinion though) that they would be more likely to try and nuke China into the last millennium. I recently finished a book on how they justified to themselves using the nukes on civilian targets at the end of the second world war, after they meticulously estimated how many loses they would sustain in invading mainland Japan. Scary mindsets..... OOPS I digress again;)

Anyhows there is no way that any western superpower would want to lock horns with the Chinese military today. Hence the reason why North Korea gets away with their rash actions. But that does not mean China fully supports North Korea and vice versa with South Korea and her allies.

In summation it is all posturing but on a grand scale. :rolleyes:

Kingdom_of _oriel

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Yep that really worked well in the past didn't it? As for the blockade.... aren't they already blockaded, or is that embargo I am thinking off? Quote]

Well what would you expect the Armed forces of South Korea to do? try and invade the North who have been building their military defences for the past 60 years? South Korean troops wouldn't stand a chance of crossing the border or of landing Marines without taking massive casaulties. By bombing key targets from the air and blockading any vessel that comes into North Korean waters, the South could effectively starve the North.


I would think that your statement may be back to front, it is the United States and her allies who don't want engage with China.

Has China not already loaned major assets to the Western "Super Powers"

If all the present forces of Nato joined together, they wouldn't make a dent on the Chinese military. It should be noted that this is not the same force that just threw men at the allies in Korea in the 50's. You may say that the allies have superior technology, but how can you be sure. Just because they don't boast like Israel Europe and America about their technology doesn't mean they don't have it.


For the U.S. and China to go to war it would spell the end to Chinas Western markets. The West and China need each other far more than China needs North Korea. I suspect that if push came to shove China would drop North Korea like a hot spud.

On a final note, why would Japan need a nuclear deterrent, the west has thousands... What is one more going to do? In my opinion it is usually the isolated/insulated paranoid countries that look for nuclear arms. As a form of validity for their cause. So even if North Korea ever tried to launch a missile at Japan. By the time it lands North Korea would be obliterated from the map.

Japan issued statements to the effect that they might acquire Nuclear weapons if North Korea threatened its security. I guess having two dropped on them in WW2 was a bitter reality of the destruction Nuclear weapons can cause.

Kingdom_of _oriel

virmilitaris wrote: »

Unfortunately the days of that are long gone. China would never allow the US to come into North Korea nor even a US backed state like the South to come in. North Korea is a buffer between China and the US and it will not let it go.

If the US attacked North Korea with an aim to occupy it make no mistake, China would not allow it and would intervene and that's something that the US and it's allies really fear. China is more than a match for the US in conventional warfare.

I doubt the U.S. would even want to occupy North Korea and you are right in that China wouldn't allow it to happen. But on the issue of South Korea coming in, would it not be better for China to have a stable Korea rather than a Korea under the constant threat of war?

Don Juan DeMagoo

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

By bombing key targets from the air and blockading any vessel that comes into North Korean waters, the South could effectively starve the North.

Nah the south are going about it all wrong. They are doing and making the same provoking gestures as they were at the end of the Korean war.
Provocative gestures and then getting a reaction from an insane tyrannical militarist dictatorship and then expecting all the western superpowers to come a running is a bit lame.

Why in the name of god would you run military exercises beside your enemies front line when still in a state of war...... with artillery? I myself personally think they were naive to expect no response.

Why do you think there was no serious world wide backlash against what the North Koreans did. The only thing I picked up by the media was it was an extremely harsh response by the North Koreans.

cyrusdvirus

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Nah the south are going about it all wrong. They are doing and making the same provoking gestures as they were at the end of the Korean war.
Provocative gestures and then getting a reaction from an insane tyrannical militarist dictatorship and then expecting all the western superpowers to come a running is a bit lame.

Why in the name of god would you run military exercises beside your enemies front line when still in a state of war...... with artillery? I myself personally think they were naive to expect no response.

Why do you think there was no serious world wide backlash against what the North Koreans did. The only thing I picked up by the media was it was an extremely harsh response by the North Koreans.

ROKS Cheonan

Does the Cheonan sinking not ring bells?

deise go deo

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Why do you think there was no serious world wide backlash against what the North Koreans did. The only thing I picked up by the media was it was an extremely harsh response by the North Koreans.

What would be the point, Kim dosent care about world opinion.

It would be the equilivent of scolding a serial killer for littering.

Victor

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

My opinion would be that South Korea would use it's superior Air force to bomb the living crap out of North Korean military assests and for its naval forces to blockade the sea lanes.

And then what? Its an already isolated country, cutting off its SLOc won't do much harm, especially as China (and possibly Russia) will support it across land.

And as if bombing did a whole lot of damage to the Yugoslav Army in Kosovo.

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

Well what would you expect the Armed forces of South Korea to do? try and invade the North who have been building their military defences for the past 60 years? South Korean troops wouldn't stand a chance of crossing the border or of landing Marines without taking massive casaulties. By bombing key targets from the air and blockading any vessel that comes into North Korean waters, the South could effectively starve the North.

By many accounts, it is already starving, what would you hope to deprive them of?

Don Juan DeMagoo

gatecrash wrote: »

ROKS Cheonan

Does the Cheonan sinking not ring bells?

Yep it does indeed, it was nuts. Surprising that the world leaders in the UN didn't do anything about it.

Just stay with me for a moment and don't get all mad.
Is it possible that despite what is said by the media and South Korea that it may have strayed onto North Korea's waters prior to when it was sunk. If the south Koreans or the UN were to release the ships course plan or satellite coordinates of the route of the ship, we would be able to totally verify that this was an undisputed act of war that not even China could disagree with.

I always try to reserve judgment until I know all the facts. The real truth these days can be distorted so easily by over zealous media and states.

Everyone knows that the North Koreans are messed up, but I believe that they need to sort it out themselves, which unfortunately takes a long time. I believe this, will have a far better outcome then the rest of the world invading them and telling them how to run shop.

As for a reunified state of Korea, that dog there ain't gonna hunt;)
Been to South Korea drinking teaching slurred English and lets say that even the youth weren't up for kissing and making up. There is still deep divisions going back generations, now does that remind you of anywhere in particular:D

virmilitaris

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Is it possible that despite what is said by the media and South Korea that it may have strayed onto North Korea's waters prior to when it was sunk.

North Korean waters according to who ? Take a look at this map (again).



The Blue line is the internationally accepted border line.
The Red line is the border that North Korea claims.

The Cheonan was sank up beside number 2 on the map. So it's quite possible they may have strayed into the Norths waters according to the Blue or Red lines, i.e. the International or North Korean accepted borders.

But I don't see your point. The North has claimed it had nothing to do with it, it didn't claim it sank it because it strayed into their waters.

Manic Moran wrote:

I'm speculating, but I presume he just wanted to emphasise that they were aiming somewhere other than at the DPRK land, and 'West' is good enough for PR work.

But I think this is an important point. Take a look at this (new) map.



You can see how the island couldn't be any closer to the line. You can also see how the line starts to drift south as we look to the west. And if you look at the larger map above you can see that the line continues to drift.

I think judging by these maps and the information we have that it is quite possible that the Souths rounds did fall into the Norths territory and I think it's something that we need to have a definite answer on regarding this situation.

Ping Chow Chi

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

Sorry yeah I meant the current standing army of China (even pre mass mobilization) of 2.3 million active troops. A rapidly improving navy and air force. From what I have been reading on the web, very strong anti air technology.

Well the US has standing military 1.5 million troops and Turkey has half a million troops, I would imagine that the rest of the nato allience would be over half a million troops, easy and I would imagine that NATO still has the techological edge. So to say the whole of NATO wouldn't dent China's military would be a little bit disingenuous (though how willing the whole of NATO is to fight someone like China is well open for debate)

They wouldn't fight over Korea though, as you say, the pain would far out weight the pain for both sides.

Don Juan DeMagoo

virmilitaris wrote: »

North Korean waters according to who ?

A North Korean Torpedo....
I would, if I cared for the security and safety of my men, have respected North Korea version of their international boundaries. it is well known they tend to be a bit trigger happy and aren't restrained by the usual burden of rules as engagement as every other military force in the world:p

Did they deny all knowledge, wow I am shocked:rolleyes:

I think judging by these maps and the information we have that it is quite possible that the Souths rounds did fall into the Norths territory and I think it's something that we need to have a definite answer on regarding this situation.

Well the definitive answer is that South Korea fired rounds into North Koreas waters. It does not matter to the north that it was in inhabited water, their response was to retaliate on the position that had fired into its territory and this is exactly what they did. As for the buildings being demolished.... did you see the sky reports. The village was built right on the base????

I think personally it was a harsh responce, but that does not change the fact that the north federation of looney nut jobs was this time justified in their responce. **** like this happens in the middle east practically every couple of months and no one questions Israels sovereign right to protect or to retaliate themselves.

Yet another face palm moment for the south I reckon:(

Don Juan DeMagoo

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

the US has standing military 1.5 million troops

Seriously? It has to be far less than that, they had mass recruitment issues the last time they decided to up the numbers of troops in Afghanistan. They were seriously stretched as a force on two fronts and this is with their allies assistance. I think the past two conflicts the USA has done more to show major weaknesses in their forces.
From a Neutral perspective, it would seem they can and are not willing to fight any extended or protracted war. Are seriously deficient with out large amounts of close air support and finally have fought no one since the Korean war that was even remotely comparable.

Kingdom_of _oriel

Victor wrote: »

And then what? Its an already isolated country, cutting off its SLOc won't do much harm, especially as China (and possibly Russia) will support it across land.

Well if it came to war, what would you have the South do! Would you expect South Korean forces to invade and occupy the North? That scenario would be extremely costly to the South, I doubt that the North would care about man power or civilian losses. South Korea would have to hope that the Northern Civilian population would have had enough and rise up against the Government and by bombing strategic targets that the military would capulate. I honestly couldn't see another workable solution, anything else would be sucidal.

And as if bombing did a whole lot of damage to the Yugoslav Army in Kosovo.

Well if NATO forces were able to occupy Kosovo then the bombing campaign did work, as did Iraq. The bombing campaign destroyed the conventional Iraqi Armed Forces, however an Aircraft cannot hold ground merely denigh a convential ground force of its use.


By many accounts, it is already starving, what would you hope to deprive them of?

Food, Amunition and anything else, as cruel as it sounds to attack South Korea.

Don Juan DeMagoo

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

I doubt that the North would care about man power or civilian losses. South Korea would have to hope that the Northern Civilian population would have had enough and rise up against the Government and by bombing strategic targets that the military would capulate. I honestly couldn't see another workable solution, anything else would be sucidal.

That quote scares me to be honest. Any incursion would be received with stiff oppisstion.

Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan were over rated mass incursions that had no possible international fallout for the allies. They could do as they pleased as they had mass airpower from the start.

Iraqs armed forces didn't even have proper communication systems between their tanks, their airforce was long since redundant since the first gulf war. They had no sincere support from their neighbours as Saddam was a reviled figure in the middle east. Lets put this one to bed now please, hardly a great treat/opponent to the allies. I am speaking of Iraqs military not the subsequent civil unrest.

Kosovo was a joke, if you are trying to use them as an example of a military force, you are sadly mistaken. They were nothing more than a well armed highly motivated militia, who got decimated by Natos superior forces.

I am confused about Afghanistan, can you actually classify the Taliban as an army. i would have thought that it was more a tribal/feudal guerrilla force. What airforce do they have.... none.
This war will not be regarded well by history. After the eventual exit of the allies the Taliban will probably become even more dominant power in the area, which is not great for the people of Afghanistan at all.

Think long and hard about strikes against North Korea, because the cost of victory may be just too much.

Do you think starving the general population will force them to revolt? Will if this is true why have they not revolted already, because they are already practically starving. But the military are not, nor is the ruling elite.

I am tired of this constant Sabre rattling. The best action we in the west can do, is to do nothing. Stand back and let the north korean people take bake what is theirs. Only if the north tries to move against the south would there be stern united actions actions against the north.

And Finally..... no more military exercises of any kind by the south off the Norths territory. Muppets..... with live artillary..... utter muppets

Manic Moran

North Korean waters according to who ?

Don Juan DeMagoo wrote: »

A North Korean Torpedo....

A well-regarded and internationally accepted form of border demarcation, I am sure.

I would, if I cared for the security and safety of my men, have respected North Korea version of their international boundaries. it is well known they tend to be a bit trigger happy and aren't restrained by the usual burden of rules as engagement as every other military force in the world

Here's the thing. The military's job is not to stay safe. It's to carry out national policy, usually in dangerous situations. As the saying goes, to be a good soldier, you must love the Army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of that which you love. Whether or not Cheonan's commander was taking the appropriate measures to detect and avoid a torpedo is a question I don't know the answer to, but is a separate issue from location.

Well the definitive answer is that South Korea fired rounds into North Koreas waters.

It is a definitive answer, all right, but I have seen nothing to indicate that it is an accurate answer.

The village was built right on the base????

Have you seen how close Cathal Brugha Barracks is to Dublin city?

Seriously? It has to be far less than that, they had mass recruitment issues the last time they decided to up the numbers of troops in Afghanistan

You may want to go Googling for phrases like "US military meets recruiting goals". Especially with the economy as it is, more people are looking to the military as a stable job.

I also disagree with your position on the US's 'mentality'. I would agree that there is no support for another expedition with ill-defined or unclear goals against a hard-to-define enemy. There would be much less opposition to the fulfillment of the US's long-standing commitments to an ally.

Well if NATO forces were able to occupy Kosovo then the bombing campaign did work, as did Iraq

Not necessarily, it only implies that the ground campaign, or threat thereof, worked. The bombing campaign is well known to have a limited effect on the Serb military.

Only if the north tries to move against the south would there be stern united actions actions against the north

To what extent? Commando insertions by mini-sub? An assault against the Blue House that kills the South Korean President's wife and some staff? Building tunnels under the border? The North has a long history of moving against the South, and the UN has a long history of not doing a hell of a lot anyway. That's why the DPRK believes, so far correctly, that it can shell an ROK island or sink a corvette and generally get away with it.

NTM

Don Juan DeMagoo

Well said Manic Moran, I was akinda trying to play devils advocate (badly). Just bugs me how a little country of no great significance in the world, could potentially drag the rest of the world into its mess.... again

Quote:
North Korean waters according to who ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Juan DeMagoo
A North Korean Torpedo....

A well-regarded and internationally accepted form of border demarcation, I am sure.

I laughed so hard, was wondering who would pick it up

Manic Moran

A couple of piccies. Score one for enclosed artillery pieces.







Info from Korean sites:

According to various ROK press and blog accounts: official source said a unit w/ 6 K-9 155mm SPH's on Yeonpyeong-do returned fire. They had a counterbattery radar. Some sources said TPQ-36, but the official source didn't specify the type [edit: press acounts from months ago confirm AN/TPQ-36]. Both radar info and 'other' info (visual, previously known locations?) was used. 80 rounds were fired. The NK fire in turn, besides killing the two ROK Marines and injuring other servicemen and civilians, and damaging civilian property, seemed mainly aimed at the K-9 unit's position. One K-9 was hit by a dud and another suffered damage to its FCS, presumably from fragments; but both were returned to action quickly. There were two NK barrages a couple of hours apart, the first a 'TOT' barrage by many guns which was not detected in advance, a source of comment in ROK press/blogs. The K-9's had been firing their normal monthly practice that morning (the NK's had sent a telex demanding it stop, their pretext for the attack). This (the positioning of the guns, and radar) was given as one reason the K-9's took around 13 minutes to return fire.

-Updates:

- 2 of the 6 K-9's were facing north toward NK shore; both suffered 'electronic malfunction' at the beginning of the NK attack and didn't fire. One press account specifically credited fragments from NK shells, but quote from defense ministry official didn't mention that.

- 4 of the K-9's were facing south west for their regular firing exercise. One of those went out of action during the exercise from 'misfired shell jammed in the barrel' quoting official, not lucky (for NK) hit by lucky (for SK) dud as an earlier report seemed to say.

Computer animation (sortof) of events at this news site.
http://imnews.imbc.com/replay/nwtoday/article/2746647_5782.html

NTM

virmilitaris

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11856454

Yonhap also reported that South Korean troops on Sunday accidentally fired an artillery round into the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) that divides the nations. Seoul quickly sent the North a message saying it was an accident, the news agency said.

Doh.

That's .. eh .. well not good.

Manic Moran

As long as it didn't land on the NK side, shouldn't cause too much bother, mind.

NTM

PatsytheNazi

Kingdom_of _oriel wrote: »

Well if it came to war, what would you have the South do! Would you expect South Korean forces to invade and occupy the North? That scenario would be extremely costly to the South, I doubt that the North would care about man power or civilian losses. South Korea would have to hope that the Northern Civilian population would have had enough and rise up against the Government and by bombing strategic targets that the military would capulate. I honestly couldn't see another workable solution, anything else would be sucidal.

What would anyone expect the South Koreans to do ? Their hardly going to stand around and let the North's tanks etc roll in and willingly be taken over by one of the most repressive regiemes in the world :rolleyes: Before posting, maybe you should have taken in some of the stats of the OP -

South Korea - Population 49 Million
Active personnel 655,000 (2008)
Reserve personnel 3,040,000 (2008)
More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republi...a_Armed_Forces

North Korea - Population 24 Million
Active personnel 1,106,000 *
Reserve personnel 8,200,000 *
More http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

* Both look a bit dodgy to me, but that's just an ameteur's opinion.

PatsytheNazi

More than 80% of South Koreans believe their military should have hit back harder after North Korea last week launched a deadly artillery strike, a poll showed. In case of another North Korean provocation, 40.6% favour military retaliation calibrated to avoid all-out war, while 33% are willing to risk war to deliver a strong military response, the survey found.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1129/korea.html

troposphere

America should have pulled the troops out of S. Korea years ago. They should have just continued to supply S. Korea with weapons and expertise much in the same way we do with Israel.

Now if a war broke out with our troops already being there we are going to end up in the fight and if we are involved in the fight there is always the chance (even if remote) that China would feel the need to get involved.

Now say if we had no troops there and a war broke out, China could continue to supply the North and we could continue to supply the South.

What is the worst that could happen? The South could kick the hell out of the North and China would be much less threatened by a United Korea without a US presence, or the North could overrun the South and be left with 50 million people that have lived in a democracy for the last 50 years. Somehow I do not think the North would be able to control the population in the South whereas the opposite would probably occur if the South was able to overrun the North.

It could also end in a bloody stalemate with hundreds of thousands of dead people but the same could apply if the US and China were directly involved in the fighting.

The way I see it is that the North actually uses the US presence in the South to their advantage. It helps them keep the Chinese on their side cause the Chinese do not want a United Korea with US troops on their border and they use it to their advantage with the Americans because they know they can do basically what they want because the Americans know with their troops being there that they would get pulled into a war that they do not want.

PatsytheNazi

Things certainly hotting up in Korea. It's certainly looking dangerous to me. If it did kick off and American was invovled, obviously America has huge military forces but even it has it's limitations. Would it put a strain on the rest of the US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places around the world ?

" South Korea has threatened to bomb North Korea if it tries a repeat of last week's artillery attack that killed four people. "
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1203/korea.html

the_syco

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11909581

"If North Korea provokes again, we will definitely use aircraft to attack North Korea," Mr Kim said when asked how he would respond to another attack.
He also criticised his predecessor, saying the military should not have ignored intelligence reports suggesting an attack from the North was likely.

More military leeway

Kim Tae-young was forced to resign just days after the bombardment of Yeonpyeong island, amid criticism that the military's response was too slow and too weak.

Kim Kwan-jin, a retired general and former head of South Korea's joint chiefs of staff, told his confirmation hearing that he would strengthen the military's rules of engagement, to give more power to the head of the military.
He said he would also give more leeway to commanders in the field to determine the level of response to attacks.

I wonder how much of a kneejerk reaction the local "commanders in the field" will have when their home town is bombed, and how much "leeway" they'll have?

Manic Moran

Would it put a strain on the rest of the US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places around the world ?

In the short term, yes, there would be grumbling from some troops as what would likley happen is that forces in Afghanistan and Iraq would end up there for the duration whilst other units are sent to Korea instead of to replace them, and then get all the fun. The grumblers would be the ones stuck in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Quoting a poster on another forum, in response to a claim from some chap that the US military is too tired to be interested in another war...

He hasn't been exposed to the special insanity that is the Corps. I guarantee that in 48 hours all the Marines in Okinawa will be in their dinghies rowing their way to Korea should the call arise

He's pretty much on the mark. American soldiers aren't keen on the idea of a Korean War Redux, it doesn't take a genius to know it would be very unpleasant, but on the other hand, if it does start up again, damned if they're going to want to be kept out of it.

NTM

johngalway

What are the North Korean air defenses like? Their radar system, presumably they have a whole heap of Anti Aircraft guns and no small number of Russian/Soviet/Chinese missile systems? Plus what ever air force, though I imagine they would not be getting many hours of air time per year.

concussion

In 1991 the Iraqi AD net was supposedly the strongest in the world; it didn't stand up against Coalition SEAD. I know that's nearly 20 years ago, but I don't think that NK has any modern long range/theatre AD. The SA-5's they have are powerful, but 1960's technology.

Gneez

johngalway wrote: »

What are the North Korean air defenses like? Their radar system, presumably they have a whole heap of Anti Aircraft guns and no small number of Russian/Soviet/Chinese missile systems? Plus what ever air force, though I imagine they would not be getting many hours of air time per year.

From what I've read the north has something in the region of 13,000 anti-air emplacements littered around the country in addition to 20,000 artillery pieces and this.



Bear in mind though a lot of those tanks are t-62 variants which are cold war era, and they even have ww2 era t34-85's in service, and most of their submarines (40) are based on the ww2 era German type XXI electroboat which is woefully outdated today and the other 30 submarines aren't much more advanced. Their fighter craft are also cold war era MiG variants. Iran has a much more advanced military than North Korea and much more advanced AA defenses.

PatsytheNazi

Gneez wrote: »

From what I've read the north has something in the region of 13,000 anti-air emplacements littered around the country in addition to 20,000 artillery pieces and this.



Bear in mind though a lot of those tanks are t-62 variants which are cold war era, and they even have ww2 era t34-85's in service, and most of their submarines (40) are based on the ww2 era German type XXI electroboat which is woefully outdated today and the other 30 submarines aren't much more advanced. Their fighter craft are also cold war era MiG variants. Iran has a much more advanced military than North Korea and much more advanced AA defenses.

That's amazing stats. Ok I know both states have vastly greater populations that us, SK - 49 Million, NK - 24 Million, and NK's technology is to quite a degree of the Cold War era, but it really shows what a drop in the ocean Ireland is.

johngalway

PatsytheNazi wrote: »

That's amazing stats. Ok I know both states have vastly greater populations that us, SK - 49 Million, NK - 24 Million, and NK's technology is to quite a degree of the Cold War era, but it really shows what a drop in the ocean Ireland is.

SK makes stuff, useful stuff at that, therefore it's important to people. People who are important in themselves.

Ireland shuffles papers, therefore is expendable.

Moral of the story? Make useful stuff for important people!

Gneez

johngalway wrote: »

SK makes stuff, useful stuff at that, therefore it's important to people. People who are important in themselves.

Ireland shuffles papers, therefore is expendable.

Moral of the story? Make useful stuff for important people!

It's a shame that our greatest export is that muppet bono