World War 3??

[jmorgan]

Jimbeaux said:

sneijder said:

I quite fancy the North to give it a go to be honest. Depends what the plan of action is. Would the world police push north of the border ? If not, they'll just be sitting there for years throwing things over the fence. If they do push north to dish up lots of freedom it'll be a ststorm. They'll be left with a pile of crap to sort that'll take years.

Rather than take years and bazillions of dollars to sort it out, I'd be tempted to sit it out for a generation, give as good as you get. When the Dear Leader is gone, I'm sure in not so many years they'll be coming cap in hand to the rest of the world.

It is the South Koreans, not "the world police" who have the vast majority of soldiers there. I wouldn't think a "push north" will be the order of the day as much as to stop the push south.

Why would anyone want to go North (as a first strike). Pointy sticks and guns aside the country will need financial aid after any action (could do with it now), population is indoctrinated and capital city is oop norf. They have been sitting there for years chucking stuff over the fence and under it.

[sneijder]

The south would want the north, surely.

Sitting this one out and playing the waiting game has to be the solution.

[Jimbeaux]

jmorgan said:

Jimbeaux said:

sneijder said:

I quite fancy the North to give it a go to be honest. Depends what the plan of action is. Would the world police push north of the border ? If not, they'll just be sitting there for years throwing things over the fence. If they do push north to dish up lots of freedom it'll be a ststorm. They'll be left with a pile of crap to sort that'll take years.

Rather than take years and bazillions of dollars to sort it out, I'd be tempted to sit it out for a generation, give as good as you get. When the Dear Leader is gone, I'm sure in not so many years they'll be coming cap in hand to the rest of the world.

It is the South Koreans, not "the world police" who have the vast majority of soldiers there. I wouldn't think a "push north" will be the order of the day as much as to stop the push south.

Why would anyone want to go North (as a first strike). Pointy sticks and guns aside the country will need financial aid after any action (could do with it now), population is indoctrinated and capital city is oop norf. They have been sitting there for years chucking stuff over the fence and under it.

That was my point.

[jmorgan]

sneijder said:

The south would want the north, surely.

Sitting this one out and playing the waiting game has to be the solution.

Aye, on paper. But not with the baggage there is now. They would have to spend to drag it kicking and screaming into this century. Marching in to get I think is not what they want to do. I bet they worry the day it peacefully ends up as part of them if that day ever happens.

[jmorgan]

Jimbeaux said:

That was my point.

Opsy. My bad.

[Jimbeaux]

jmorgan said:

Jimbeaux said:

That was my point.

Opsy. My bad.

No problemo. It is Friday after all, all is forgiven.

[Mr Dave]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axe_murder_incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductio...

Lunatics!

[eharding]

jmorgan said:

Whilst I am in no way suggesting the Chinese have or will or anything at all to do here, have they worked out how a Chinese sub popped up n the midst of a US exercise unannounced? Not paid attention after the initial news report.

A good friend of mine, who nowadays commands great big Boeings, as a lad joined the Royal Navy to Fly Navy - but then the Navy put him in a submarine instead, where he did very well.

I gather he was instrumental in pulling off the same feat - in this case a British submarine surfacing unannounced in the middle of an American carrier group as part of an exercise, which came as a very unpleasant surprise to the Septics - who had a massive sense of humour failure when it was explained to them where they had screwed up.

If the Seppos didn't take the lesson on board back then, it isn't a shock that Johnny Chinaman could exploit the same failing now.

That failing being they just don't know when to shut the feck up....even when they're trying to be silent.

[Alfachick]

Jimbeaux said:

Shaid GTB said:

sneijder said:

What I have seen though is that the US plough into your Vietmans and Afghanistans and get stuck with the local greengrocer and his AK47.

I think that sums it all up really. I really do not believe that the US will join in on this war. Can they even afford it?

Guys, the NK can be cutoff by air after their initial advance, no logistics and communications will be taken out. That huge army will be isolated and killed from the air. Other than the initial clash between the north and south line forces, surprisingly few troops will be involved here other than the North's. There is a very good chance that tactical artillery nukes would be used to halt the initial advance anyway. Part of the US battle plan for this contingency are five carrier battle groups; that means air intensive.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 26th November 01:16

Ummm, didn't the USA and SK think this the first time round? They destroyed the whole country and STILL the NK's did not bow to the pressure? Hence the mess we have now? It also goes a little way to explaining why the NK's hate the USA to such a fanatical degree.

Also didn't the USA think this in vietnam and how did that turn out?

Don't mean to pick on you Jimbeaux just pointing out the history

Also doesn't NK have quite a few underground bunkers etc etc? Infact I think they are famous for it...

[plasticpig]

North Korea may have the ability to launch a nuclear missile but the US have the ability to shoot a ballistic missile down. The 7th Fleet includes at least two ships equipped with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System. I would imagine one of them could well be sitting off the coast of South Korea.

[jmorgan]

Alfachick said:

Ummm, didn't the USA and SK think this the first time round? They destroyed the whole country and STILL the NK's did not bow to the pressure? Hence the mess we have now?

Excuse me nipping in here but you make it sound like the US and South Korea are to blame? Or is it me. The first time around the North started it and they had some serious backers.

[Alfachick]

jmorgan said:

Alfachick said:

Ummm, didn't the USA and SK think this the first time round? They destroyed the whole country and STILL the NK's did not bow to the pressure? Hence the mess we have now?

Excuse me nipping in here but you make it sound like the US and South Korea are to blame? Or is it me. The first time around the North started it and they had some serious backers.

Not trying to make it sound like the US started it at all. Just pointing out the history and the facts.

[CDP]

There are two things the Chinese don't want:

A collapse of North Korea leading to millions of refugees crossing over into China. Presumably a war would have a very similar effect, unless the NKs had the "security" of being backed by China.

A united Korea with US bases on their doorstep. Which is a very likely outcome of a war where NK is not supported by China. The Americans wouldn't really want to go too far north of the border as their experiences of expeditionary wars isn't good.

The sensible option would be a united neutral democratic Korea without US or Chinese troops but I doubt very much that will be achieved.

[jmorgan]

Alfachick said:

jmorgan said:

Alfachick said:

Ummm, didn't the USA and SK think this the first time round? They destroyed the whole country and STILL the NK's did not bow to the pressure? Hence the mess we have now?

Excuse me nipping in here but you make it sound like the US and South Korea are to blame? Or is it me. The first time around the North started it and they had some serious backers.

Not trying to make it sound like the US started it at all. Just pointing out the history and the facts.

Well, this is on my list of catchup in the book department but I though they sort of achieved a result with Chinese and USSR backing the NK forces were pushed back, although peace not achieved but that is I think mainly due to NK belligerent dictators who think they own the peninsular and the peculiar way of succession reinforces that.

[Alfachick]

jmorgan said:

Well, this is on my list of catchup in the book department but I though they sort of achieved a result with Chinese and USSR backing the NK forces were pushed back, although peace not achieved but that is I think mainly due to NK belligerent dictators who think they own the peninsular and the peculiar way of succession reinforces that.

What I was originally pointing out was that it might not be as easy as first thought to defeat the NK's from the air, as the SK's and US tried this in the 1950's. I think they 100% destroyed 80% of the countries cities and towns. Pyongyang was completely leveled. Yet still the NK's fought on.
Of course this was a response to the push south by the NK military, I never said it wasn't.

A good book to read on the subject is Bruce Cummings: 'North Korea, A Different Country'
Written by an American journalist, yet it has a fairly neutral viewpoint.

[Jimbeaux]

Alfachick said:

Jimbeaux said:

Shaid GTB said:

sneijder said:

What I have seen though is that the US plough into your Vietmans and Afghanistans and get stuck with the local greengrocer and his AK47.

I think that sums it all up really. I really do not believe that the US will join in on this war. Can they even afford it?

Guys, the NK can be cutoff by air after their initial advance, no logistics and communications will be taken out. That huge army will be isolated and killed from the air. Other than the initial clash between the north and south line forces, surprisingly few troops will be involved here other than the North's. There is a very good chance that tactical artillery nukes would be used to halt the initial advance anyway. Part of the US battle plan for this contingency are five carrier battle groups; that means air intensive.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Friday 26th November 01:16

Ummm, didn't the USA and SK think this the first time round? They destroyed the whole country and STILL the NK's did not bow to the pressure? Hence the mess we have now? It also goes a little way to explaining why the NK's hate the USA to such a fanatical degree.

Also didn't the USA think this in vietnam and how did that turn out?

Don't mean to pick on you Jimbeaux just pointing out the history

Also doesn't NK have quite a few underground bunkers etc etc? Infact I think they are famous for it...

Not quite. The first time around, these weapons systems did not exist. The NKs were indeed bowing down until all of China crossed the border to fight with them. The NKs have a reason to be angry? You might want to see who started that war.

[Jimbeaux]

Alfachick said:

jmorgan said:

Alfachick said:

Ummm, didn't the USA and SK think this the first time round? They destroyed the whole country and STILL the NK's did not bow to the pressure? Hence the mess we have now?

Excuse me nipping in here but you make it sound like the US and South Korea are to blame? Or is it me. The first time around the North started it and they had some serious backers.

Not trying to make it sound like the US started it at all. Just pointing out the history and the facts.

I understand, but you have some of your facts wrong.

[Jimbeaux]

Alfachick said:

jmorgan said:

Well, this is on my list of catchup in the book department but I though they sort of achieved a result with Chinese and USSR backing the NK forces were pushed back, although peace not achieved but that is I think mainly due to NK belligerent dictators who think they own the peninsular and the peculiar way of succession reinforces that.

What I was originally pointing out was that it might not be as easy as first thought to defeat the NK's from the air, as the SK's and US tried this in the 1950's. I think they 100% destroyed 80% of the countries cities and towns. Pyongyang was completely leveled. Yet still the NK's fought on.
Of course this was a response to the push south by the NK military, I never said it wasn't.

A good book to read on the subject is Bruce Cummings: 'North Korea, A Different Country'
Written by an American journalist, yet it has a fairly neutral viewpoint.

You are aware of certain advances in airpower from the 1950s to now, are you not?

[Mr Dave]

Jimbeaux said:

Alfachick said:

jmorgan said:

Well, this is on my list of catchup in the book department but I though they sort of achieved a result with Chinese and USSR backing the NK forces were pushed back, although peace not achieved but that is I think mainly due to NK belligerent dictators who think they own the peninsular and the peculiar way of succession reinforces that.

What I was originally pointing out was that it might not be as easy as first thought to defeat the NK's from the air, as the SK's and US tried this in the 1950's. I think they 100% destroyed 80% of the countries cities and towns. Pyongyang was completely leveled. Yet still the NK's fought on.
Of course this was a response to the push south by the NK military, I never said it wasn't.

A good book to read on the subject is Bruce Cummings: 'North Korea, A Different Country'
Written by an American journalist, yet it has a fairly neutral viewpoint.

You are aware of certain advances in airpower from the 1950s to now, are you not?

I think the biggest ptoblem facing the ROKAF/USAF is running low on PGMs like in Gulf War, Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan. Very easy to use up the limited arsenals of weapons and unlike dumb iron bombs new JDAMs and laser guidance jobbies take a while to make, Tomahawks and so on take a long while to make and the North has an awful lot of targets, with the terrain hampering use of certain weapons making it likely that weapons will be expended at a higher rate than seen in previous conflicts. Many of the bunkers and emplaced weapons will be difficult to destroy and when located where they are open up attacking aircraft to AAA fire which is pretty hard to defend against.

So yeah weapons have moved on but that is a bit of a problem in its own way where perhaps the US(and UK) forces are perhaps too advanced to counter some of the tactics and weapons used.

Again its a problem in as much that it will take a few days more and require more men, weapons and supplies than other recent wars. The outcome wont be changed at all!

Its things like the F22, amazing air superiority fighter but how does the composites fare against AAA, how quick to repair is it? FA18Gs and their jamming will be useless against manually aimed 27mm AAA so the old vietnam war way of "trolling" for AAA fire will have to be used and so on.

[Jimbeaux]

Mr Dave said:

Jimbeaux said:

Alfachick said:

jmorgan said:

Well, this is on my list of catchup in the book department but I though they sort of achieved a result with Chinese and USSR backing the NK forces were pushed back, although peace not achieved but that is I think mainly due to NK belligerent dictators who think they own the peninsular and the peculiar way of succession reinforces that.

What I was originally pointing out was that it might not be as easy as first thought to defeat the NK's from the air, as the SK's and US tried this in the 1950's. I think they 100% destroyed 80% of the countries cities and towns. Pyongyang was completely leveled. Yet still the NK's fought on.
Of course this was a response to the push south by the NK military, I never said it wasn't.

A good book to read on the subject is Bruce Cummings: 'North Korea, A Different Country'
Written by an American journalist, yet it has a fairly neutral viewpoint.

You are aware of certain advances in airpower from the 1950s to now, are you not?

I think the biggest ptoblem facing the ROKAF/USAF is running low on PGMs like in Gulf War, Iraqi Freedom and Afghanistan. Very easy to use up the limited arsenals of weapons and unlike dumb iron bombs new JDAMs and laser guidance jobbies take a while to make, Tomahawks and so on take a long while to make and the North has an awful lot of targets, with the terrain hampering use of certain weapons making it likely that weapons will be expended at a higher rate than seen in previous conflicts. Many of the bunkers and emplaced weapons will be difficult to destroy and when located where they are open up attacking aircraft to AAA fire which is pretty hard to defend against.

So yeah weapons have moved on but that is a bit of a problem in its own way where perhaps the US(and UK) forces are perhaps too advanced to counter some of the tactics and weapons used.

Again its a problem in as much that it will take a few days more and require more men, weapons and supplies than other recent wars. The outcome wont be changed at all!

Its things like the F22, amazing air superiority fighter but how does the composites fare against AAA, how quick to repair is it? FA18Gs and their jamming will be useless against manually aimed 27mm AAA so the old vietnam war way of "trolling" for AAA fire will have to be used and so on.

Excellent points.