Potential International Response to an Outbreak of Hostilitiles in Korea
This is a discussion on Potential International Response to an Outbreak of Hostilitiles in Korea within the Geo-Strategic Defense forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Given the recent events of the last year and the heightening of tensions on the Korean Peninsular, it is envisioned ...
Potential International Response to an Outbreak of Hostilitiles in Korea
Given the recent events of the last year and the heightening of tensions on the Korean Peninsular, it is envisioned that this thread will allow the mature discussion and or opinions of various Nations to an outbreak of open hostilities. Given that this is a defence and security forum, obviously discussion should be based around this level of response.
While it is premature that conflict will break out, and hopefully it won't these a hypothetical responses.
Talking points:
1. What would an international coalition consist of? Who would contribute? What would they Contribute? What does South Korea require in terms of support?
2. Does the United Nations have the ability maintain raise and international coalition as it did in the Original Korean War.
3. Do "Developed' Nations have the ability to be involved in a high intensity conflict, given that several key players have been at war for, with continuous large troop deployments.
4. Responses of belligerent states to the conflict.
Could Australia deploy a Brigade Taskforce to South Korea with current obligation? Would this be effective?
Galrahn at Information Dissemination has blogged that the US has 5 Carriers and 2 ARG's with in 10 days sailing of Korea, would they send them all? This would leave the MEAO with no Carrier force so it would be unlikely. Given that North Korea's main naval threat is submarine based what would be appropriate?
The reason why the UN responded to the first Korean War so quickly was because Russia were not present during the vote and motion was carried unanimously.
The US military today is a much better fighting force than it was first time around and the South Korean military is now a top-tier outfit designed for a single purpose, not some poorly equipped and trained militia as it was during the first round.
The response will be so swift that the rest of the UN will not be involved other than sending a few fighter sqns, ships and possibly SF units. The fear of casualties might prevent much else. A country like Aus is not going to send a brigade if there's a chance it might get wiped out in a tactical nuclear strike.
The reason why the UN responded to the first Korean War so quickly was because Russia were not present during the vote and motion was carried unanimously.
The US military today is a much better fighting force than it was first time around and the South Korean military is now a top-tier outfit designed for a single purpose, not some poorly equipped and trained militia as it was during the first round.
The response will be so swift that the rest of the UN will not be involved other than sending a few fighter sqns, ships and possibly SF units. The fear of casualties might prevent much else. A country like Aus is not going to send a brigade if there's a chance it might get wiped out in a tactical nuclear strike.
Interesting, I was unaware of Russia's absence, the next time round China will be the one to work with/around.
I see your point, I suppose a multi-national ground force, would take time, this would not be a protracted ground conflict. Perhaps the most nations do not have the ability to respond in time, other than how you suggested.
Interesting, I was unaware of Russia's absence, the next time round China will be the one to work with/around.
I see your point, I suppose a multi-national ground force, would take time, this would not be a protracted ground conflict. Perhaps the most nations do not have the ability to respond in time, other than how you suggested.
Im guessing we will wake up one morning to news that there have have been massive air strikes and cruise missile strikes against very specific targets in North korea, i reckon it will be surgical, fast and saturated. It will be aimed to disable the Norths war fighting ability, and over very quickly. I doubt there will be much of a conventional ground war.
Im guessing we will wake up one morning to news that there have have been massive air strikes and cruise missile strikes against very specific targets in North korea, i reckon it will be surgical, fast and saturated. It will be aimed to disable the Norths war fighting ability, and over very quickly. I doubt there will be much of a conventional ground war.
Last time around, China became involved in a big way. This time, I imagine they would be as well, as I find it hard to believe they would allow a US ally (with US help) to conduct offensive operations against one of their allies, near their border. If I am correct, and this were to be the case, could we really rule out a ground aspect to the fighting? China does have an insane amount of ground troops it could send in.
1. What would an international coalition consist of? Who would contribute? What would they Contribute? What does South Korea require in terms of support?.
I think a large amount of nations will contribute to the war against NK, but how many nations will actually get involved in a more direct role is VERY small. I personally think it will be up to ROK it self.
I think the contributions will involve more in terms off intelligence rather than weapons.
As far as weapons are concerned (Amateur Guess) I think the ROK will need a more advanced fighter than the F-16 in order to really acquire air dominance, especially in Pyongyang which has 35 Mig-29S's protecting its airspace. Perhaps ROK could acquire some F-15C's? I also think the ROK would be able to get Nuclear weapons staged in their soil. Again these are just guesses.
There is also the issue of the Millions of mines laying across the border.
________________
When many people look at a weapon they see death, when I look at a weapon I see art
The ROK do have a more advanced fighter than the F-16. Google F-15K. But the kind of fighter they use and how well it compares to a MiG is really, really far from the deciding factor in the equation should this whole situation go sour.
The ROK do have a more advanced fighter than the F-16. Google F-15K. But the kind of fighter they use and how well it compares to a MiG is really, really far from the deciding factor in the equation should this whole situation go sour.
Ops, sorry I didn't notice the F-15K when I was looking through the list of aircraft in in the ROK air force. But I think that the ROK ability to establish air supremacy immediately is absolutely critical.
________________
When many people look at a weapon they see death, when I look at a weapon I see art
The ROK do have a more advanced fighter than the F-16. Google F-15K. But the kind of fighter they use and how well it compares to a MiG is really, really far from the deciding factor in the equation should this whole situation go sour.
From the Chinese point of view, Economically ROK is a profitable trading and investment partner to DPRK in which an actual Economic parasite for China. If ROK somehow can convince China that a unified Korea under ROK will maintain all Chinese interest in peninsula then perhaps China will cut her economic cord to Kim's little kingdom in the north.
If that happen then realistically ROK can move to take care DPRK. At that time early air domination is. Essential to pacified missiles sites, since the missiles is the only aces that Kim's still has. Without China cord, it's simply no way DPRK can sustain longer term (more than 2 months) heavy conventional conflicts.
Ops, sorry I didn't notice the F-15K when I was looking through the list of aircraft in in the ROK air force. But I think that the ROK ability to establish air supremacy immediately is absolutely critical.
The ROK's ability to establish air superiority isn't going to be defined by how an F-16 stacks up against a MiG-29. That's the point I was trying to make - I wasn't commenting on the importance of air superiority.
Location: Middle of the Ocean going 2kts to nowhere.
Posts: 78
Threads:
It would mean massive casualities on both sides both civilian and military that being stated as a fact and out of the way getting back to the first questions:
1. What would an international coalition consist of? Who would contribute? What would they Contribute? What does South Korea require in terms of support?
At the moment it looks like DRPK VS ROK, USA ; IF PRC decides it wants in on the action (either side both are a possiability) then there suddenly become too many variables to know about until more info is available. DRPK and ROK will give it their near all or maybe all out fighting, USA currently has 1 CVBG incomming and more than likely several submarines already on station . ROK will need time but DRPK is in a position that they can/will make the first move and thus deny the time / space needed to absorb the initial attack.
2. Does the United Nations have the ability maintain raise and international coalition as it did in the Original Korean War.
It more than likely would not last that long, both of these countries are heavily populated and this is not the ME where it will take a long time for people to arrive from the belligerent countries, again it comes down to what will PRC do, they are not firmly in either camp.
3. Do "Developed' Nations have the ability to be involved in a high intensity conflict, given that several key players have been at war for, with continuous large troop deployments?
The key players for this look like they are all trained up and ready to go, outside of the Koreas ground forces arent likely to be involved from outside countries (except the 28.5k from USA) unless PRC gets into the fight.
4. Responses of belligerent states to the conflict.
This is the million dollar question, to be examined as events happen. What will PRC do, will DRPK go nuclear, will early air superiority be established (either side)? IMO its too early to tell what will be everyones response, hope there is no need for a response. I'm trying not to sound like a fan boy here saying it will all be over fast but I'm thinking this fight will not streach for more than a few months on the long side.
If the war starts, Seoul is lost. North Korea doesn't only have a few thousand rockets aimed at them, they also have artillery aimed at Seoul that might number around tens of thousands ready to decimate SK's capital. A huge chunk of SK's economy (especially their airport and corporate infrastructure) can go crumbling easily (who's the smart-ass who chose that place to be capital anyway). By then, the ROK would be busy evacuating people from urban sites (especially near the DMZ, but even Busan could be hit by the rockets) before it could mount a ground-based attack against NK. Simultaneously, they might strike US Bases in the Pacific as far as Guam, and go for a massed aerial/naval attack against the United States' carrier group in the vicinity (although in will most likely fail).
SK could respond with a bombardment of their own to that kind of capability, but NK would have inflicted much more damage. Surgical strikes by air could only be pulled off minimally. North Korea has significant anti-air assets. With a significant amount of ROK soldiers most likely to be busy on evac, SK fighters would eventually get blown to bits as they try to go deep into NK territory without ground-based support and the threat of DPRK numerical superiority in air. And what if those missile sites are situated close to China? A double-whammy for SK.
Even if SK destroys the missile sites, DPRK will establish air superiority. If they go for the air assets, the missiles will be there to strike, and DPRK will still have a slight advantage on air.
Militarily, SK (with allies) will eventually get it done. But at what cost?
. ROK will need time but DRPK is in a position that they can/will make the first move and thus deny the time / space needed to absorb the initial attack.
