South Korean navy ship sunk by North?

[stryker NZ]

thats not just proof.

its an evidence that is fully presentable in court.

there are a lot more evidence like that actually.

u dont get to these stuff only because u are in US.

hold on. I will show u more later.

theres not much point showing us more if your not going to prove its legit. You have to admit what your suggesting is a bit hard to believe the whole reason the South Korean government brought in foreign experts was to avoid this kind of stuff. Besides what rational thinking person would actually want to inflame the situation with North Korea further by falsely claiming they were behind the attack it doesnt stack up.

 

[Falstaff]

Please provide some credible proof or evidence of what you seem to claiming or suggesting.

At present, you have made the claim that the US and Australian governments are involved in a conspiracy to falsely 'prove' that North Korea is responsible for the loss of a South Korean naval vessel and personnel. This would also require the Canadian and Swedish personnel involved in investigating the incident to be at least complacent if not outright cooperation.

Given that Defence Talk is not a site for conspiracy theories, provide proof of these claims or retract them. Additionally, an image file located on a website with someone's finger pointing to ship positions does not consitute proof. If the file was hosted by an official South Korean government website, that would give some credibility. At present, it has none.
-Preceptor

Hi, Preceptor, I guess your eforts are in vain. The hysterical tone and nature of claims dongsoola makes indicate clearly that he either is of north korean origin himself or somehow related with the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Friendship_Association"]Korean Friendship Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame].
What a pity this forum doesn't consist of undernourished and brainwashed people that buy into his crap. So don't bother and kick the guy out already.

 

[AegisFC]

After a discussion with the other moderators this thread is being re-opened. The problem user has been dealt with and we ask no one reply to his posts and that we keep this thread on topic.

 

[Ibizan Hound]

I think that South Korea will press for sanctions but that nothing much will come of this situation.

If the (South Korean) enemies try to deal any retaliation or punishment, or if they try sanctions or a strike on us .... we will answer to this with all-out war," Col. Pak In Ho of North Korea's navy told broadcaster APTN in an exclusive interview in Pyongyang.

An international civilian-military investigation team said evidence overwhelmingly proves a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo that caused a massive underwater blast that tore the Cheonan apart. Fifty-eight sailors were rescued from the frigid Yellow Sea, but 46 perished in the South's worst military disaster since the Korean War.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_SKOREA_SHIP_SINKS?SITE=WHIZ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

 

[Lindermyer]

I dont think news that it was a north korean torpedo is a shock to any one, I think the big question is how South korea should deal with it.

Logic decrees that acts like this cant be ignored, just encourages further belligerence, the trouble is this sort of behaviour has allways earnt NKorea rewards in terms of aid etc.

The goverment also uses brinkmanship (imo) as a tool to keep the population occupied.

I personally believe in this situation direct military action is the wrong choice (although perhaps a sub or 2 could go missing on the qt). That said i cant thin of a meaning full political response. Perhaps the aproach needs to be a lot of subversive propaganda aimed northwards.

 

[Belesari]

I dont think news that it was a north korean torpedo is a shock to any one, I think the big question is how South korea should deal with it.

Logic decrees that acts like this cant be ignored, just encourages further belligerence, the trouble is this sort of behaviour has allways earnt NKorea rewards in terms of aid etc.

The goverment also uses brinkmanship (imo) as a tool to keep the population occupied.

I personally believe in this situation direct military action is the wrong choice (although perhaps a sub or 2 could go missing on the qt). That said i cant thin of a meaning full political response. Perhaps the aproach needs to be a lot of subversive propaganda aimed northwards.

I think you hit the nail on the head. They have become used to threatening and getting a treat.

America or anyone else shouldnt give the north another thing. No food, no fuel, nothing. Will people die? Yes but it will weaken the regime. Giving them more treats only encourages the same behavior.

Either way i think SK needs to finaly realise what they have done by allowing NK to basicaly hold there people hostage with all those arty sites. North korea needs to be taken down its a threat to the entire world now not just north korea, japan or its neighbors.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think you hit the nail on the head. They have become used to threatening and getting a treat.

America or anyone else shouldnt give the north another thing. No food, no fuel, nothing. Will people die? Yes but it will weaken the regime. Giving them more treats only encourages the same behavior.

Either way i think SK needs to finaly realise what they have done by allowing NK to basicaly hold there people hostage with all those arty sites. North korea needs to be taken down its a threat to the entire world now not just north korea, japan or its neighbors.

The problem is without any outside aid the North Korean state would implode, and while regime change is in everyone’s interest (bar china) no one wants to deal with mess on that level. The financial and humanitarian cost would be truly massive to the west, the people with whom Pyongyang is technically still at war. So ironically its in North Korea's enemies interest that it survives, in the short term at least, and thus you wont see the total NK aid budget go to something else.

 

[fretburner]

^ China can aid North Korea.

South Korea, the US, Japan and their allies should stop the aid. They just have to be extra vigilant in making sure North Korea is not able to sell nukes as a source of income.

 

[Ibizan Hound]

Either way i think SK needs to finaly realise what they have done by allowing NK to basicaly hold there people hostage with all those arty sites. North korea needs to be taken down its a threat to the entire world now not just north korea, japan or its neighbors.

There's nothing
South Korea can do about it. They can't confront North Korea militarily. They have not the influence that the USA, Russia & China has in the UN. Plus, the United States don't want to confront a nation that is strong as North Korea. On top of it equipped with nukes. Iraq is as far as the United States will go with war. You can forget attacking north Korea, China, Russia and Iran. This is why South Korea has no real hope in the situation. They can't be saved by military force. There own's or the US'. This is why they will keep taking beating. This situation will die down eventually.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

There's nothing
South Korea can do about it. They can't confront North Korea militarily. They have not the influence that the USA, Russia & China has in the UN. Plus, the United States don't want to confront a nation that is strong as North Korea. On top of it equipped with nukes. Iraq is as far as the United States will go with war. You can forget attacking north Korea, China, Russia and Iran. This is why South Korea has no real hope in the situation. They can't be saved by military force. There own's or the US'. This is why they will keep taking beating. This situation will die down eventually.

The South Koreans should be able to defeat North Korea on their own. Really the two countries are not even close. The problem is the massive cost the South will pay for that victory, including the destruction of Soul. Pyongyang cannot even feed most of its population, how is it going to do when facing a modern, mechanised army like the ROK's?

 

[Toby]

The South Koreans should be able to defeat North Korea on their own. Really the two countries are not even close. The problem is the massive cost the South will pay for that victory, including the destruction of Soul. Pyongyang cannot even feed most of its population, how is it going to do when facing a modern, mechanised army like the ROK's?

i had your opinion until i looked into it deeper , war is not about shiney weapons
firstly look at the terrain, its not realy tank territory especially in the north which isnt as industrialized as the south, secondly the will to fight the north are fanatical and arent fussed about casualties
whereas the south are a democracy and would no doubt sue for peace as soon as casualties mount,
thirdly north korea has been building up for this war for 50 or so years the south has but not to the same extent all of north koreas war industry is underground or partially underground and alot of the infrastructure for the military is underground they also have the capability for a good defence in depth with there massive army and reserves and no doubt asymmetrical warfare , the souths reserves on the other hand would take longer to muster.
fourthly the south on its own wouldn't have the capability of air supremacy due to the air denial the north can operate.
although the south has a far greater military in terms of technology air power and navy but alot of depends on chance and luck if the south hammers the north like gulf war one then the south would win, also we dont know the level of training the north has, fuel is the norths problem and i dont think they could sustain a mechanized offensive but i think there more infiltration in depth rather than a mechanized focus,
south koreas base of industry aswell is right next to the border could seoul /incheon defend against a northern rush, its everyones game but i dont think it would be a south steam roller into the north they would needs americas support which america wouldnt give due to chinas commitments. the international community would just talk of peace and try and get a un peacekeeping force in. (forgive my poor grammer : )

oh and ignore the nuclear weapons i dont think the north have them working so that in my opinion wouldnt be a variable if there was a war. (well it might effect how the south would fight the war)

 

[Waylander]

Inexpect, that in case of war the North would try to hammer US ground and air bases with Nodongs and infiltration units (the US pulled out of arty range, didn't they?).

This would mean the US is in if it wants or not.

Nevertheless I would also expect that such a war wouldn't be a walk in the park. The south may very well suffer some setbacks in the beginning. But in the end the north has no hope of winning when the South doesn't suffer from a low moral.

 

[DavidDCM]

i had your opinion until i looked into it deeper , war is not about shiney weapons
firstly look at the terrain, its not realy tank territory especially in the north which isnt as industrialized as the south, secondly the will to fight the north are fanatical and arent fussed about casualties
whereas the south are a democracy and would no doubt sue for peace as soon as casualties mount,
thirdly north korea has been building up for this war for 50 or so years the south has but not to the same extent all of north koreas war industry is underground or partially underground and alot of the infrastructure for the military is underground they also have the capability for a good defence in depth with there massive army and reserves and no doubt asymmetrical warfare , the souths reserves on the other hand would take longer to muster.
fourthly the south on its own wouldn't have the capability of air supremacy due to the air denial the north can operate.
although the south has a far greater military in terms of technology air power and navy but alot of depends on chance and luck if the south hammers the north like gulf war one then the south would win, also we dont know the level of training the north has, fuel is the norths problem and i dont think they could sustain a mechanized offensive but i think there more infiltration in depth rather than a mechanized focus,
south koreas base of industry aswell is right next to the border could seoul /incheon defend against a northern rush, its everyones game but i dont think it would be a south steam roller into the north they would needs americas support which america wouldnt give due to chinas commitments. the international community would just talk of peace and try and get a un peacekeeping force in. (forgive my poor grammer : )

oh and ignore the nuclear weapons i dont think the north have them working so that in my opinion wouldnt be a variable if there was a war. (well it might effect how the south would fight the war)

The South Koreans are as dedicated and willing to fight as the North Koreans. If you say that the South Korean politicians would seek peace as soon as the casualties mount you seem to think that this war would be something like Iraq or Afghanistan, where the politicians have to "sell" the war to their people by looking for good arguments. This here is a totally different scenario, it's not about pacifying a distant country it's about fight or die. The survival of South Korea would be at stake, and beyond that simple argument there's no need to sell anything to your people.
And the UN, if they try to act as mediator, has got one big problem: They are officially at war with North Korea.

 

[OPSSG]

Welcome to DT and I note that the other members have been rather gentle with you. I'm going to be more direct about what I think but hopefully ultimately more helpful by being harsher in my reply.

Please also feel free to post in the introduction section and tell us something about yourself.

firstly look at the terrain, its not really tank territory especially in the north which isnt as industrialized as the south

I would suggest that you read up some of the older tank related threads in DT and the use of tanks in the First Korean War because I have no wish to debunk your statements when you are evidently not shy about offering your opinion without prior reading (see below for key word search and a couple of links for suggested reading).

Kindly also note that both Waylander and DavidDCM are tankees and they will be able to tell you much more than me on of the topic of tanks.

secondly the will to fight the north are fanatical and arent fussed about casualties

The moment the North Korean units are combat ineffective because of casualties or if they cannot advance further because of overwhelming fire power that the US and S. Korean forces can bring to the fight - at that moment the N. Koreans will be concerned with casualties. However, the cost to stop any N. Korean advance (even with US help), will be horrendous for the S. Koreans.

whereas the south are a democracy and would no doubt sue for peace as soon as casualties mount,

American soldiers in Korea refer to the fighting on the peninsula between 1950 and 1953 as “the first Korean War.” The implicit assumption is that there will be a second. The Second Korean War (if it occurs) will be an existential fight for national survival for the S. Koreans. Planning for the Second Korean War is complex, deadly serious and deals with the issue of echelonment - so you should read up before comment.

In fact, the moment you have different echelons, the action-reaction dynamic changes and the second echelon forces can be used to gain the initiative. To use a boxing analogy, the first echelon forces is the left jab and the second echelon forces is the KO punch on the right. Combined-arms divisions and Corps of front first echelons create the penetration, and mechanized divisions/corps act as front mobile groups to exploit success into the depths of the defense. Attacking enemy rear areas is a key feature of any attack. This is so because the main fight must be with the second echelon, otherwise it will become a battle of attrition. If the opposition is strong, two divisions could leap frog each other in the scheme of maneuver.

For the Americans, the secret to winning is not in numbers alone. Mobility provides the means to mass in time and place arriving at a reasonably matched force ratio. The intelligent use of terrain and mobility maximizing one’s own capabilities will help minimize one’s own vulnerability. In the end, battles are won by four things:

(i) the courage of the soldiers/airmen (and conscript morale is always an uncertainty);

(ii) the quality of the leaders;

(iii) the excellence of the training; and

(iv) the right tactics.​

That’s why in equipping and the training of S. Korean's army, they have ensured that force ratios come down into some reasonable proportions - something that the S. Korean Government, the US Government and their respective armed forces have put some serious thought into. If you are interested in a more in-depth look at comparative force structures, there's a 2006 look at 'The Asian Conventional Military Balance'. For me, the morale/courage of the troops on either side of the Korean divide will be an important consideration (and I can't presume to speak for the Koreans).

thirdly north korea has been building up for this war for 50 or so years the south has but not to the same extent all of north koreas war industry is underground or partially underground and alot of the infrastructure for the military is underground they also have the capability for a good defence in depth with there massive army and reserves and no doubt asymmetrical warfare ,

Then you have no idea of the size of the S. Korean Army and how prepared they are as a society for war compared to UK today (where you are from). The S. Korean armed forces are definitely not fanatical but they have fairly good capability and with about 680,000 active troops (and 3 million reservists) their numbers are not small.

the souths reserves on the other hand would take longer to muster.

I would suggest that you do not know what you are talking about. How long is long?

In 1973 Yom Kipper War, Israel needed 24 hours to mobilise her conscripts. Learning from that war, Israel can do it in much less time now. Today, Israeli mobilization would be measured in hours. The same would apply to conscript heavy countries like S. Korea and Singapore. I would expect that the S. Koreans can do so in the same manner and likely in the same time frame. It's all thought through as a process at the national level.

Due to security concerns I would not be able to post my country's actual response time for war mobilisation in a forum, but it would be faster than you can imagine.

fourthly the south on its own wouldn't have the capability of air supremacy due to the air denial the north can operate.

Do you know what Air Supremacy means? Why is Air Supremacy needed, when Air Superiority will suffice?

Depending on the methods used to conduct the strike, we may also desire to add in the element of air superiority within a specific block of airspace. An example would be, given the use of precision stand-off weapons, a desire to have air superiority within a block altitude of 15,000 feet above ground level to 50,000 feet, e.g. above AAA range but within SAM altitudes. The SAM threat is more manageable than AAA for S. Korea and the US because of the their combined ability to conduct SEAD. Let's also define some basic terms below for your benefit (see this post on air-superiority-101):

(i) Air Parity / Air Denial = the lowest air power state where friendly aircraft can conduct air operations sufficient enough to deny the enemy air dominance while conducting those airpower activities necessary to halt an initial enemy advance, eg. during certain periods at the Battle of Britain in 1940, the UK was only able to achieve air parity over the sky above Britain

(ii) Air Superiority = three different ways to think about it: One, control of space, two, control of time, and finally, control of geography or a combination of those three. Depending on the commander’s intent and tasking, we can seek to attain air superiority over a specific area, eg. Allied air superiority during the Normandy Landings in June 1944

(iii) Air Supremacy = a degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference, eg. The Israeli air force achieved a very lopsided victory over the Syrian air force and their SAM units at Bekaa Valley in June 1982

(iv) Air Dominance = highest airpower state when the requisite effectiveness of airpower is achieved, eg. The Israeli air force achieved air dominance during the Six-day War of 1967 by destroying nearly the entire Egyptian and Jordanian air forces, and half the Syrians’ air force on the ground​

Do you have any idea, how big is the S. Korean air force? Let me set out S. Korean's combat aircraft according to Dec 2009 Flight International figures (with 541 combat aircraft, the S. Koreans are ranked 9th in terms fighter fleet in the world). Let me list a few of the fighters in their inventory:

F-16C........... 118
F-16D............ 51
F-15K............ 39 (with 21 on order)
F-4D/RF-4C 135
F-5E............. 159

You would do well to start with some basic reading on air power, as follows:

(i) 'The Air Campaign: Planning for Air Combat' by Col. John A. Warden III;

(ii) 'Air Theory for the Twenty-First Century' also by Col. John A. Warden III;

(iii) '10 propositions regarding air power' by Col. Philip S. Meilinger;

(iv) USAF's doctrine (a 118 page PDF document); and

(v) 'British Air and Space Power Doctrine: AP3000 Edition 4' (a 68 page PDF document).​

After reading the above links, it would be clear that the N. Koreans are not structured to achieve air superiority against capable opponents with tertiary capabilities.

although the south has a far greater military in terms of technology air power and navy but alot of depends on chance and luck if the south hammers the north like gulf war one then the south would win, also we dont know the level of training the north has, fuel is the norths problem and i dont think they could sustain a mechanized offensive but i think there more infiltration in depth rather than a mechanized focus,

To avoid further embarrassment, read up this Oct 2006 article by Robert D. Kaplan and also search for information on OPLAN 5027. May I suggest, reading before posting, as it would enhance the quality of your posts.

IMO, not only are the S. Koreans not keen on war between the two Koreas, both China and US are also not keen to get into a shooting war, given the level of interdependence. Except for the US, the other parties (Japan, China, N. Korea and S. Korea) are happy with the status quo of N. Korea as the buffer state. Washington and Seoul are going through the usual motions that follow a major North Korean provocation. There will be talk of closer military coordination; vows of a less restrictive "self-defense" policy and even consultations with China. But in the end, little will change. For me, the unknown, this time, is N. Korean motivation in engaging in this hostile act of sinking a S. Korean vessel.

 

[Ibizan Hound]

The South Koreans should be able to defeat North Korea on their own. Really the two countries are not even close. The problem is the massive cost the South will pay for that victory, including the destruction of Soul. Pyongyang cannot even feed most of its population, how is it going to do when facing a modern, mechanised army like the ROK's?

The South can in no way confront North Korea and it is as simple as that. They
are liek Taiwan. Other than independence they wish the US was truly a safety net around their nations, but in reality all they can do is hope the other nation don't declare war. When this ship was sunk South korea admitted it was torpedoed but when the US wasn't as ready for war as the North was, they retracted their statement. This gives North Korea more strength to it's military. Having greater power and being feared by the South gives North Korea a strong snese of confidence. Now if you want to rely on western propaganda you can believe South Korea can fend off North Korea and that Taiwan would conquer China all you want. But the truth is North Korea's dominance is a strong reason why South Korea will suck this up.

 

[ccL1]

I'm Korean and I have many friends and family who are currently serving or have served in the South Korean military in the past 7 years. One of my cousins is currently serving with the KATUSA force, another is with the Korean marines, and another is with the regular army. My other cousin served with the air force a few years ago, and my friends have served with the army (most of them) and a few with the marines.

Although not all their opinions are the same, their overwhelming opinion is this -- if South Korea and North Korea fought a war against each other without outside interference, the South won't be able to maintain the war. Not only that, but they don't want a war. Generally, they don't want to have to fight. I take their words as closer to the truth than outside experts and "experts" since they were in the military. I'm sure if it came time to actually fighting, they will do it, but they will avoid it to the utmost degree since they know such a war will cause at least several million deaths.

In both Koreas, they have military conscription. I can't judge the North's military dedication, but from my family/friends observations, most of the South Korean conscripts don't want to be there and can't wait to get back to regular civilian life. Yes, the South has the technological advantage, but we've seen time and time again that it's not just technology alone that changes the landscape of war, but it is how you use that technology that is critical. As we have seen, an older generation mini-sub from the North was able to take out a much more sophisticated South Korean corvette.

And this isn't an indictment against the South. I prefer the South's model of de-emphasizing the military and investing in economic growth and industry instead. I'm merely saying that the South won't be able to fight a hypothetical war on its own. If I were a betting man, I would place my bets on the North. Now if the US, Japan, China, etc... got involved, that is an entirely different matter and I will have to re-assess my bets based on who is getting involved.

All in all, a war won't occur. The South doesn't want it, and more importantly, the US doesn't want it. The US still has strong sway over the South Korea-United States Combined Forces Command, as the commander-in-chief of that body is currently General Walter L. Sharp. So if the US says no, then there won't be a war, and the US is currently saying no.

 

[swerve]

... the will to fight the north are fanatical and arent fussed about casualties

Iran wasn't fussed about casualties in 1980-88, had better trained forces than Iraq, three times the population, a much bigger economy - and was fought to a standstill by Iraqi firepower.

Also, I suspect that if N. Korean troops get far enough into the south to realise that the towns they're capturing can't all be Potemkin villages, but are normal, the contrast between their own lives & those of S. Koreans could make quite a dent in their fanaticism.

... north korea has been building up for this war for 50 or so years the south has but not to the same extent all of north koreas war industry is underground or partially underground and alot of the infrastructure for the military is underground

Building for a war for 50 years - but concrete can't move or shoot. Without fuel, without resupply of ammunition, without transport to move food & other supplies, most of the N. Korean army will turn into light infantry very quickly, not very effective against networked mechanised forces with massive air support.

With PGMs & air supremacy, destroying bunkers (or sealing them by blasting their entrances) is a mechanical process. BTW, what industry? With supplies of fuel & raw materials interdicted, it'll shut down in no time.

they also have the capability for a good defence in depth with there massive army and reserves and no doubt asymmetrical warfare , the souths reserves on the other hand would take longer to muster.

If a war turned into N. Korea defending its own territory, it'd end up as a famine-stricken land with even the army starving.

the south on its own wouldn't have the capability of air supremacy due to the air denial the north can operate.

Most northern aircraft are very old indeed, & hopelessly outclassed. Also, most pilots have very little opportunity to maintain their skills. They wouldn't be able to deny northern airspace to southern aircraft. Ditto northern SAMs. AA would be dangerous, due to the sheer volume of fire they could put up, but most of that is light AA, & only dangerous at low altitude. As in Iraq in 1991, southern aircraft could fly above it.

south koreas base of industry aswell is right next to the border could seoul /incheon defend against a northern rush,

S. Korea has the credit to continue importing even with half the economy closed down. S. Korea exports as much every two days as N. Korea exports in a year, & has enough foreign reserves to finance essential imports & keep the armed forces functioning until N. Korea runs out of everything, including food.

BTW, it'd be pretty hard to seize a city of 10 million with another 14 million in satellite towns & cities in a rush. Seoul is full of S. Korean reservists & their depots. If N. Korean troops got into the city I would expect there to be grim - and slow - street fighting.

The greatest risk to the south is the morale risk, & I suspect that faced with the prospect of northern troops rampaging through their homes, the resolve of southern conscripts would stiffen. After all, they can't run away - unless they're remarkably good swimmers.

 

[Waylander]

That's what I also think. It is just normal that conscripts don't want to be in the army.
But in the end they don't want to be there because they think they have better things to do. And who could blame them. Conscription isn't fun...

But if hell comes loose the mood will change. Faced with the threat of NK units rampaging through SK cities I doubt that there will be no will to fight. One can't judge about a conscript army before it is forced to defend it's home.


Swerve brougt up an interesting point. What will the NK troops think when they enter cities full of luxuries? SK will look like something out of a dream to them.
That was an interesting question when one looked at WarPac units entering West Germany but the gap between SK and NK is much bigger than it was between the West and the East.

 

[ccL1]

Hello, swerve. I hope we can have a friendly debate, because I agree with some of your points and disagree with others. The parts I agree with, I won't reply to. I'll just reply to parts I disagree with or just want clarification over.

Also, I suspect that if N. Korean troops get far enough into the south to realise that the towns they're capturing can't all be Potemkin villages, but are normal, the contrast between their own lives & those of S. Koreans could make quite a dent in their fanaticism.

You could be right, but North Koreans are brainwashed into believing that the reason for the North's trouble are US sanctions against the country. I'm not exactly disagreeing with you here, but I think seeing the South's prosperity could possibly enrage them even more and galvanize their hatred for the US even more. They could just as easily think, "US sanctions have made us suffer when we could be living like the South too".

Building for a war for 50 years - but concrete can't move or shoot. Without fuel, without resupply of ammunition, without transport to move food & other supplies, most of the N. Korean army will turn into light infantry very quickly, not very effective against networked mechanised forces with massive air support.

With PGMs & air supremacy, destroying bunkers (or sealing them by blasting their entrances) is a mechanical process. BTW, what industry? With supplies of fuel & raw materials interdicted, it'll shut down in no time.

Would geography play a factor, because the Korean peninsula is very hilly, forested, or urbanized?

I hope air surpremacy would play some factor, because air surpremacy didn't play as big a factor in the first Korean War. The US had air superiority over the North Koreans and the Chinese, but that didn't stop the Chinese from initially beating back the US and UN forces back into South Korean territory before the war settled at the current 3th parallel.

If a war turned into N. Korea defending its own territory, it'd end up as a famine-stricken land with even the army starving.

The people will starve. Not the military though. The military is well-fed relative to the population, as the army seizes most of the food shipment from the West, the UN, and China and uses it for its own purposes. The North Korean military is well-stocked up on food. I don't know how long it will last in a war, but I don't think they'll starve.

S. Korea has the credit to continue importing even with half the economy closed down. S. Korea exports as much every two days as N. Korea exports in a year, & has enough foreign reserves to finance essential imports & keep the armed forces functioning until N. Korea runs out of everything, including food.

BTW, it'd be pretty hard to seize a city of 10 million with another 14 million in satellite towns & cities in a rush. Seoul is full of S. Korean reservists & their depots. If N. Korean troops got into the city I would expect there to be grim - and slow - street fighting.

The greatest risk to the south is the morale risk, & I suspect that faced with the prospect of northern troops rampaging through their homes, the resolve of southern conscripts would stiffen. After all, they can't run away - unless they're remarkably good swimmers.

In a hypothetical war between South and North Korea, Seoul will be destroyed in the first 30 minutes of the conflict. Right now, most of North Korea's artillery is pointed at Seoul, a city of 10 million. Experts say that Seoul will be vapourized within the first 30 minutes of a war and millions will die. Seoul won't have any inhabitants left -- not even reservists. Seoul will have to be abandoned initially. It's just too dangerous in the first stages of the war.

I wonder what role the North Korean nuclear weapons would play though? Obviously, the North doesn't have the capability to miniaturize a nuclear device and deliver it on an ICBM yet, but it sure can wheel such a weapon and detonate it inside of South Korea if a war broke out.

Anyway, there are just too many unknown factors that can play into such a hypothetical war. My ponit is that we can't just brush off the North Korean military by citing technology lags and starvation. The biggest X-factor is what role China will play if war broke out. Would it provide some of its latest weapons to the North or not? Would it provide fuel shipments? Would it provide intelligence?

It won't be pretty, I can tell you that. I estimate casualties would number in the tens of millions, as a dying regime (the North Korean one) would go to desperate measures to keep itself in power, even if it meant massacres of South Korean civilians.

 

[OPSSG]

ccL1, I agree with you is that China, is an important 'x' factor in any N. vs S. Korean conflict. I also don't think that we can assume that China will always support N. Korea regardless of other considerations. However, this much of China's twofold motives are clear, which are to keep:

(i) N. Korean refugees from flooding across the border; and

(ii) a unified U.S. ally from emerging on China's doorstep.​

In any discussion, there are areas of your post that I disagree with and areas that I agree with. Let's start with disagreements. Conceptually some of what you are posting is just plain wrong or misinformed - I'm just going to provide links for one small area, at the end, read it. Any system that relies on the conscripts cannot rely solely on the intelligence of the average conscript for the system to work. In fact, you probably do not have the security clearance to see your own country's actual war plan. And even if you were shown the war plans, you may not have the ability to understand some of the intricacies.

Edit: You cannot impose your unconventional understanding of air power and artillery effects into a modern combined arms war fighting paradigm. The bits of information that you hold on as what you would call 'facts' (and what I would call myths) do not fit the reality, lethality and limitations of modern combined arms warfare, that S. Korea and your ally, the US, is capable of.

Right now, most of North Korea's artillery is pointed at Seoul, a city of 10 million. Experts say that Seoul will be vapourized within the first 30 minutes of a war and millions will die. Seoul won't have any inhabitants left -- not even reservists. Seoul will have to be abandoned initially. It's just too dangerous in the first stages of the war.

For example, you do not seem to understand the effects of artillery on prepared positions - there are inherent limitations to N. Korean artillery fire on S. Korean troops in prepared positions with overhead cover (like foxholes with overhead cover) once the evacuation of civilians from Seoul occurs. I hope you realise that it is the first 11 seconds of an artillery barrage will induce the most casualties, thereafter, the troops would have taken cover, reducing the effect of the fire support at causing injury or death. Continued fire after 11 seconds has suppressive effects (i.e. defenders can't move) but it does not automatically mean that the defenders will be dislodged - please speak to your own Korean friends about your country's artillery planning norms. That is why you can't assume that why a force in a prepared position will be dislodged by artillery alone (it also depends on the nature of the prepared positions).

Any way all Korean men have to serve in your country's reserves, right (with 3 million reservists)? So they are not civilians. When you talk about civilians in the context of S. Korea they are foreigners, women, children and the elderly. Partly this is due to the fact that the Seoul is so close to the North Korean border, the main threat in the Second Korean war would be the artillery bombardment of the Northern outskirts of Seoul. That is why despite the fact that an international team of investigators found that a North Korean submarine fired a homing torpedo that sank the Cheonan, S. Korea has not retaliated and brought this issue to the UN. In other news, the United Nations Command said that it is convening a "special investigations team" to "review the findings" of an investigation into the incident and "determine the scope of the armistice violation."

In war, there is a possibility that the infrastructure in the Northern outskirts of Seoul will be devastated by artillery fire. Contrary to popular belief, only the 170mm N. Korean artillery pieces (M-178 and M-1989) have the range to reach hit Seoul from the border (and the shelters holding these specific types of artillery pieces would be destroyed by S. Korean forces, in short order, if used, despite the presence of HARTS in N. Korea). Further, you cannot assume that Seoul will not be defended - keep in mind that only some parts of Greater Seoul is within N. Korean artillery range (but not all parts of it). It really depends on the theatre war plans and where the lines of defence will be held. And as a Korean, I expect that you would know your country's terrain features better than me.

BTW, most infantry grunts would consider urban areas eminently defendable (at the cost of infrastructure) and with a proper plan, should cause massive headaches to any attacker. In WWII for example, at the battle of Stalingrad, the city was demolished but the defenders were not dislodged. The issue is the willingness to pay the necessary price.

IMO, you cannot assume the your army leadership is stupid (which is implicit in the tone of your posts). And even if you think they are stupid, you cannot assume that the American generals, reviewing the S. Korean war plans are stupid. For more than 50 years, an American general who leads U.S. forces in South Korea has also been designated as the wartime commander of S. Korean forces. While that command arrangement will change in 2012, the level of coordination between U.S. and South Korean military leaders will not. The combined forces of S. Korea and US will use your terrain to create defensible delay lines to buy time for reinforcements to come. And the reinforcements will be utilised in a scheme of maneuver that is not simply reactive. I understand the need to have a healthy respect for N. Korean forces but they are not seven feet tall. They have their limitations. If you don't demonstrate an awareness of N. Korean limitations, we can't have a fruitful discussion on this topic.

Reading your rather defeatist posts (sorry, but that's what I really think ), I'm glad that Israel helped set up Singapore's army in the late 1960s rather than the Americans or the British. In comparative terms, as a country, the average conscript in Singapore has a culture of self reliance and belief in our chain of command that you, as a Korean evidently don't have - though an American author has suggested that there may be cultural factors at play, which makes the S. Korean lack of indignation at N. Korean action mainstream. For the average Singaporean conscript all they need to know is that everybody fights, nobody quits. Not that this is relevant, but you should know that in the 1980s, Thailand and Singapore were particularly concerned about Vietnam. This resulted in Singapore maintaining a stockpile of ammo in Thailand, training our troops there and even conducting joint patrols with Thai forces at their northern border (during the '80s). Singaporean forces are definitely capable of conducting a joint forward defence in Thailand.

It won't be pretty, I can tell you that. I estimate casualties would number in the tens of millions, as a dying regime (the North Korean one) would go to desperate measures to keep itself in power, even if it meant massacres of South Korean civilians.

I don't disagree that there is a possibility that thousands of South Korean civilians will die in a Second Korea war - the civilian evacuation of a metropolis like Seoul on short notice is problematic to say the least. But I would not call it a massacre, I'll call these deaths collateral damage (unless chemical weapons were used).

In WWII a massacre of civilians occurred when the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) invaded Singapore - in Operation Sook Ching. Unofficial figures estimate that between 25,000 to 50,000 people in Singapore were murdered/executed by the IJA in quite a few mass graves. That I would call a massacre.

I hope air supremacy would play some factor, because air supremacy didn't play as big a factor in the first Korean War. The US had air superiority over the North Koreans and the Chinese, but that didn't stop the Chinese from initially beating back the US and UN forces back into South Korean territory before the war settled at the current 3th parallel.

With regards to air power and the provision of CAS, a lot has changed since the First Korean war. The introduction of precision guided munitions is a refinement of accuracy that has been continuing from the earliest days of indirect fire and CAS (Greg Goebel has an excellent introduction to the subject called 'Dumb Bombs & Smart Munitions'). These refinements allow the reduction of quantities of ammunition to achieve the desired destruction or effect on a target. Reduced time needed to achieve the effect is also a useful benefit from increased accuracy for the first echelon forces in contact (read Richard P. Hallion's 'PGMs and the New Era of Warfare' for the meaning of precision from a historical perspective).