South Korean Navy

[eckherl]

I would think that the exact interior of a chinese ELINT plane is also very interesting for the US.

As for the Avatar.

It was during the last maneuver of my than TC.
He was going to be retired after that and wanted something to hang onto his house as a memory.
So during a foggy morning my TC and me took a Wolf and headed for a lonely training range and captured this prize in a brave operation called "Operation Nebelkrähe" (operation dun crow).

For the rest of the maneuver we carried it in the basket at the back of the turret.

I have never downed a roadsign only trees and trenches and barbed wire and...

I bet Aussie Digger, Eckherl or DavidDCM also have their share of downed obstacles.



Edit: I am sooooo slow...

Hmm lets see:

Germany - 1 car, the side of a building in Schwienfurt, a sugar beet field near Coburg, man was that farmer upset, but the rooster tails going at 30MPH cross country was quite impressive.

South Korea - 1 South Korean national on a bicycle, (he was warned not to go between our moving tank convoy attempting to move thru Tonguchon town). 1 South Korean happy mound.

These are just a few that have stuck with me, most likely from the butt chewings that I recieved from company commanders and one upset German farmer.

 

[10ringr]

It was actually an EP-3 Aries (based on the P-3 airframe) rather and an AWAC's. These are an eltrocic warfare/reconnaisance aircraft.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/ep-3_aries.htm

Yes, I was just trying to make a point...... Hutch

 

[eckherl]

Yes, I was just trying to make a point...... Hutch

China was also quite [Admin: Text deleted: Language!] that they lost a bird with pilot also

 

[10ringr]

China was also quite [Admin: Text deleted: Language!] that they lost a bird with pilot also.

Yes, I can't imagine what a strain it would be for the Chinese air force to loose a fully trained, fully capable pilot. It duzn't do our relations any good however, when you detain Americans and dismantle our aircraft. It's sets a precedent that when the shoes on the other foot (and it has been in the past) will China react with equal restraint. After all it was an advanced EW platform. I would have destroyed it before they could do what they did. Hutch

 

[eckherl]

Yes, I can't imagine what a strain it would be for the Chinese air force to loose a fully trained, fully capable pilot. It duzn't do our relations any good however, when you detain Americans and dismantle our aircraft. It's sets a precedent that when the shoes on the other foot (and it has been in the past) will China react with equal restraint. After all it was an advanced EW platform. I would have destroyed it before they could do what they did. Hutch

To the Mods - sorry for the inapropiate language, I will be more careful on what I say.

@10ringr

Hopefully the aircrew had enough time to destroy the more sensitive materials and components.

 

[10ringr]

To the Mods - sorry for the inapropiate language, I will be more careful on what I say.

@10ringr

Hopefully the aircrew had enough time to destroy the more sensitive materials and components.

I can't imagine what this means........

 

[eckherl]

Because China really, sincerely, strongly believes Taiwan is an integral part of China that was taken by force, firstly in 1895, then again in 1949, & wants it back. Korea is another country, & S. Korea is now quite a friendly one. A very different kettle of fish.

Even though I am in agreement that North Korea would not have China as a reliable partner in the event of a war and South Korea would win that struggle even though it would be bloody, what is your opinion on how the North Korean nuke trump card will play out, Kim Jong Ills generals are quite unpredictable for all the wrong reasons.

 

[10ringr]

Even though I am in agreement that North Korea would not have China as a reliable partner in the event of a war and South Korea would win that struggle even though it would be bloody, what is your opinion on how the North Korean nuke trump card will play out, Kim Jong Ills generals are quite unpredictable for all the wrong reasons.

Uh, N. Korea wouldn't have China as a "reliable partner"? It duzn't have anyone else, I think they'd jump at the opportunity to form an alliance with somebody since most countries realize their days are numbered and particularly Kim Jong Ill who ought to be over thrown. I think his Nuclear trump card is a bit over stated yet but the guns pointed at Seoul and his million + man army isn't. Hutch

 

[swerve]

Uh, N. Korea wouldn't have China as a "reliable partner"? It duzn't have anyone else, I think they'd jump at the opportunity to form an alliance with somebody since most countries realize their days are numbered and particularly Kim Jong Ill who ought to be over thrown. I think his Nuclear trump card is a bit over stated yet but the guns pointed at Seoul and his million + man army isn't. Hutch

Of course N. Korea wouldn't have China as a reliable partner. China's made it clear it doesn't want the US army on its land borders, but it'd be quite content to see North Korea disappear, & the whole peninsula ruled from Seoul. If that resulted in the US army leaving Korea, China would consider it a major victory. I think that most definitely makes China a very unreliable partner for N. Korea. Reliable partners don't consider you an annoyance they'd rather be rid of, & would happily trade for a modest change in foreign troop deployments.

BTW, China is now a very different country from what it was in 1950 in many ways. Chinese border guards along the Yalu have been known to talk to foreign camera crews about how distasteful they find having to hand fleeing N. Koreans back to the N. Korean border guards, because of the cruelty with which they're treated. They speak of N. Korea as an alien place, much more so than Western countries. Off-camera, some admit to turning a blind eye to N. Koreans crossing the border, because they feel sorry for them, & N. Koreans living in China confirm that happens.

Yes, Kim Jong Ils army, & particularly his artillery, are dangerous. But didn't you get the point about holding South Korea at grenade point? Attacking South Korea, whatever the outcome of the fighting (& N. Koreas chance of winning is tiny) would destroy the North. Kim Jong Il probably knows that.

 

[swerve]

Even though I am in agreement that North Korea would not have China as a reliable partner in the event of a war and South Korea would win that struggle even though it would be bloody, what is your opinion on how the North Korean nuke trump card will play out, Kim Jong Ills generals are quite unpredictable for all the wrong reasons.

Agreed about their unpredictability. My chief worry about them is that some of them may actually believe they could conquer the south, & use its industry (as much as survived the war) & technological resources to modernise their decrepit armed forces, while using the threat of nukes to hold the world at bay. I don't see them nuking S. Korean cities - geese & golden eggs, & all that.

In any case, their nuclear tests were damp squibs, suggesting that at the moment, it's unlikely they have usable weapons. If they can't even get a decent bang in a static test rig, what chance of a missile warhead working? More likely to be a spatter of hot uranium or plutonium than a big explosion. Very nasty, but not devastating.

I see N. Korea carrying on much the same for quite a while, unless Kim dies, using its army & missiles as instruments of extortion, to get the means to keep their sinking state afloat, & pay for the luxuries to which the leadership is accustomed.

 

[10ringr]

Of course N. Korea wouldn't have China as a reliable partner. China's made it clear it doesn't want the US army on its land borders, but it'd be quite content to see North Korea disappear, & the whole peninsula ruled from Seoul. If that resulted in the US army leaving Korea, China would consider it a major victory. I think that most definitely makes China a very unreliable partner for N. Korea. Reliable partners don't consider you an annoyance they'd rather be rid of, & would happily trade for a modest change in foreign troop deployments.

BTW, China is now a very different country from what it was in 1950 in many ways. Chinese border guards along the Yalu have been known to talk to foreign camera crews about how distasteful they find having to hand fleeing N. Koreans back to the N. Korean border guards, because of the cruelty with which they're treated. They speak of N. Korea as an alien place, much more so than Western countries. Off-camera, some admit to turning a blind eye to N. Koreans crossing the border, because they feel sorry for them, & N. Koreans living in China confirm that happens.

Yes, Kim Jong Ils army, & particularly his artillery, are dangerous. But didn't you get the point about holding South Korea at grenade point? Attacking South Korea, whatever the outcome of the fighting (& N. Koreas chance of winning is tiny) would destroy the North. Kim Jong Il probably knows that.

Well, under the same logic none of th wars wouldn't happened because everyone is sane. Listen, if you think sanity rules out war then you might consult your history and finds plenty of insane people warring and making war on others. It was insane for Hitler to attack Russia. It is insane to have a teetering propped up mad man in Kim Jong Il to not attempt to have people continue to prop him up, subsidize his oil needs and China has been helping them a long time. K.J.I. threatened to burn down our cities in nuclear fire. Duz that sound like a sane person to you? HUtch

 

[swerve]

Well, under the same logic none of th wars wouldn't happened because everyone is sane. Listen, if you think sanity rules out war then you might consult your history and finds plenty of insane people warring and making war on others. It was insane for Hitler to attack Russia. It is insane to have a teetering propped up mad man in Kim Jong Il to not attempt to have people continue to prop him up, subsidize his oil needs and China has been helping them a long time. K.J.I. threatened to burn down our cities in nuclear fire. Duz that sound like a sane person to you? HUtch

None of your examples are remotely comparable, & you're not looking beyond the purely superficial. You need to do some analysis.

Consider Kim Jong Ils "threat". It's perfectly sane, & completely understandable. What he's really doing is extortion. He has no intention of nuking anyone, because he knows what the reaction will be, & that it will cause his own death - and that deterrence has worked for several decades now. Nobody has nuked a nuclear power, nor is anyone likely to. Meanwhile, the N. Korean leadership has painted itself into a corner, gradually, over many years, & partly due to events which it could do nothing about. Its only remaining sane strategy for its own survival is to be the mad dog which everyone throws scraps to to pacify it. It's disastrous for the country, but not for the leaders. They daren't loosen control, which means they can't try serious economic reform, & their system is broken beyond repair. Extortion via threats is all they have left.

Propping him up is rational, in the short term. Firstly, there's the fear that if he's faced with internal collapse, he'll do something desperate: if the supply of golden eggs dries, up, may as well cook the goose. Or in this case, try to grab the wealth of S. Korea. For China, a N. Korean collapse would mean millions of starving refugees, & closing the border & machine-gunning anyone who tries to cross would cause internal unrest, not least among Chinas (so far loyal) Korean minority, & international opprobrium on a scale the leaders would prefer not to have to put up with. Giving some oil & coal is easier & cheaper. Longer-term, the results are unpredictable, but Micawberism isn't unique to NE Asia.

As for Hitlers invasion of the USSR - please explain why it was insane, without hindsight, & using only the information Hitler had at the time. People often make mistakes. They're often overconfident. Neither is, in itself, insanity. Bush, Cheney et al were suffering from hubris when they ordered the invasion of Iraq, but they weren't insane.

 

[10ringr]

None of your examples are remotely comparable, & you're not looking beyond the purely superficial. You need to do some analysis.

Consider Kim Jong Ils "threat". It's perfectly sane, & completely understandable. What he's really doing is extortion. He has no intention of nuking anyone, because he knows what the reaction will be, & that it will cause his own death - and that deterrence has worked for several decades now. Nobody has nuked a nuclear power, nor is anyone likely to. Meanwhile, the N. Korean leadership has painted itself into a corner, gradually, over many years, & partly due to events which it could do nothing about. Its only remaining sane strategy for its own survival is to be the mad dog which everyone throws scraps to to pacify it. It's disastrous for the country, but not for the leaders. They daren't loosen control, which means they can't try serious economic reform, & their system is broken beyond repair. Extortion via threats is all they have left.

Propping him up is rational, in the short term. Firstly, there's the fear that if he's faced with internal collapse, he'll do something desperate: if the supply of golden eggs dries, up, may as well cook the goose. Or in this case, try to grab the wealth of S. Korea. For China, a N. Korean collapse would mean millions of starving refugees, & closing the border & machine-gunning anyone who tries to cross would cause internal unrest, not least among Chinas (so far loyal) Korean minority, & international opprobrium on a scale the leaders would prefer not to have to put up with. Giving some oil & coal is easier & cheaper. Longer-term, the results are unpredictable, but Micawberism isn't unique to NE Asia.

As for Hitlers invasion of the USSR - please explain why it was insane, without hindsight, & using only the information Hitler had at the time. People often make mistakes. They're often overconfident. Neither is, in itself, insanity. Bush, Cheney et al were suffering from hubris when they ordered the invasion of Iraq, but they weren't insane.

The same thing happened when Napoleon tried to invade them as did Hitlers Operation Barbarossa and the same winter froze them to death. Hitler sent them in deliberately without the cold weather gear they would need so they would fight harder and thought his chances of winning the war before winter would work. It didn't and it cost Germany hundreds of thousands of dead and pow's. Suffering from Hubris?
Why because we decided to get rid of another mad man before it turned into another Hitler. I'm glad, Kim Jong Il ought to be next. I'm just glad the authorities that were there made the decisions instead of others who would rather play GI Joe then get it done. We are on a completely new footing in our foreign policy. One of preemption. Fight em there or fight em here. You can't just have one and all the wishful thinking in the world won't change that thanks to 911. Hutch

 

[swerve]

The same thing happened when Napoleon tried to invade them as did Hitlers Operation Barbarossa and the same winter froze them to death. Hitler sent them in deliberately without the cold weather gear they would need so they would fight harder and thought his chances of winning the war before winter would work. It didn't and it cost Germany hundreds of thousands of dead and pow's. ... Hutch

I think you should read some history, not novels. Hitler did not deliberately deprive the Wehrmacht of cold-weather gear to make it fight harder. It wasn't the winter which killed Napoleons army, it was the breakdown of its supply system, which was largely caused by Russian actions intended to do exactly that. They targeted his depots, & forced him off his planned withdrawal route, where his army would have had food & shelter. Hungry soldiers in the open (because the supply wagons with their tents were left behind when the horses starved after the Russians burned their fodder) freeze much faster than well-fed soldiers in cosy tents.

Neither Napoleon nor Hitler planned or expected to do major fighting in winter, but both had, despite the myths, made provision (though not as much as they should) for it. The problem was not so much the weather, as the Russians being tougher & cleverer than expected.

 

[10ringr]

I think you should read some history, not novels. Hitler did not deliberately deprive the Wehrmacht of cold-weather gear to make it fight harder. It wasn't the winter which killed Napoleons army, it was the breakdown of its supply system, which was largely caused by Russian actions intended to do exactly that. They targeted his depots, & forced him off his planned withdrawal route, where his army would have had food & shelter. Hungry soldiers in the open (because the supply wagons with their tents were left behind when the horses starved after the Russians burned their fodder) freeze much faster than well-fed soldiers in cosy tents.

Neither Napoleon nor Hitler planned or expected to do major fighting in winter, but both had, despite the myths, made provision (though not as much as they should) for it. The problem was not so much the weather, as the Russians being tougher & cleverer than expected.

I only read history. I don't read novels and I think you just have to win an argument so you can argue with yourself now. I'm not interested in having a friendly discussion to an ill informed person. My credentials and education: are beyond questioning and the more I talk to you the more I realize that you simply have a little information and think you know something. I don't care to discuss this anymore. Hutch

 

[Incognito129]

China would be a staunch ally of NK. Not sure where you are getting this from, but the last thing China wants is a sizeable American force at their border. Needless to say they would probably do everything they can do prevent a war to begin with, atleast until the Chinese military is comparable to the US.

 

[swerve]

China would be a staunch ally of NK. Not sure where you are getting this from, but the last thing China wants is a sizeable American force at their border. Needless to say they would probably do everything they can do prevent a war to begin with, atleast until the Chinese military is comparable to the US.

Of course China doesn't want a US presence on its border, but that is not a reason for getting into a full-scale war with the USA & S. Korea. Exactly the opposite.

I & others have sketched out some of the ways in which China might seek to avoid US troops on its border, from joining in to "restore order", to backing N. Korean generals in overthrowing Kim.

Logically, the best way for China to avoid US troops on its border is to join in on the South Korean side, & propose that the final settlement of the N. Korean question include the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea. China gets a friendly & grateful Korean government of the whole peninsula, gets rid of the troublesome & expensive Kim, & scores a point over the USA. The USA would have to accept the terms if the S. Koreans did. Win-win for China.

 

[Incognito129]

Of course China doesn't want a US presence on its border, but that is not a reason for getting into a full-scale war with the USA & S. Korea. Exactly the opposite.

I & others have sketched out some of the ways in which China might seek to avoid US troops on its border, from joining in to "restore order", to backing N. Korean generals in overthrowing Kim.

Logically, the best way for China to avoid US troops on its border is to join in on the South Korean side, & propose that the final settlement of the N. Korean question include the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea. China gets a friendly & grateful Korean government of the whole peninsula, gets rid of the troublesome & expensive Kim, & scores a point over the USA. The USA would have to accept the terms if the S. Koreans did. Win-win for China.

I'm not sure I understand your first point. I was under the impression that China is "rising peacefully" because it is in no position to exert influence in the region.

As long as a war doesn't happen in Korea i doubt any significant military force would be in the region. They dont need to do anything except not to do anything.

Foreign troop withdrawal doesn't mean much, the US can send a sizeable force pretty fast.

 

[swerve]

I'm not sure I understand your first point. I was under the impression that China is "rising peacefully" because it is in no position to exert influence in the region.

As long as a war doesn't happen in Korea i doubt any significant military force would be in the region. They dont need to do anything except not to do anything.

Foreign troop withdrawal doesn't mean much, the US can send a sizeable force pretty fast.

The discussion was about the hypothetical possibility of China supporting N. Korea in a war with the south, in which US forces would be fighting in support of S. Korea. For China to be a "staunch ally" of N. Korea (something it isn't at present - drip-feeds the N. Korean economy to stave off collapse & the unpleasant consequences that would bring, doesn't supply arms, leans on Kim to change policies) would require joining in the war, & hence fighting the USA.

Chinese diplomacy has been trying for years to get US troops out of S. Korea, & S. Korea detached from its alliance with the USA. China seems to have no objections to Korean reunification (indeed, would prefer it to the current situation), as long as it produces the right kind of Korea, i.e. one which has no US bases, is not closely allied to the USA (preferably, not allied at all), is far more lightly armed than at present, has a calm & reasonably predictable government & has no nuclear weapons. A harmless Korea. Such a Korea is not conceivable under the rule of Kim Jong Il or his likely successors: it would require the north to be taken over by the south, not vice-versa. China would expect to have good relations with such a Korea (why not? China has no claims on its territory, & wants to trade with it), & be prone to quarrel with Japan, which would suit China very well.

Being a "staunch ally" of the unpredictable, expensive, embarrassing, & frankly rather scary Kim Jong Il is incompatible with Chinas future peace & prosperity. He is propped up - and only just, no more aid than is absolutely necessary, & given grudgingly - because letting him collapse would produce undesirable (for China) consequences. China would drop him like a shot otherwise.

There would be no reason for the USA to send troops to a peaceful, united Korea, & no reason for such a Korea to accept them.

You see? Chinas Korean problem is getting from here to there. Kim Jong Il is in the way, because the south can't be prised away from the USA with him in charge of the north. I can't see how any of the ways to get to a good (from Chinas point of view) arrangement in Korea include fighting to support him. If he could be quietly removed, I think they'd do it, with a sigh of relief, but getting rid of him is difficult & dangerous.

 

[Incognito129]

The discussion was about the hypothetical possibility of China supporting N. Korea in a war with the south, in which US forces would be fighting in support of S. Korea. For China to be a "staunch ally" of N. Korea (something it isn't at present - drip-feeds the N. Korean economy to stave off collapse & the unpleasant consequences that would bring, doesn't supply arms, leans on Kim to change policies) would require joining in the war, & hence fighting the USA.

In the event of war there isn't a doubt in my mind that China wouldn't be an ally to NK. History has shown(recent and old) that they are diplomatically close.

Your statement assumes that NK, or more precisely Kim, is asking for Chinese aid. Dictatorships work much better when the general population is starving and poor, its been well proven. He has already repeatedly killed several of his ministers who suggested economic reforms and what not.

Chinese diplomacy has been trying for years to get US troops out of S. Korea, & S. Korea detached from its alliance with the USA. China seems to have no objections to Korean reunification (indeed, would prefer it to the current situation), as long as it produces the right kind of Korea, i.e. one which has no US bases, is not closely allied to the USA (preferably, not allied at all), is far more lightly armed than at present, has a calm & reasonably predictable government & has no nuclear weapons. A harmless Korea. Such a Korea is not conceivable under the rule of Kim Jong Il or his likely successors: it would require the north to be taken over by the south, not vice-versa. China would expect to have good relations with such a Korea (why not? China has no claims on its territory, & wants to trade with it), & be prone to quarrel with Japan, which would suit China very well.

It takes much more than removing 10,000 or some odd number of troops to break a military alliance between SK and US. Most of what your saying here sounds like conjecture so I'm not going to bother, but the current SK president is pro-Chinese. I doubt that the SK citizens will elect another pro-Chinese leader with China on the rise.

I'm sure China is all for a peaceful reunification but everyone knows thats not happening.

Being a "staunch ally" of the unpredictable, expensive, embarrassing, & frankly rather scary Kim Jong Il is incompatible with Chinas future peace & prosperity. He is propped up - and only just, no more aid than is absolutely necessary, & given grudgingly - because letting him collapse would produce undesirable (for China) consequences. China would drop him like a shot otherwise.

How do you know China's policy is peaceful? The US government probably has thousands of people watching China for the moment they aren't yet some how you know China's rise will be peaceful. They've repeatedly made claims to Taiwan and Tibet. Whats more is they are communist. You are trying to claim that a socialist government is peaceful? Have you heard of the Tiannamen(sp?) massacre?

There would be no reason for the USA to send troops to a peaceful, united Korea, & no reason for such a Korea to accept them.

You see? Chinas Korean problem is getting from here to there. Kim Jong Il is in the way, because the south can't be prised away from the USA with him in charge of the north. I can't see how any of the ways to get to a good (from Chinas point of view) arrangement in Korea include fighting to support him. If he could be quietly removed, I think they'd do it, with a sigh of relief, but getting rid of him is difficult & dangerous.

What on god's earth are you talking about. USA will always want a presence in the region. They need SK and Japan, who will probably become very important allies once China rises.

The more I read your post the more you sound like some institutional China man trying to convince me of your horse scatological reference deleted about China.

From what I understand is the SK military is very wary of China's growing presence which is one of the positions they used during FTA negotiations.

Mod edit: Kindly self-moderate the language used, one is able to make a point without resorting to vulgarity.
-Preceptor