NK Missile Test Strategy?


PDA






Ironbarr
June 22, 2006, 10:22 AM
Today - 06/22/06 @ 10:08 EDT the talking heads and "news alerts" are sweating out a (test) launch of a missile potentially a threat to CONUS. US fleet units are in place off NK; POTUS says "NO" to US/NK sitdowns; bells and whistles are on alert. The world awaits a NK decision to go and a US decision to stop it.

Now, my insideous mind comes alive with:

Launch is destroyed. NK cries foul, marches a million man invasion of SK pushing in deep. US has to catch up - what to do?

"Blah, blah, blah...."

Now we are in a two front commitment.

(And right now - 10:17 EDT Fox News - finally somebody recognizes that NK can jump and put us in a bind - if not embarassing us... (little fat guy fakes out big stick!)

Ideas??

-AndyB

If you enjoyed reading about "NK Missile Test Strategy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ojibweindian
June 22, 2006, 01:32 PM
We're not the only military presence in South Korea; they have an army, too. Plus we've got B-52's in Diego Garcia, and of course there's always the bombers on 24x7 alert status at Offut AFB.

We've usually got a carrier floating around somewhere nearby, and almost certainly more than one fast attack and boomer lurking somewhere off the coast of NK and China.

It'll be a lot harder than you think for the North Koreans to pull off an invasion of its brother to the south.

NukemJim
June 22, 2006, 08:43 PM
It'll be a lot harder than you think for the North Koreans to pull off an invasion of its brother to the south

Sorry but I am not sure about that.

My understanding is that NK has been planning/preparing for an invasion of the south ever since the "end" of the "Korean War". Evidence given for this was the continued infilatration of recon/commando teams, incusions by NK Navy and Air Force into SK water/air, size/compostion of their military particularly their army, the continued building of tunnels that originate North of the DMZ that exit South of the DMZ (IIRC some large enough to take tanks, supply vehicles and narrow gauge RailRoad tracks).

Combine the above with NK's history of reckless (by US Standards) disregard of losses during offensive modes, Korea's hilly terrain which (from my limited knowledge of Nuclear Weapons) greatly reduces the effectiveness of Nuclear Warheads especially if the enemy is properly trained and prepared in defensive measures against such devices.

Frankly (and I hope I am wrong I most definetly do not know) I do not think the US could save SK from NK with conventional forces. We are stretched too thin. Hurt them? Yes, but they have had 50 years to develop and practice a plan. If NK were serious then we would have to go Nuclear in order to stop them. Furthermore I do not believe they would stop for only a few unless we were going to use them to destroy cities.

Either way the US would lose major league, either militarily by staying conventional or politicly world wide for use of Nuclear Weapons.

I hope nothing occurs and if it does that I am 100% wrong.

NukemJim

Ironbarr
June 22, 2006, 10:37 PM
You have put details to my general suspicions.

Recent al Qaida [sp] documents purportedly reveal a need to split our forces among other trouble spots to give them breathing room. Iran and NK appear to be sympathizing with that "need" and much of the noise might be just that - noise to have us waste $$$ and people on their threats while al Q regroups.

And then... I may be talking in my flat hat. I do believe we'd be hard put to put boots on the ground which is required to control things --- unless there are no "things".

-AndyB

ojibweindian
June 23, 2006, 08:52 AM
My understanding is that NK has been planning/preparing for an invasion of the south ever since the "end" of the "Korean War".

And should I assume that the U.S. hasn't been preparing plans to counter an invasion of SK by NK? Are you saying the NKs can plan an invasion, but we're not farsighted enough to actually develop our own contingency plans to counter the threat?

Combine the above with NK's history of reckless (by US Standards) disregard of losses during offensive modes, Korea's hilly terrain which (from my limited knowledge of Nuclear Weapons) greatly reduces the effectiveness of Nuclear Warheads especially if the enemy is properly trained and prepared in defensive measures against such devices.


We don't need nukes to beat the NKs. Conventional weapons would be sufficient. MOABs, and cluster munitions can take out concentrations of troops, and our precision guided weapons can take out vital infrastructures with relative ease. Also, though hilly/rough terrain is conducive to hiding and protecting forces from attack, it also makes it difficult for an attacking army to manoever at will, forcing the attackers to use well known passes and major thoroughfares to travel to their objectives. Attacking forces would be more concentrated at these places, allowing us to use these weapons to magnify the casualties inflicted upon the enemy.

Yes, but they have had 50 years to develop and practice a plan.

True, and we've had 50 years to develop our own plans, and 50 years to develop more effective conventional weaponry.

As a last word, defeatism is not very sexy.

Biker
June 23, 2006, 08:58 AM
As I recall, NK has something like 8,000 arty pieces trained on our boys in SK along the border. That's a whole lotta boom-boom.

Biker

Ironbarr
June 23, 2006, 09:10 AM
Guess I'm an old nag - might have something to do with watching stubby-bowed destroyers limp home from NK/SK waters in the '50s. Wish I had your confidence. As for modern arms, maybe... http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/709

Reckon we'll see as this plays out.

ojibweindian
June 23, 2006, 09:29 AM
I'm from the new Navy. Aegis cruisers and destroyers are much more capable than the tin can Navy from WWII. Believe me.

As far as arty goes, 8000+ pieces are a lot, to be sure, but cluster munitions are nothing to be taken lightly, either. Not only that, but we can easily locate those artilery pieces, and take them out.

rev214
June 23, 2006, 09:37 AM
i know its could of/should of, but the :evil: Clintonians :evil: had an opportunity to take care of this mess called North Korea back in the early/mid 90's...but the administration geniuses got outfoxed in a lousy agreement...now its another Clinton mess (and a more dangerous one at that) that Dubya has to deal with...:banghead:

armoredman
June 23, 2006, 09:56 AM
Kim Jung Il pulls the trigger, a lot of people will get messy dead, and he will lose. It may take a while, and rivers of blood, but he will lose.

HankB
June 23, 2006, 10:29 AM
NK has been planning/preparing for an invasion of the south ever since the "end" of the "Korean War".

A nuke-armed lunatic like Kim Jong-Il isn't something we can safety ignore, and Seoul, being right on the border, is vulnerable.

But I don't see how repelling an invasion of South Korea should be primarily a US responsibility.

NK population: ~23 million
SK population: ~48 million

NK GDP: ~$40 billion
SK GDP: ~$800 billion

NK military budget: ~ $5 billion
SK military budget: ~ $21 billion

South Korea has twice the population of NK, an economy around 20 times larger (even though there's a lot of guesswork in the NK numbers) . . . if SK can't or won't put together a military capable of stopping an NK invasion - particularly with US airpower, cruise missles, etc., backing them up, I don't see any real reason for a US "boots on the ground" campaign there again.

If Red China were to get involved again, though, things would get very bad very fast . . . and I don't just mean we wouldn't be able to buy cheap cr@p at Wal-Mart any more.

dfaugh
June 23, 2006, 11:24 AM
It'll be a lot harder than you think for the North Koreans to pull off an invasion of its brother to the south.

Yeah, I would predict that to be about the shortest war in history. As soon as the NKs do anything overtly aggressive, the US cruise missiles start flying.
The Chinese are backing the NKs, BUT they will only do so in a limited way. They (the Chinese) DO NOT want to get into a "shooting war" with the US (yet, if ever). They may have the people, but WE have the weapons systems.

This would be much more like Desert Storm, than the current situation in Iraq. In Desert Storm we kicked a$$ and took names, and COULD HAVE completely decimated Iraqs forces, but the decision (wrongly IMHO) was made to stop once we freed Kuwait.

Even with our reduced military, and our presence in Afganistan and Iraq, we could bring far more "firepower" to bear on the NKs, than they could possibly cope with, even with Chinese assistance. Heck, we've got stuff, the Chinese can only DREAM about. Better Intel, better weapons, etc.

Hkmp5sd
June 23, 2006, 12:37 PM
The only way NK stands a chance is to control the air and they cannot do that. Troops, tanks and artillery are meaningless. They can cause a lot of destruction at the DMZ for a short period of time, but will be wiped out by air power.

gm
June 23, 2006, 12:55 PM
If NK starts something,it will lose.we have more than enough technology,more than enough ships and subs,more than enough everything to spank their behinds..24/7 rain or shine.

..especially if one of their tests happens to accidently fall from the sky onto japan or another countrys waters with its own technology.

such a threat would not only be just the us but any country in range as well.my guess is theyll be slammed hard from all sides on this...not just by the US but by alot of nations.

Biker
June 23, 2006, 12:59 PM
Here is an interesting take on NK's war strategy as it applies to the US, in particular their 'tunnel warfare' tactics. A bit of a long read...


www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm



Biker

Ironbarr
June 23, 2006, 01:33 PM
I think it would take about 290 million people working feverishly to support this "Fortress North Korea".

Sounds like a load of turds to me - though I was ready to give them some benefit of the doubt BEFORE I read this.

The tunnels can be a long term mess.

.

gopguy
June 23, 2006, 01:58 PM
Though it would be hard in furious in the begining if a conflict breaks out you have to remember N. Korea can not sustain it. The population is sickly and underfed. There was a story some time back about some N. Korean soldiers who came across the border to kidnap some women. The women in N. Korea are so under fed there are quite a few who can not carry a baby to birth. These guys wanted a couple breeders and to their dismay they found the women in the South to amazons they could not take on. True story.

The other thing to remember is a lot of the food they do get comes from the South. We can starve the little commie swines.

Biker
June 23, 2006, 07:49 PM
US plane crashes Thursday in North Korea??? Rumors....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/06/22/north-korea.html

Biker

Zedicus
June 23, 2006, 08:05 PM
US plane crashes Thursday in North Korea??? Rumors....

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...rth-korea.html

Biker


Hm, somewhat suspicious, appears more like NK looking for an "Excuse" to start a War....:scrutiny:

Biker
June 23, 2006, 08:09 PM
It appears that it was enough to effect the foreign exchange markets.

Ya never know...

~raises eyebrows~

Biker

Roadwild17
June 23, 2006, 08:12 PM
Anyone remember nam???

$400,000 missile against 80,000 $5 bikes, its kinda hard to win a war like that. Without "boots on the ground" it will be a hard war to win.


however if the statement somewhere above with the figures is anywhere around correct, things should work out alright LONG AS NUKES ARE LEFT ALONE :what:

mordechaianiliewicz
June 23, 2006, 08:24 PM
If a U.S. city is nuked, the only Kims in the world will be outide of the Korean peninsula, and Hyundais won't have a nice warranty any more.

If the NK decides to do a conventional invasion, the U.S. will tell the SK "Yeah, uh.. reinforcements. Yeah."

Meanwhile, after maybe a half-hearted defense, NK will take over the whole peninsula over the next few weeks and months, and we will be angry, and use sanctions, and other than that nothing.

Oh, by the way, Kims living outside of the Korean peninsula will be happy either way they weren't on the Korean peninsula, and Hyundai's warranty won't mean much either way.

This is the future. Become nuclear, and you can dangle the U.S. Just don't attack us. Then, well, you cease to exist.

Roadwild17
June 23, 2006, 08:26 PM
I dont believe the US would get nuked, maby another country like japan or the aussies.

OK, say NK could get A shot off at CONUS, what city?

feedthehogs
June 23, 2006, 08:45 PM
Yeah, I would predict that to be about the shortest war in history.

Just like Vietnam, Korea and Iraq. Did we not learn the first time?


On a related note, where is the money going to come from to pay for a Korean conflict? Any idea what a ballistic missle goes for these days?

Been keeping An eye on raw material costs these days? Let alone securing said materials.

We could print more, they would raise interest rates to keep inflation from hitting the roof and nobody could afford to buy anything except oil company and Haliburton exec's.

Or they could raise taxes and the same result as above would still apply.

Sooner or later the bill for Iraq will have to be paid.

Hugo
June 23, 2006, 09:43 PM
Something tells me with our sensors and mining experience, South Korea and US Intel knows where all the tunnels are, and have probably placed a few tons of explosives around each of them. If NK invades SK, many, many loud BOOM, BOOM noises and a lot of sinkholes appear near the DMZ. Tunnels are useless.

I bet some NK general or soldier is ready to assassinate Kim Jong Il immediately if he gets really nuts. Most North Koreans and their military are probably sick of this BS and want to reunite with South Korea quite a bit. I'd give NK as it is about 5 years tops, then Kim Jong Il is dead or in the Hague on trial and reunification begins.

Thin Black Line
June 24, 2006, 08:11 AM
This whole thing is a bit overblown. Even if they have half a dozen nukes on
three stage rockets ready to go right now, what are they really going to do
with them? Launch all of them at us? What kind of response would they get
back you think?

I'm not old enough to personally remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, but
plenty old enough for the MAD years with the Soviets. Dealing with NK
is like going from a platoon of Soviet snipers to a big-mouthed little guy
with a .25 pocket pistol. People are forgetting the little guy has a boss
--he lives a block north. Do you think his Boss is going to let his business
get screwed up? Especially when the Boss holds part of the mortgage on
the property the little guy might take a pot shot at?

This is total wag the dog for the mid-terms.....

spartacus2002
June 24, 2006, 08:33 AM
I seriously doubt the Chinese would think it none of their business if we started dropping nukes on NK.

Plus, how would the Japanese like clouds of fallout drifting over their islands?

Roadwild17
June 24, 2006, 02:11 PM
Even if they did nuke us, i doubt we would relatiate, even if then, probbly not nukes. The fallout would be to bad and NK is dam close to China. They could probably get every tomahawk thats in range foloowed by sanctions, the whole while the rest of the world woould be looking at us holding there breath as is to say "Let it Go"! :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: .

If you enjoyed reading about "NK Missile Test Strategy?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!