North Korea shells South Korean island

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW,

Correct me if I'm wrong but there's not much room for a war of Manuver on the Korean penisula. The only way to envelope is amphibiously. Inchon, while a victory was achived with an aweful lot of luck.

Well, the land is comparatively flatter in the western border area as opposed to the east. There are high-speed areas of approach around Seoul, and the ability for some maneuver in that area. That's really where the NK tanks rolled down in '50, and they could roll down there again. The thing is that the distances are so close that forces are going to come into heavy contact pretty quickly, and the forces are much larger than they were in '50 so you're not talking about a lot of unoccupied ground, open flanks, and broken-field running if you get a penetration. So while the terrain might permit maneuver, I think it would be incredibly high-intensity fighting in that open area, without the wide strategic sweeps you saw in the desert.

As you move east along the border, the terrain roughens up significantly. The sectors in which my units operated on my two deployments there were pretty rough ground that would lead to some pretty brutal infantry/artillery heavy combat. Tanks would be a less useful there, fairly vulnerable to anti-tank weaponse, and of course you'd be in range of the NK's artillery across the border. Being on my battalion's staff at that point as the S-3a, I got to see some of the fireplans for our sectors, and some more general stuff for other sectors.

If the NK's came across, they'd be stopped, but it would take a lot blood. The ground just doesn't give you much of an ability to engage and disrupt at range, which is the key to taking advantage of superior technology. If you're outmatched technologically, but have numbers, then you want to close as quickly as possible. The terrain in SK and the need for forward defense favors that. I should add that the mountainous interior regions make it particularly dangerous for aircraft engaging in ground support (which the AF -- other than A-10 pilots, generally hates) because it's much easier to conceal anti-air assets.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Ever read Larry Bond's Red Phoenix? In it ROK and U.S. forces gave the NK lots of ground in the West then after about a week launched a massive counter attack from the rougher terrain in the east on the NK left.

[Werthead]

The North Koreans did make excellent use of the terrain against the UN forces in the original Korean War, rendering a lot of the WW2 tactics they were still using (tank maneuvers, aerial bombardment) useless or easy to avoid. However, there was much greater technological parity in the original conflict (both sides actually used a lot of WW2 tech, at least to start off with, aside from jets). A war today would be between two forces where one is about two generations more advanced than the other. Even the very best, cutting-edge jets and tanks the NKs have are about twenty years old. The 1980s-vintage MiG-29 Fulcrum was great in its day but today won't last very long at all against F-22s and modern-variant F-15s, although given the fuel shortages I'd be amazed if the NKs could even get a lot of them to fly (a same issue for a lot of their tanks).

[Spastic Plastic]

This is what would happen in the case of a war:

North Korea will fire its artillery at Seoul, and probably do some serious damage in a short space of time before they're counter-attacked. US Air Force bombards NK into submission.

The cost of rebuilding Seoul will pale in the costs of any reunification. Germany is still paying theirs and the NK situation is much, much worse. I expect the poor bastards in NK get semi-quarantined in some 'autonomous zone' and much more slowly integrated in.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

Gardiner explained that to control escalation in North Korea, the United States, using its air power, would first have to take out North Korea's aging air force. Though many enemy aircraft are bunkered in mountain redoubts, this would be easy. But one major problem could keep us from taking rapid control of the peninsula: chemical weapons. Citing congressional testimony given by General Leon LaPorte, the commander of U.S. forces in Korea, Gardiner said that North Korea's chemical weapons could be a "showstopper." "The chemical-weapon thing is big," he said. "We have reason to believe that the chemical weapons are with the forward artillery units that are targeting Seoul. If we don't get those early, we end up with chemicals on Seoul."

Next Gardiner projected a PowerPoint slide showing the range of a Taepo Dong 1 missile overlaid on a map of East Asia. It demonstrated that such a missile launched from the Korean peninsula could reach not only Tokyo, Okinawa, and Beijing but also the U.S. base in Guam. To prevent escalation, Gardiner said, we would need to take out the No-Dong and Taepo Dong missile sites quickly—which would not be easy, because we don't know where those missiles are. Many are hidden in underground bunkers throughout North Korea. The PACOM commander's conclusion: "It's a difficult target set, but we can do it."

We would also, of course, need to take out the nuclear sites. Gardiner flashed a map of North Korea's known nuclear-related facilities on the screen, and then showed a series of satellite photos of various WMD targets. Many of the targets were tucked away in underground tunnels or at least partially obscured by what arrows on the photos labeled as "hill masses." "You begin to see how difficult a target set this is," Gardiner said.

"Is that a euphemism for undoable?" Secretary of Defense Adelman asked.

"No, not at all," Gardiner said. General McInerney practically jumped out of his chair to say "No!"

Gardiner continued, explaining that the first few days of the fight would be critical if we were to have any chance of protecting Seoul. To do so, we would have to get the chemical-delivery systems, the missile sites, and the nuclear sites before the North Koreans had a chance to use them. To accomplish all this we would need to carry out 4,000 air sorties a day in the first days of the conflict. In Iraq, in contrast, we had carried out 800 a day.

Director of National Intelligence Mathews disagreed that Seoul could be shielded: "My understanding is that we cannot protect Seoul, at least for the first twenty-four hours of a war, and maybe for the first forty-eight." McInerney disputed this, and Mathews asked him to explain.

McInerney: "There's a difference between 'protecting' Seoul and [limiting] the amount of damage Seoul may take."

Mathews: "There are a hundred thousand Americans in Seoul, not to mention ten million South Koreans."

McInerney: "A lot of people are going to die, Jessica. But you still prevail."

Mathews: "I just think we've got to be really careful. We've got to protect Seoul. If your daughter were living in Seoul, I don't think you would feel the U.S. military could protect her in those first twenty-four hours."

McInerney: "No, I do. I believe that we have the capability—whether from pre-emption or response—to minimize the casualties in Seoul."

Mathews: "'Minimize' to roughly what level? A hundred thousand? Two hundred thousand?"

McInerney: "I think a hundred thousand or less."

The war game

[So1ar]

Some U.S. forces had been helping the South Koreans in a military training exercises, but were not in the shelled area. - From CNN

Things would have REALLY gotten interesting if U.S. soldiers were killed or injured.

[Spastic Plastic]

Since I'm the Stormfront expert of the board, I'm going add a little comic relief to this thread. Because even Stormfront has an opinion about this Korean shelling.

This is Stormfront's view, encapsulated in a picture.

(Their argument was the same old. "How many women were raped by niggers in NK?" "How much Jewish porn is made in NK?" Not much!)

[Jon AS]

Luckily this seems to be cooling down again. It's pretty insane how lil' Kim's regime can easily scare the hell out of everyone.

"How much Jewish porn is made in NK?"

How does Jewish porn differ from regular US made porn btw? I mean, circumcision is pretty widespread in the states, right?

[Werthead]

Luckily this seems to be cooling down again. It's pretty insane how lil' Kim's regime can easily scare the hell out of everyone.

Hopefully. But the BBC are reporting now that two South Korean civilians were killed in the attack. It'll be interesting to see how Seoul reacts to that.

[mormont]

Interesting analysis here:

Some experts believe that what looks like a reckless game of chicken is a well-thought out plan intended to cement Kim Jong-un's path to power. His father, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, seems frail and ill and wants his son to take over when he is gone. I am told reports from China suggest Kim Jong-un was involved in giving the order for the shelling. This could improve his standing with the old guard and the military. That there may be a political rationale behind the violence is cold comfort.

The prospect of an incident like this one lighting the fuse to a bigger conflict is horrific. The US administration's man with direct responsibility for the region, Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell, once warned that conflict on the peninsular would lead to a "symphony of death". There's no doubt Seoul is in serious danger, even without the threat of nuclear weapons.

Winding down two wars, Mr Obama hardly wants to get embroiled in another where the death toll of Afghanistan and Iraq combined might pale in comparison.

If America doesn't want a war, experts say neither does North Korea. Former defence department expert in the region, Abe Denmark, who's now with the Centre for a New American Security told me:

This latest incident in some ways increases the possibility of escalation. But North Korea knows what it would mean and it doesn't want to go there. A broader conflict would mean the end of North Korea as a political entity, so it wants to avoid that while using belligerence and aggression to get concessions from South Korea and America.

[Renasko]

Yay, his son is going to continue the line of being a pain in the ass for the rest of the world.

[Hereward]

Not necessarily. I doubt he was given carte blanche on what to do. His father and supporters are positioning him to take over, and to do that they need to demonstrate his hardline credentials. What he chooses to do after he takes over, if he has the power to do it, may be completely different.

[Renasko]

This is hardly a confidence booster, if it is the first act of the son. Not a competent way to go about assuming management power.

[Horza]

Why isn't it?

[Hereward]

But it's hardly likely to have been the first act of the son. I doubt his father and the generals handed over the control codes and said, "Go on son, have a go". The current leadership did this and made it known that the heir apparant was involved and committed to such a course of action.

He may continue like this when he's in power, he may have no choice to continue like this if he has no real power when he becaomes titular leader, but I don't think we can assume he would, given the choice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I suppose what frightens me is SK's "No more warnings" message from yesterday. Will they back that up in the event of another NK provocation? Or, are the SK trying to look tough while knowing a real hard line response is out of the question because of the huge ramification such a response would entail? I'm really torn about what SK should do. Part of me says war should be avoided at all costs, but, when NK starts taking pop shots at civilians to show the new guy is really "tough" perhaps it's time to say, "enough".

[Werthead]

I suspect there will be a military argument that evacuating Seoul and basically having it out with North Korea now, whilst they have only a small nuclear capacity, is preferable to waiting for a few years and then maybe having to confront the North with many more nuclear weapons. That will likely be argued against strongly due to the fact that a war on the Korean peninsular could make Iraq and Afghanistan combined look like a playground scuffle (or it might be a gigantic damp squib with North Korea collapsing immediately like a deck of cards) and North Korea may implode on its own. If the succession is disputed and civil war broke out in the North (a remote possibility, as far as we can tell), the North might collapse anyway, ending the threat with minimum bloodshed (in the South).

But the South can't keep ignoring provocations. This year, dozens of South Korean military personnel and now several civilians have been killed by the North's actions, and the North has gotten away with it. That situation cannot continue.

[Hereward]

I can't see the benefit of that. Evacuating Seoul clearly says to the North, "we're going to attack you", thereby provoking an attack before the evacuation finishes.

[Horza]

As well, if they're going to retaliate with force there will be an argument to go all-in rather than hit hard and wait to see if the North respond by hitting harder. I don't think there's many historical examples of military escalation that don't involve the two sides racing up three or four stairs at a time.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

I can't see the benefit of that. Evacuating Seoul clearly says to the North, "we're going to attack you", thereby provoking an attack before the evacuation finishes.

Worse, it provokes an attack while the evacuation is ongoing and SK roads are clogged with SK civilians hampering the ability of the SK military to respond to a NK hit you back first attack.