When North Koreans Attack...

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-07 05:56pm

Does anyone know what sort of contingency plans are in effect if the NK's decide to take advantage of over stretched American forces and launch an assault into the South with everything they have as they did in the 50's?

Will the US be forced to use nukes to stave off the NK assault or do we have the forces in theater to actually stop them?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-07 06:00pm

NK gets nuked before they can try anything nasty, though our conventional forces would be against a shitload of guns and Tokyo and Seoul may get a nuking before we even react. That alone would give success to the DPRK if they wanted to fuck us over.

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-10-07 06:01pm

You mean aside from the popcorn and salt to enjoy the show as the South Koreans kick the crap out of the North Korean invaders and their substandard equipment?

Let's be honest here, North Korea's military is a paper tiger. The south can easily stave off invasion without any US aid, though I imagine the USAF and USN will contribute to the bitchslapping of the starving hordes, but really I think the South Koreans could do an effective bitchslap on their own.

Really the only danger from the north is that they might open up with some massive rocket and artillerly salvos on Seoul and kill boatloads of civillians and the US military can't do much to stop that if the North really feels like going in for seppuku.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2004-10-07 06:27pm

Stravo wrote:Does anyone know what sort of contingency plans are in effect if the NK's decide to take advantage of over stretched American forces and launch an assault into the South with everything they have as they did in the 50's?

Will the US be forced to use nukes to stave off the NK assault or do we have the forces in theater to actually stop them?

South Korea so utterly outclasses DPRK even without US support which is rather limited. K1s and T-80s against T-62s and T-54s will be a rather short fight. The massive amount of artillery is a threat, but only a limited number can hit Seoul from the border and they don't have the supplies to support an advance to bring them in range. Hundreds of ballistic missles armed with chemicals warheads (and a possible nuclear warhead or two) are a larger threat, but then its a question of when the bombers start flying.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-07 06:39pm

The DPRK has the prime advantage in number of guns and rockets to bare on our targets. They can unleash merry hell across the border before our forces storm in and take down their army which is, quite simply, not a match for even a couple of decades ago Western militaries.

Thing is, civilian casualties will be high if that happens. Even without nukes, there could be a sizeable loss of life if things go well fort he DPRK and they get a surprise attack going.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-07 11:49pm

US and South Korean planning does not even consider there to be a risk of Seoul being encircled anymore. They are utterly outclassed in every field, including numbers if you count reserves, even while totally ignoring US strength.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-10-08 12:00am

US isn't going to start throwing nukes around for the very simple reason that North Korea might start throwing back. It's that whole MAD thing.... If DPRK invades, they will be very firmly told to shut up and get back to where they came from with conventional weapons, and that is what will happen.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-08 12:17am

What about if we put the shoe on the other foot. Could the South "blitz" the North in a 50s style invasion?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-08 12:37am

Bugsby wrote:US isn't going to start throwing nukes around for the very simple reason that North Korea might start throwing back. It's that whole MAD thing....

MAD is the doctrine of no one. The fact that North Korea probably has nuclear weapons, and does have chemical and biological weapons, and will inevitably lose the conventional war and then probably use its NBC weapons in an attempt to stop an invasion of there own territory, doesn't provide the US with much incentive not to nuke first to be sure of eliminating North Koreas weapons. They have more the one bunker we can't expect to destroy with convetional bombs, much more then one.

If DPRK invades, they will be very firmly told to shut up and get back to where they came from with conventional weapons, and that is what will happen.

No, ROK and US planning also call for an invasion of the North, because after it loses its own invasion it will be unstable as hell and the costs will already have been so great, we are talking about tens of thousands of friendly dead in the first hours, that no one is going to accept just going back to the pervious state of affairs so that the North can try to rebuild and keep causing trouble.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-08 12:39am

Bugsby wrote:US isn't going to start throwing nukes around for the very simple reason that North Korea might start throwing back. It's that whole MAD thing...

At present, the North can't hit the continental US, but maybe Alaska and Hawaii. By the time they'll have missile that can reach the continental US, the National Missile Defence System should be operational. BTW, there is no possibility of MAD between the US and North Korea. Ignoring the NMD system, any conceivable future nuclear excange would leave a handful of US cities damaged, or one or two destroyed, but the DPRK would be utterly obliterated. While the thought of this damage may alone be a deterrant to the US, it does not constitute MAD, a concept which even during the height of the Cold War was fiction.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-08 12:50am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:What about if we put the shoe on the other foot. Could the South "blitz" the North in a 50s style invasion?

Certainly not with the same lightning speed as the DPRK did in 1950, but if they were willing to accept the costs, then yes, the ROK could indeed overrun the DPRK.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-08 01:02am

It would take too long to mobilize the South reserves for a surprise attack to be launched, and attacking the North Korean Army while its still at full strength, its missile and gun batteries are intact, and its generally dug into its fortifications just wouldn't be an option, unless we accepted a high level of fallout and used nukes to blast a path. Though if the North began to crack apart as a result of its mass starvation problems, a first strike invasion north might become viable. But in that case the ROK probably would be strongly against it, if only to avoid having to deal with all the refugees directly.

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2004-10-08 06:25am

Not to mention, if N. Koreans really DO have a nuke, the threat of one of them reaching Seoul or Tokyo is great (and God forbid you have Japanese troops on Korean soil again.. S. Korea will be decidely UNHAPPY about that). US intelligence best find out the location of those nukes, because even without hitting a population center, the narrow penninsula doesn't allow for all that great spreading of troops around the map. I'm sure they'll try to get as many troops into a bottleneck as possible or nuke one of their own cities.

But those are just the horror-scenarios of a nuke, either way.. Seoul would be fucked up the ass.

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-10-08 07:02am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:NK gets nuked before they can try anything nasty, though our conventional forces would be against a shitload of guns and Tokyo and Seoul may get a nuking before we even react. That alone would give success to the DPRK if they wanted to fuck us over.

[Han Solo] What good's a reward if you ain't around to use it? Besides, attacking that battlestation ain't my idea of courage; it's more like....suicide[Han Solo]

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-08 07:56am

Anyone who thinks logic applies to the leaders of the DPRK is sorely mistaken is all I can say.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2004-10-08 07:58am

Could the United States organize a high profile test missile launch in the Sea of Japan to send a message to the North Koreans if they got really active in preparing for war? Seems to me that would reflect the growing tensions in the area diplomatically, and the move would have an impact since the United States hasn't done that sort of thing in years.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-10-08 08:08am

In the case of little Kim MAD stands for My Assured Destruction. If he ever set one off his destruction is assured.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-10-08 09:51am

irishmick79 wrote:Could the United States organize a high profile test missile launch in the Sea of Japan to send a message to the North Koreans if they got really active in preparing for war? Seems to me that would reflect the growing tensions in the area diplomatically, and the move would have an impact since the United States hasn't done that sort of thing in years.

Sounds far too dangerous. What if the Russian or Chinese early-warning systems misidentify that as an actual launch? Don't laught -- in the 1990s, a Norwegian sounding rocket was misidentified as a Trident D5 launch -- and the Russians has been informed ahead of time.

Trytostaydead wrote:Not to mention, if N. Koreans really DO have a nuke, the threat of one of them reaching Seoul or Tokyo is great (and God forbid you have Japanese troops on Korean soil again.. S. Korea will be decidely UNHAPPY about that).

Japan is working on their own missile-defense system, IIRC (or at least tying into the US system) but it is years off from deployment.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-08 11:28am

they may be poorly armed and trained, but don't underestimade their determination. I once heard a story on a PBS documentary about how during an offensive against UN positions thousands of NK regulars continued to march into sustained fire from US half track mounted quad-50's. After mowing down thousands ouf soldiers the American gunners were so traumatized by what they had done they stopped firing and their positions were overrun by the North Koreans.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2004-10-09 02:28am

Wait until the US gets the ABL project into production. Then station a squadron of them around the region in SK, Jappan, hell even China if they want the protection and promise not to touch.
Then when Kimmy starts shooting his Wad, shoot everything down.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-10-09 02:39am

I don't think anything going to become of ABL- unlike the MTHEL program, ABL has had real technical issues that may preclude it from being effective for a long time. The GAO (General Accounting Office) has not been kind, and not just from a financial perspective.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-10-09 10:10am

Col. Crackpot wrote:they may be poorly armed and trained, but don't underestimade their determination. I once heard a story on a PBS documentary about how during an offensive against UN positions thousands of NK regulars continued to march into sustained fire from US half track mounted quad-50's. After mowing down thousands ouf soldiers the American gunners were so traumatized by what they had done they stopped firing and their positions were overrun by the North Koreans.

Yeah, watching a fire put out by smothering it with people can be really demoralising if you stop to think about it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

When North Koreans Attack...

When North Koreans Attack...

Re: When North Koreans Attack...