Attacking North Korea and option?

[Alex Moon]

These guys think so.

U.S. and South Korean forces have spent nearly half a century preparing to fight and win such a war. We should not be intimidated by North Korea's much-discussed artillery. Around half of North Korea's 11,000-plus artillery pieces, some of them in caves, are in position to fire on Seoul. But all are vulnerable to stealth and precision weapons--e.g., caves can be sealed by accurate munitions.

Thoughts?

[Hasler]

A war with NK souldnt be too costly as long as it dosent go chem or nuclear. As for the Artilery Fire, Fire finder radar is a bitch for fixed positions.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I cant read the article, asked for registration. But people who are frothing at the mouth to attack other countries should grab a rifle and lead the way. Most never take up that offer.

As for precision guided munitions, its true we could pound the NK artillery. However, there is a basic problem. I dont think we can blow them up faster than they can fire them. So a lot of people will get hurt. War is not surgical, never will be.

[Joe]

NK's artillery is overrated. The vast majority of their pieces can't hit Seoul - certainly not 5,500 of them. At least this guy is acknowledging that it isn't a problem.

[Sea Skimmer]

The number that can hit Seoul is about 600 actually. Along with about five hundred ballistic missiles which we couldn't stop with every Patriot battery in existence. Any war would see heavy chemical weapons usage and a single decent sized nuke could kill 1-300,000. The risk and massive cost, the disruption to the South's economy would run past the hundred billion mark in days, is not worth it when North Korea is on the verge of collapsing without a shot being fired.

[Sea Skimmer]

A war with NK souldnt be too costly as long as it dosent go chem or nuclear. As for the Artilery Fire, Fire finder radar is a bitch for fixed positions.

And normal country battery won't do much of anything to a piece inside a hardened artillery shelter, which basically every long range Northern gun is. Even there turreted SP pieces are under a couple feet concrete. You need air strikes to destroy them with munitions in the 2000 pound class, even if we could fly the entire stealth fighter and bomber fleet against just the guns aimed at Seoul we could only kill 2/3's with perfect accuracy. It is however quite unlikely we could locate them all before they fired to do such a preemptive strike. If we wait for radar to locate them it could be quite some time before bombers get around to silencing them. A few thousand chemical shells landing on a major city is a fucking bad thing.

[Wicked Pilot]

It's not a matter whether or not we can defeat North Korea with a preemptive attack, it's a matter of what it will cost, and if we are willing to pay the price.

[Hasler]

And normal country battery won't do much of anything to a piece inside a hardened artillery shelter, which basically every long range Northern gun is. Even there turreted SP pieces are under a couple feet concrete. You need air strikes to destroy them with munitions in the 2000 pound class, even if we could fly the entire stealth fighter and bomber fleet against just the guns aimed at Seoul we could only kill 2/3's with perfect accuracy. It is however quite unlikely we could locate them all before they fired to do such a preemptive strike. If we wait for radar to locate them it could be quite some time before bombers get around to silencing them. A few thousand chemical shells landing on a major city is a fucking bad thing.

You dont need perfect accuracy or even stealth. Any US fighter can carry 2000lbs bunker busters. Everything within range of seoul would be gone and the rest would gone in a few days.


Like i said before it wouldnt be costly as long as it stayed conventional. If they want to open up with chem rounds in their first salvo it dosent really matter what you do to silence the guns because they will have already done what they set out to do.

[Sea Skimmer]

You dont need perfect accuracy or even stealth.

A near miss with a BLU-109 will not destroy a hardened artillery shelter. And the original premise of this article was that stealth attacks could wipe out the North's artillery. That is not possibul and a large raid of conventional aircraft would be detected ahead of time.

Any US fighter can carry 2000lbs bunker busters. Everything within range of seoul would be gone and the rest would gone in a few days.

So you wish to argue that the US can destroy more hardened targets in a few days then it has in all pervious wars combine?

Like i said before it wouldnt be costly as long as it stayed conventional.

A very stupid assumption to start such a conflict on. There is no good reason for the North NOT to use its biochemical arsenal if it comes under attack.

If they want to open up with chem rounds in their first salvo it dosent really matter what you do to silence the guns because they will have already done what they set out to do.

They will have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of people and inflicted massive damage and disruption on the world economy. And all so we can spend a hundred billion to attack a nation that will soon collapse on its own. Great deal.

[Hasler]

Yes i am saying that if need be the US could destroy the majority of the artillary emplacements in days. We have the location of many of the sites and any that we dont will be located when they fire. IIRC durring the gulf war there was an operational tempo of something like 2000 sorties a day in a war with NK it would be reasonable to assume that at least this many will happen per day. If you tasked just 1/3 with anti artilliary opperations you would soon run out of targets to kill. The only reason so many targets havent been killed before is just of matter of the target area not being so rich.

When I was refering to accuracy i was talking more drop 4 bombs on the target to increase kill probability.

There is no way to do a completely covert first strike against the DPRK. Too many troops would have to be moved, too many ships and aircraft have to be put into place, and the increase in message traffic would increadible. If thier intelligence is halfway competent they should see the change in status of the forces in and around South Korea

[CaptainChewbacca]

Its not easy to destroy a hardened and/or camouflaged emplacement. Just because it is firing doesn't mean we'll be able to see it.

[EmperorMing]

If a conflict starts on the Korean peninsula, I could see it going biochem and nuclear *real* quick...

And I would not trust China or Russia in this mix at all. Too damn close.

[Vympel]

And I would not trust China or Russia in this mix at all. Too damn close.

I doubt either would get involved to the detriment of the United States.

[Hasler]

Its not easy to destroy a hardened and/or camouflaged emplacement. Just because it is firing doesn't mean we'll be able to see it.

Fire finder radar gives you the exact position of the enemy gun emplacement.

[MKSheppard]

I suggest we employ the following and emplace it in a hardened
railroad tunnel in Seoul

[RedImperator]

Its not easy to destroy a hardened and/or camouflaged emplacement. Just because it is firing doesn't mean we'll be able to see it.

Fire finder radar gives you the exact position of the enemy gun emplacement.

Yeah, the catch is, the shell is already on its way into downtown Seoul.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yes i am saying that if need be the US could destroy the majority of the artillary emplacements in days. We have the location of many of the sites and any that we dont will be located when they fire. IIRC durring the gulf war there was an operational tempo of something like 2000 sorties a day in a war with NK it would be reasonable to assume that at least this many will happen per day. If you tasked just 1/3 with anti artilliary opperations you would soon run out of targets to kill. The only reason so many targets havent been killed before is just of matter of the target area not being so rich.

Iraq had about 3300 guns, all-sitting in open emplacements in the desert. Air attacks killed about 1000 after a MONTH. North Korea has three times as many sitting in hardened shelters dug into forested mountain sides. Do you see the problem now?

Generating two thousand sorties per day would require a massive multi month build up which would clearly have no purpose but to destroy North Korea. There would be a massive risk of them shooting first with everything they have.

[Sea Skimmer]

I suggest we employ the following and emplace it in a hardened
railroad tunnel in Seoul

[img]http://www.cix.co.uk/~nrobinson/railgun ... ol.jpg[img]

You've been listening to me again..

[MKSheppard]

You've been listening to me again..

Somewhat, great leader! The fact that a single 80cm shell fired
was able to:

This was the aiming point for an underground ammunition magazine under Severnaya Bay and so placed by the Sviets as to be invulnerable to conventional weapons. It was not invulnerable to the 80-cm K (E) for nine projectiles bored the way down through the sea, through over 30 m (100 ft) of sea bottom and then exploded inside the magazine. By the time 'schwere Gustav' had fired its ninth shot the magazine was a wreck and to cap it all a small sailing ship had been sunk in the process.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yes i am saying that if need be the US could destroy the majority of the artillary emplacements in days. We have the location of many of the sites and any that we dont will be located when they fire. IIRC durring the gulf war there was an operational tempo of something like 2000 sorties a day in a war with NK it would be reasonable to assume that at least this many will happen per day. If you tasked just 1/3 with anti artilliary opperations you would soon run out of targets to kill. The only reason so many targets havent been killed before is just of matter of the target area not being so rich.

Iraq had about 3300 guns, all-sitting in open emplacements in the desert. Air attacks killed about 1000 after a MONTH. North Korea has three times as many sitting in hardened shelters dug into forested mountain sides. Do you see the problem now?

Generating two thousand sorties per day would require a massive multi month build up which would clearly have no purpose but to destroy North Korea. There would be a massive risk of them shooting first with everything they have.

Well said, Skimmer. The US military is a truly fearsome force, but it ain't magic.

[Admiral Johnason]

It'll cost about as much as the pay for the sniper and however many bullets it takes to kill Kim and his backers.

[Wicked Pilot]

It'll cost about as much as the pay for the sniper and however many bullets it takes to kill Kim and his backers.

Gee wow, that's guaranteed to work. Now if we can only get someone in, find out where and when Kim Small Dong will be, and manage to avoid his security forces, then it should be easy. Hell, what's to stop a North Korean sniper from shwacking Bush? After all, our country's much more open than theirs.

[Hasler]

Iraq had about 3300 guns, all-sitting in open emplacements in the desert. Air attacks killed about 1000 after a MONTH. North Korea has three times as many sitting in hardened shelters dug into forested mountain sides. Do you see the problem now?

Generating two thousand sorties per day would require a massive multi month build up which would clearly have no purpose but to destroy North Korea. There would be a massive risk of them shooting first with everything they have.

Here is the thing it is called the Air Tasking Order i am mearly stateing that if need be it is possible to knock out most of the gun emplacements if they put them as a high priority on it. The Artillary peices wernt that high of a priority due to the fact that wernt in hardend emplacements and would be destroyed by counter battery fire soon after engageing. Why task aircraft to hunt down doomed Artillery when they can hit more moble forces such as tanks.

For a first strike on the DPRK you have to have a military build up. Its not possible to not tip your hand. and to get 2000 sorties a day you need between 600-700 aircraft in theater. That would be relatively easy to do but the ground forces needed will tip your hand regardless of how you go about it. Even if you could some how sneek in all divisions needed you would still have to some how hide the change of alert status. If you go back to my first post i was only stateing that the projected military casualties shouldnt be very high unless it went unconventional.

[Admiral Johnason]

It'll cost about as much as the pay for the sniper and however many bullets it takes to kill Kim and his backers.

Gee wow, that's guaranteed to work. Now if we can only get someone in, find out where and when Kim Small Dong will be, and manage to avoid his security forces, then it should be easy. Hell, what's to stop a North Korean sniper from shwacking Bush? After all, our country's much more open than theirs.

NK is afraid to mess with Texas. Do you know how dangerous that state is. ONe more terrorist attack and we got ourselves another crusade, but they'll go through Mexico first and than cross the Pacific. They'll try to convert those heathen devils in Mexico to English first.

[Howedar]

You keep repeating that like its fact, in spite of the fact that it is contrary to all US military experience.