Korean Situation.

Wolfe Tone

Wow, this has really hotted up in the last week or so. The North is still denying any involvement in the sinking of the Souths gunboat. And today, in response to the Souths cessation of inter-Korean trade(13% of the Norths GDP iirc) the North has "Severed all ties" with the South and there are also reports that the North has put its military on "high-alert". Is this just more bluster from the rogue, now nuclear state or could we be bordering on something much bigger?
Personally I think it all depends on Chinas reaction: Clinton is currently in Beijing attempting to get them to condemn NKs actions but as of yet nothing has materialized.

Heres a few links taken from BBC:

BBC article on "Severing Ties".
Timeline or North/South Korean attacks
Details of the Gunboats sinking+Subsequent investigation.

amacachi

The North are expelling all personnel from the South as well. I'm hoping it's the usual rubbish from the North obviously.

Iwasfrozen

amacachi wrote: »

The North are expelling all personnel from the South as well. I'm hoping it's the usual rubbish from the North obviously.

I doubt it, I got to say every thing is pointing towards bad at the moment. The South has cut off trade with the North, this is going to lead to even more food shortages in the North. And people, not Governments can only take so much before they explode.

I hope for the Souths sake they back down now and resume trade with the North.

Wolfe Tone

The deal with personel being expelled goes like this:

KCNA said the North was also expelling all South Korean workers from a jointly-run factory north of the border.

Sand

I doubt it, I got to say every thing is pointing towards bad at the moment. The South has cut off trade with the North, this is going to lead to even more food shortages in the North. And people, not Governments can only take so much before they explode.

I hope for the Souths sake they back down now and resume trade with the North.

You dont reward bad behaviour, unless you want to signal abject weakness.

The Souths decision to suspend trade was a reasonable and measured move to counter the Norths attack on its navy. The North will have a tantrum and a rage about it, but theyll cool off. Behind all the bluster, they dont want a war with the US because they will lose. Especially without Chinese support, and China has more common interest with the USA than NK. If North Korea attacks the south, theyll quickly find out how unimportant they are to China.

Iwasfrozen

Sand wrote: »

The Souths decision to suspend trade was a reasonable and measured move to counter the Norths attack on its navy. The North will have a tantrum and a rage about it, but theyll cool off. Behind all the bluster, they dont want a war with the US because they will lose. Especially without Chinese support, and China has more common interest with the USA than NK. If North Korea attacks the south, theyll quickly find out how unimportant they are to China.

But then you have to ask the question from both sides? Why would America put themselves into a war with a military power, a war they have a chance of losing.
If no interest keeps china out of the war then one could argue the same position for America. How do they benifite from S.Koreas existence?

Wolfe Tone

The US have upwards of 20,000 men in South Korea. If the North were to invade they would be directly involved. War with the South effectively means war with the USA.

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The US have upwards of 20,000 men in South Korea. If the North were to invade they would be directly involved. War with the South effectively means war with the USA.

Those twenty thousand men could easily pull out. And would have to after one million koreans came across the border. I see no reason why the US would risk a war with the North, a nuclear and military power. They gain nothing from S.Koreas continued existence and would only lose money and men in the process.

Sand

Those twenty thousand men could easily pull out. And would have to after one million koreans came across the border. I see no reason why the US would risk a war with the North, a nuclear and military power. They gain nothing from S.Koreas continued existence and would only lose money and men in the process.

The US has spent a lot of its credibility as a superpower, implicit and explicit, that it would defend South Korea from attack by North Korea. Thats why it has 20,000 soldiers in South Korea. To demonstrate its serious.

Were it to bail, the threat of US intervention, perhaps the single greatest check on warlords and agressive militant states around the world, would be eliminated with a resulting loss of U.S. diplomatic prestige and the return of medium to large wars across the globe. The U.S. mightnt gain much from fighting North Korea, but it has a lot to lose.

Iwasfrozen

Sand wrote: »

Were it to bail, the threat of US intervention, perhaps the single greatest check on warlords and agressive militant states around the world, would be eliminated with a resulting loss of U.S. diplomatic prestige and the return of medium to large wars across the globe. The U.S. mightnt gain much from fighting North Korea, but it has a lot to lose.

So those 20,000 men should be sent to their deaths with the prospect of nuclear war because of Americas pride?

Adding to that America is a demoracy and senators are unlikely to vote for a war that will see thousands brought home in a plastic bag needlessly. It's not good for votes.

I'm sorry I refuse to accept that the American Government is that proud or arrogant. Nor do I think the Americans pull out would lead to future wars. America lost the Vietnam war without any worldwide consequences.

Nodin

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So those 20,000 men should be sent to their deaths with the prospect of nuclear war because of Americas pride?
.

No one is sending 20,000 men to die because of "pride". The North Korean regime can't be allowed expand, because that would threaten Japan. Secondly, you seem to have an exaggerated sense of the resources available to North Korea. Thirdly, the South Korean Army is well known for its toughness.

China will not go to war over North Korea being given a good slapping if it left its own borders.

Sand

Its no less likely than North Korean men being sent to their deaths because of the whims of dictator.

Back during the Home Rule trouble back at the turn of the 20th century, the British leadership knew that their people would fight for the British Empire, but they wouldnt fight for Ireland. At the same, most Americans probably dont care less about Korea. But they will fight to preserve the US hegemony when its directly attacked in a blatant fashion.

America lost the Vietnam war without any worldwide consequences.

Having first fought it for many years, laying waste to much of the country, and withdrawing only after it had underlined its willingness to fight to defend its allies?

Its currently waging two low intensity conflicts since 2001 and 2003 respectively, having absorped thousands of casualties. Prior to this, nobody credited the US public opinion would allow the US to stick in a war for more than 7 or 8 combat casualties.

How does this make it likely they would bail the first time a North Korean drummer boy shows up?

Iwasfrozen

Nodin wrote: »

No one is sending 20,000 men to die because of "pride". The North Korean regime can't be allowed expand, because that would threaten Japan.

It doesn't have the economical or military might to threaten Japan.

Nodin wrote: »

Secondly, you seem to have an exaggerated sense of the resources available to North Korea.

North Korea is the most militarised country in the world. At 1.2 million personel it has the worlds fourth largest standing army.

The border between North and South Korea is the most heavily guarded border in the world. North korea has over a million troops stationed there.

Added to that Seoul, the South's capital city and major financial centre is in the north of the country quite next to the border. A major push from the North could see the war over in a month.

Nodin wrote: »

Thirdly, the South Korean Army is well known for its toughness.

As tough as brain washed lunatics? I doubt it.

Nodin wrote: »

China will not go to war over North Korea being given a good slapping if it left its own borders.

That depends on whether the South or America tries to eat up parts of the North after repelling the invasion. They went to war once to defend the North Koreans, I see no reason why they wouldn't this time.

China has the same interest in the North as the Americans have in the South.

Overheal

All I know is the US is treaty-bound to provide military support and cooperation with South Korea in the event of any engagement with DPRK.

Why Kim would ever be brave and stupid enough to do that however, i know not. I imagine it wouldn't take more than a day or two to gain air dominance.

Iwasfrozen

Sand wrote: »

Having first fought it for many years, laying waste to much of the country, and withdrawing only after it had underlined its willingness to fight to defend its allies?

They still lost. They had to pull out they had no other choice.

Sand wrote: »

Its currently waging two low intensity conflicts since 2001 and 2003 respectively, having absorped thousands of casualties. Prior to this, nobody credited the US public opinion would allow the US to stick in a war for more than 7 or 8 combat casualties.

Iraq is a walk over compared to North Korea. These guys are lunatics who would fight untill the very bitter end. Kim Jung Il couldn't care less if the death toll rises to the millions.

The Americans do however and I would expect they would pull out soon after the 20,000 stationed there die.

Sand wrote: »

How does this make it likely they would bail the first time a North Korean drummer boy shows up?

Information from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War#Opposition_to_invasion

The Iraqi army was stood at only 375,000 people. They weren't brainwashed and they altogether were not as organised as the North Koreans are now.

North Korea has 1.2 million active standing troops, the Americans only have 1.4 million. Even with the American advanced weapons they would have to commit more troops then they would like to have any effect on the battle.

fontanalis

But how loyal are the North Korean people to Kim Jonj Ill?

Riddle101

This to me is just your normal Korean situation. North Korea does something to cause tension between them and the South and then suddently the guns are raised at each others heads, or in this case the nukes. Usually these things tend to die down, and North and South Korea go back to their normal relationship, until the next crisis arises between them.

But I don't know, could this be the very thing that starts it all off. I don't think anything out of the ordinary will happen, but I just hope it all settles down.

Knarr

Terrain is probably the most important factor other that troop numbers. Korea is covered in forest and mountains. It would be no walkover for either side.

Some people are forgetting Vietnam. The US lost and they did not 'pull out' until hundreds of thousands were killed and chemical weapons destroyed the place.

Sand

It doesn't have the economical or military might to threaten Japan.

It apparently has the might to threaten the US though. Cant have it both ways.

Iraq is a walk over compared to North Korea. These guys are lunatics who would fight untill the very bitter end. Kim Jung Il couldn't care less if the death toll rises to the millions.

The Americans do however and I would expect they would pull out soon after the 20,000 stationed there die.

Yeah, Saddam said the same.

Merch

large armies aren't necessarily an advantage,
I doubt it will ever come to anything other than sabre rattling, I am sure the N Koreans have learned a lot from what the US has being doing over the last few years, then again the US probably has learned some things too, if it comes to anything to retain credibility they probably would not go much further than the current border, more likely they'd just bomb up as many targets of military importance which the N Korean civilians will suffer for, unless Kim Jong il is planning on going out with a bang, which I hope not.

Iwasfrozen

Sand wrote: »

It apparently has the might to threaten the US though. Cant have it both ways.

It's not threatening the US. Only 20,000 of its troops. Who would soon be steam-rolled. Let me clear this up. I never said N.Korea was a threat to the US, it isn't.

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, Saddam said the same.

Well Saddams opinion would be pretty biased, wouldn't it?

Riddle101

Knarr wrote: »

Terrain is probably the most important factor other that troop numbers. Korea is covered in forest and mountains. It would be no walkover for either side.

Some people are forgetting Vietnam. The US lost and they did not 'pull out' until hundreds of thousands were killed and chemical weapons destroyed the place.

I'm sure the Americans have learned their lesson since then. But even more so, can the US really afford to start another war. They're still trying to deal with the Middle East, but N.K as well would be overexpanding wouldn't it?

Cannibal Ox

The US has a mutual defense treaty with the South, they're obliged to defend them. They have 28,000 troops in the South and 30,000+ in Japan, and they have a mutual defense pact with the Philippines, not to mention being a member of NATO, which includes EU member states, and supporting the Major non-NATO allies, which includes South Korea, Australia, and Israel. It's also worth remembering that the original Korean war involved the UN, not just the US and South Korea.

The US have to defend South Korea, and they would have most of the world as their allies. Excluding China and Russia. Which is the problem. China don't want the US to end up on their border, but if they get involved in a war between North Korea and the US and its allies it might start a very, very, big war with more nuclear weapons in play then North Korea will ever have.

amacachi

The North would overrun the South in days, but would then be pulverised.
The US would have to defend SK anyway, isn't Seoul a pretty damn big financial centre? Let alone the perceived threat to Japan. I can't see the North being stupid enough to start something, unless KJI does it for a last hurrah if he's on the way out.

Manic Moran

It's also worth remembering that the original Korean war involved the UN, not just the US and South Korea.

The United Nations Command still exists, just that the only non US/ROK members of it are generally a few representatives from the other 13 countries who work in offices. You'll note that JSA personnel, for example, still wear the UN flash.



There has never, to my knowledge, been an official resolution from the UN separating itself from the Korean Conflict, which itself never officially terminated.

NTM

jank

Lads, lads, lads. You are missing the subtext of all this. This isn't about North vs South this is about Kim and his handover of power to his son. It keeps those close to Kim important and know what side their bread is buttered on add in a internationl conflict or at least the premise of it then everybody takes their orders in double time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog

Wolfe Tone

amacachi wrote: »

The North would overrun the South in days, but would then be pulverised.
The US would have to defend SK anyway, isn't Seoul a pretty damn big financial centre? Let alone the perceived threat to Japan. I can't see the North being stupid enough to start something, unless KJI does it for a last hurrah if he's on the way out.

I would reckon that the South have a rather large military themselves?

Iwasfrozen

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I would reckon that the South have a rather large military themselves?

Actually, no. Not nearly as big as the North anyway.

dlofnep

I think it's all posturing. They both know the consequences of an all out war, and nothing will come of it IMO.

monosharp

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually, no. Not nearly as big as the North anyway.

655,000 active personnel. Another 3 million on reserve. Nowhere near as big as the North but has a very large advantage in technology.

Tea drinker

dlofnep wrote: »

I think it's all posturing. They both know the consequences of an all out war, and nothing will come of it IMO.

happened before (massive wars), we are not so learned since then either

fontanalis

Forgive me if this is a stupid question but is the North fairly impoverished and if a massive war starts would food production be a big factor?

monosharp

fontanalis wrote: »

Forgive me if this is a stupid question but is the North fairly impoverished and if a massive war starts would food production be a big factor?

Well until 3 years ago they got a lot of free rice from the SK government. Food productions not an issue for the Army, for the ordinary citizens perhaps, but not for the army. Army first is the NK policy. Any supplies goes to the army first, then some is stored and a little makes it to the ordinary NK citizen.

OS119

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually, no. Not nearly as big as the North anyway.

but almost certainly vastly more effective.

NK can make a mess of SK, but SK can turn NK's miltary from a thundering herd into an aimless mass of refugees.

NK may be heavy in the things that look scary - Artillery, Armour and masses of conscripts - but they are light years behind any SK/Japanese/US/Australian force in their ability to dominate the air and deny the enemy its communications and control.

all land battles are won or lost in the Air - and if you wish to waste an hour of your life, you can google for an example of any Air Force using Soviet/Chinese aircraft and doctrine denying an Air Force using western aircraft and doctrine air superiority and then air supremacy.

i remember a war where we were told that the 'fourth largest army in the world' - one with thousands of tanks and enough artillery to sink a continent - would tear apart a western force and piss on its technology. and i remember its starving, terrified soldiers surrendering to our helicopters...

i remember another war where NATO air forces faced 'the most sophisticated air defence network in the world' and its aircraft would be shot down in their hundreds. and i remember that that country is now 1/5th the size it used to be, that its capital still has bomb damage, and that NATO lost more aircraft to birdstrikes than it did to Yugoslav air defences...

dlofnep

Tea drinker wrote: »

happened before (massive wars), we are not so learned since then either

Maybe so, but it's still posturing.

Iwasfrozen

OS119 wrote: »

i remember a war where we were told that the 'fourth largest army in the world' - one with thousands of tanks and enough artillery to sink a continent - would tear apart a western force and piss on its technology. and i remember its starving, terrified soldiers surrendering to our helicopters...

i remember another war where NATO air forces faced 'the most sophisticated air defence network in the world' and its aircraft would be shot down in their hundreds. and i remember that that country is now 1/5th the size it used to be, that its capital still has bomb damage, and that NATO lost more aircraft to birdstrikes than it did to Yugoslav air defences...

Don't these wars have names? Only joking but names would be nice.

OS119 wrote: »

all land battles are won or lost in the Air

Actually I don't agree with this. Russia almost single handedly defeated the Germans despite the German air superiority under the idea of blitzkreig, because it could pump out millions of tonnes of Armour.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Actually I don't agree with this. Russia almost single handedly defeated the Germans despite the German air superiority under the idea of blitzkreig, because it could pump out millions of tonnes of Armour.

Russia also had nearly an infinite amount of soldiers, with little or no consideration for their lives. That helps. I should know, I play Command & Conquer all the time!

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

Russia also had nearly an infinite amount of soldiers, with little or no consideration for their lives. That helps. I should know, I play Command & Conquer all the time!

It wasn't nearly infinite. And the North Koreans have no consideration for lives either.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It wasn't nearly infinite. And the North Koreans have no consideration for lives either.

The Soviet Union lost more troops than any other nation.

amacachi

dlofnep wrote: »

The Soviet Union lost more troops than any other nation.

Yup, by a massive margin. The North wouldn't have the same kind of advantage in troop numbers to all be fodder and still have enough to win in any real sense.

Iwasfrozen

dlofnep wrote: »

The Soviet Union lost more troops than any other nation.

Yes they did. But they won despite not having air majority.

dlofnep

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes they did. But they won despite not having air majority.

I never said anything about an air majority. They had great power in their numbers.

drakshug

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes they did. But they won despite not having air majority.

They did have air majority after Kursk. They also had shorter supply lines, Wider tank tracks and General winter on their side.
As for N Korea. Without China, they won't do anything and China have their own agenda which doesn't involve upsetting any apple carts at the moment.

northwest100

China will use NK as a bargaining chip.
Russia are using the sale of ancient S-300 missile system to Iran.

S-300 is ancient system compared with latest Russian technology..but it does allow Iran to defend itself from the playground bullies, the tyrannical regimes that are the US and Isreal.

If Iran receive the S-300 system, Isreal will have their F16 fighter jets blown out of the sky...Israel and US know this.

So why has the US allowed the sale of S-300 missile system to Iran?

The US are no longer in any position to bully countries when China are their biggest creditor, that's the main issue here.

Iran will get their nuclear energy, China will tame North Korea and no war will break out with either country.

You can stop stocking up on rice and tinned fish for now, but consider looking at ways to be self-sufficient.

Maybe a return to farming is in order.

Baralis1

Going back to the military possibilities of this dispute. South Korea would have absolutely no problem dealing with the North on its own if it put a foot across the border, without US help. South Korea has one of the most advanced armies in the world, 650000 odd fulltime soldiers, with a good airforce and decent navy to boot. It is also a very wealthy country with huge buying power for a war effort. In contrast, the North has 1.2million, poorly trained, very poorly equipped, and most likely undernourished soldiers. It also has thousands of poorly maintained Soviet era tanks and military pieces, in reality, a hugh junk yard. Its has an obsolete Soviet era airforce and weak navy made up mostly of small missile boats and midget subs. It also has practically no money, is on the verge of famine, and has chronic fuel and power shortages.
As for its nukes, it currently has no way of delivering them short of flying a plane over and dropping one after avoiding the Souths airforce. I doubt they even have the technology to create a transportable nuke.
The only threat the North poses is that because of Seouls proximity to the border, they could probably do quite a bit of damage with artillery and missiles before the South's airforce completely wipe them out.

As for the political end of it, they will both spend a few months shaping up, maybe have a few border skirmishes and small naval skirmishes and that will be it. I think China is embarrased by the Norths antics and probably won't support militarily if the North did attack, which is extremely unlikely. Kim Jong Il is no fool.

Manic Moran

all land battles are won or lost in the Air - and if you wish to waste an hour of your life, you can google for an example of any Air Force using Soviet/Chinese aircraft and doctrine denying an Air Force using western aircraft and doctrine air superiority and then air supremacy

You can argue that the North Vietnamese won Vietnam despite the US having air superiority. It is also worth pointing out that NATO never claimed air superiority over Yugoslavia at under 15,000 feet.

After the 1991 war, an Iraqi Brigade commander was reported as saying something akin to "After two weeks of air bombardment I lost 5% of my tanks. After two minutes fighting against American tanks, I lost all my tanks"

Korea v1.5 would be fought and won by artillery, infantry, and ground vehicles, in that order. Air power would be a factor, but not the deciding one.

NTM

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can argue that the North Vietnamese won Vietnam despite the US having air superiority. It is also worth pointing out that NATO never claimed air superiority over Yugoslavia at under 15,000 feet.

After the 1991 war, an Iraqi Brigade commander was reported as saying something akin to "After two weeks of air bombardment I lost 5% of my tanks. After two minutes fighting against American tanks, I lost all my tanks"

Korea v1.5 would be fought and won by artillery, infantry, and ground vehicles, in that order. Air power would be a factor, but not the deciding one.

NTM

How would you see it go?
I have heard that NK have 10,000 artillery peices aimed at Seoul...

gandalf

North Korea ramping up the retoric.

North Korea scraps South Korea military safeguard pact

North Korean soldiers patrol the banks of the Yalu River, opposite the Chinese border city of Dandong, 25 May 2010 Bilateral tensions have been mounting since the Cheonan sinking in March

North Korea has announced it will scrap an agreement aimed at preventing accidental naval clashes with South Korea, amid rising tensions over the sinking of a South Korean warship.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10170019.stm

I believe the US are going to be engaging in training exercises soon. That will probably prompt more bluster from NK as well. Lets just hope this is all just hot air from Pyongyang.

BluePlanet

You'd have to wonder what genius in South Korea thought it'd be a neat idea to put an armed naval vessel up North Korea's nose.

OS119

BluePlanet wrote: »

You'd have to wonder what genius in South Korea thought it'd be a neat idea to put an armed naval vessel up North Korea's nose.

the vessel was, and had been in South Korean territorial waters.

i take it you'd be happy for the Irish Naval Service not to patrol - and therefore assert Irish sovereignty over - Irish territorial waters that abutted UK territoral waters, just incase it inflamed the Royal Navy?

or is that different?

BluePlanet

OS119 wrote: »

the vessel was, and had been in South Korean territorial waters.

i take it you'd be happy for the Irish Naval Service not to patrol - and therefore assert Irish sovereignty over - Irish territorial waters that abutted UK territoral waters, just incase it inflamed the Royal Navy?

or is that different?

Yes, it's different because the area is disputed.
Therefore it is a signal of aggression to put an warship there.

From wikipedia:

Baengnyeong Island is a South Korean island in the Yellow Sea, off the Ongjin peninsula in North Korea. It lies less than 10 miles (16 km) from the North Korean coast, and is over 100 miles (160 km) from the South Korean mainland. The island is to the west of the Northern Limit Line, the de facto boundary dividing South Korea (ROK) from North Korea (DPRK). The area is the site of considerable tension between the two states; although it was provided in the armistice agreement for the stalemate of the Korean war that the islands themselves belonged to the South, the sea boundary was not covered by the armistice, and the sea is claimed by the North