Breakthrough in North Korea?

[walksalone]

That might be a stretch on the "paper tiger" military, but they would make a hell of a mess. And if they were able to "hunker down" in a city, they'd make it hard as hell to dig em all out without destroying a good part of the city in the process

That's my concern. Our military is still not particularly well suited for urban warfare and fighting guerilla style combat in mountainous terrain.

 

No military is suited for house to house combat. There are too many advantages to being on the "defense" in that regard. The only way to get the advantage is to bomb the hell out of what ever the enemy is using for cover, and I'm sure that would go over just peachy...

[walksalone]

n a related note, VICE.TV site has a nice multi-piece documentary on a journalist's trip into North Korea. Worth a look if you have an hour or so to kill.

The VICE piece was excellent. Scary . . . but excellent.

 

Thanks for mentioning that piece Matthew, just watched it and agree with Carl, very scary but at the same time very very sad that they live like that.

I haven't seen it for a long time but if it's the one with the captured US intel ship and the tea shop out in the middle of nowhere . . . just bizarre.

 

Carl, could you give me the link, I'd like to see it

[carlfense]

Sure thing:

http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/vice-guide-to-north-korea-1-of-3

[carlfense]

That might be a stretch on the "paper tiger" military, but they would make a hell of a mess. And if they were able to "hunker down" in a city, they'd make it hard as hell to dig em all out without destroying a good part of the city in the process

That's my concern. Our military is still not particularly well suited for urban warfare and fighting guerilla style combat in mountainous terrain.

 

No military is suited for house to house combat. There are too many advantages to being on the "defense" in that regard. The only way to get the advantage is to bomb the hell out of what ever the enemy is using for cover, and I'm sure that would go over just peachy...

Good point.

[walksalone]

Sure thing:

http://www.vice.com/...th-korea-1-of-3

 

Thank you kindly, have something to do at work later... heh

[walksalone]

That might be a stretch on the "paper tiger" military, but they would make a hell of a mess. And if they were able to "hunker down" in a city, they'd make it hard as hell to dig em all out without destroying a good part of the city in the process

That's my concern. Our military is still not particularly well suited for urban warfare and fighting guerilla style combat in mountainous terrain.

 

No military is suited for house to house combat. There are too many advantages to being on the "defense" in that regard. The only way to get the advantage is to bomb the hell out of what ever the enemy is using for cover, and I'm sure that would go over just peachy...

Good point.

 

Thank you...

 

I guess people just seem to forget how much terrain can dictate how war is fought...

[Sub-Husker]

I read it again.

 

Your statements are still at odds.

 

I asked if North Korea would quit militaristic posturing if we left the Korean peninsula. Somehow you tried to say that NK has plenty of of artillery but little ability to invade or occupy. (Side note: Your answer doesn't really address my question.) I replied with the size of their forces. You said that NK forces sound scary . . . but on paper only. Then you admit that a city of 10 million exists only so long as NK wants it to exist.

 

What am I missing, exactly? And why shouldn't SK worry about a million infantrymen ready to pour over, under, and around their borders and into their cities and mountains? I'm guessing their view of the threat is a bit different from your own.

 

North Korea is a threat to attack South Korea with missiles and artillery.

 

That threat exists with or without US troops present, and probably makes an attack more likely with the presence of US troops.

 

The Norks have a large army, but is a far cry from being up to western standards. Any attack on the South would proceed after a massive missile/artillery barrage. US airpower and naval power would be much more effective than ground troops that would have been targeted.

[Sub-Husker]

I saw the same conundrum and almost commented on it, but realized I'd get the same response you got.

 

Maybe I'm used to talking with people who were knowledgeable about subjects.

 

After reading my above post, which is consistent with everything I had posted to this point, are you still confused?

[Sub-Husker]

I guess you don't realize that if you're one of the guys in the 2nd Infantry, sitting on the DMZ, if North Korea launched an all out assault, your life expectancy is roughly 30 seconds.

 

The underestimation of an enemy is the quickest way to lose a fight.

 

My point is that the presence of the US military in the DMZ is seen as a threat to the Norks, and makes a preemptive strike more likely.

 

If they were not in the DMZ, a first target, their life expectancy would greatly increase in case of a less-likely attack.

[Sub-Husker]

That might be a stretch on the "paper tiger" military, but they would make a hell of a mess. And if they were able to "hunker down" in a city, they'd make it hard as hell to dig em all out without destroying a good part of the city in the process

That's my concern. Our military is still not particularly well suited for urban warfare and fighting guerilla style combat in mountainous terrain.

 

No military is suited for house to house combat. There are too many advantages to being on the "defense" in that regard. The only way to get the advantage is to bomb the hell out of what ever the enemy is using for cover, and I'm sure that would go over just peachy...

 

Good point.

 

Thank you...

 

I guess people just seem to forget how much terrain can dictate how war is fought...

 

1) Make war less likely by not threatening your opponent.

 

2) Remove your forces as targets where you cannot defend against an enemy attack.

 

3) Any Nork attack will follow an artillery/missile volley that will force evacuations of border cities. We will bot be fighting in urban centers with large populations.

[carlfense]

I really like the proximity of these quotes . . . apparently 8 minutes apart with no trace of irony.

 

Maybe I'm used to talking with people who were knowledgeable about subjects.

 

3) Any Nork attack will follow an artillery/missile volley that will force evacuations of border cities. We will bot be fighting in urban centers with large populations.

 

Alright, oh knowledgeable one, how will South Korea quickly and safely evacuate more than ten million civillians while under artillery/missile fire?

 

You've thought this through, right? I'd hate to think that you are just blustering as you go.

[carlfense]

North Korea is a threat to attack South Korea with missiles and artillery.

 

That threat exists with or without US troops present, and probably makes an attack more likely with the presence of US troops.

 

The Norks have a large army, but is a far cry from being up to western standards. Any attack on the South would proceed after a massive missile/artillery barrage. US airpower and naval power would be much more effective than ground troops that would have been targeted.

Why do the US troops make an attack more likely?

 

It's an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you back it up.

 

(Side note: The last time I asked you for evidence you were unable to provide it. Here: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/57769-why-would-israel-attack-iran/page__view__findpost__p__923050 Better luck this time.)

[knapplc]

I saw the same conundrum and almost commented on it, but realized I'd get the same response you got.

 

Maybe I'm used to talking with people who were knowledgeable about subjects.

 

After reading my above post, which is consistent with everything I had posted to this point, are you still confused?

 

Do you expect a reasonable response to your bombast? This is just silly.

 

You stated, "They have almost no ability to invade South Korea and occupy land, all they have is alot of artillery to shell cities."

 

As if to imply that the KPA is not to be feared, since "all they have is alot (sic) of artillery to shell cities." This is ridiculously untrue, especially considering the fact that Seoul is 10-15 miles from the DMZ, and the obvious first target. The bulk of one million men even if they were just artillery brigades (which they certainly are not) would wreak havoc with Seoul and by extension the U.S. and financial markets throughout the world. Your comment seems to be easily brushing aside what is a formidable force, even if only in the short-term.

 

Carlfense points out to you that you're too-easily dismissing the potential damage caused by one million men on the attack, and you respond with "That sounds scary... but on paper only." This, on the surface, is patently absurd. Rather than making some dig at you that you aren't "knowledgeable about subjects," once again I and others tried to point out to you that there is reasonable danger from the KPA, especially (as I pointed out) considering the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ.

 

To this you respond, "Even with American forces in South Korea, the Norks could still level Seoul anytime they wanted." OK, great. You've now caught up to what the rest of us have known and discussed since the conversation started. Yet this is a flip-flop from the dismissive tone of "They have almost no ability to invade South Korea and occupy land, all they have is alot (sic) of artillery to shell cities" and "That sounds scary... but on paper only." Carlfense once again points out the dichotomy of these two statements, and you respond with a nonsensical, "Carl, you are playing stupid again" and tell him to go read the thread again.

 

Problem is, Carl has quite clearly read the thread, as have I, and more importantly your posts in this thread. It seems as if the person not reading the thread - or, at least, your posts - is you, because your comments are at odds with each other.

 

This is, once again, pointed out to you, and you respond with the laughable "Maybe I'm used to talking with people who were knowledgeable about subjects." Perhaps you are. But if so, you are not projecting that in your posts here. Here, you're vacillating between extremes, and when it's pointed out to you, you imply that the rest of us don't know what we're talking about. With all due respect, you may be some kind of military expert, but your comments in this thread make no sense. And they do not form a cohesive thought pattern.

[Sub-Husker]

Alright, oh knowledgeable one, how will South Korea quickly and safely evacuate more than ten million civillians while under artillery/missile fire?

 

As a knowledgeable person... I did not say that they could.

 

Initially there will be alot of casualties, followed by alot of refugees and more casualties, followed by alot of people living in a war zone with more casualties, followed by more refugees with even more casualties.

 

You've thought this through, right? I'd hate to think that you are just blustering as you go.

 

For some reason I belive the part that I had underlined, and add that you hate to read with comprihension.

 

You make way too many erroneous assumptions and attribute them to me in your posts. Please try replying to what I have written, and ask if you are unsure.

 

Thank you.

[Sub-Husker]

North Korea is a threat to attack South Korea with missiles and artillery.

 

That threat exists with or without US troops present, and probably makes an attack more likely with the presence of US troops.

 

The Norks have a large army, but is a far cry from being up to western standards. Any attack on the South would proceed after a massive missile/artillery barrage. US airpower and naval power would be much more effective than ground troops that would have been targeted.

 

Why do the US troops make an attack more likely?

 

Time and time again the Norks have said that the biggest fear they have is a US led invasion fron the South. More than food, what they want is legal assurances that they will not be invaded. The presence of US ground troops in the DMZ increase the trheat of an invasion. Is that hard to understand?

 

It's an interesting assertion. I'd like to see you back it up.

 

How the hell do you back up a prediction?

 

(Side note: The last time I asked you for evidence you were unable to provide it. Here: http://www.huskerboa...post__p__923050 Better luck this time.)

 

WTF?

 

You asked for proof for something that was an opinion-based prediction.

 

You've been spending too much time in the religion threads.