My friend and I have been having a discussion about War between the US and North Korea.
Here's the beginning:
ATY: On Sunday I mentioned that the Soviets had tactical nuclear weapons ready to go [at the Bay of Pigs], with the commander on the scene possessing the authority to use them if needed without contacting superiors. Here's the document in question for anyone interested:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/620908%20Memorandum%20from%20Malinovsky.pdf
Scary stuff!
Friend Is this really a threat? I don't mind, personally, because this just puts us in a situation like the rest of the world- vulnerable. Brown eyed people with resources feel that way all the time. And, unlike Cuba, we actually invade and attack other countries (though they were involved in that whole angola thing).
Castro won- and I'd say he really did win, by outlasting and outliving a slew of American presidents, while maintaining independence (soviet aligned. but not soviet ruled). Cuba has nothong to gain by nuking us, and their possesion of tac-nukes keeps rabid neocons from invading cuba to distract us from dismal domestic policy, a crumbling economy, etc.
This possesion of real weapons blunts our sabre rattling, much as it did with North Korea, who we simply couldn't defeat in a conventional war if we invaded. Between their nukes, their massed artillery aimed at Seoul, and their hundreds of deep undergrounjd fortresses, the best way to deal wityh Korea is to leave them alone militarily, though economic inducements might work for some of our aims.
This same reasoning ought to apply to Iran, who possess quite an arsenal (underwater missiles, MIRV missiles, supercavitating torpedoes, possibly nukes). Bush can trheaten to bomb them, but all they have to do to inflict heavy casualties is to retaliate against our bases in Iraq- the destruction of our military infrastructure in Iraq would pretty much end US military power in the middle east, and after we bombed Iran, but lacked the forces to invade and conquer them, the Chinese would come in to rebuild Iran, strengthening their ties and access to fuel and becoming the unquestioned world superpower.
So, I'd say that Cuban, Korean and Iranian military power is what is really stabilizing the world right now- against the great destabilizer (us).
ATY Is it a threat? No! This was a long time ago. I'm not making threats, and the Soviets certainly aren't either.
This does not mean that Cuba has tacnukes NOW. There was a Soviet commander in charge of the nuclear weapons at the Bay of Pigs.
We'd smash North Korea easily in a conventional war. North Korea is a problem because of nuclear war and guerrilla war, not conventional war. The same goes for Iran, except they don't have nukes yet. An established American military base full of veterans is not a vulnerable target!
This is simply an interesting fact. I did not mean to imply with this e-mail that Cuba is a threat with nuclear weapons.
Friend Sorry if I insinyuated that you thought we were under immediate threat, remember that I missed the original conversation.
As far as smashing North Korea, I have to disagree, strongly. There is a reason, despite all our threats, that they have nukes. We couldn't stop them.
North Korea is littered with giant underground fortresses. The missile guys actually sign a contract to spend most of their lives underground, and the governmenmt actually brings women for them to marry. They have all sorts of hidden fortifications, with hidden doors that slide open, for artillery and missiles to be fired from hidden portals.
If we tried to invade, travelling through rough, mountainous terrain, they'd be watching us with hidden observation posts and cameras, traacking all our forcews, and moving their own forces around with underground rail systems.
North Korea has the biggest, strongest fortifiucations in human history. I'd imagine that their tactics would reflect hezbolla's- localized defence in depth, presighted weapons, preset explosives, multiple points to retreat to, regroup and attack.
Also, I have to disagree that an established military base full of veterans isn't a target. It's a great target. The Iranians have all sorts of high-tech stuff, probably including hundreds of silkworm cruise missiles, plus MIRV warheads, etc. We bomb Iran, and they fire a bunch of stuff at our big bases. Our big bases are taken out- reghardless of the experience level of the troops inside, and the Sunni Nationalist, The Al Mahdi Army and Al Quaida al attack in force, and without significant airpower (carriers sunk and airbases wasted), we'd be facing a guerilla war that we couldn't possibly win.
Remember- we stil haven't beat any of the major forces in Iraq, we just hired them (the Badr Brigade for example, has been incorporated ias an ally, semi absorbed into the Iraqi military, but still organized, now well fed and armed, and ready to strike when told to. BTW, Sistani just did some kind of edict against selling food to Americans)
Also- tyhe Suni tribes fighting Alk Quaida, we hired them too. These are the antiamerican nationalist insurgents, and they're taking our money and guns to maintain their own military control over their areas- which they copntrol, not us or the iraqui government. They are just busy consolodating their positions, but make no mistake- tyhey aren't going to let the us steal all their oil, they're just playing this verey complex game with all the other factions in Iraq.
ATY "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.”
Patton.
In this age of stealth bombers armed with GBU-28 bunker busters, etc, Fortress Korea is simply a target. Where's their offense? Massive amounts of obsolete equipment dug deeply in to the surrounding terrain was the same plan Hussein had. It didn't work for him. It wouldn't work for North Korea.
"North Korea operates a variety of static AAA equipment but most of it is widely considered obsolete in modern warfare...
The cornerstone of North Korean AAA is the ZPU-2 and ZPU-4 series light AAA...In the right circumstances the ZPU-4 can be devastating, particularly to unarmored helicopters, but it is very short ranged (far shorter than the range of a Hellfire missile for example) and is much less effective against armored helicopters and fast jets...
...Ten years ago these positions made a lot of sense; underground facilities proved very difficult to destroy even with precision guided munitions (PGM) – as demonstrated in GW1 and the Balkans. But, we now live in the age of the “bunker buster” and these comparatively weak bunkers are easy prey...
...We’ve seem that Pyongyang is heavily defended, but there is the inescapable reality that (*thankfully*) these types of defenses don’t count for much in a modern battle."
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128528
Now, these forts would make good sally points for guerrilla warfare, but I already mentioned that. Conventional warfare does not involve defending a peninsula against the mightiest navy in history by hiding in tunnels and waiting for the enemy to hit you at his leisure.
Now, I'm not saying that North Korea would be an easy win; guerrilla and nuclear threats are very serious threats indeed. But columns of North Korean infantry, tanks, artillery etc will not be something the US armed forces are would have to worry about. They'd just be targets.
Of course this is simply armchair analysis by someone who's never been in the military.
Friends Your opening quote is dated- back to the days when patton lived, "conventional" warefare made sense. Those days are over, because nowadays, generally either one side or the other is going to have air domination. Any country that doesn't have air domination, will have to plan a war on their own terms.
You think that Saddam's plan didn't work? Saddam knew his conventional forces were going to be wiped out- that was just a delaying tactic, while he put his real plan into play- he copieed a WWII plan, Hitler's werewolf organization, and played it very well.
The republican guard went underground (I think two divisions have never been accounted for), and started sniping, bombing and killing collaborators. It's a simple war to win- all you have to do is survive longer than the enemy has patience, the enemy goes away, and you resume control. I might have worked with hitler as well, except he planned the werewolf oiperation as his endgame, while with saddam, it was his whole game.
Right now, our infrastructure is crumbling, our military is wrecked, our enonomy is failing, this war- a wasr against a country one tenth our size, has harmed this country very much, and this is a war against a country with lousy defensive terrain.
North Korea is very mountainous, and very heavily fortified- not just individual bunkers, but literally underground cities. How many bunker busters do you think we have? We can spend tons of them blowing holes in bunkers, where everything is on rails, and we never actually know where their assets are.
Their ground defense would follow hezbolla's model. All the roads mined, remote control bombs, snipers with caches of weapons, un-uniformed soldiers mixed in with the locals.
After loosing a bunch of convoys, we'd have to start moving troops around with helicopters, which is expensive and dangerous (don't forget the strella shoulder launched rockets).
The new conventional war is the war that beat the israelis in lebanon. Hezbolla didn't send cannon fodder into the israeli war machine, they played a mostly defensive game- this is crecy, poitiers and agincout all over again- the english would fight from preselected positions, and would hold their position until the enemy had exausted themselves.
They took low losses, kept the israelis from acheiving any of their goals, and, as I said earlier, the agressor went home, empty handed.
This is like the movie Wargames. The only way to win is not to play. If we had decided to go to africa and build a well in every village that asked for one, and schools, etc. Which would cost us a couple of billion a year- not hundreds of billions- we'd have tons of allies in that continent, which would slow down the islamist expansion. But we like to bomb people, not help them.
The Chinese, on the other hand, are heavily involved in public works projects in Africa, and a decade from now, they will reap the benefits.
The chinese are too smart to get their hands too dirty in a big war. They've got a great oil deal with Iran, which is why they'll supply Iran with all sorts of military hardware. North korea certainly must have some new toys that we haven't seen yet, because if the U.S. were to occupy North korea, that would be a major blow to chinese territoritality.
Honestly, the only country we ought to be fighting right now is Mynamar, so the world's oppressed might start equating the U.S. with freedom again.
ATY This is from your earlier post:
"North Korea, who we simply couldn't defeat in a conventional war if we invaded."
Then you offer me this:
"Your opening quote is dated- back to the days when patton lived, "conventional" warefare made sense."
This doesn't seem to be consistent. The reason "conventional warfare doesn't make sense" is because everyone knows the US will win in any conventional war it's likely to see. However the situation then degrades into non-conventional war and the American people will get tired of the fighting and have the troops pulled out. By that time the conventional war is over already with the Americans having won.
Thoughts?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Navy
Korean People's Navy
The Korean People's Army Naval Force was established on June 5, 1946. The navy strength in the 1990s was about 40,000 to 60,000; current strength is at about 46,000.
The North Korean navy is considered a brown-water navy and operates mainly within the 50 kilometer exclusion zone. The fleet consists of east and west coast squadrons, which cannot support each other in the event of war with South Korea. The limited range of most of the vessels means that even in peacetime it is impossible for a ship on one coast to visit the other coast.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungsorry you lost me there, short attention span, would you repeat the question please?
My friend and I have been having a discussion about War between the US and North Korea.
Here's the beginning:
[b]ATY: On Sunday I mentioned that the Soviets had tactical nuclear weapons ready to go [at the Bay of Pigs], with the commander on the scene possessing the authority to use them if needed without contacting superiors. Here's the do ...[text shortened]... t playing this verey complex game with all the other factions in Iraq.[/i][/b]
Originally posted by eamon oUS decides to knock out Korean nuclear facilities by all conventional means necessary. Can NK stop us without Chinese or Russian intervention and without holding it's neighbors hostage?
sorry you lost me there, short attention span, would you repeat the question please?
Originally posted by treetalkIt is an unusual question, isn't it?
Why would the US decide to do that?
A similar one that ATY might have posed is "If I punch a 9 year old girl in the nose, would she be able to defend herself or would she have to get help? "
Who knows what's floating around in his violence drenched mind.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakNo one's ever told me a 9-year old could beat me up in a fistfight. I'd never even considered the possibility that North Korea could take us one on one, but this guy said they could, and he's a very smart man.
It is an unusual question, isn't it?
A similar one that ATY might have posed is "If I punch a 9 year old girl in the nose, would she be able to defend herself or would she have to get help? "
Who knows what's floating around in his violence drenched mind.
D
I guess it's pretty much acknowledged that he was wrong. OK, I wasn't sure.
Originally posted by treetalkBecause North Korea's part of the 'Axis of Evil' maybe. That's what GWB told me.
Why would the US decide to do that?
I guess you're right. My country's a peaceful one. We don't invade nations. We have no beef with North Korea. We admire them as a fellow nuclear power.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungit depends if you define "losing" as "losing Seoul". it'd probably get squashed. along with much of north S. Korea. maybe all of S. Korea.
No one's ever told me a 9-year old could beat me up in a fistfight. I'd never even considered the possibility that North Korea could take us one on one, but this guy said they could, and he's a very smart man.
I guess it's pretty much acknowledged that he was wrong. OK, I wasn't sure.