cool where'd you get that from?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus cool where'd you get that from?

Friend sent it to me. Not sure where he got it from.

___________________
Retro ...

interesting, sounds like NK is taking a page out of the MacArthur school of Korean warfare text.

it is interesting, but im not sure what makes it so excellent...only NK knows what NK is capable of doing. And furthermore, it seems a little simple. where is China within this scheme? they didnt stay idle last time, and Japan is bound to feel very very threatened. NK is no Iraq, the US wont be the only player against (or with) them.

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

...and no matter what happens the U.S. bashers will be here saying whay a mistake we made trying to protect S.K. and how it's all our fault.

Interesting scenario though...but I think that it's true it didn't take into account who's gonna take who's side if shit hits the fan...i.e. china/japan.

Let's hope smarter heads prevail...granted I don't see the NK's playing the 'smart' type.

___________________

"I'd like to buy a techno song."

quote:

Originally posted by biznology interesting, sounds like NK is taking a page out of the MacArthur school of Korean warfare text. it is interesting, but im not sure what makes it so excellent...only NK knows what NK is capable of doing. And furthermore, it seems a little simple. where is China within this scheme? they didnt stay idle last time, and Japan is bound to feel very very threatened. NK is no Iraq, the US wont be the only player against (or with) them.

Well, the scenario relies on the hypothetical belief that N. Korea would initiate the war on the Peninsula. With so many lives at stake it is unlikely any of the other parties would initiate hostilities since they would have nothing to lose by maintaining the status quo. N. Korea on the other hand has everything to lose by maintaining the status quo and actually over time its condition is likely to get a lot worse.

Given the scenario of a N. Korean instigated war, it is highly unlikely that China would back N. Korea in any official manner. They MIHGT funnel weapons to the N. Koreans, but likely not actual involvement. China itself does not want a nuclear North Korea and has been at odds with N. Korea as of late. And actually, China has recentely sent troops to the N. Korean border in order send a signal to N. Korea that they had better play ball. At any rate there has been a definite thaw in relations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...5¬Found=true

So in the event of a N. Korean invasion, China if anything, would likely stay out of it in order to avoid greater regional instability. They would have very little to gain from a war with the US/Japan/S.Korea.

With respects to the person's analysis of tactical operations it does make a lot of sense. Considering how 70% of N. Korea's armed forces are within 65km of the DMZ, a two pronged attack to capture Seoul and to use the element of surprise to overrun divisions in the South does make sense. Furthermore N. Korea's special forces are the largest in teh world with over 100,000 men. If you already have a million man + army crossing over the dmz, what better way to utilize them than to infiltrate key command and control installations all across the coast line? As a matter of fact the S. Koreans have captured NUMEROUS N. Korean commando raids into S. Korea in the past! So the only real question that the analysis doesn't cover is whether N. Korea decides to use nukes or not. Personally I think they will because if they are desperate enough to wage war against the US they will probably stop at nothing.

One aspect that I disagree with is N. Korea's artillery capabilities. The author states that they could easily take out the N. Korean artillery positions with counter-battery fire however I disagree. The N. Koreans are likely to possess something similar to the maginot line with artillery burrowed into the mountainside along the DMZ with retractable positions. They would fire a few rounds and then be retracted into their hardened bunkers before US counterbattery fire can arrive. Then the cycle repeats itself whereby the N. Korean artillery shoots then retracts, shoots then retracts, etc. Therefore I think the potential civilian casualties and initial troop casualties would be MUCH higher.

___________________
Retro ...

nothing surprizes me here, cept for the naval side, which i never really thought of

this is defently interesting, the world's biggest military problem right now as i can see it. i don't think (hope) the korean conflict will end in a war, i think that the only good way to end this conflict is to make the north korean people relize how bad their country is and make revolt. of course this doesn't help if north attacks the south. and about china, i don't think they would help the north if they attacked first, china is way to dependent of the western world. BUT if the sout/allies attacks the north, china might help (probably south won't attack until they are sure that china won't help the north...)

read my lips:

its not gonna happen.

quote:

Originally posted by PhloTron ...and no matter what happens the U.S. bashers will be here saying whay a mistake we made trying to protect S.K. and how it's all our fault.

I think you're a bit paranoid, because if NK attacks first, I don't see how could a hypothetic US retaliation be condemned. And if the US strikes first, I also don't see how such an act could be justified.

Btw, an interesting read, occrider.

___________________
1+1=10

Ya my prediction is that China would actually come against North Korea (so they get a say in the reconstruction) China's only other option would be to stay neutral or support NK both would put it at a disadvantage.

Correct me if i am wrong but i have heard of NKs digging massive tunnels into South Korea territory that could potentially transplant a huge number of troops..
Supposedly some of these tunnels have been discovered but there are still many that have not been found...