# N. Korea threat over sanctions



## JasonH (15 Dec 2004)

N. Korea threat over sanctions

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Posted: 0450 GMT (1250 HKT) 

*TOYKO, Japan -- North Korea has warned Japan that it would treat economic sanctions against the nation as a "declaration of war" as a row brews over the remains of abductees.*

A spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday Pyongyang would react to such moves by "an effective physical method," without elaborating what that might be.

In the latest bout of belligerent rhetoric emerging from the isolationist nation, North Korea also said it would try to exclude Tokyo from six-party talks on its nuclear arms program.

North Korea has repeatedly said in the past that any imposition of economic sanctions by Japan would be tantamount to a declaration of war.

Japanese politicians are calling for Tokyo to impose sanctions on North Korea after Tokyo said that bones Pyongyang had identified as belonging to Japanese kidnapped by communist spies decades ago were from other people.

North Korea handed over the bones at talks in Pyongyang in November, saying they were the remains of Megumi Yokota and Kaoru Matsuki, two of 13 Japanese Pyongyang admitted abducting in the 1970s and 1980s to teach its spies about Japan.

But Japan said last week that tests on the remains showed that they were actually those of two other people.

Japan, which does not have diplomatic ties with North Korea, lodged a protest with Pyongyang and demanded clarification on the fate of 10 Japanese who Tokyo believes were kidnapped and are still unaccounted for.

A North Korean spokesman said in a statement carried on state-run Korean Central Broadcast and monitored in Tokyo by Radiopress that it was "unimaginable" that the bones handed over by Yokota's North Korean husband were not hers, accusing Tokyo of doctoring the DNA analysis.

The North admitted in 2002 to kidnapping the 13 Japanese, and Japan believes another two were also abducted. Five have returned to Japan.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (15 Dec 2004)

See!!! I told you guys!!! We're gonna be eating Kimchee soon!!!


----------



## nismo0 (15 Dec 2004)

Japan is investing a lot of money on space technology, and its armed forces, further more there is talk that they will change their constitution so they can have an army. They are fully committed to the U.S. missile/dense shield, and are lobbying them for the constitutional change, as well for a seat on the Permanent Security Council. I think it's time Japan took its place as a world military leader. The N Koreans should be careful with their threats; living in a world of pre-emption they can find out the hard way what a coordinated U.S. attack would do to their 1950's (Era) military. LOL ;D


----------



## CBH99 (15 Dec 2004)

Coordinated US military strike on their 50's era military?  Wake up n' smell the coffee buddy - any war with North Korea is gonna be a f**kin' bloodbath on both sides.

North Korea has a huge missile program, for both conventional and nuclear payloads.  Although it hasn't been confirmed (As far as public knowledge is concerned) their nuclear programs have been successful, nobody can dispute the sheer number of conventional surface to surface missiles they have could rain havoc on South Korea.

China is part of the 6 nations lobbying for North Korea to reduce its aggressive stance to some measure - but whether they would assist militarily is pure speculation.  China is a force to be reckoned with - not only do they have the largest armed forces in the world, they're starting to modernize it at a rapid pace.  They adapt and modify Russian technology for their own use - and have a brown water navy that could be VERY formidable if used properly.  What I'm trying to say here is that -- although China would probably be an ally in any confrontation with North Korea, seeing how they are part of the 6 nations lobbying for North Korea to ease its aggressive posture -- China can't be relied upon to assist militarily.  Especially when their issues with Taiwan have yet to be straightened out.  Whether or not they actually invade Taiwan is pure speculation - it could very well just be an intimidation game.  BUT - they could be dead serious too, and follow through on what they say.  They have 600 missiles aimed at Taipei alone, and a military that could CRUSH Taiwan with ease.

Japan is starting to create more deployable forces, true.  For the most part, they're military has just been used for self defense (Hence why its called the Japanese Self Defense Force).  The only time since the end of WW2 that Japanese troops have been deployed was to Iraq, and who knows why Japan chose to deploy troops there of all places.  Anyways, besides the point.  Japan has an Army, Navy and Air Force.  All of their services are equipped with rather modern western military technology, except their army - which they produce the equipment themselves.  Their air force uses primarily F-15 and F-16 fighters, with modern avionics and weapons.  I'm less familiar with their Army, so I'm not sure how big it is - but the point is that all 3 services already exist, but they have been in a self defense posture since they're creation.  The reason for this was the change in the Japanese constitution after WW2, which would see that their military forces could only be used for the defense of the nation.

Who knows if North Korea is serious.  They might be, they might not be.  The important thing to realize is, the world has to be prepared to take them seriously.  Any war against North Korea would be a friggin' bloodbath, as the geography and terrain of the country provides it with a great advantage already.  That, and its already formidable arsenal of missiles, plus its rather large military - could make it a very challenging country when confronted.  Sure, its military isn't nearly as advanced as any NATO nation - but, do you think that really matters a whole lot in the end?  All it would take is another guerilla insurgency, like the one currently in Iraq, and we've got serious problems.  And, if the North Koreans were smart - which we must assume they are - they would opt for a guerilla war against the US anyday, to even out the advantages/disadvantages.

So - in response to the last post - no matter how well coordinated a US attack is, or how advanced the participating nations are...its gonna be a real shitty day if that war ever actually happens.


----------



## JasonH (15 Dec 2004)

Just one question, doesn't Japan hafto go before like united nations or something (guess this would be the same for Germany) if they want to increase there 'Forces because of ww2?

I always thought thats why the numbers from those nations have always been low.


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (15 Dec 2004)

CBH, your right about that. Not only would north korea have a formidable force on their own soil, their dictator of a leader is pretty nuts.Theres no telling what he would do.If the US decided to invade to remove kim jong il, he could just nuke south korea out of spite, or japan, or anyone for that matter.Then you have really crappy terrain and mountains to fight across,making alot of the US's best weapons useless.You cant exactly drive tanks across mountains very effectively, and flying helicopters through there is dangerous. Bombarding the country would be less effective too, because of the mountains and terrain.NK couldnt ask for a better location to defend from. The bottom line though, I agree, but I think /when/ not if that war happens, it's going to be a very, very bad day for everybody.  :threat:


----------



## T.I.M. (15 Dec 2004)

As North Korean rhetoric goes, threatening war is pretty common.  The negotiating standard really, so in itself it's not particularly remarkable.

Given the balance of forces, North Korea should (one hopes) be well aware that it could not win a military engagement, and that whatever the end result a war would mean the end of the regime.  However the DPRK's potential opponents are also aware that such a war would be very damaging.  Kim's threats of war thus serve as a deterrant to unilateral action taken against him by any one party.  If he threatens Japan with war, South Korea may pressure Japan to back off.  The same goes for American pre-emptive strikes on North Korea's nuclear facilities.

But in the end, North Korea bandies about darkly sinister threats about this or that action leading to the brink of war pretty much every other day.  I imagine Japan takes stuff like this in stride these days.


----------



## JBP (15 Dec 2004)

> As North Korean rhetoric goes, threatening war is pretty common.  The negotiating standard really, so in itself it's not particularly remarkable.



Exactly the case. They always say they'll take this or that action as a declaration of war... Although we do have to take those threats seriously because of the leader they are under!

You guys all remember Vietnam right? Course you do.... Same kind of terrain, basically. THAT was certainly NOT a fun, successful or good war. I believe that's what we'd run into if we came to military confrontation with N. Korea, maybe not as bad as Vietnam, but close. Possibly even worse if you think about them using those wonderful missles they have! Creates many casualties when long-range pre-emtive strikes of cruise missles start pegging your base camp when your eating show!

Anyway, let's hope it doesn't happen. If it does, I'm sure Canada will be involved in that one! It'll turn into a MESS!

Joe


----------



## Acorn (15 Dec 2004)

Joe, I remember Vietnam. I was a kid watching scenes on TV of the helos lifting folks off the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon in the mid '70s. Where were you to have memories if Vietnam? Also, check your work on Korean and Vietnamese terrain. There may be a test on it at a later date.

Remedial history and geography lessons will be offered at a place and time TBA.

Finally, a general address: predictions of "bloodbath" have been made often in recent history. I think they have become latest variation of "home by Christmas" that seemed to be the most common prediction by those with limited knowledge in the first half of the last century. I would urge people to examine NK capabilities with a more critical eye and less counting of beans.

Acorn


----------



## couchcommander (15 Dec 2004)

What Vietnam proved was that is isn't technology, mobility, or even firepower that determine the outcome of guerrilla action. The US had all three of these assets on their side. As well, your colleges are right in stating that the Korean terrain is very well suited to defensive actions, and they are also right when they say that a large part of the US advantage would be lost because of the nature of it. I would, however, not go too far in predicting horrible things happening because of NK missiles, their accuracy, I presume, would leave something to be desired. There are, unfortunately for us, two things that WOULD cause this fight to become a bloodbath. Firstly, the NK's have thousands of artillery pieces aimed at Seoul, with munitions ranging from conventional, to chemical or biological. At the outbreak of any war, unless the city were to be evacuated, there would be massive civilian casualties. Secondly, and this is the lesson to be taken from Vietnam, widespread ideological fanaticism can overcome any number of bombs, troops, or artillery pieces. It's indescribably hard to stop an army full of men who do not care whether they live or die. Furthermore, when a nation has devoted itself and all of it's citizens to the pursuit of one goal, that being not WINNING the war, but rather avoiding loosing it (as was the case in Vietnam), it can overcome all but the most overwhelming pressue. 

There are, however, two lights. Firstly, we cannot know whether or not the same type of zeal is present in the NK's as was present in the Vietminh. It may be the case, like in Iraq, where this has been greatly overestimated, and troops may simply surrender rather than fight to the death. I don't know whether this is the case. Secondly, unlike Vietnam, as I see the present circumstances, NK would be lacking any supporting power. Removing their ability to wage war would be as simple as destroying their industrial capacity (something the Americans are amazingly adept at). Unlike the Vietnamese, who had China and Russia to support them, this would leave NK with only the munitions it currently possesses. 

So really it could go either way.


----------



## Acorn (15 Dec 2004)

US technology and capability in all phases of war has advanced considerably since 1975. NK tech and tactics are still rooted in the Soviet model of the 50s. Also, why does the "defensive terrain" of the Korean Peninsula count as a negative for the US? You are, perhaps assuming that the aggressor will be the Americans?

I would recommend reading extensively on the Korean conflict of '50-'53 and comparing capabilities for BOTH sides with then and now.

Acorn


----------



## JBP (15 Dec 2004)

> Joe, I remember Vietnam. I was a kid watching scenes on TV of the helos lifting folks off the roof of the US Embassy in Saigon in the mid '70s. Where were you to have memories if Vietnam? Also, check your work on Korean and Vietnamese terrain. There may be a test on it at a later date.
> 
> Remedial history and geography lessons will be offered at a place and time TBA.



I wasn't old enough (heck, I wasn't BORN yet) to have experienced first-hand the opening of the Vietnam war, but it doesn't take much in the way of reading history or documentaries to realize Vietnam was a bloodbath. Don't try to say it wasn't, that's exactly what it was. Kinda like when the US tried the whole Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba. Didn't turn out so well although many of those "invaders" were simply captured and not killed. Difference...

Here is some information on North Korea directly from the CIA World Fact Book... Link here: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html

It also states the geography of the country there, it seems very much like Vietnam except not as wet and not as much rainforest. That could be a good thing... 

Some basic info though:
Japan occupied Korea in 1905 following the Russo-Japanese War; five years later it formally annexed the entire peninsula. Following World War II, Korea was split, with the northern half coming under Communist domination and the southern portion becoming Western-oriented. KIM Chong-il has ruled North Korea since his father and the country's founder, president KIM Il-song, died in 1994. After decades of mismanagement, the North relies heavily on international food aid to feed its population while continuing to expend resources to maintain an army of about 1 million. North Korea's long-range missile development and research into nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and massive conventional armed forces are of major concern to the international community. In December 2002, North Korea repudiated a 1994 agreement that shut down its nuclear reactors and expelled UN monitors, further raising fears it would produce nuclear weapons. 

MILITARY:

Military      Korea, North   Top of Page   
Military branches:    
Korean People's Army (includes Army, Navy, Air Force), Civil Security Forces   
Military manpower - military age:    
17 years of age (2004 est.)   
Military manpower - availability:    
males age 15-49: 6,181,038 (2004 est.)   
Military manpower - fit for military service:    
males age 15-49: 3,694,855 (2004 est.)   
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:    
males: 189,014 (2004 est.)   
Military expenditures - dollar figure:      
$5,217.4 million (FY02)   
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:      
22.9% (2003)

This info is from the USA Library of Congress, most quotes are older at 1993:

North Korea
NATIONAL SECURITY
Armed Forces: Armed forces known collectively as Korean People's Army (KPA); total about 1.13 million 1993. Components (army, approximately 1 million; navy, 40,000 to 60,000; and air force, 70,000 to 92,000) under direction and control of President Kim Il Sung, generalissimo and grand marshal, with political controls parallel to party lines. Kim Jong Il commander in chief. Special operations forces, 60,000 to 100,000. KWP Military Affairs Committee and state National Defense Commission hold coordinated authority of armed forces. Marshal Kim Jong Il supreme commander of the army and chairman of National Defense Commission, as of April 1993. Heavily militarized state; fifth largest population under arms. Active military structure supported by reserves (army, 500,000; air force, unknown; and navy, 40,000) and militia of Worker-Peasant Red Guards and Red Guard Youth numbering over 3.8 million. Estimated 20 to 25 percent of GNP in 1991 for defense expenditures, although officially announced figure was 6 percent; 11.4 percent in 1992; and 11.6 percent in 1993. Conscription ages twenty to twentyfive , with three years for army service and four years for navy and air force service (other sources cite five to eight years for army service and three to four years for navy and air force service). All soldiers serve in reserves--estimated at 1.2 million in 1993--up to age forty, Worker-Peasant Red Guards to age sixty, Red Guard Youth, and College Training Units. 

Paramilitary Forces: Under Ministry of Public Security, 115,000 personnel, including Border Guards. 

So, they seem to have quite a capable military force. The USA has approx 50,000 troops stationed in the 50-mile "buffer zone" between N+S Korea, they would be SQUASHED by all that artillery someone mentioned in an above post+invading troops. Then whoever was left would have to wait for reinforcements...   :crybaby:   :'(

We would win, that's not the question, but it would be a bloody horrific deadly battle to say the least. By sheer numbers of manpower our initial forces would be outgunner and manned. They are the 5th largest population under arms! And your right Acorn, the USA might not be the first ones at'm but they certainly wouldn't be the last and whoever does go first is gonna get chewed up pretty good... At the beginning.

I would assume they'd fight very stiff at the beginning until moral of the troops was significantly weakened after military infrastructure+supply lines were cutoff (we'd certainly go for the throat, smart tactic). Starve them out, round'm up! Then like you folks mentioned, guerilla type-actions continously... Just my take..


Anyway, I'm done.

Joe
Peace.


----------



## couchcommander (15 Dec 2004)

You are right that US technology has advanced considerably. Furthermore, you are correct when you point out that in the Korean war the odds, in terms of technology, were much more even. However, I believe my point was that these facts would be almost entirely inconsequential if the US either lacks the will to engage in a drawn out war, or if the NK's are resolute in their spirit. 

And yes, the US would end up being the agressor if it wished to win the war. Simply maintaining the current boundaries would, in fact, be a de facto NK victory. Would they attack first? I don't know. Would they need to attack at some point? yes.


----------



## nismo0 (15 Dec 2004)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Coordinated US military strike on their 50's era military?  Wake up n' smell the coffee buddy - any war with North Korea is gonna be a f**kin' bloodbath on both sides.
> 
> North Korea has a huge missile program, for both conventional and nuclear payloads.  Although it hasn't been confirmed (As far as public knowledge is concerned) their nuclear programs have been successful, nobody can dispute the sheer number of conventional surface to surface missiles they have could rain havoc on South Korea.
> 
> ...





Buddy I didn't mean the Air Force would drop a couple of 5000 pounders on some Korean Villages, I'm talking about the Douglas Macarthur School of bombing. We NUKE the damn REDS!!! LOL

But seriously, I was just joking about bombing them. That country is one famine away from imploding, so the hell with them. I support a right wing Japan.  :warstory:


----------



## Acorn (15 Dec 2004)

OK, the easy one first: couchcommando - your point was certainly not clear in your first post. As well, your definition of aggressor is flawed. By that logic the Allies were the aggressors in WWII.

Joe, you should be more careful with statements like "you guys all remember Vietnam." There are people here who really do, and not just a kid's memory of TV images. 

Semantics aside, World Factbook info, combined with "it seems much like Vietnam except..." doesn't cut it. You are, as some others on this forum would say, "outside your lane." The Crown pays me to do this stuff - things like IPB. If you don't know what it is, you don't necessarily understand what is involved in determining realistic threats. People like me are obliged to provide commanders with REALISTIC assessments of enemy capabilities.

If you want to look an historical example of bean counting, have a look at the World Factbook and Military Balance entries for Iraq in the Spring of 1990 ("world's fourth largest army" at the time). Compare it with various commentaries by "experts" at the time. Even the likes of Trevor Dupuy (the "battle mathematician") was way out of his lane with his "predictive model." He predicted 5,000 US and Allied combat dead in 1990, and he spent decades trying to create a predictive model of combat.

I'm not against commentary from anyone, but if you comment, you should do so from a stable platform.

Acorn


----------



## couchcommander (16 Dec 2004)

I'm sorry, you're right, agressor was the wrong word, and I aplogize for not being more concise in my first post. 

If you don't mind me asking, what type of training do you recieve from the Army to do IPB? Or is it more of a civvie job (if so, what do you have a degree in)?


----------



## CBH99 (16 Dec 2004)

I'm not trying to sound anti-American, but in response to a post a little while back - someone mentioned that we assumed the aggressors will be the Americans.  Not the case.

North Korea does have a great terrain in terms of defense, and not necessarily because any other nations will be the aggressors.  I think what was meant was that, if a war does break out - North Korea certainly has a terrain which is suited to their advantage.  It doesn't matter who the aggressors are, or who fires first.  If a ground war breaks out, Korea in general - esp. North Korea - has a terrain that could prove to be challenging to fight in.  Heavy armour might not work too well in thick jungle and mountainous terrain, and the potential for booby-traps is extensive.  You think placing IED's on the side of the road is challenging enough?  Wait until your in the middle of a jungle with hardly any visibility, in a terrain the enemy knows like the back of their hand.  A guerilla war would be their (North Korea) ideal type of conflict, it really evens things out.


----------



## Acorn (16 Dec 2004)

CBH99 there is no jungle on the Korean peninsula. If you, and others, don't know that, you are "talking out yer ass." Get a grip on the real world and we can have a basis for a discussion.

Couchcommader: IPB is "Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield ("battlespace" in the new joint world.) Canadian int ops are trained in it from day one, either remuster or reserve direct entry.

Acorn


----------



## JasonH (16 Dec 2004)

Certainly put the new age of daisy cutters to use, the MOAB's.  Probably flatten a good portion of forest no doubt.  And those tunnels would be flattened for what I'd imagen a couple hundred metres (shock wave would own them).


----------



## couchcommander (16 Dec 2004)

Yes I was aware of the meaning of the acronym. I wasn't aware that it was something every intel officer was trained to do. Thanks for that. 

Regarding the ecology of the Korean Peninsula. I think what my fellow posters are trying to get at is that the peninsula, especially the north, is a largely mountainous, forested region. Though you are right, it is not jungle, but in fact more resembling the eastern united states, I believe their point was that it would have much the same impact on tactical mobility. Large armoured formations would simply become targets moving up and down the roads (unable to go off of them because of both the mountain and the forests). Communications would also be difficult in the hills (with all the implications thereof, most notably a lack of ability to respond appropriately to an emerging situation with massed reinforcements or firesupport). Ambushes would be relatively easy to launch given the abundance of cover and high ground (especially ones launched via IED's over winding mountain paths with a trees on either side), and so on. But all of this is beyond what I would like to consider my area of possessing even a meager amount of knowledge, I'm sure someone who actually knows what they are talking about in this field could do a better job of making a case. 

What do I, however, understand, is what I stated before. Regardless of the technology, firepower, manpower, topography, ecology, or a host of other factors; determined defenders have, repeatidly in history, made a mockery of so called "advanced western armies", who lack the will to actually accomplish what they have set out to do; all over the globe. And, as I stated before, the key thing in determining whether or not a conflict with North Korea will become a bloodbath lies not with the US and her allies, but with the North Koreans and their attitudes. IF they choose to put up a determined defense and do so using an intelligent strategy, the only thing we can do is either strap in and get ready for a crap kicking cause there is nothing we can really do about it, or go home. Will they? I dunno, i guess that is for you to figure out, .

EDIT: WTF? I said sh*t kicking, not a f*cking "crap" kicking, I do not believe "crap" quite entails what I am envisioning....


----------



## Grilla (16 Dec 2004)

This whole topic gives a whole lot to think about with what could happen and who could get involved.  :-\


----------



## JasonH (16 Dec 2004)

Doesn't take much thinking to figure out both those.

It'll be a hell of a blood bath for either party involved and it'll be a long drawn out fight (NK would put up a hell of a fight no doubt, and public is touchy with death so were looken at another vietnam).

It'd be another Western vs Communist fight it seems.


----------



## Baloo (16 Dec 2004)

Those 10-15 thousand artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, South Korea, with the capacity of levelling that particular hub in several hours presents a mighty fine bargaining chip with which to deal. Attack from the South, or America and their allies, would undoubtably win the war. The problem is at what cost. South Korea's economy and infrastructure would be destroyed beyond repair (at least without billions in aid packages) and millions of civilian deaths. In the first few hours alone. I would find it unlikely that the attack would come from the West, more like a Chinese assault to overthrow Kim Jong-Il, and to install a new, friendly nation. China would not allow an American puppet on their doorstep, or to control all of Korea. The threat of North Korea towards the South is most likely the main reason nothing has occurred in the past few years. Full scale war means annihilation of the South. Sure, the war would be won, but at what cost? 

Another problem, is the North Korean armed forces. Would they simply wither away, with mass defections (as several hundred of their top officers did several weeks ago) or would the army put up fierce resistance to an invasion force? The North lacks the capacity to attack across the line, their only hope in even stalling the Americans would be to fight on the defense. It would be a catastrophic war, mostly for the South Koreans. Hardship already plagues the North, so a war would hardly change things.


----------



## Acorn (16 Dec 2004)

First off, I apologize for being somewhat abrasive in my posts.

That being said, I'm still seeing "bean counting" in the assessments of people here (couchcommander, I'll address your issues of terrain below). Does anyone remember the gloom and doom of commentators about the first Iraq war? We were up against the world's fourth largest army. Thousands of tanks, hundreds of combat aircraft.

To risk cliché and quote Napoleon: "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." Perhaps it's our usual regard for the "inscrutable oriental" that we automatically assume the NK military is both technically capable and highly motivated. True, they are a highly propagandized force, with skillful indoctrination. However, the country is a shambles, with people eating grass. The military's primary motivation (at this time, my assessement) is that they are fed. If they are successful, they may well retain their motivation, by the factors I see point to a brittle force that will not be able to sustain much hardship. Their airforce and air defence forces are old, and more a means for US and Allied pilots to rack up kills than a credible capability. They are firmly planted in Soviet-style "top down" leadership, causing a lack of flexibility. 

If they have any credible capability it's their SF, which has proven to be very well motivated and somewhat capable. They could easily cause difficulty in Allied rear areas, though those difficulties are not likely to be war winners. 

Now, terrain. "Mountainous" is an oft-used description, but the Korean mountains are not the Rockies or the Alps. Look to the history of the Korean war and you'll see that it became a "battle of ridges" once the Allied forces left the roads. Massed armoured battles are not likely to be occurring there, but even in the days of the great Red menace in Europe armour battles would not have been Kursk or Iraq-like. Armour in Korea would be more effective and less vulnerable in the Korean terrain than it is in the urban terrain of Iraq today. 

As for foliage and cover, couchcommander, you are right, much like the Eastern US, though the cover is much less now, as NK has been deforesting considerably in the past 10 years - the famine and lack of infrastructure means trees are fuel and food. However, the Eastern US is also quite developed. Korea is as well, which means things aren't as close as you may think. Yes, there will be defiles that armour may have to go through, but there were such things in Europe as well, and we trained for that. In terms of communications and vulnerability, it's clear advantage US. The NKs technology is likely more a restriction to them than to the US - the latter have satellites and air power far more capable than anything NK can cobble together.

A bloodbath? Probably, though most of the blood shed would be NK. This is not Iraq, either. There are millions of SK people who can, and would, provide propaganda value, translators, spies, SF and a variety of other functions that would reduce the US/Allied force's vulnerability to NK subversion, espionage, counter-intelligence.

Finally, it appears to me that most of the theories are predicated on a US/Allied attack. Such a scenario is pretty doubtful for a variety of reasons (like, it's been over 50 years already, why now?)

I ask that those who stand up with glib "it'll be a bloodbath" statements look at things in more detail. The number of factors that need to be taken into account are far greater than many of you seem to think, and the one most often missed is "the moral."

Anyway, I will now sign off.


----------



## SHARP WO (17 Dec 2004)

A couple of other things to consider...

I was in South Korea in 98 visiting my Dad, (he was an ESL teacher there for 4 years) I did see a few things you might want to consider.

1) the overall terrain is an equal mix of mountain and flat land,  digging in a high ground is next to impossible you would have shellscrapes at best. With the lack vegetation so near the border high ground is exposed.

2)  The Americans employ over 100,000 soldiers in S Korea along with almost a million S Korean Regulars. There are 4 main bases, 2 of which are in Soeul one on the south side of the river and one on the north.

3)  Soeul is 50 km south of the border and every highway, road and bridge is mined ready to be blown within 30 minutes of an attack by the North. with prepared defences along every possible route. If the North were to get to Soeul, all the bridges would be blown over the river(they are also mined).

4)  The DMZ is constantly being upgraded and is regularily patrolled by the S Koreans and the Americans. The only way to cross it is at designated points which are very heavily defended.

5)  The one thing the N Koreans have is the mirade of tunnels running all over the place, rumour has it that they run all the way under to  about 2 km south of the DMZ, but they are man sized, so no armour support. ( my dad visited the tunnels when he was there for a vacation in 97)


SHARP WO


----------



## Baloo (17 Dec 2004)

I do not doubt the capacity of the South Koreans to defend themselves. This war (if it occurred) would not be nearly a repeat of the last one. All I have tried to suggest or question, is North Korean ability to level the capital of Seoul, and the economy of their neighbour. Civilian casualties in such an event would not only be inevitable, but catastrophic. This seems endeniable however, it any case. Unless there is a serious mismanagement in intelligence where the North does not have this massed artillery strike prepared, or the gunners would not follow orders (both unlikely), South Korea faces the very real possibility of being crippled in their ecnomic sector. 

There really could be no quarrelling over the outcome though. Even if the North fights to the last man, uncontested American and allied airpower would prevent anything other than total victory.


----------

