U.S moves it's forces away from DMZ

I feel that this is only the tip of the isceburg i think they are moving out of the range of the altilary which migh tdrive NK to a preemptive strike against the SK befor ethey decided to move back slightly. JB1 i highly doubt that we would have a preemptive stirike and if we did it wouldnt only be against the nuclear plants but i think they would carpet bomb the crap outta the land near the dmz, and we would take out the altillary or at least as much as we could.the last thing we would want if we did a preemptive stike would be the total destruction of Soel.

Originally posted by tacitblue

they got kamikazi mig-21 aircraft [which got a higher climb rate then you're f16/f15 ...] and some su-27.
sa-6 medium range sams some ww2 anti-aircraft arti sa-3s etc..

they will sneak up their small subs near you're carriers
and BOOM.

What? This?



Yeah, that's an advancned fighter... For Vietnam. Like I said, the real threat to US airpower will be from the ground. But then again with fighters and bombers like the F-22, F-117, and B-2 even AAA/SAMs aren't that big of a threat. After the stealth equiped planes take out the main AAA/SAM sites it then opens the flood gate for everything else that flies in the US aresenal.

No war can be won without control of the skies.

[Edited on 6-6-2003 by tacitblue]

yes, this mig-21 still can cope with the # out of an f16
stealth? how did you take out the radars in the bulf war? helicopters and other methods, only then you launched you're "stealth".

[Edited on 6-6-2003 by $tranger]

There are only two types of pre-emptive strikes that I can see the US using against NK.

The first is a bombing raid of their nuclear facilities.
I see this as highly risky and it would probably be a prelude to NK retaliation. I don't see this option occuring.

The second is a nuclear strike using tacticals.
With the world political climate the way it is, I see this one as being even more unlikely as the previous action.

Any pre-emptive strikes are more likely to come from NK. The regime is very unpredictable. And with the rest of the world slowly putting pressure upon them, who knows how they may react when their system is close to imploding.

I rather think that NK will upscale it's small attacks on SK forces. They'll probably become more frequent and be used as an excuse to drag the US into a war.

There are only two types of pre-emptive strikes that I can see the US using against NK.

I see a third which I believe the US has been invloved with for quite some time. Assasination. I consider that pre-emptive because a toppling of the regiem could destabilize the country enough to prevent war all together.

stealth? how did you take out the radars in the bulf war? helicopters and other methods, only then you launched you're "stealth".

I'd like to say that I wasn't involved with the war in Iraq. If I had been it would have been over before it began. Infact, there wouldn't have been a war if I had been in charge.

Second, you should study the tactics used in Iraq before commenting on them. The first round of air attacks saw use of Tomohawk cruise missiles launched from ships/subs and precision guided munitions dropped from stealth aircraft (F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit). Then the other non-stealth strike forces attacked, many escorted by radar jamming EA-6B Prowlers.



[Edited on 6-6-2003 by tacitblue]

check this article out.
www.rense.com...

MiG-21 fighters from Bongchun and US F-15 from Ohsan would meet in less than 5 min, assuming they took off at about the same time. In about 5 min, hundreds of MiG21s and F-15s would be swirling in the skies over Korea. Ground-to-air missiles and air-to-air missiles would have hard time telling friends from foes. F-15Es are equipped with a radar system that lock on at 180 km for large objects and 90 km for small objects. Sidewinder missiles have an effective range of 16km, AMRAAM missiles of 50km, and Sparrow of 55km.

Korea is 100 km wide and 125 km long, and so US air-to-air missiles would be of limited use and effectiveness, because North Korean MiGs would approach the US planes in close proximity and commingle with US planes, and air-to-air missiles will become useless and machines guns will have to be used.

MiG-21 fighters from Bongchun and US F-15 from Ohsan would meet in less than 5 min, assuming they took off at about the same time. In about 5 min, hundreds of MiG21s and F-15s would be swirling in the skies over Korea. Ground-to-air missiles and air-to-air missiles would have hard time telling friends from foes. F-15Es are equipped with a radar system that lock on at 180 km for large objects and 90 km for small objects. Sidewinder missiles have an effective range of 16km, AMRAAM missiles of 50km, and Sparrow of 55km.

Korea is 100 km wide and 125 km long, and so US air-to-air missiles would be of limited use and effectiveness, because North Korean MiGs would approach the US planes in close proximity and commingle with US planes, and air-to-air missiles will become useless and machines guns will have to be used.

I'm sure military planners have gone over every possible scenerio for Korea. They've had a long time to do it.

I'd deal with this problem by moving my planes far away from Korea and beef up SK with a lot of AAA/SAMs. Then, after the initial NK strike I'd move in on them while they were on the way home. Probubly after I bombed the hell out of thier bases at night with my stealth fighters and bombers.

Let's just hope it doesn't come to war. If it does it will undoubtedly be horrific. Undoubtedly nuclear.

[Edited on 6-6-2003 by tacitblue]

after I bombed the hell out of thier bases at night with my stealth fighters and bombers.

bomb the underground bases?

Originally posted by $tranger

after I bombed the hell out of thier bases at night with my stealth fighters and bombers.

bomb the underground bases?

What you never heard of bunker busters, these nasty little devils have been known to penetrate 50+ft of reenforced structure. If I was do attack and underground facility I would use a laser tipped nuke dropped from a sattelite. That way the laser could burn a hole through every thing and the bomb can just fall in and detonate at the correct depth. But that's just me...

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by $tranger

after I bombed the hell out of thier bases at night with my stealth fighters and bombers.

bomb the underground bases?

What you never heard of bunker busters, these nasty little devils have been known to penetrate 50+ft of reenforced structure. If I was do attack and underground facility I would use a laser tipped nuke dropped from a sattelite. That way the laser could burn a hole through every thing and the bomb can just fall in and detonate at the correct depth. But that's just me...

i would like to drop that uncle sam in you're avatar from a sattelite on that bunker

i think that if n. korea sees that it's babies, i mean nukes, are going to be taken away then the upwards of thousand artillery pieces will bombard seoul. there are a LOT of large cannons with miles of the dmz not to mention half of their million man army deployed within a oneday advance zone of the dmz. ummm, some of that might be off, scratchin my head for stuff from a times article a read the other day.

but i think,. aerially, n.korea has the advantage. mainly because of numbers, and the inability for the us to be able to support a long war against the north. it'd be way too much to get all the supplies to fuel a war machine over there. we could s. korean stuff but no, cos then they won't like us anymore then they already do. this is speculation, i don't really know. i know it's been in the works for a long time

Originally posted by ADVISOR

Originally posted by $tranger

after I bombed the hell out of thier bases at night with my stealth fighters and bombers.

bomb the underground bases?

What you never heard of bunker busters, these nasty little devils have been known to penetrate 50+ft of reenforced structure. If I was do attack and underground facility I would use a laser tipped nuke dropped from a sattelite. That way the laser could burn a hole through every thing and the bomb can just fall in and detonate at the correct depth. But that's just me...

The B-61 Mod 11 is the main bunker buster in the US arsenal. A recent test showed that this buster could penetrate only 6 meters of rock. The latest GBU-28 laser-guided bunker-buster can penetrate to 30m. North Korean bunkers have at least 80 m of top-cover of solid rocks. North Korea has many false caves that emit heats that will misdirect unwary GBU-28/37 and BKU-113 bunker-busters.

I would comment further but that would be a breach in security..oh the hell with it. The false heat sigs are old bag, through the use of seismic detectors movement has been recourded and therefor reviels what tunnels are being used. This isn't new tech, by far its gtting old bag too. Since we used seismic devices the most during the conflict in SE Asia.

I'd like see an underground airstrip. Unless the NK has some sort of VTOL aircraft nobody knows about the only thing they could do would be store thier planes underground. You still need runways and without them they have no airpower besides helicoptors.

The tunnels that are supposed to be under Korea will only be taken by a bloody subterrainian ground war.

There won't be a underground war, let alone a bloody one. the tunnels will be imploded and collapsed before any of that even happens. The tunnels are almost a tourists attraction these days, exept you can only see outdated ones in the south. Korea sucks, but so does any oppressive government...

Korea sucks, but so does any oppressive government...

Korea? You mean NK? They might suck but it will be a bloody war. If you can't see that I'm glad you aren't planning or stratigic defense/offense. Arrogance and overconfidence = ass kicking.

Originally posted by tacitblue
Second, you should study the tactics used in Iraq before commenting on them. The first round of air attacks saw use of Tomohawk cruise missiles launched from ships/subs and precision guided munitions dropped from stealth aircraft (F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit). Then the other non-stealth strike forces attacked, many escorted by radar jamming EA-6B Prowlers.

[Edited on 6-6-2003 by tacitblue]

Assassination wouldn't work. Look at Saddam and Osama. Kim Il Jong is going to be even harder to get at.

And I don't have to be educated about the Gulf Wars. I'm well aware of the tactics. Or at least the tactics we were told about.

Hitting NK in this manner would be almost impossible. Their air defences are a lot stronger than Iraqs. They haven't had 10 years of military erosion.
Maybe you aren't aware and I can enlighten you to the fact that NK has literally thousands of conventional armour pointed at Seoul. If they get one sniff of an airwar they'll flatten that city.
I doubt very much if the US would take that chance unless NK was going to immediately go nuclear.




[Edited on 6-6-2003 by Leveller]

Hitting NK in this manner would be almost impossible. Their air defences are a lot stronger than Iraqs. They haven't had 10 years of military erosion.
Maybe you aren't aware and I can enlighten you to the fact that NK has literally thousands of conventional armour pointed at Seoul. If they get one sniff of an airwar they'll flatten that city.
I doubt very much if the US would take that chance unless NK was going to immediately go nuclear.

Did I not say three (?) times that the biggest threat to aircraft in Korea would be surface-to-air opposition? I assume that is what you mean by "air defenses." If you're including NK's airpower the US is still a lot stronger.

It wouldn't make much sense for the US to invade NK would it? A side from the devistation a war would case it would not, politically, look good for any administration. The US will wait for NK to shoot first. And I'm sure there are very refined battle plans in place to deal with an attack.

I'm an not a battle planner nor do I want to be...

Originally posted by tacitblue

It wouldn't make much sense for the US to invade NK would it? A side from the devistation a war would case it would not, politically, look good for any administration. The US will wait for NK to shoot first.

You're looking way too close to the future. I doubt very much that the US will make the first big move on this one for a while.
But there is no way of telling who will shoot first. If North Korea goes too near the button, they're going to get pre-emptive before they can hit it.
With any war you have to claim the land with troops. You can't just bomb a people into submission unless you use tactical nukes or carpet bombing. Even then there isn't an historical precedence. Politically, the US could not afford to use that method. Neither could they use large nuclear strikes. The only method would be a quick armoured thrust backed by massive conventional airpower. There would be casualties, but it could be done.

If it came down to the wire and the West thought that there was no other way out, it's quite possible that it could choose this option.

Right now it's a last resort. But in the future it is entirely feasible that the US may be pre-emptive much more eagerly.
There are still things to be sorted out before our societies in the West will accept another war. We've proven that by our attitude over Iraq. But in five years time maybe society's attitude will have changed. We're going to get 5 years propoganda and maybe 5 years UN sanctions before anything happens. NK will get the Iraq treatment.
Add to that the fact that our technology is going to jump massively over the next few years and you have the setting for another Iraq.

If they can last as long as Saddam did, they're going to be a problem. In a few years time they will be a REAL nuclear threat so they will have to be taken out. The only question is wether or not Kim Il Jong can keep his finger off the button before we go in.

Originally posted by Leveller

Originally posted by tacitblue

It wouldn't make much sense for the US to invade NK would it? A side from the devistation a war would case it would not, politically, look good for any administration. The US will wait for NK to shoot first.

You're looking way too close to the future. I doubt very much that the US will make the first big move on this one for a while. .

finally someone who makes sense
we are in no position to br pre-emptive here, we probably should have been involved here way before afghanistan or iraq, but that is history
after all NK can reach our shores with a nuke, the aforementioned countries do not have that capaciity.
we would no doubt win a war but the casualties would be unacceptable to the public unlike iraq or afghanistan.
now once the terrorists or the Kabal or the NWO drops a nuke or chem or bio weapon on our shores the political window will open and we can close it
till then speculation is conversation

tut tut