It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea: What would a war look like ?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dianajune

I think we have some here that served and were stationed over there.

Your best bet would be to make a thread and ask people




posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Look Gort, this is what they want to do with us
.








....sorry, it's them or us.

www.emol.com.../Conoce-la-propaganda-con-la-que-Corea-del-Norte-desafía-a-Estados-Unidos



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex


Sadly interventions by US Presidents past and present has brought us to the point we are at now , sometimes it's best to play the long game if that's the only real option available because the alternative isn't really an alternative.

The reason US failed to take the whole Korean Peninsula last time would be the same this time. The geography hasn't changed. The moutainous terrain in the north gave the US military the sam trouble it does today in Afghanistan. The, slug it out, in bitter winter cold, over mountain pass choke points, and up and down single winding road military doctrine is bad enough. Its not working in Afghanistan either.

Just like last time the Chinese will wait until the US gets close enough, then send masses of troops south. They can't be effectively destroyed even with nukes because of the mountain terrain, just like last time.

And just like last time the US will be beaten back to the same place they were last time, then cry uncle and sue for peace.

Don't these guys ever learn?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Tech is considerably better than last time, I expect some headways to be made with the last round of lessons the US learned from the 50's



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: mightmight

Not going to argue any of what you posted. I was stationed there (infantry) before we evacuated most of our forces for the Iraq war. We were soberly informed that if the Nort attacked, Seoul would be overrun in 4 hours. They said this was expected and that any reinforcements would be deployed south of Seoul. Not very reassuring for us grunts patrolling the DMZ or based in Camp Hovey between the DMZ ans Seoul.


Yeah, i remember similar stuff from my part of the world.

It probably was the working assumption in the Nineties based on the realities oft he Cold War. Not bad but times have changed. North Korea is unable to replace ageing equipment.

They suffer from supply shortages and wont be able to sustain an offensive against total US Air supremacy. On other side, South Korea has invested untold billions in their armed forces for the last decades and it shows. Their armed forces are probably one of the most underrated militaries in the world at this point.
They still have meaningfull conscription with up to 2 years of mandatory service (which means their reservist will actually now what they are doing) and can field first rate military hardeware in impressive numbers.

The North Koreans cant keep up. They produce a local T-72 variant which while modernized is not comparable to second generation South Korean tanks. And it will only get worse for them. South Korea is mass producing third generation tanks and top of the line IFVs. Give it another decade and any ground combat between the Koreas will be a very one sided affair.
The North obviously knows this. They are not stupid, just deranged. They cant keep up and they arent even trying. There are no major modernisation programs going on. They invest all their ressources in their nuclear program, missiles and artillery.
They have switched to deterrence at this point. Radically different compared to what was going on two decades ago.

And just to mention it, purely militarily speaking, the geography has changed too. IE land between the DMZ and Seoul is much more urbanized now. The Paju-Goyang Corridor (or whatever its called) was mainly used for agriculture two decades ago. If you look at the area today most of it is gone, replaced by urban terrain. Back in the day, an armored trust through little more than open fields would have been a possibility. These days, any hypothetical northern advance would be delayed shattered well before they would reach Seoul.
But of course it wouldn’t be pretty, the infrastructure in the area would be destroyed too.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
before war can happen, legally, per the un, there must be an act of declaration of war...

a country cannot attack another country because they are developing a missile or nuke system. NK knows this and are not part of the iaea or any nuclear proliferation or treaty with any nation.

the sanctions are not even legitimate.

Trump would have to show or demonstrate what NK has done to America, how many warships do they have on us borders to provoke an attack, have they done any damage on us or allied soil.

so far all NK has done is develop a weapon which the US has the second largest stockpile and is the only government which deemed it necessary after one attack from the Japanese... (why other military actions weren't taken or exhausted...) the Japanese are putting their fears in the wrong basket, and they still owe us ' 2' ( I know a lot feel that way from my stint there)
edit on 24-9-2017 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Trueman




Look Gort, this is what they want to do with us

Why wouldn't they ? , you're still technically at war with them , your last warmonger in chief put them on notice by putting them on the Axis of Evil so starting their Nuclear weapons program and this President is threatening to destroy them and holding war games next door.



....sorry, it's them or us.

So sacrificing the people of South Korea is a price worth paying ? , not to mention the risk of escalation into a wider conflict.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: HassenBinSobar
a reply to: intrptr

Tech is considerably better than last time, I expect some headways to be made with the last round of lessons the US learned from the 50's

LOl, their tech is 'better' too. They've had 67 years to prepare it, and apply lessons learned from last time.

it still boils down to employing thousands of airstrikes onto over 15,000 artillery and rocket positions, many of them hardened, underground or in caves.

How long you figure that would take before they 'react'? Remember this is crazy like Kim everyone keeps saying is insane.

And all that bombing is just the air campaign on just the border installations.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Good morning G.... I don't think war is the word those younger than 40-50 thinks it represents. There won't be territorial invading armies on either shores... more like a long distance phone call waking you in the middle of the night.

Remember. Bagdad? We we're either in and dropping and out again using stealth tech weaponry... Or nowhere near any targets we destroyed. The Iraqi's we're firing blindly up at nothing because we weren't even there.

I think the world really is beyond marching and landing advanced armies.. that can now be taken out in fantastic #'s without a soldier getting out of the chair.. at least with the Superpower countries.

Indiana Jones and that scene squaring off with a guy drawing his sword and starts running at him. Indiana just looks at him like "Really"?...pulls out his revolver and "BOOM!"...fires dropping the guy before he even reaches him...



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
before war can happen, legally, per the un, there must be an act of declaration of war...
The United States and North Korea are still at war. There was no peace agreement, just an armistice since 1953.

Legally hostilities can be resumed at any point.



a country cannot attack another country because they are developing a missile or nuke system. NK knows kits not part of the iaea or any nuclear proliferation or treaty with any nation.
Any country can attack another country for any reason... it may just no be legal under international law.

North Korea is in violation of a odd dozen UN Security Council resolutions.


the sanctions are not even legitimate.
Sure they are. All sanctions implemented by the UN Security Council are legal. They have the right to sanction anyone for any reason if they decide to do so.
edit on 24-9-2017 by mightmight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex


Why wouldn't they ? , you're still technically at war with them , your last warmonger in chief put them on notice by putting them on the Axis of Evil so starting their Nuclear weapons program and this President is threatening to destroy them and holding war games next door.

All that is rhetoric to keep us occupying the southern half of their country. That occupation has to be justifiable in the public eye. Without perceived enemies there is no reason to be occupying and defending some country, far from home, is there...

Unless you consider the real reason; this is not about Korea at all, its about containing and isolating China and Russia.

Same as last time we occupied Korea and Vietnam, the Philippines, Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, and a plethora of Pacific Islands...

...the bigger picture.
edit on 24-9-2017 by intrptr because: as usual



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: odzeandennz

As just posted: the Korean War never ended officially. Only a armistice was declared.

A armistice that North Korea has said they would no longer agree to since the 1990s.

By declaring that (6 times now), it means that open hostilities could happen at any time.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

The only thing I think they got wrong was the body count...I think the first 2 days would be in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. I also think that Un would go nuclear before his military reserves/logistic train ran out.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Is there a part 2? What kind of ending is that?



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Info from family in SK. There are concerns about possible EMPs. So much tech and most is not hardened. The troops at the DMZ are there to slow invasion and expected death rates to be very high, as in total. They are only there to give main part of armies, US and SK time to defend and attack.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
a reply to: gortex

The only thing I think they got wrong was the body count...I think the first 2 days would be in the millions, not the hundreds of thousands. I also think that Un would go nuclear before his military reserves/logistic train ran out.


I am considering the possibilities that if a war with NK ever starts (for whatever reason) it will be over except for a mop up and humanitarian operation in just about 15 minutes or max of 30 minutes..

I do believe at this time in history, America will unleash the big dogs of war and will instill a real fear into their future opponents that will not soon be forgotten.. No brag .... just listening to the rhetoric from both sides reminds me of two young bucks doing the monkey dance before the fist start to fly.. ... Let us all hope sincerely that my scenario or any real war does not happen..



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: Mike.Ockizard
a reply to: mightmight

Not going to argue any of what you posted. I was stationed there (infantry) before we evacuated most of our forces for the Iraq war. We were soberly informed that if the Nort attacked, Seoul would be overrun in 4 hours. They said this was expected and that any reinforcements would be deployed south of Seoul. Not very reassuring for us grunts patrolling the DMZ or based in Camp Hovey between the DMZ ans Seoul.


Yeah, i remember similar stuff from my part of the world.

It probably was the working assumption in the Nineties based on the realities oft he Cold War. Not bad but times have changed. North Korea is unable to replace ageing equipment.

They suffer from supply shortages and wont be able to sustain an offensive against total US Air supremacy. On other side, South Korea has invested untold billions in their armed forces for the last decades and it shows. Their armed forces are probably one of the most underrated militaries in the world at this point.
They still have meaningfull conscription with up to 2 years of mandatory service (which means their reservist will actually now what they are doing) and can field first rate military hardeware in impressive numbers.

The North Koreans cant keep up. They produce a local T-72 variant which while modernized is not comparable to second generation South Korean tanks. And it will only get worse for them. South Korea is mass producing third generation tanks and top of the line IFVs. Give it another decade and any ground combat between the Koreas will be a very one sided affair.
The North obviously knows this. They are not stupid, just deranged. They cant keep up and they arent even trying. There are no major modernisation programs going on. They invest all their ressources in their nuclear program, missiles and artillery.
They have switched to deterrence at this point. Radically different compared to what was going on two decades ago.

And just to mention it, purely militarily speaking, the geography has changed too. IE land between the DMZ and Seoul is much more urbanized now. The Paju-Goyang Corridor (or whatever its called) was mainly used for agriculture two decades ago. If you look at the area today most of it is gone, replaced by urban terrain. Back in the day, an armored trust through little more than open fields would have been a possibility. These days, any hypothetical northern advance would be delayed shattered well before they would reach Seoul.
But of course it wouldn’t be pretty, the infrastructure in the area would be destroyed too.


I remember during field excercises laying in. My sleeping bag at 3AM and hearing the ROK army drilling. Those guys were pretty hard core. The KATUSA's that were embedded with us were more wimpy.

I'm sure they are modernized but I'm out of touch I guess. Thanks for the info



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

And what if Lil' Kim decided that the UK was the enemy and that was exactly why he was building his nuclear bombs and advancing his rocketrty abilities? (You would probably ask us to provide some muscle.)

You want rationality? Where is the rest of the world, both inside and outside of the UN, working to stop that little bastard from starting something that he can't win?

If you want to blame somebody, place the burden on the main country that can end his madness in an instant, blame China, not his promised victim.

It is after all a game and regardless of the outcome China is winning.


edit on 24-9-2017 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I agree South Korea will be the most vulnerable if the U.S. would decide to attack North Korea. That would be Kim's first response. It would take less than a minute to launch a barrage of artillery towards the south. I think that has been the major sticking point with many U.S. presidents. Is Trump going to take responsibility for the death of millions of South Koreans because of a decision to attack North Korea? What does North Korea have to lose by launching their nukes if they come under attack?

It's really a dangerous situation and not as clear-cut as Trump makes it out to be. Unless the U.S. has some secret weapon that can destabilize North Korea's launchers and wipe out all their artillery along the DMZ, South Koreans are sitting ducks.



posted on Sep, 24 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

Outstanding !

Excuse me while I break into a rendition of " Chariots of Fire."


Buck



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join