It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by eriktheawful
BULL! We don't have honey wagons.Remember the honey wagons? I remember the huge concrete pillar road blocks where detonation stations were located..Korea was all hills,steep hills.It rains hard and in the winter the cold goes right through clothing.In Camp Stanley we ran lift alerts all the time.On one occasion new years, I think we barely made formation with gear drunk off our butts on Soju...making us more aggressive.
As an Air Cav scout I would be flown to a mountainous area and take up an OP on a critical route and secure that route by radio coms. Me a map and a pair of binos and a compass along with a line of artillery can kill a division in a large valley if I get air.
Originally posted by all2human
NATO to defend Skorea..
As with the 50'- 53' war, the UN will most likely be the ones going in not NATO, for NATO is a European war organization North Korea is a pacific theater country out side of NATO operations , it could give aid if the US main land was to be attacked, if it is it will be nukes not ground nor air troops, nor by sea. DPRK ode snot have the invasion forces needed for such an operation . Now if China was to get in the act that, in it self, is a different matter.
Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty does not guarantee the use of force to assist an ally under attack. Nonetheless, the U.S. pledge to assist an ally under attack has been the core of the alliance. Despite growing political functions, the NATO views collective defense, and not collective security, as its core function.
A collective security organization settles disputes among its members. In contrast, a collective defense organization assists a member state under attack by an outside country. NATO is a collective defense organization. Article V states that NATO members must consider coming to the aid of an ally under attack. However, it does not guarantee assistance. Article V is the Treaty's key provision and the linchpin binding the United States to its NATO allies. It states, in part, that "an armed attack against one or more [allies] shall be considered an attack against them all." Additional language makes clear that the commitment to assist an ally is not unconditional. Rather, each signatory will assist the ally under attack with "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force ......"(1) Since the early 1990s, NATO has begun to adopt "new missions," such as crisis management and peacekeeping, sometimes referred to as "non-Article V missions." Current members and candidate states, however, believe collective defense, as expressed in Article V, remains the core of the alliance, a view likely to endure as long as the possibility of a nationalistic, aggressive Russia remains.
That's not good! Bad enough the North has them now the South wants them????, this means one thing China would come in if the South used just one TNW [Tactical Nuclear Weapon's ] on the North.
‘Tactical nukes only means to deter N.K. nuclear ambitions’
Published : 2013-03-31 20:27
Updated : 2013-03-31 20:27
The ruling Saenuri Party has long supported taking a hard-line approach to North Korean provocations.
Some of the most prominent members of the ruling party are the staunchest supporters of redeploying tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea as a deterrent to Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions.
Among them, the party’s former chairman Rep. Chung Mong-joon has been the most outspoken.
“The question is, for South Koreans, can we live peacefully with a nuclear-armed North Korea? The answer is ‘no.’ Nuclear deterrence can be the only answer. We have to have nuclear capability,” Rep. Chung Mong-joon of the Saenuri Party said in a recent interview with CNN.
Chung has brought up the idea time and again as a possible way to bring Pyongyang to heel.
“The reason I have called for redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons is that nuclear (weapons) are the only way to stop North Korea’s nuclear development,” Chung said at forum hosted by the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in February. At the time Chung also played down the significance of such developments saying that “it is only reversing the situation to before 1992.” He added that he also suggested the measure to the government two years ago.
“South Korea would not be violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as the tactical nuclear weapons belong to the U.S. The U.S.’ nuclear umbrella is sometimes referred to as a torn umbrella, and it is now time to repair it.”
Chung is not alone in calling for nuclear armament of South Korea within the Saenuri Party.
Rep. Won Yoo-chul, who has served as the chair of the National Assembly’s National Defense Committee, has also called for redeployment of tactical nuclear weapons.
“It is urgent that the nuclear imbalance between the South and the North is addressed,” Won said at conference of senior Saenuri Party lawmakers in February.
“Declaration of South Korea’s nuclear armament needs to be reviewed on condition of ‘immediate dismantlement following resolution of North Korean nuclear (situation).’”
Saenuri Party chairman Hwang Woo-yea has also indirectly supported the idea.
“We have to establish a response system against nuclear weapons in order to regain military balance,” Hwang said in February.
“We need to prepare even for the undesirable situation of ‘nuclear dominos’ in northeast Asia. In the face of nuclear weaponry, a weapon of mass destruction, we cannot be depending only on talks.”
Although the Saenuri Party has so far stopped short of calling for Seoul to begin its own nuclear weapons program, some of its members have already raised concerns over such developments.
“(South Korea) arming itself with nuclear weapons would bring about economic and diplomatic isolation, and have a critical impact on the country’s economy,” Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun said in a statement earlier this year.
“In addition, it would shake the South Korea-U.S. alliance to its roots and lead to security insurance disappearing.”
By Choi He-suk (email@example.com)
if one in out there it is not form the US stock pile unless they brush the dust off or make a new one.
Nuclear Brief September 28, 2005
A history of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in South Korea
The United States deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea for 33 years. The first weapons arrived in January 1958, well after the ending of the Korean War, and four years after forward deployment of nuclear weapons began in Europe. Over the years the numbers and types of nuclear weapons in South Korea changed frequently. At one point in the late 1960s, as many as eight different types were deployed at the same time (see chart).
Even before the weapons began arriving in January 1958, the U.S. Far East Command Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) from November 1956 identified two locations in Korea (Uijongbu and Anyang-Ni) with a capability to receive and handle nuclear weapons if necessary.
Actual deployments began in January 1958, four and a half years after the end of the Korean War, with the introduction of five nuclear weapon systems: the Honest John surface-to-surface missile, the Matador cruise missile, the Atomic-Demolition Munition (ADM) nuclear landmine, and the 280-mm gun and 8-inch (203mm) howitzer.
Originally posted by all2human
All options are and will be on the table,i believe tactical nukes could be used within the first hour of a nkorean attack and I think it's entirely possible chemical and biological ordiinaace will be used also,any one who thinks there will be restraint by either side is kidding themselves.This Hypothetical conflict is going to involve NATO countries and very likely draw in Japan and China,so i seriously doubt an engagement is going to happen,it truly is a powder keg and everybody involved is going to get burnt.edit on 1-4-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)
Bombers: 80 Fighters: 541 Transports: 361 Transport Helicopters: 588 Attack Helicopters: 24 Trainers: 228