Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Next Korean War Using the military is an option. Here's how it can be done.
http://www.opinionjournal.com ^ | Monday, August 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT | JAMES WOOLSEY AND THOMAS G. MCINERNEY

Posted on 08/03/2003 9:22:57 PM PDT by BCrago66

Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The White House had a shape-of-the-table announcement last week: North Korea would participate in six-sided talks with the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. This was welcome but it changes nothing fundamental. Kim Jong Il has clearly demonstrated his capacity for falsehood in multilateral as well as bilateral forums. The bigger, and much worse, news is the overall course of events this summer.


(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: korea; northkorea; southkorea
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 08/03/2003 9:22:57 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
It sounds like a good plan...there can be no doubt what the outcome would be given a resolute United States.

But the probable cost to Korean civilians would be horrendous. The North has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to level it to the ground in very short order.
2 posted on 08/03/2003 9:28:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Not that they are worth spit, but where is the U.N ? Korea is a U.N. mission. The United States, once again, carries the worlds' water.
3 posted on 08/03/2003 9:31:19 PM PDT by stylin19a (is it vietnam yet ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Loss of American lives would be great too - what with our deployment right accross the border. But at this point it's hard to see what choice we have; a nuclear explosion in New York City of Chicago would take millions of innocent lives.

I never served; I hope we get some military Freepers on this thread to access whether the strategy above sounds plausible.

4 posted on 08/03/2003 9:33:28 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
We are going to be very sorry that we didn't crush these bastards when we could have done it relatively easily. We were paralyzed by the fear of China, and now we are going to pay for that cowardice.

That said, I can see NO POSSIBILITY that we (or the South Koreans) would attack North Korea until AFTER they have struck the first, devastating blow- most likely at Seoul and Tokyo, as well as our bases on Okinawa. I suspect that our military casualties ALONE will exceed the total for the entire Vietnam War before the Second Korean War is a week old. This regime is actually the closest thing imaginable to one of those crazy, evil James Bond villains- even down to the hidden underground facilites that were so popular in the Bond flicks.

I would not be surprised by anything they do- there appears to be no effective internal opposition, and Kim himself is not sane.

5 posted on 08/03/2003 9:42:50 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
We have such a tattered civil culture that editorialists are yelling Vietnam and Quagmire and politicians seek political advantage when we lose 1 or 2 men in Iraq every couple days. Can this nation hold together when it confronts the casualties of Korean War II?
6 posted on 08/03/2003 9:49:03 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
This isn't something we can do without South Korean approval, and obviously there's no enthusiasm among South Koreans for risking their own well-being to serve the security interests of a patron they no longer appreciate.

What the authors describe is essentially reiterating what our military planners already know: We'll beat NK easily in a full-scale war but won't emerge unscathed. Thousands of US and South Korean troops will die, and there's no guarantee that we'll hit all their missile sites before they unleash their chemical/biological payloads to Seoul and Tokyo. Acts of terrorism are very likely - NK's special forces are the largest in the world and have trained fanatically for their often suicidal missions. Forcing regime change in NK would make Iraq look like a picnic - and we're still losing a soldier a day in Iraq.
7 posted on 08/03/2003 9:51:40 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
Why are so few people writing about the crisis in North Korea? It's a little more pressing now than gay marriage/Democratic commericals/Kobe the possible rapist and all the other crap pushed by the media.
8 posted on 08/03/2003 9:57:34 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
Exactly.

Even assassination is unlikely to help- Kim would just be replaced by the most ruthless of his Generals, and we might be be in a worse position (if possible) than we are now.

Americans do not have a great record for seeing big wars coming- in fact, I think we have never anticipated the outbreak of a major war. We want to be happy and carefree, and even now at least half of the population doesn't believe that there really are evil people in the world.

The article is correct, though, that if China decided to lean on North Korea, a very destructive war could be averted. Will they?

9 posted on 08/03/2003 10:04:12 PM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
Spent 13 months in korea like many others years ago. Had an old E-7 point out places and tell me what it was like in early 50's; quite sobering then, 20 years later.

Guess I don't think its worth one American boy's life. I think Bush knows he can deal with this without a major action. Asian economics more important than war to many countrys.

10 posted on 08/03/2003 10:04:45 PM PDT by Eska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Depressing scenario. The general public has a long ways to go before it would support a preemptive strike against NK.

I think we should let Japan and Taiwan gear up nuclear programs. That will get China's ass in gear. The Chinese are probably enjoying the NK shenanigans. It distracts us and perhaps they desire a quid pro quo. They take care of NK we acquiesce on Taiwan.
11 posted on 08/03/2003 10:07:39 PM PDT by Maynerd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Why are so few people writing about the crisis in North Korea?

I think because Bush has made a conscious decision to accord lower priority to Korea than the Mideast for the duration of his term. The media would pounce on him like a pack of wolves if he expressed his urgency - you can imagine their glee over the fact that there's no easy military solution. Bush wouldn't want to play into their hands, would he? He has to appear calm while being prepared for any flare-ups.

If the war with Iraq was a game of Chess, our standoff with NK would be a game of Go - a classic Asian confrontation where detachment and patience, not headstrong force, are the key to victory.

12 posted on 08/03/2003 10:08:57 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Send in the human shields!
13 posted on 08/03/2003 10:09:25 PM PDT by HaveGunWillTravel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
The Editorial writers do not accurately reflect the civil culture in America. The irony is that despite the hand wringing from the chattering classes, the people I talk to are still resolute. (although it is a self-selected group.)

This nation is stronger than many will believe.
14 posted on 08/03/2003 10:14:12 PM PDT by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
I'm just hoping Kim's not as insane as he looks. He's gotta realize that if he intends to hurt us, he'll effectively remove his enemies' reluctance to depose him by force. As for China's lack of cooperation, what do you expect? Let's just be thankful that unlike in '94 they're at least mindful that somebody has to do something.
15 posted on 08/03/2003 10:18:13 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66; SAMWolf; ExSoldier; NMFXSTC; GATOR NAVY; AmericanInTokyo
>>>> Can this nation hold together when it confronts the casualties of Korean War II?

We must, we always must. We should first do whatever it takes to avoid the casualties, but if we reason that it can't be done any other way, then there needs to be an unleashing of force like we've never done before. I think we're very close to that moment now. In fact, we may possibly be able to avoid much greater calamity if we strike now.

My father, a WWII veteran decorated with a purple heart, has said that he thinks we should be thinking the unthinkable and considering the cost of not striking now. He's still alive to give that sort of advice. We're still alive to take it. So are our families. So are the families of one of our closest allies, Japan.

We can not live with allowing a North Korean nuclear weapon falling on an ally of ours that we asked not to maintain a defensive nuclear capability because we would protect it. We cannot live with an invasion of South Korea. Likewise, China should know that we will use force in Taiwan or in North Korea -- as needed to protect our interests and the freedoms of the people left in those regions who love liberty and economic freedom.
16 posted on 08/03/2003 10:19:26 PM PDT by risk (Kakkate Koi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: risk
Your father probably said the same thing about China when it got the bomb in '64. Sure, the costs of inaction are potentially catastrophic. But as long as the enemy doesn't strike first, it's always potentially catastrophic. On the other hand launching preemptive warfare guarantees heavy loss of life. It's not in anyone's nature to shed blood to prevent something that may or may not happen anyway.
17 posted on 08/03/2003 10:32:29 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Maynerd
Trading N. Korea for Taiwan would be a great trade for China: eliminate the threat from a one of the worlds poorest countries and gain one of the worlds richest...

Aside from the betrayal aspects, we already trade far too much with China, considering their continued theft of Intellectual property, use of slave labor ect.

During the first Korean War one of the options was to unleash Chang Kai-shek. I would rather have Taiwan and South Korea develop their own nukes than betray Taiwan like that.
18 posted on 08/03/2003 10:36:05 PM PDT by donmeaker (I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
>>>> It's not in anyone's nature to shed blood to prevent something that may or may not happen anyway.

That's what we said before WWII. It's what we said before 9/11. We know better now. When a nation or rogue group credibly threatens Americans or our allies, that is when we should take action. Kim Jong Il knows this yet he persists. The important thing is to avoid playing into hands. He's a lunatic, so that shouldn't be too hard. The hard part is to keep Russia and China out of it, and I think that is possible too.
19 posted on 08/03/2003 10:42:05 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: risk
Here's an interesting analysis of the N. Korea standoff by a blogger that I'm reading right now:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/08/NorthKoreablinks.shtml
20 posted on 08/03/2003 10:51:14 PM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Loss of American lives would be great too - what with our deployment right accross the border.

My understanding was that over the last few months we redeployed many of the forces south, out of range of N Koreas artillery, which upset N Korea.

21 posted on 08/03/2003 10:54:13 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
I think because Bush has made a conscious decision to accord lower priority to Korea than the Mideast for the duration of his term.

I don't think it's a matter of lower priority, but rather who is going to handle it. North Korea is under Chinas thumb, if China so chooses. Pressure is being put on China to make North Korea knock it off. China is being put in a position of either saying, "we're not going to make them" (in effect declaring support), or "we can't make them" (in effect giving us rhetorical authority to deal with N Korea ourselves).

22 posted on 08/03/2003 10:59:58 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
and there's no guarantee that we'll hit all their missile sites before they unleash their chemical/biological payloads to Seoul and Tokyo.

We do have the advantage that North Korea is quite narrow - 155 miles. It's almost to the point where masses of scatterable submunitions can have "theater" effect.

I found an article describing my earlier comment about moving troops south...that will take a while.

23 posted on 08/03/2003 11:06:15 PM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66; ALOHA RONNIE
"...it wasn't actually possible to win the war in Korea."

Oops, incomplete thought alert. MacArthur was right about one thing: it wasn't actually possible to win the war on the Asian mainland without nuclear weapons. We could have beaten the Red Chinese in the 1950s with nukes. It would have been our last chance to do that in a long time.

I think MacArthur gave that advice before we entered the Korean war, and in any case, his words were ignored by Truman. Civlian control of the military is essential in a democratic nation, but history may show that MacArthur was right more often than was the State Department or Truman.

As MacArthur said,

The prestige of the Western world hangs in the balance. Oriental millions are watching the outcome. It is plainly apparent that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest. The test is not in Berlin or Vienna, in London, Paris or Washington. It is here and now–it is along the Naktong River in South Korea. We have joined the issue on the battlefield. Actually, we here fight Europe's war with arms, while there it is still confined to words. If we lose the war to Communism in Asia, the fate of Europe will be gravely jeopardized. Win it and Europe will probably be saved from war and stay free. Make the wrong decision her–the fatal decision of inertia–and we will be done. I can almost hear the ticking of the second hand of destiny. We must act now or we will die.
(source: General Douglas MacArthur Writings 1950-1951. Consider that when you think about Vietnam, Iran, Beirut, and 9/11. I think MacArthur predicted the eventual outcome: we were timid in our defense of liberty, tired and full of woe after WWII and the 37,000 men we lost in Korea. We couldn't stomach the task at hand: wiping out the vestigages of the first and most violent attack by communism on western interests.
24 posted on 08/03/2003 11:18:44 PM PDT by risk (NEVER FORGET)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: lepton
Diferent country, different solution. China is the key. we should, and I believe will(are) telling China to take care of their little bastard. China has more to loose than anybody in the region.

What if, S.Korea, Japan, TAIWAN, and others went nuclear in about a weeks worth of American shipments to them. China would be mortified. They wouldn't even have time to bitch. We would say, you had your chance, you blew it. Their economy would tank, and pressure could come from all sides. If China believes they can bluff Dubya into folding, I got some land to sell ya. I think they know by now who they are messin with. They just don't want to jump in too soon, but they will, they almost have to. If I were Dubya, I would be discusing nukes with Taiwan pretty soon. Oh my, nuke talks leaked to the press.....Pshaw! China would come unglued. The've been waiting for years for an opening to be able to get Taiwan back without a war. Definatly not with nukes in Taiwan.

The Dems want Bush to fret over N. Korea because they know it a tougher nut to crack than the middle east dictators. I believe he's doin the right thing. If they get hungry, let China or the UN feed them, been there,done that. They've proved they are liars and we should treat them as such. No treaty unless it is verifiable.

25 posted on 08/03/2003 11:21:57 PM PDT by chuckles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
The military planners must contend with:

1. Two (probable) existing atomic bonds affixed to rockets capable of striking all of Korea, Japan and our troops on Okinawa and perhaps Alaska or farther. Other delivery systems cannot be discounted. (The authors suggest that striking the nuclear production facilities will eliminate the bombs, but can this assumption be made given the risks?)

2. Chemical and bio WMDs similiarly mounted.

3. An array of artillery capable of dilivering 500,000 tons of ordinance of our tripwire troops and on Seoul within 24 hours positioned in hardened underground redoubts.(The authors assert that these are vulnerable to stealth strikes. Again, can we rely on this assertion? How vulnerable? What if these guns deliver chemical or bio weapons, would a preemptive stealth strike guarantee they would be knocked out in time?)

4. A huge multi million man army. ( How many casualties would they inflict before they are destroyed?)

5. Hundreds of thousands of fanatical special ops forces committed to near suicide strikes into the south.

The political planners must contend with:

1. All of the above.

2. The unreliability of our allies South Korea and Japan where millions of leftists and just plain scaredy cats will take to the streets in violent protests.

3. Virtually no cooperation from most of the world, angry opposition from most and actual perfidy from some. Virtual unamious opposition at the UN. No help from NATO.

4. A devided nation at home. Resistance to calling up the reserves as recommended by the authors. A virtual political fifth column known as the Democratic Party.

Bush is in a tough spot. If he talks tough the left reacts and uses it as a compaign issue. If he walks softly, as he has, he loses leverage. Not a good situation.

26 posted on 08/03/2003 11:28:58 PM PDT by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chuckles; yonif; rmlew; swarthyguy
I agree, but it's too bad that we have Pakistani nukes heckling us in south asia, and Iran nipping at our heels.

But isn't a relief to know that Iraq is out of the picture while we deal with those problems? Just think about the relief we'll feel when we take out the next threat, be it Syria, Iran, or North Korea. It's too bad that Powell is reluctant to call a spade a spade and include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the list of Evil Axis members.
27 posted on 08/03/2003 11:29:50 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; ALOHA RONNIE
>>>> A devided nation at home.

This has got to stop. I think the next election will show that the radical left in America (i.e. the DNC) has no footing at the center of American politics. For all we know, Bush's popularity declines have come as a cost to his inconsistent treatment of Israel's terrorist problem and the fact that we didn't roll west to Syria and east to Iran after Iraq fell.
28 posted on 08/03/2003 11:33:27 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: risk
history may show that MacArthur was right more often than was the State Department or Truman.

Thats probably because, whatever his defects, MacArthur was not a Stalinist agent.

29 posted on 08/03/2003 11:57:15 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
North Korea is in effect a Chinese protectorate. The road to Pyongyang goes through Beijing.

Any peaceful outcome will come about by using whatever leverage we have with China. The leverage we have is limited; trade concessions such as Most Favored Nation status which could be reconsidered or revoked, or the threat to provide nuclear weapons to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

China may attempt to sell its help in Korea in exchange for our betrayal of Taiwan. Or, if war comes to the Korean peninsula, it may sell its acquiescence at the same price; it would be easy for us to deny assistance to Taiwan if we were engaged in heavy combat and no one would ever question the decision.

An invasion of North Korea carries with it several threats.

The first is that neither Japan nor South Korea may be willing to back us.

The second is that Korea's force along the border, just a few miles from Seoul and our own base, may be impossible to defeat quickly enough to avoid massive damage to the city and our garrison. Impossible, that is, without resorting to the use of tactical nukes. Whether we have the will to use nuclear weapons, in a first strike, to clear the battlefield is doubtful, almost unthinkable. Which means we have to be willing to absorb the enormous civilian losses that will result if war breaks out at the edge of Korea's largest city.

The third is that China is unlikely to sit with hands in pockets while we invade its puppet kingdom. Unless we have done our political work very well, we may find ourselves confronted by the Chinese Army, which ups the ante. What is the level of force required to defeat not only the North Koreans but the Chinese as well?

I believe we could do it, if we were serious, but it would not be Iraq. It would be violent beyond belief, and again we would have to consider the use of tactical nukes with all that this would entail.

We could probably buy off the Chinese, but the price is Taiwan.

The force needed to defeat the North quickly would need to be brought in. It could not be brought in without the whole world knowing it, so there will have to be a buildup, which will give both China and the North plenty of opportunity to cause trouble. The likely result will be a preemptive strike by the North before we are ready. Again, if the north with its million man force were to cross the line, we would almost certainly be forced to resort to nuclear weapons or see our garrison overrun and Seoul destroyed.

It can be done, but it will be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, both politically and militarily. China almost certainly owns more US politicians than did Saddam, and that would be a factor in a way that it was not in the Iraq war.
30 posted on 08/04/2003 12:38:32 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marron
>>>> The first is that neither Japan nor South Korea may be willing to back us.

Your analysis is provocative, especially the part where Taiwan becomes a bargaining chip. I think South Korea will fight (the sudden realization had already struck them that this was serious when we talked about leaving or even just "reorganizing our presence"). I also think Japan will fight, too. It may be instructive to consider the possibility that both South Korea and North Korea see Japan as a common enemy. This could throw a monkey wrench into the works, but I don't think so. South Korea will come to its senses the minute Japan joins the fray on its side. North Korea will be "enraged" at the entry of their former nemisis into the conflageration, but we can only hope that it doesn't last very long.
31 posted on 08/04/2003 1:37:42 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
3. An array of artillery capable of dilivering 500,000 tons of ordinance of our tripwire troops and on Seoul within 24 hours positioned in hardened underground redoubts.(The authors assert that these are vulnerable to stealth strikes. Again, can we rely on this assertion? How vulnerable? What if these guns deliver chemical or bio weapons, would a preemptive stealth strike guarantee they would be knocked out in time?)

Seems to me that the authors underestimate the massive destruction that would take place in Seoul immediately upon us taking any preemptive action. Seoul has about 12 million people. Dropping a half million artillery shells in a day will kill millions of South Koreans.

If Seoul was 100 miles south of the DMZ, rather than 25, a preemptive strike would make a lot more sense.

Sure, we could eventually take out the artillery, but when? And after how many rounds would have been fired?

32 posted on 08/04/2003 6:45:14 AM PDT by jackbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: risk
" I also think Japan will fight, too."

Very interesting- exactly what is Japan going to fight WITH???

We (correctly) spent many years "de-militarizing" Japan, and making sure that their military is useful only as a homeland defense force.

And their political culture explicitly rejects foreign wars AND nuclear weapons.

Japan can be a great help as a logistical base (as it was in Korean War I), but I don't expect to see Japanese armies fighting their way up the Korean Peninsula alongside us, the Australians, the Brits, and possibly one or two others.

33 posted on 08/04/2003 7:15:01 AM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
>>>> Very interesting- exactly what is Japan going to fight WITH???

Japan is armed better than one might expect. Its brave "security forces" are probably a bit more on the offensive side than officially required. And they have ABM ships plus a number of fighter-bombers. Don't forget that Japan has been heckled by North Korean spying and kidknappings for the past 30 years or more.

I understand your point: they aren't nuclear and don't have massive fighting divisions. But their help could prove crucial in winning. And I don't think they would be hesitant to join in the hostilities with a ferocity that would surprise even themselves.
34 posted on 08/04/2003 9:49:37 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
We were paralyzed by the fear of China

Not exactly. The new regieme in China was there thanks to our aid, specifically our failure to back the Nationalists. In a sense we were allies with China. Truman stopped MacArthur because he didn't want this conflict to spread into China proper. It was very confusing and took another 15 years for China and America to begin talking again.

35 posted on 08/04/2003 9:57:06 AM PDT by RightWhale (Destroy the dark; restore the light)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
Japan has a fairly large airforce
http://www.jda.go.jp/jasdf/refs/shiryo_02e.htm
The F-1 is essentially a Japanese equivalaent to the Franco-Engglish Jaguar. The F-2 is an enlarged F-16, dedicated to attack.
The JNSDF includes 4 Japanese produced Arleigh Burkes (Kongos) and mnay modern diesel-electric submarines.
36 posted on 08/04/2003 10:00:18 AM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: risk
Re your post #24


yes, MacArthur recommended nukes, but General Mattew Ridgeway advised Truman otherwise.

Ridgeway's arguement was: If the US used nuke. Then that, might then trigger off a nuclear exchange with the USSR. If the USSR did not respond with nuke and kept out, then China would be defeated. yes, but, the US would then need to garrison an occupying army inside China,(and face a guerila war), because if the US won't station a garrison, the USSR would, from just across the Border, and then the USSR would instal a puppet Chinese Govt, consisting of the Pro-USSR faction of The ChiComs

And a combined USSR-China would be too strong for the then US to handle. And scare the shit out of the Europeans
37 posted on 08/04/2003 10:07:43 AM PDT by The Pheonix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
But the probable cost to Korean civilians would be horrendous. The North has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to level it to the ground in very short order.

As the article points out, any shelling of Seoul would be of very limited duration.

38 posted on 08/04/2003 10:08:47 AM PDT by presidio9 (RUN AL, RUN!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Pheonix
>>>> And a combined USSR-China would be too strong for the then US to handle. And scare the shit out of the Europeans

Agreed. Truman wasn't irrational when he pulled MacArthur out of his command. We can also speculate the other way, however: the Chinese were weak without their own nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union would have had to rely on intercontinental strategic bombers to strike American weapons because their missile guidance systems were still crude. We had superb AAA, and we had the will to win a nuclear war (we still do).

I personally think tactical nukes would have shocked the communists and would have given them pause as to what it was really worth in fighting the allies. But the bottom line was that Truman was our commander in chief, and MacArthur was out of line. Who knows, the civilians might have been right.
39 posted on 08/04/2003 10:21:23 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: risk
At that point in time, the US "had no strategic interest in Korea ,at all". And Korea was of no strategic value to the US. So, the American "folks back home" did not support the war, and wondering, what are our boys doing over there? What are they dying for? Where the hell is Korea, anyway??

The other problem was the very high American casulty---38,000 dead in 3 years. An American field reporter wrote,"the flower of American Youth died in Korea", as 1000s of young, 18-19 year-old Marines were ambushed at the Yalu River, followed by never ending fierce hand to hand battles all the way on

Imagine ,the retreat of the US Marines from the Yalu River to the South East of Korea was the Longest Retreat in the Annals of the US Marines
40 posted on 08/04/2003 10:30:43 AM PDT by The Pheonix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: The Pheonix
All good points. I don't think that anti-war sentiment was significant in our decision to stop at the 38th parallel. It didn't take the (non-existent) protest of the soldiers' parents to convince the civilian control over the military, which knew about all the issues you raise, realize that it was the better part of valor.

Maybe you would agree, or have some clarifications to add to this: I think maybe that the allied mistakes that led to the Korean war happened at Yalta and in our decision not to support the Koumingdong. Stalin hadn't been adequately warned at Yalta before WWII was over as to how the allies would react if he engaged in Soviet imperialism. Chang Kaishek's rout emboldened the communists everywhere. We had appeased the Russians at the Elbe, and we had embarassed them in the Berlin airlift. And North Korea was ripe for the picking due to its wholesale domination by Kim Il Sung's dictatorship.


Prelude to the Korean War: Setting the Stage

41 posted on 08/04/2003 10:45:35 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: risk
yes, I agree with your excellent analysis of the Allied failure at Yalta, and the failure to support the KMT . that's absolutely a big factor when Stalin decided to iniate the Korean War. He took it as a sign of American weakness ??????
42 posted on 08/04/2003 10:52:20 AM PDT by The Pheonix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: risk
OK, I hope you are correct- but I have spent quite a few years in that part of the world, and I do not see the Japanese people being supportive of such a use the JSDF.

Also, there is a political/historical problem, in that the Koreans have not forgotten completely the horrors of the long Japanese occupation. I wouldn't think that North or South would like to see Japanese soldiers there again.

43 posted on 08/04/2003 10:56:41 AM PDT by RANGERAIRBORNE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RANGERAIRBORNE
You may well be right. I think we have to be careful about rearming Japan -- there are a few nutcases there still. But we need stronger allies in the Pacific.
44 posted on 08/04/2003 10:58:09 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
re: This isn't something we can do without South Korean approval, and obviously there's no enthusiasm among South Koreans for risking their own well-being to serve the security interests of a patron they no longer appreciate. )))

People keep underestimating the Skorean military--it is substantial. All it'd take would be a few nukes to achieve complete parity with NK, and China is likely aware of that. I do not believe they (SK) need the US as much as writers here believe. What they do need is some *will*...

45 posted on 08/04/2003 11:07:01 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
The south Koreans I know are all for flower power.
46 posted on 08/04/2003 11:11:02 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Human scum / bloodsucker bump.
47 posted on 08/04/2003 11:13:09 AM PDT by nravoter (Try new "Howard Dean": from the makers of Michael Dukakis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jackbill
Sure, we could eventually take out the artillery, but when? And after how many rounds would have been fired?

.................North Korea.South Korea.U. S.
Active personnel...1,080,000.....550,000.37,500
Reserves.............600,000.....600,000....n/a
Battle tanks...........3,500.......2,280....116
Fighting vehicles......2,500.......2,480....126
Artillery.............10,000.......6,387.....45
Air defense guns......11,000.........270....n/a
Combat aircraft..........594.........470....100
Attack helicopters........24.........150....n/a
Combat ships.............159.........169....n/a

U.S. Forces, Korea / Combined Forces Command Combined Ground Component Command (GCC)

US Forces, Korea (USFK) is the joint headquarters through which US combat forces would be sent to the CFC's fighting components - the Ground, Air, Naval and Combined Marine Forces Component Commands. Major USFK Elements include the Eighth US Army, US Air Forces Korea (Seventh Air Force) and US Naval Forces Korea. USFK includes more than 85 active installations in the Republic of Korea and has about 37,500 US military personnel assigned in Korea. Major U.S. units in the ROK include the Eighth U.S. Army and Seventh Air Force.

Principal equipment in EUSA includes 140 M1A1 tanks, 170 Bradley armored vehicles, 30 155mm self-propelled howitzers, 30 MRLs as well as a wide range of surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles, e.g., Patriot, and 70 AH-64 helicopters. EUSA has the capability to perform required tasks under various circumstances using this equipment.

US Air Forces Korea possesses approximately 100 aircraft: advanced fighters, e.g., 70 F-16s, 20 A-10 anti-tank attack planes, various types of intelligence-collecting and reconnaissance aircraft including U-2s, and the newest transport aircraft. With this highly modern equipment, US Air Forces Korea has sufficient capability to launch all-weather attacks and to conduct air support operations under all circumstances. In the event the Seventh Fleet and the Seventh Air Force Command augment them, the capability of USFK will substantially increase both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Analysts: U.S. pullback from DMZ not likely to undercut deterrence

South Korea has the misfortune of a capital that sits within range of hostile weaponry. Less than 40 miles separate Seoul from North Korean missile and artillery units stacked just north of the DMZ.

"Seoul is within range of 130 mm guns and 170 mm long-range self-propelled guns," Dunnigan said. "But the biggest killer would be long-range rockets, mainly the 240 mm ones."

M-1978 / M1989 (KOKSAN) 170mm self propelled (SP) gun

estimated at "40,000 m" to "over 50km"
24 miles / 40 km = extended range full-bore hollow-base (ERFBHB)
30 miles / 50 km = extended range full-bore base-bleed (ERFBBB)
35 miles / 60 km = rocket assisted projectile (RAP)

According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm "could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs." The number of Koksan guns is not publicly reported, but it is reliably reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Large caliber self propelled artillery pieces typically have a sustained rate of fire of between four and eight rounds per minute. This suggests a total rate of fire of artillery alone of between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of no more than 4,400 rounds.

240MM ROCKET LAUNCHER M-1985 240MM ROCKET LAUNCHER M-1991

These launchers can fire a first strike of many thousands of missiles and return in a few minutes to protected caves or to alternate firing positions. The MRLs move out from underground facilities (UGFs), fire from preplanned firing positions, and return to the UGFs. Examination of the available data on the UGF sites suggests that a number of possible “exit and return” methods for the MRLs may be possible. In this case, the launchers move directly from the firing points to the UGFs. This procedure makes it difficult to target the launchers, because once they fire it only takes 75 seconds to return to their UGFs. The MRLs can fire their complete set of rockets in 44 seconds. Data from the Joint Precision Strike Demonstration Project Office indicates that the crew then needs two minutes to lower the launcher, raise the stabilizing pads, and quickly return to the UGF. This gives a total exposure time of 164 seconds. However, it is possible that the MRLs could displace faster than the JSPD case or that they might take longer. [SOURCE]

Range estimate is only 35k though.

I wonder what the training level is on this, and how many of the sites are known and pre-targetted. Unfortunately, if the above information is correct, we only have 45-60 major artillery pieces, so nearly all would have to be done via air-power.

This is a set battlefield, so likely North Korea has a well-established and diverse comunications grid in place - though also likely we know precisely where the overwhelming majority of their fixed artillery pieces sit - especially the ones in deployed position. They have quite a number of mobile ones, but I wonder if they are very functional if they have been training to shoot-and-move.

48 posted on 08/04/2003 11:15:20 AM PDT by lepton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: risk
Hindsight is always 20/20. We know for a fact that stopping Hitler would've been easier in '36 than in '39. But that doesn't mean it would've been easy in absolute terms - quite the contrary, attacking him when just about everyone in the West wanted to preserve peace could have been catastrophic. Democracies don't fight unless first attacked, because living in a constant state of warfare undermines the freedoms they take for granted. Only when it becomes crystal-clear that further inaction will result in something far more terrible do free societies swing into action with full vigor. When our vital interests aren't so clearly at stake, like during Vietnam, our military is compelled to fight battles without solid public support, we're made to question whether the loss of life is really worth it, and that's how we can lose. Right now, despite its nukes, NK probably doesn't constitute as big a threat in most American minds to warrant the option of last resort.
49 posted on 08/04/2003 3:21:33 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: lepton; All
We don't need artillary to take out the North Korean Artillary. (Although a few MLRS systems would be nice.)
Our first generation of brilliant weapons would do nicely.
Imagine the following scenario.
24 Super Hornets are launched from a carrier, each carrier 4 JSOW's. The JSOW's are lanched 80 miles from the DMZ. 12 open up over a specific target box (gotta love GPS) droping 145 smart submunitions. Each of these submunitions targets an individual artillry piecem muntions depot, or light vehicle with a combined effects warhead. 8 JSOW-B's open up to carry 24 anti-tank guided munitions. The remaining 4 JSOW-C's hit barracks.
At the same time Navy planes carrying the stealthy
JASSM's hit command and control facilities and radar facilities. The entire attack would take under 15 minutes from the launch point 80 miles over the ocean.
F-16's carrying HARM's take out the surviving radar stations whose crews are foolish enough to turn on their units in an uncoordinated manner.
A-10's carrying Maveriks and cluster bombs take out the rest.

American B-2's could take out the WMD's and major structures. A few dozen Tomahawk missles, launched ahead of the Navy fighters would hit the North Korean missle facilities and airfields.

After an hour or day of total shock and awe, American radio broadcasts messages urging surrender to the North Korean troops and leaders.
I don't think that the shattered military and starving populace would choose to die for Kim Jong-Il.

50 posted on 08/04/2003 3:57:42 PM PDT by rmlew ("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson