The US, The UN and Iraq

all in all a pretty good discussion about a complicated issue

Prepared, hardened defensive positions, manned by not only US but several dozens of thousands of ROK troops, augmented by rocket and artillery-spread "Instant Minefields", concerted Air Support, the delivery of massed artillery fire onto pre-designated coordinates, and Air and Artillery-delivered Tactical Nukes will do for a start. Cross-Beach Landings with supporting Airborne Infantry drops well to the rear of DPRK foward positions would be sure to follow as soon as practicable. Meanwhile, Conventional Strategic Bombing and assorted Smart Weapons of varying delivery mode would be severely disruptive of DPRK Battle Plans.

Don't forget, for over 50 years, our military focus has been on the ability to defeat a force larger in number than that which we dispose. We're likely to be pretty good at it.



timber

Timber---did I just hear you say that or was that an echo from MacArthur just before the chinese came pouring over the river?

What if the Chinese think of this as a grand opportunity to take over all of Korea----how can we stop them short of flinging nukes all around. I like Asherman's idea of confrontation and brinkmanship now instead of later but we must be prepared to use tactical nukes and to be prepared for Seoul to be destroyed--are we willing to risk that? That also upsets the time table for Iraq!

Sorry to interrupt you chaps in the middle of all this fun, but a small point here to timber. You said earlier... Could we make a little room in there for sincere, principled disagreement with US foreign policy?

Blatham

Not from an ornery, intellectual no count Canadian))))))))

I think the NK army will learn very quickly that the technologically superior war machine of the US is only a quick way to the grave, and will throw up their arms and surrender like the Iraqi army during the Gulf War. If any war started, it will end quickly. Any war with Iraq will also be short lived. c.i.

You guys also forget that the sky over the battle field is not yet ours---that will take a few days. In the meantime a lot of people are dying. If I were the general in charge of the war you're talking about----I sure wouldn't want any of the geniuses on this forum doing the planning---including me.

I say again---war with NK is not worth one dead GI.

jperception, None of us presumes to know how to plan a war. What we offer is only our opinion from whatever knowledge we can garner from the media. We never claimed to be a "genius" on any subject on A2K. FYI, the US superiority in the sky over any battle field, particularly over Iraq or NK, is second to none. That's my personal opinion, and I'm no genius. c.i.

perception, Mac Arthur had nowhere near the current US capability. In point of fact, once the US/UN had recovered from the shock of the unexpected onslaught, things went decidedly unwell for the then-current Pyong Yang regime, even without Strategic Bombing and Cross-Yalu Hot Pursuit of Enemy Air Assets. When they came to the negotiating table, it was not from a position of strength, and among concessions the DPRK gained at the talks was resumption of control over substantial of her territory at the time securely occupied by UN Forces.


Blatham, of course there is room for criticism and dissent. Such are chief among the principles for which we will risk war ... sorta ironic, huh?



timber

C.I.

Please don't take offense---our Air Force is absolutely superior but before we can have absolute control of the sky we must first destroy the NK air force--a lot of that can be done in the first few hours on the ground then the rest in the sky but it does take a certain amount of time. Until that is done our troops on the ground can be attacked from the air by NK.

Also if I may---the standard has already been set---the objective is to win without losing one good guy---anything else is unacceptable.

BTW---this only happens when we strike first.

c.i., I would add to perception's observation that our Ground Units possess formidible organic Operational and Tactical Air Defense capability as well. A bombing run on a US unit is assured no absence of effective countermeasure. Attacking Battle-Ready US Forces is a horrendously expensive proposition.



timber

timber

On another thread, it has already been established that 'ironies' are uncomfortable and ought really to be considered anti-American. William Bennett is our measuring stick here.

Touche, blatham. Handily done.



timber

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=533&e=2&cid=533&u=/ap/20021228/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq


It appears the Knights are being moved from the back rank and the unmasking of the cardinal pieces has begun. This would appear to be standard continuation of an unremarkable, if calculated, opening gambit.
The Middle Game is few moves off, though.



timber

Timber,

I agree that these are all opening gambits.

Given my scenario above, the DPRK (I just hate calling them "Democratic") does not have to respond militarily. They might, and probably would when faced with a credible counter threat, destroy the means for producing additional nuclear munitions. That is how the North Koreans negotiate. Kim doesn't really want a war that he can't win, and the odds are vastly against him in an open conflict with the U.S. I believe he would return to the status quo, and the endless Korean armistice will go on, and on, and on.

If the North miscalculates and ignors the ultimatum, we have UN backing for a surgical strike against the North's nuclear facilities, and they go away in a crash of thunder. The US/UN forces including the ROK stand ready to receive an attack from the DMZ. Again the North has a choice of whether to launch an attack, or return to the negotiating table. If Kim miscalculates he will be moving at a time and onto a battlefield we are standing ready to defend. I don't think tactical nuclear weapons will be required, and every effort should be made to hold South Korean ground, especially Seoul. That's the Army's task; defend and hold the line against direct attack. The Marines objective is to land and drive to Pyong-Yang quickly. Most DPRK forces are dug in near the DMZ facing south, and would be hard pressed to turn about and oppose the Marine advance through the least capable of the Northern forces. The Marine operations in their rear will reduce the pressure to the south, and if they come out of their holes to intercept and engage the Marines they will be sitting ducks for Marine and Naval air.

The Air Force should achieve air superiority within 48 hours of the DPRK attack, and then should have a dual purpose: 1. Keep DPRK forces bottled up in their DMZ fortresses, and 2. Destroy the Norths CCC cubed system. I suppose I've written that backwards, but really both objectives can and should be simultaneous. I would expect Pyong-Yang to fall rather quickly, after which the Marines would hook south to either attack remanents of the DPRK forces, or recieve their surrender. I suspect that the whole operation would go rather quickly, and with minimum casualties all round.

I very much doubt that the Chinese would be involved beyond loud posturing. The Marine advance would be parallel to the Chinese border, and not threatening to them as was our advance on the Yalu fifty years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese wouldn't secretly welcome the end of Kim's Folly in any case.

At the conclusion of the Korean War, the penninsula would be reunited under the ROK government. The UN would have to supervise the transition to insure that reprisals were kept to the minimum. Most of the DPRK army could safely be returned to the villages and families they left so many years ago. With an end to the War, UN forces might actually be able to leave the penninsula. US forces could certainly be cut drastically, and relocated to other bases -- preferably within easy reach of East Asia, where I believe a strong American presence is necessary to prevent aggression.

From resolution of the Korean problem, we turn to Saddam and say, "Next". I think he may decide to join Kim in comfortable exile on St. Helena ... maybe not. I do have an optimistic streak.

Hhmmm----reminds me of one of those brilliant civil war generals who managed to cost the lives of 600,000 good men.

Asherman, I concur with the likelyhood of your "Battleplan". Your closing comment calls me to conjecture, however, the order of events you postulate therein will be the reverse. Sadaam will serve as warning to DPRK that The West is possessed of unimagineable fury and capability, and stands ready if required to render Kim and Crowd, and unnamed others of like mindset, the same attention. I sincerely hope the lesson is both clear and not missed. This Global Diplomacy thing gets pretty complicated.



timber

Now that I can agree with