The US, The UN and Iraq

One way or another, NK must be forced to stop its nuclear weapons program, because once developed, they will sell to anybody and everybody. That will create an unstable world. c.i.

This is a scenario much more to my liking:

Pull our troops out----let the north attack the sould-----use our air assets to destroy their air force while simultaneously destroying their nuclear capability and other war making capability. We can then utilize air power to cut off their resupply efforts

Once the NK AF is destroyed we can provide air cover for the South Koreans to liberate THEIR country for reunification.

AC- 130 gunships could devastate NK troops as they attack southern forces. Of course we would use other air power to neutalize any air defense possessed by their ground forces.

Why risk our ground forces needlessly--Modern Air Power has reshaped the way war is waged.

The south can then take pride in their efforts and will probably become a very grateful trading partner!

We'll have to wait and see what we negotiate with South Korea as to our troops and military facilities remaining there but my guess is despite the anti-American demonstrations against our military presence, we will remain there at this point.

This from the NYT today, which I thought was revealing in the agendas--some hidden, some not--of the various nations with a stake in the standoff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/29/weekinreview/29SANG.html

PDiddie, The ultimate danger of NK's development is nuclear poliforation(sp). The world may need to consider the potential danger against the loss of some innocent lives. I'm glad I'm not the one making those decisions: I'd probably procrastinate until it's too late. c.i.

That article pointed out rather forcefully that if hostilities do result from the current brinkmanship, Seoul and everything within 20 miles south off the DMZ will be vaporized by artillery. Whatever we do we cannot prevent that but we can keep our 37,000 troops from being vaporized also---but will we have the sense?

Being a hawk is one thing----being a foolish hawk is another.

perception, Good question! We decry the loss of one American military personnel, but will our military take care of their own, and take out the 37,000 before any action is taken? c.i.

good article: seems the 225 yrs of USA history dont understand the 4,000 yrs of asian history.

My firm opinion is that when and if we remove US personnel from South Korea, invasion from the North becomes a certainty. Right now, they are a symbol of our absolute committement to the defense of the South, and as long as they remain in place, the chances of invasion are significantly reduced. I do not hesitate to concede that I am happy not to be one of those symbols.

Perception, that just doesn't sound like a sound tactic. All else being equal (an imaginary circumstance, of course), all advantages but two lie with the defender. Can you really hope to retreat before the attack begins and then launch a counter invasion against entrenched opposition? God forbid we should ever have to attempt an opposed amphibious landing again.

So far as I can see, the only alternative to maintaining our forces on the ground is to abandon the region entirely.

Observing our history of trying to understand China and other Asian nations politically has been a dismal failure -- we still don't seem to have much of a clue.

I agree, roger -- there's a symbolism to our presence in South Korea. It's one that many Asians don't understand, just like our presence in Saudi Arabia isn't understood in the Middle East by a significant portion of their populations. We do little to address that problem diplomatically.

"War is not a tea party". Military conflict always results in the loss of life and destruction of property. If any nation becomes unwilling to pay the blood-price of battle, that nation will eventually cease to exist. It is the hope of bullies, like the DPRK that Americans would rather surrender valued allies and important interests to avoid the loss of American lives. To pull American forces out of the Korean penninusula is the most certain means of guaranteeing war. To permit the DPRK, or any other foe, to dictate the time, place and circumstances of the battlefield is the heighth of folly.

Our best hope of eliminating the North Korean nuclear program is the credible threat that we will destroy it ourselves if Kim doesn't comply. He will make the choice, but on our terms. We should take the initiative, and make our opponents go the defensive. Mostly, they will back down and comply with the demands of the International Community. If they do not, then they choose war. Do not make war when you know you can not win.

I may sound like a Civil War general who sent 60,000 to their deaths. Let me be clear, I would send 600,000 to their deaths if necessary to achieve victory over the enemies of this country. Further, you should know that among those I would send to their deaths are my sons, and relatives, and comrads of many years. I would see my in-laws ruined and probably murdered. Would I issue such orders willingly, with a light heart? Oh no! I know the horrors of war and hate it with all my being, but I hate even more the thought that an enemy dedicated to the destruction of all I hold dear might triumph because I loved too much to send my children into harm's way. I'm an old man, but can I offer less than my life, my fortune and my sacred honor to the cause of Liberty? It is easier to be an enlisted man or woman who only must obey, than it is to command. Any commander unwilling to send his troops into necessary battle to die is more dangerous than the worst "Hawk" you can imagine. Good commanders preserve their troops and use them up reluctently, but there must always come a time when war will devour its children.

To avoid war, one must be willing to wage it -- regardless of the costs. Americans have known that fact for a couple hundred years. Young men died walking backward from Civil War battlefields so that their corpses would not be dishonored by a bullet in the back. Thousands died in hours defending causes they believed in deeply. Thousands more fell at Flander's Field pulling the allies chestnuts from the fires of WWI. Thousands more died at Normandy, at the Battle of the Bulge, and on the beaches of tiny Pacific Islands to secure a future free of petty despots willing to murder millions to achieve their ideological ends. Die on your feet like a man, or die groveling in the mud like a pig, but we all must die.

This is a good day to die. Let us go steal some White Man ponies, my brother.

Roger

I can see that I didn't explain the situation as I see it----- we withdraw our troops which encourages the North to attack----Now this scenario can only work if we are fully prepared to follow it through--let's assume we are.

We have must have about 3or 4 carrier battle groups in place---these would represent most of the air assets available and that combined with our cruise missiles would be sufficient. The US Air Force would provide B-52s and B-2 Bombers from far away. We only provide cover for the South Koreans to combat the Northern forces---It's their country let them provide the blood to win the ground battles. We do not need to invade anywhere to win the war----we use air power to annihilate the enemy when they are in the open attacking the southern forces. Once we have defeated their air force it would be like the hi-way of death in Kuwait during the first gulf war. His million man army can not withstand such things as the C-130 gunship and If absolutely essential we may find it necessary to use small tactical nukes.

Even though their air force will be destroyed their ground forces will have anti-air defenses but anything that is radar controlled will be knocked out after they come on the air. Manual type anti-air is mostly ineffective above 15,000 ft and with gps guided bombs we can operate above 15,000 ft.

What is required is the will to commit to this type of warfare

Well, not being blessed with foresight, we are only speculating, perception. I did understand your thesis, though. My opinion is that you're still too quick to retreat and too quick with the nukes. We've been more or less successfully cramming that genie back into the bottle since 1945 and there are few cases that would cause me to break the seal now.

Damn, I wish I could write like Asherman!

Asherman, It is people like you that provides a person like me the luxury to sit back and let you take the helm of battle, because you will make the right decisions at the right time. Many of America's generals have more experience than the generals of Iraq or NK. We also have the necessary hardware to support our troops in battle. Of that, I am sure. We probably have the best military in every way, but I think our politicans and generals still worry about American casualties of war. It's one thing to rah-rah a war, but another to see body bags being delivered to our families. c.i.

As a simple country boy, I've observed hawks aplenty. I have seen foolish hawks. I have noticed as well that foolish hawks are most rarely big, well fed hawks. The US is the biggest, best fed hawk around at the moment. This is not to say that The US is immune to catastrophic blunder, but rather to point out The US, despite notable failures, has a 200+ Year track record of significantly greater success than failure. I also freely admit that many past "Successes" were successes of very sophisticated interpretation, short-sighted, short-term-gain-oriented with unfortunate but inevitable long term consequences. Still, for all it's missess, The US preponderantly scores hits. There is always risk of failure, but the probability of success statistically is quite acceptable, even attractive, at least in the short term. The US generally gets the job done, even if that job consists of temporary measures to compensate for jobs arising from the way in which previous jobs might have been done. The US is a good bet.
The US may or may not be "GOOD" at any particular time from some particular point of view, but none the less, The US is a good bet.


The 37,000 US troops in ROK are not defenseless. An outgrowth of The Cold War, reinforced by the hot war in Korea, has been a doctrine developed to withstand and resist for some predetermined period if not repulse, a sudden concerted assault by an enemy of greater numbers and weight of equipment. The two most logical land attacks to be anticipated by The US during that era were The Fulda Gap of Germany and The DMZ of The Korean Peninsula. Some considerable attention has been given this, you may be assured.

Considerable US Defensive Capability will survive the initial onslaught, and may be expected to be likely to initiate substantive response prior to the impact of the first rounds fired by the DPRK. Given the targeting capability of US Artillery and Rocketry, it is entirely possible a US tube or launcher destroyed by the initial enemy barrage might have already fired the round which detroys its own attacker's position before the enemy round arrives. Compounding the complications for DPRK, The combination of the M1-A1 Abrams and the Longbow variant of the Apache Attack Helicopter have a combat effectiveness far out of proportion to their actual number on any battlefield. Factor in an ROK military structured to US Defensive Doctrine, and DPRK is assured at once of no certain success and likely unsufferable expense. Of course, Kim is odd, and would not be the first to underestimate The US.


The US will get this job done, have no doubt. Do not be surprised if, in getting this job done, The US creates more jobs for itself. That's the American Way, after all.



timber

Roger

As they attack with their divisions of soldiers to the south---what will they think when they hear about all their war making capability being destroyed overnight plus their nukes.

As they watch their air force coming down in flames---what will they think? You don't have to be blessed with foresight to know that these things will happen.

Forget about old style warfare---come into the 21st century.

You, too, huh? By gawd, that hound kin howl!



timber

Timber

I'm very glad I'm not one of those 37,000 troops that you are willing to sacrifice needlessly. I grant you my scenario would almost certainly guarantee a war because as most of you here point out it would be a signal that we no longer consider South Korea in need of protection. Everyone seems to agree that the NK nuclear program must cease----my scenario is just one of many possible ones.

Mine will guarantee the least number of American casualties.

There is another danger here as was just pointed out----eloquence can sometimes be too persuasive.

Perception,

You continually use prejoritive terms. Conventional artillery seldom "vaporizes" anything, much less a well thoughtout defensive position. Thousands of rounds are fired for the smallest number of casualties. Naval bombardment of some Pacific Islands went on for litterally days on end without significantly reducing Japanese resistance. There is little that is more terrifying than to be on the recieving end of well managed artillery. You try to claw your way deep into the earth, but it rejects you and throws you about like a rag doll. The air is sucked from your lungs, and the noise drowns out everything else. There is the smell of cordite and burning flesh. Men can be driven mad by bombardment, but they can withstand it and fight a good fight after. Artillery is effective, but not particularily efficient.

You speak of sacrificing 35,000 needlessly. Ten percent casualties would be 3,500, and even fifty percent casualties (an exceptionally high number, especially for a well fortified and prepared defending force) comes to about 17,500. This number may be artificially high, because not all troops would be within hot zones of the battle. ROK could be expected to lose more, and though they are good troops, they aren't as good as we are.

By conducting operations well behind enemy lines, the DPRK offensive can be made less effective. As I've commented earlier, the North Korean army is large, and its tough, but it has some severe limitations and may not perform nearly as well in battle as many suppose.

"Needlessly". What price is appropriate to stopping the DPRK from increasing the nuclear threat to its neighbors and the rest of the world? If we lose 35,000 soldier and prevent a single nuclear device from exploding in any major world city is it worth it? 35,000 v. 1,000,000+ Which would you prefer? That is a direct cost-benefit. How does one calculate the value of lost allies if we haven't the courage to act on our convictions? What will the cost be, if we don't stop Kim, The Current, for another ten years? Will a DPRK armed with thirty nukes be easier to negotiate with than a DPRK with 2?