LAST EDITED ON 04-04-13 AT 10:25 PM (EST)

North Korea is frightening me. Do I think that they'll attack the Motherland? No, they don't have the capability, nor do they have the support from their closest allies, China. However, there's a real threat that North Korea will bomb South Korea. To me that is a concern because we'll have to help our friends in need. And if they attack South Korea, they'll target Seoul. That's the last thing the world economy needs. Seoul is one of the most populated cities in the world and their economy is booming. A North Korea strike ends that and it could take a toll on the rest of the world.

The United Nations needs to unite and talk to China first. If we can get China to approve a strike, then I think the world will be a safer place. I say we strike immediately if China approves,they don't even have to help or give us an air force base. If China doesn't approve, then we need to hold off, and hope that North Korea doesn't strike first.

We can't stay out, we're treading dangerous waters right now. This could lead us to a second great depression which in turn could start World War III. It may take ten to 30 years. Then again, nothing may happen. But I'd rather take care of business now than wait. If we procrastinate, bad things may happen like countries blaming other nations for the things that could occur.

ukrocks got a blog!

LAST EDITED ON 04-04-13 AT 10:59 PM (EST)

Fact is, if left to conventional (combined with subversive, including tunnel) warfare, the North Koreans far outnumber the South Korean and American troops by at least three to one, if not more, with a fully stocked North Korean army capable of overunning South Korea within weeks or months. The U.S. forces represent less than 10% of the manpower in the peninsula, relying more heavily on supporting assets of the air force and navy.

In any case, it would be a very bloody battle, potentially running into the millions of combatant and civilian casualties, that would sap the entire Korean peninsula, that neither side of the Korean armistice line wishes to see, including China and the U.S., particularly with the unlikely (but still horrifyingly possible) potential for the use of nuclear weapons.

LAST EDITED ON 04-05-13 AT 09:50 AM (EST)

“Based on declassified U.S. and U.N. assessments and independent analyses by military scholars, we can make some educated guesses:” (Quoted line from article below).

The ratio of armed forces is 3/2 in favor of N Korea in all areas, soldiers, armor, weapons, planes, etc.

http://tinyurl.com/Invadeded

That is not enough for an invading force to overcome a dug-in defense. It is usually estimated that an invading force needs to have about a 5/1 advantage. Plus the South is said to have an advantage in quality of weapons, although the North has the advantage in quantity of weapons. We all saw how that played out in Iraq on both occasions.

It very well could be that there would be an unholy slaughter of North Korean forces if they invade S. Korea.

The mountainous terrain in Korea is also an advantage for the south in that invading armor can’t really be effective.

So, IMO, a nuclear tipped missile, even a short range missile, remains the biggest threat, and where the red line should be for the US and S. Korea. And Japan. If a nuclear weapon is detected at a launch site, we have to make a crater of that area. We have estimates of their progress in this area, and some of those estimates include the possibility that they already have a few Nukes but that they haven't figured out how to mate a missile with the bomb. But with our lack of intell, we could be surprised on that score.

If so, if we allow ourselves to be surprised, goodbye Seoul, goodbye Tokyo, Hello Nuclear war.

Yeah, my numbers are probably out of date, based on what I read years ago in Jane's and wargames that date back to 2000 or so. Indeed, 3/2 is not enough superiority against an entrenched South Korean army, particularly with the restrictive terrain and very likely U.S. air and naval superiority.

But it is enough to go down in a blaze of glory and take a heck of a lot of civilians in Seoul and other cities in South Korea out.

sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

And just think what Iran might be emboldened to do if we become engaged in a shooting war in Korea.

Going back to UK Rock's original question about China, the Chinese leadership isn't pleased.

Chinese President Xi Jinping, addressing a forum on the southern island of Hainan, did not name North Korea but said no country "should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gain".

Stability in Asia, he said, "faces new challenges, as hot spot issues keep emerging and both traditional and non-traditional security threats exist".

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed similar frustration in a statement late on Saturday, relating a telephone conversation with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

"We oppose provocative words and actions from any party in the region and do not allow trouble making on China's doorstep," Wang said, according to a ministry statement on its website.

If you have access to Janes you the best guess available. But concerning N. Korea, even with Janes there is a lot of room for guessing.

Also, their estimated stockpile of nerve gas is intimidating.

The IISS has a paper addressing the conventional military balance between North Korea and South Korea.

Conclusion

The combination of North Korea’s long economic decline and enhanced US and South Korean military capabilities has diminshed the threat of a North Korean invasion of South Korea. Nonetheless, North Korea retains the ability to inflict heavy casualties and collateral damage, largely through the use of massed artillery. In effect, Pyongyang has more of a threat to devastate Seoul than to seize and hold it. North Korea’s conventional threat is also sufficient to make an allied pre-emptive invasion to overthrow the North Korean regime a highly unattractive option. In theory, US forces could carry out pre-emptive attacks to destroy known North Korean nuclear facilities and missile emplacements, but such attacks could provoke North Korean retaliation and trigger a general conflict.

North Korea cannot invade the South without inviting a fatal counter-attack from the US and South Korea, while Washington and Seoul cannot overthrow the North Korean regime by force or destroy its strategic military assets without risking devastating losses in the process. In this respect, the balance of forces that emerged from the Korean War, and which helped in maintaining the armistice for 50 years, remains in place. None of the principal parties want to fight a war although they are prepared to fight if necessary. In this respect, the balance of forces creates certain vulnerabilities since it places a high premium on carrying out a pre-emptive strike if one side or the other believes that an attack is imminent. The danger is that war will begin out of miscalculation, misperception and escalation, rather than design. As a consequence, reduction of political tensions and conventional confidence-building measures can help to reduce the risk of war.

There's another paper in the Asia-Pacific Journal that pretty much says the same, with more details about how the South Koreans have progressively better equipment (tanks, artillery, aircraft, etc.) than the North Koreans than they did, say, 10 or 20 years ago, with vast increases in defense spending since then.

Regardless of weaponry and relative manpower Seoul is only 31 miles from North Korea, that's 11 million people easily reachable.

The BBC tell me that there will be a small strike with a limited loss of life, North Korea will puff it up, the rest of the world will play it down, and we will wait for the next time...

Trouble is who is running the show in North Korea? I can see young Mr Kim as the figurehead however I strongly suspect that there is a fairly strong military committee very close to his back.

Lovely cheese Mooney

Where are Voice of the Beehive when we need them?