exactly how long would a war between north korea and the entire western world likely to last though? such a move would be total suicide on his part. the only way he wouldn't be blown ogg the map within a week would be to get china on his side a la the 1950s but i can't imagine what would be in it for them. i guess he might just lash out because he's inscrutable and crazy in which case it will suck, ots of peop will die and the vast majority of them will be north koreans. but if he's really that crazy there's probably going te be no way to reason with or disincentivize him anyway.


Well, any invasion of South Korea may very well immitate the last one.

In that conflict the North (with Soviet backing) swept almost the entire peninsula clean.  Within 3 months, the only allied foothold was the "Pusan Perimeter".  And that was pretty much how things stayed until September, when MacArthur ordered the Inchon landings.

That swept North Korea almost clean.  The Allies had swept almost all North Korean forces off the map, and were looking across the Yalu River at China.  When they attacked across the river, they swept south of Seoul before they were stalemated.  It was another year and a half before the Allies were able to push the border to where it sits to this day.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/Korean_war_1950-1953.gif

Of course, a Korean War II would not go the same way.  As long as it stayed conventional, you would have a single push south, then a push back north and probably to extinction of the North Korean government.  If it went Nuclear, you would have destruction in Seoul, and possibly 1 or 2 Japanese cities.  That would be because Mr. Kim would have chosen to do the "Hitler Strategy", and take his country down in flames.

I seriously doubt that China would get involved this time.  They have had their own conflicts with North Korea over the years.  Plus they learned the hard way in the 1950's that they can't take on the US military in a head-to-head fight.

Well, any invasion of South Korea may very well immitate the last one.
nah, i doubt that, in fact. although you're obviously dead on right, from what i know, about the first korean war. (it bears saying that, with all the political disagreements we have, i'm a big admirer of your familiarity with military history, mushroom. it's a topic that's long interested me and i feel i could learn from you in that respect; if you ever started a military history blog, i think i would probably subscribe to it.  8) seriously, props on that.)

from what i understand, the north koreans today are badass in artillery; they would probably shell the bejeesus out of the south and do colossal damage and inflict abysmal loss of life. with each missile test they appear to continually demonstrate that they're basically feckless in that arena, which is a part of the reason i find it ironic they're being billed as these potential ICBM jockeys. meanwhile, i'm not sure what the south koreans have but it's apparent the US and basically all the western powers would immediately leap in with both feet at the first sign of any genuine NK aggression -- not this goofy fappistry KJI is demonstrating now -- and it would likely be mostly massive air power possibly followed up by conventional ground forces if north korea didn't instantly capitulate, which i imagine is actually would happen. and they'd be done rather quickly.

from what i understand of the 50s conflict, the main thing was it was very surprising to the ground units initially, because they'd gotten unconditional surrender from the japanese (who had occupied korea... quite horribly, i might add; you did NOT want to get occupied by imperial japan in world war ii, not if you had a detachable head or a pluggable cornhole) and the troops there were rather soft and were not expecting a massive offensive by any measure. plus the communist korean troops had a soviet tank, designation escapes me, against which the US troops had no defense. plus... PLUS... once the chinese got involved proper (When was that? i seriously can't remember. before inchon, yes? no? im actually thinking now inchon's what drew them in), their human wave tactics did a number on the US troops psychologically. in fact, german troops during the invasion at normandy said something very similar to what some US kids said in the early days of korea, that they ended up machine-gunning so many invading troops it actually messed with their minds. there was something about the human wave thing in korea that seriously spooked the US soldiers, especially because they'd been set up to expect a cushy occupation duty and the next thing you know they're massacring psycho chinese soldiers who were just running wholesale into their crosshairs. the psychological effect of that is actually quite powerful, if the oral histories are to be believed.

i don't think a new korean war would unfold anything like that. the north koreans' ace in the hole is their artillery, not their ground capacity (as in the 50s conflict) and certainly not their missile delivery. and their artillery would be devastating if they jumped the gun on the west, but i don't think they have any capacity to wage a sustained conflict. they'd flame out like the fourth of july and be done. that's why i think they'd be crazy to try anything, and they know it.

Yes, the Red Chinese certainly "did the wave" in Korea.  A buddy of my Dad's was in that war and he said the Chinese came at his position relentlessly, at the time poorly armed.  His unit basically "mowed them down like weeds" with machine gun fire, and more Chinese kept coming.  Mowed those guys until the gun barrel overheated and then "oh sh*t what do we do now" kicked in.

MacArthur wanted to drop the Big One on the Chinese, but Truman was incensed.  Truman also denied Mac the authorization to launch significant ops across the border into Red China. Their public rift resulted in Mac's dismissal.

Yes, the Red Chinese certainly "did the wave" in Korea.  A buddy of my Dad's was in that war and he said the Chinese came at his position relentlessly, at the time poorly armed.  His unit basically "mowed them down like weeds" with machine gun fire, and more Chinese kept coming.  Mowed those guys until the gun barrel overheated and then "oh sh*t what do we do now" kicked in.

MacArthur wanted to drop the Big One on the Chinese, but Truman was incensed.  Truman also denied Mac the authorization to launch significant ops across the border into Red China. Their public rift resulted in Mac's dismissal.


In hindsight, MacArthur had the right idea.

So did Patton (with regard to conquering the Soviets).

In hindsight, MacArthur had the right idea.

well, sure, only when you think about it, when is nukes ever NOT the answer, really? nukes totally fix everything, always.

haha. seriously, though, if we'd nuked the chinese who would we borrow all our money from? who'd put lead in our kids' toys? china provides a valuable service.

well, sure, only when you think about it, when is nukes ever NOT the answer, really? nukes totally fix everything, always.

haha. seriously, though, if we'd nuked the chinese who would we borrow all our money from? who'd put lead in our kids' toys? china provides a valuable service.


At the time, China only had a handful of nukes, if any.  We had a clear military advantage over them, just like we did against the Soviets right after WW2 ended.

The enemy of my enemy is only my friend temporarily.  Once those conditions end, then the enemy is that erstwhile friend.

The world would likely be a better place had we conquered the Soviets and China after conquering the Nazies and the Japanese.  Our reputation would be rather ruthless, but the Cold War never would've occurred.

Mutually assured destruction was only a factor because we let it become one.  We waited when we should've attacked.

At the time, China only had a handful of nukes, if any.  We had a clear military advantage over them, just like we did against the Soviets right after WW2 ended.

The enemy of my enemy is only my friend temporarily.  Once those conditions end, then the enemy is that erstwhile friend.

The world would likely be a better place had we conquered the Soviets and China after conquering the Nazies and the Japanese.  Our reputation would be rather ruthless, but the Cold War never would've occurred.

Mutually assured destruction was only a factor because we let it become one.  We waited when we should've attacked.
we probably would have ended up a world pariah, actually, after deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians. i dont think it would have paid off the way you do. attacking china and the USSR in such an indiscriminate way would have been a war crime of such monumental proportions, in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if the world united against us, the way they united against hitler. not to mention that europe and southeast asia probably wouldn't have been too crazy about us creating radioactive sinkholes just across their borders. fallout can blow around in the wind, you know, and depending how many bombs we had to drop to get the russians and china to capitulate (could have been quite a bit; after all, we're talking a country that lost 20 million in world war ii and a country that gets its soldiers to run full on into machine gun fire and certain death, respectively; they don't give easy, those nutty ruskies and chinese!), friendlies in neighboring countries could have easily started dropping dead of radioactive poisoning.

also i doubt anyone outside macarthur, who was sorta crazy, actually even wanted to nuke the USSR. i mean yes there was the communist menace and all that, but the cold war was also monumentally profitable for certain sectors and gave people jobs for a half century. for the defense establishment the cold war was a monumental bonanza.

we probably would have ended up a world pariah, actually, after deliberately murdering hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians. i dont think it would have paid off the way you do. attacking china and the USSR in such an indiscriminate way would have been a war crime of such monumental proportions, in fact, i wouldnt be surprised if the world united against us, the way they united against hitler. not to mention that europe and southeast asia probably wouldn't have been too crazy about us creating radioactive sinkholes just across their borders. fallout can blow around in the wind, you know, and depending how many bombs we had to drop to get the russians and china to capitulate (could have been quite a bit; after all, we're talking a country that lost 20 million in world war ii and a country that gets its soldiers to run full on into machine gun fire and certain death, respectively; they don't give easy, those nutty ruskies and chinese!), friendlies in neighboring countries could have easily started dropping dead of radioactive poisoning.

Consider what moves the U.S.S.R. made as the war ended.  They were grabbing control of various parts of Eastern Europe.  It wouldn't have been hard for Truman to use that as justification for pushing back the Soviets.  Western Europe would've likely been on board with us attacking them after a few months of skirmishing over territory.  Once establishing their support, we could've nuked a few major cities and installations in the Soviet Union.

It would certainly have scarred our image, but then again, we nuked Japan twice without many repercussions.

In general, most weather patterns blow eastward, so the fallout would actually blow in mostly a direction that wouldn't affect the rest of Europe.

The majority of bombing would probably be firebombs and conventional weapons anyway.  We didn't have that many nukes, but we could've ramped up production before Russia even made any nukes at all.

also i doubt anyone outside macarthur, who was sorta crazy, actually even wanted to nuke the USSR. i mean yes there was the communist menace and all that, but the cold war was also monumentally profitable for certain sectors and gave people jobs for a half century. for the defense establishment the cold war was a monumental bonanza.


That is true about the Cold War; however, we could've taken all of Korea rather than settling on a stalemate.  At the time, it wouldn't have taken much to destroy China to the point where they would've been unable to affect their neighboring countries.  Occupying them would be out of the question, but they could've been left so crippled as to be a non-factor in influence.

If the US fall for this it will be the worse move they ever make. Oh wait that was Iraq ::)

Kim is like one of those annoying dogs who bark and bark but never bite,ignore him and he'll shut up.

If the US fall for this it will be the worse move they ever make. Oh wait that was Iraq ::)

Kim is like one of those annoying dogs who bark and bark but never bite,ignore him and he'll shut up.



Yup-he is like one of those little yappy dogs you want to drop kick into next Thursday.



Cat

Yup-he is like one of those little yappy dogs you want to drop kick into next Thursday.



Cat


Or nuke back to the 3rd century.

Tia, you are right about the North Korean Artilliary.  But that is basically because they use the old Warsaw Pact battlefield doctrine.  Which has been proven a failure in the 3 major conflicts it was used in (Soviet Afganistan, Gulf War I and II).  And the one time it was used against itself (Iran-Iraq war), it resulted in a mutual stalemate.

The standard US reaction to an invasion can be seen in both Korea, and Gulf War I.  Pull back to a defenseable position and dig in.  Send enough reenforcements to keep them alive, and build up.

During that build-up, extensive use is made of US Air Power.  First targets are command & control, communications, power production, storage depots (especially POL), and bridges.  Only in the week or so before the actual counter-invasion are troops targeted.

The problem with Warsaw Pact tactics is that it is stumped by any attempt to "Defend In Depth".  It assumes the other side will fight for every square inch of terrain.  When the enemy willingly pulls back behind overwhelming air defense and fighter cover, it voids that advantage of artillary.

This is because it is easier to retreat through friendly territory then it is to advance through hostile territory.  The defenders simply pull back, set up an ambush, then pull back again.  This was the tactic developed by NATO in the event the USSR ever started WWIII in Europe.

nah, i doubt that, in fact. although you're obviously dead on right, from what i know, about the first korean war. (it bears saying that, with all the political disagreements we have, i'm a big admirer of your familiarity with military history, mushroom. it's a topic that's long interested me and i feel i could learn from you in that respect; if you ever started a military history blog, i think i would probably subscribe to it.  8) seriously, props on that.)


Thanks, and I appreciate that.

I have long been a big history buff.  Especially when it comes to wars and conflicts.  Not because I am a gory minded person, but because it applies to my job.  Much like in music, nothing in war is really "new", we just invent the same things over and over again.

And also I picked up a lot from living for over a year on the site of one of the bloodiest battles in WWII, Okinawa.  That is what started me into researching WWII, and then other wars in our history.  The Civil War interests me because it was the first true "Modern War".  Started with Napoleonic tactics, it ended with proto-trench warfare.

The Cold War is another favorite of mine, because it is "The War That Never Was".  But it started a technological revolution that benefits everybody in the world today.

I guess I have an advantage in looking up facts about wars because of my long study of them.  I take something I remembered and then look up the specifics on Wikipedia or some other site.  The only time I get stuck is if it is from something I read years ago, and is no longer available.

One of those recently involved some information I read long ago about Major Earl Ellis.  He has long been an interest of mine, since he predicted much of the operations in the Pacific from WWII to Vietnam, in 1921.  The same book had a lot of other information about WWII in the Pacific, but I read it at the El Toro Marine Air Station, which is now closed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Ellis

I read this morning that a U.S. destroyer and satellites are tracking a N Korean freighter bound for Myanmar suspected of carrying weapons.  Look out folks, this could be the showdown. 

I read this morning that a U.S. destroyer and satellites are tracking a N Korean freighter bound for Myanmar suspected of carrying weapons.  Look out folks, this could be the showdown. 


It's 100% necessary to ensure that North Korea does not sell missile technology to other countries, especially an un-civilized military dictatorship like Burma.

It's 100% necessary to ensure that North Korea does not sell missile technology to other countries, especially an un-civilized military dictatorship like Burma.


How come they changed their name from Burma to Myanmar? ???

Ditto for Sri Lanka which used to be Ceylon, Peking/Beijing, Bombay/Mumbia, and so on?

How come they changed their name from Burma to Myanmar? ???

Ditto for Sri Lanka which used to be Ceylon, Peking/Beijing, Bombay/Mumbia, and so on?


Admittedly, my knowledge of Burmese history is sketchy, but I believe it has to do with the military junta taking control and changing the name back to the actual Burmese language version of the anglicized word or something along those lines.

It means basically the same thing as far as I'm aware, but who knows, I could have it all mixed up.

How come they changed their name from Burma to Myanmar? ???

Ditto for Sri Lanka which used to be Ceylon, Peking/Beijing, Bombay/Mumbia, and so on?


In general, imperial rule versus home rule.

"Burma" was an anglophone corruption of "Bamar," which was the colloquial name for "Myanmar."  A lot of people still refuse to recognize the change because they don't like the military junta that made the name change official in 1989.  

"Ceylon" was an anglophone translation of the Portuguese name for the Island, "Ceilao," but the island was also known by the Arabs and "Serendib" (see the word "serendipity"), and by the Greeks as "Taprobane."  "Sri Lanka" was adopted as the post-colonial republic's name in 1972, which derives from Sanskrit, "Venerable Island."

"Bombay" was similarly an anglophone translation of the Portuguese "Bombaim," which derived from the Indian "Mumba" or "Mumbai," from the Hindu goddess "Mumbadevi," the mother goddess.

"Peking" was a phonetic spelling from the French and British of the Mandarin name "Beijing," meaning "Northern Capital."  It was changed after back to "Beijing" after the Communist Party moved the capital back to Peking from "Nanjing," or "Southern Capital."  I seem to recall it was still referred to as "Peking" as late as the seventies.  Again, Westerners were reluctant to respect Chairman Mao's wishes.

When Pol Pot's bloody regime took over Cambodia in the 1970s, they changed the name to "Democratic Kampuchea" as a retronym honoring the glorious Khmer culture of medieval period, Kampuchea, or Kambuja, from which derives Cambodia, but the name did not stick.  You still see it on some maps.  The Atlases I had as a kid in the '70s marked the country "Cambodia," parenthetically "Kampuchea."

Anyway, you see a lot of this place name changing as the old European empires crumbled in the 20th century and various juntas and provisional governments came and went.  The Congo became Zaire and then became the Congo again, and so forth.

(thank you, Wikipedia)

The standard US reaction to an invasion can be seen in both Korea, and Gulf War I.  Pull back to a defenseable position and dig in.  Send enough reenforcements to keep them alive, and build up.


And to amplify on this point - since, in the event of a first strike by North Korea, Seoul will be rubble within the first day or two, there's nothing near the border worth defending.

The only good thing about this is that it makes a first strike by NK less likely, not more likely.  One way or another, Kim's only trump card - the ability to hold Seoul hostage - goes away within the first few hours of battle. 

I hate to say it, but in the absence of something like a previously-undisclosed Rods from God capability, stalemate's not a bad option here.  Neither side has an incentive to start anything, and maybe the next guy'll be easier to deal with.  (Shipping trawler?  Big deal.  Even if we never board it, we know where it is and can spend enough time close enough to it to accurately answer the question of whether or not we'll have to rescue the survivors should it be so unlucky to get swamped by a rogue wave.)

But back to our original topic, I really wish we'd funded the RfG programme.  Most of the funding would have gone directly towards the development of cheap heavy lift capabilities, and if (horror of horrors!) the weapons were never used, I'd have just had to drown my sorrows sipping beer through a straw while vacationing at the Orbital (or Lunar, or even Martian) Hilton.  Being able to eliminate the NorK artillery sites in minutes (instead of hours) would have been a happy bonus.


(thank you, Wikipedia)


And thank you for beating me to the punch.  One of the reasons I've been pounding the table on the Iran cyberwar this week is because of what happened in Burma (frack you, Myanmar) a few years back.  The world's thugs need to know that the old playbook of expelling journalists and massacring the civilians when nobody's looking won't work anymore.

In general, imperial rule versus home rule.

"Burma" was an anglophone corruption of "Bamar," which was the colloquial name for "Myanmar."  A lot of people still refuse to recognize the change because they don't like the military junta that made the name change official in 1989.  
(thank you, Wikipedia)




Maybe my Picksburgh should go back to the old spelling Picksburg, which was used from the late 1890's to the early 1900's. when the "h" was put back on).  Back then, some government body dropped the "h" because most burgs in the USA at the time did not have an "h".

Fortunately by 1911, Picksburghers themselves said "what the h" and put it back on.

Maybe my Picksburgh should go back to the old spelling Picksburg, which was used from the late 1890's to the early 1900's. when the "h" was put back on).  Back then, some government body dropped the "h" because most burgs in the USA at the time did not have an "h".

Fortunately by 1911, Picksburghers themselves said "what the h" and put it back on.


Going waaaaay off topic here, but there's this resort town on Martha's Vineyard called "Aquinnah."  Prior to to a town meeting decision in 1997, it was called "Gay Head."  The town gave the reason for the name change as honoring the town's Wampanoag heritage; Aquinnah means "Land Under the Hill" in the Wampanoag tongue. 

Nooooo...that's not why they changed the name!

All those chi-chi B&B proprietors got sick of guests registering as "Dick Hertz."
:D

hmm. well, you know me, i'm peacenik extraordinaire, but we might have to bring a little beatdown on north korea. this isn't dickin' around with firecrackers anymore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_cyber_attack

sabotaging vital web sites -- can't have it. if this is on the level i'm fikin' to change my tune on Mr. Kim.

WASHINGTON – A widespread computer attack that began July 4 knocked out the Web sites of the Treasury Department, the Secret Service and other U.S. agencies, and South Korean government sites also came under assault.

South Korean intelligence officials believe the attacks were carried out by North Korean or pro-Pyongyang forces. U.S. officials so far have refused to publicly discuss details of the attack or where it might have originated.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that its own Web site was among several commercial sites also hit.

The U.S. government sites, which included those of the Federal Trade Commission and the Transportation Department, were all down at varying points over the holiday weekend and into this week. South Korean Internet sites began experiencing problems Tuesday.



although sabotaging the washington post, that im okay with.

^ It's like Splinter Cell!  :o  Tom Clancy games/novels are eerily accurate in their predictive powers...

^ It's like Splinter Cell!  :o  Tom Clancy games/novels are eerily accurate in their predictive powers...
that's because tom clancy is a member of the committee of 200.

http://www.dvd.net.au/movies/e/06562-2.jpg

POOL ZE STVING!

I read a report that China orchestrated the attacks (forget where). I would find that much more believable, as they have mad skills when it comes to limiting their own country's www access.

hmm. well, you know me, i'm peacenik extraordinaire, but we might have to bring a little beatdown on north korea. this isn't dickin' around with firecrackers anymore.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090708/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_cyber_attack

sabotaging vital web sites -- can't have it. if this is on the level i'm fikin' to change my tune on Mr. Kim.

although sabotaging the washington post, that im okay with.


Interesting...at this moment I went back to see if I could read the article off the Yahoo front page and it's no longer there.  I would have thought a cyber attack on the nation would be big news!

Unless I was just missing something...which happens a lot :D

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/political-pictures-michelle-barack-obama-celebrates-freedom.jpg?w=500&h=333

^ It's like Splinter Cell!  :o  Tom Clancy games/novels are eerily accurate in their predictive powers...


Executive Orders totally!