CNN: North Korea rejects torpedo findings, threatens war

[JMS]

If you assume absolutely NO ASSISTANCE from the US (including intelligence), then the S. Koreans might actually have issues.

That is the premise of this discussion. Refuting the statement that South Korea doesn't require US assistance to defeat the North in the event of an invasion.

[JMS]

That's because you see it as a repeat of the 1950s, when it isn't.

The difference in accuracy in fire power of long range weapons makes it completely different.

I do think the 50's war results would be telling. North Korea is geared up to refight that war. South Korea is too basically... They've each got some shinny new toys, but they are still set up to fight a massive war of attrition, both of them.

[JMS]

The key to victory in a war against N.K. is keeping China out of it.

Both the US and North Korea would require chinese assistance in the event of a second Korean war. It's unclear who would require that assistance first...

North Korea for logistics eventually... The Unites States for funding almost immediately.

N. Korea vs. US and S. Korea...no question who wins that.

Bottom line we don't have the ground forces to commit today in South Korea. We wouldn't have them either in any sort of timely mannor to relieve South Korea...

We would have air assets, and sea assets; but even those would be limited by logistics if North Korea made significant progress into the south early on in the war. We would have to fly our missions from carriers alone, or from all the way over in Japan and Okanawa. That's how it played out before.

If we had the several 100,000 troops to commit, if we had the financiing, and if we had time to transport our troops; then I would agree with you. Given the reality on the ground, I question all three of those requirements for our success in repulsing a North Korean invasion today.

South Korea alone... the only question is would it take weeks or months.

[PeterMP]

I do think the 50's war results would be telling. North Korea is geared up to refight that war. South Korea is too basically... They've each got some shinny new toys, but they are still set up to fight a massive war of attrition, both of them.

Actually, the S. Koreans weren't set up to fight much of ANY war the first time.

The first time, the N. Koreans were better equipped, had more fire power, had more man power, and there was essentially no established defensive positions.

S. Korea had ZERO tanks, while N. Korea had hundreds of tanks. The S. Korean ariforce had 10 planes. The N. Koreans hundreds.

There is ZERO comparision between what happened than and what would happen today.

[PeterMP]

That is the premise of this discussion. Refuting the statement that South Korea doesn't require US assistance to defeat the North in the event of an invasion.

I remain reasonably confident that the South Koreans could repel a North Korean invasion without any US involvement other than intelligence, but casualties would be enormous.

I'm not an expert at all, I am however as you know, opinionated... From what I've read this is not the case.

Given US intelligence, the S. Koreans would DESTROY the N. Koreans during a N. Korean invasion. The N. Korean army can NOT advance into S. Korea given the superiority the S. Koreans have hiding behind defensive positions and long range fire power via their more modern navy and air force.

The N. Koreans can shell the hell out of S. Korea for a short while with extreme superiority in artillary and cause massive damage, but they can't move their army forward, and their fixed artillary positions, which gives them that extreme advantage, will pretty quickly be counteracted by the more modern navy and air force of the south.

But even that is a moot point because the S. Koreans will have more support than intelligence from us and Japan.

We might not put MORE boots on the ground, but us and Japan will certainly will give various naval and air support.

[JMS]

Actually, the S. Koreans weren't set up to fight much of ANY war the first time.

The first time, the N. Koreans were better equipped, had more fire power, had more man power, and there was essentially no established defensive positions.

S. Korea had ZERO tanks, while N. Korea had hundreds of tanks. The S. Korean ariforce had 10 planes. The N. Koreans hundreds.

There is ZERO comparision between what happened than and what would happen today.

Only when McArthor landed at Inchon... He wasn't relieving the non existant "South Korean army".. He was relieving the 8th army under General Walton Walker who had established a defensive perimiter around Pusan and was hanging on by his fingernails for dear life. with air superiority, and sea superiority.

The similarities of a 2010 korean war between north and south wouldn't be the 1950's non existant war between north and south, as we have both said, the south didn't have an army in the early 1950's. South Korea in 2010 would fight the war we fought against the north. minus our mobility, and ability to reinforce our positions from overseas in the 50's.

They would not fight the war we would fight in 2010... because they aren't us. They lack our training, our equipment, and the abilities that come with those things.

In the 1950's one side was on the offensive, one side on the defensive... When we were on the defensive in the 50's, what allowed us to retake the initiative was massive influx of new troops... Same for North Korea. South Korea in 2010, would not have the benifit of such relief. We don't have the same assets we had in the 1950's, and we don't have the forces in place to give us the time to assemble those assets either.

Airpower in Europe, Iraq, and Kuwait was decisive. In Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan not so much. It would not be decisive again in 2010, especially if the United States was uninvolved. Again, South Korea has no strategic bombers, they have fighters less suited to engaging ground forcess especially given the terain and vegitation of south east asia.

[PeterMP]

Only when McArthor landed at Inchon... He wasn't relieving the non existant "South Korean army".. He was relieving the 8th army under General Walton Walker who had established a defensive perimiter around Pusan and was hanging on by his fingernails for dear life. with air superiority, and sea superiority.

The similarities of a 2010 korean war between north and south wouldn't be the 1950's non existant war between north and south, as we have both said, the south didn't have an army in the early 1950's. South Korea in 2010 would fight the war we fought against the north. minus our mobility.

One side on the offensive, one side on the defensive... When we were on the defensive, what allowed us to retake the initiative was massive influx of new troops... Same for North Korea. South Korea would not have the benifit of such relief. We don't have the same assets we had in the 1950's, and we don't have the forces in place to give us the time to assemble those assets either.

There is no comparision between the Pusan Perimeter and the current defensive positions of the S. Koreans.

There is no real reason to believe that the N. Koreans would have ever had the ability to crack the Pusam Perimeter either. They'd attempted several times and failed. The N. Koreans were running out of supplies and man power.

If the starting point had been the 8th army arround Pusan with the current defensive positions built in, there is no real reason to believe they would have been threatened at all by the N. Koreans.

And the 8th Army at the time of the invasion was in Japan, undermanned, and poorly equipped.

There would be no need to retake the intiative. The N. Koreans won't even get going.

It will be like the Pusan Perimeter from the start with no need for the south to have to build a counter offensive, and the ability of air and naval power to affect a land battle are greater today.

[JMS]

Given US intelligence, the S. Koreans would DESTROY the N. Koreans during a N. Korean invasion. The N. Korean army can NOT advance into S. Korea given the superiority the S. Koreans have hiding behind defensive positions and long range fire power via their more modern navy and air force..

You quoted US intelligence there... How about supporting it with a Link?...

Or are you saying United States Intelligence would be such an advantage that it alone would counter the 3 million man and offensive advantages the North would enjoy?

[Predicto]

Especially if North Korea rapidly moves into the south as they did in the 50's and as they could be expected to do again.

This sentence is where your whole argument falls apart.

Think about what you are saying here. Comparing the situation in 1950 to the situation in 2010 is ludicrous. Do you think that everyone here is making up what they say about the terrain and the modern defenses in place now? Do you really think the South Koreans have spent the last 60 years doing absolutely nothing to prepare for this, and the North Koreans are just going to walk in like they did in 1950?

And will you PLEASE stop relying on that "report" you got from rense.com. It is a translated North Korean propaganda document. The guy claims to be the director of the "Center for Korean Affairs." Do a google search. There is no Center for Korean Affairs.

[JMS]

The N. Korean army can NOT advance into S. Korea given the superiority the S. Koreans have hiding behind defensive positions

France's Maginot line was thought to be impregnable too, so was Germany's Siegfried line... Sadam thought he had pretty great defenses in Kuwait and Southern Iraq too. None proved more than an inconvience.

General Patton said in WWII that static defenses were a testiment to man's stupidity....

Static defenses in time of war haven't really been deterministic since the end of WWI. The offense has all the advantages in warfare today.... have for 100 years.

The time and money sunk into the South Korean "defense" line was always thought to be more of a tonic for nervious civilians than something which would be decisive in the event of a North Korean attack. The largest mine field in the world, can be defeated by a few rope charges today. If you know where they are, and everybody does, they are pretty much irrelivent.

When was the last time defensive fortifications played a significant role in a war? I would go with Iran Iraq.... IRan who executed all their competent generals, and who relied on human waves of children were the last ones who had a significant problem with static defenses.... before that you would have to go back to the Kiaser.

[Predicto]

America had more than 100,000+ front line troops stationed in South Korea in order to hold their hand if fisticuffs broke out with the North. Even the 100,000+ guys we stationed there were not seen as enough to defeat a North Korean Invasion. Their mission was to hold on, until the United States could get there with relief. That was our doctrine for 50 years.

It only changed in 2006, and it changed solely because we needed the troops stationed in South Korea for rotation into Iraq. Today we have 25,000 troops in south korea. We are a fraction of our former capabilities.

JMS, several of your "facts" have been shown to be incorrect. That should tell you something.

Here is another one. You claim that the US had over 100k troops in South Korea, and this only changed in 2006 because we needed those troops in Iraq. From this, you extrapolate that we must have known that we needed those 100k plus troops to have any chance of blunting a North Korean attack.

The problem is, the US hasn't had 100k troops in South Korea for a long time. We have been drawing those troops down for many years as the real threat from North Korea dwindled after the end of the Soviet Union, and the military strength of South Korea increased.

In 2003, we had only 37k troops there. Not 100k plus. A few more were sent to Iraq in 2006. Big deal.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa474.pdf

Read this document. I don't usually rely on Cato Institute commentary, but look beyond the political advocacy aspects of of the report, and just look at the footnotes. You will see report after report by military experts indicating that the South Koreans could handle a North Korean invasion all on their own.

And that was almost a decade ago. It is even more true today.

[Predicto]

France's Maginot line was thought to be impregnable too, so was Germany's Siegfried line... Sadam thought he had pretty great defenses in Kuwait and Southern Iraq too. None proved more than an inconvience.

General Patton said in WWII that static defenses were a testiment to man's stupidity....

Static defenses in time of war haven't really been deterministic since the end of WWI. The offense has all the advantages in warfare today.... have for 100 years.

The time and money sunk into the South Korean "defense" line was always thought to be more of a tonic for nervious civilians than something which would be decisive in the event of a North Korean attack. The largest mine field in the world, can be defeated by a few rope charges today. If you know where they are, and everybody does, they are pretty much irrelivent.

When was the last time defensive fortifications played a significant role in a war? I would go with Iran Iraq.... IRan who executed all their competent generals, and who relied on human waves of children were the last ones who had a significant problem with static defenses.... before that you would have to go back to the Kiaser.

Look at a map. Korea is a narrow mountainous peninsula. There is no Belgium next to South Korea that would allow North Korea to bypass the static defenses the way the Nazis bypassed the Maginot line. There are oceans - and North Korea has no navy. They have to take those defenses on head on.

Static defenses are pretty useless against modern mobile armies operating in space. North Korea is neither of those, as you have said yourself, and there is no space to maneuver even if they had the capability of doing so.

[Hubbs]

Predicto, those so-called "experts" clearly forgot one of the most important principles of warfare - every war fought between the same two countries plays out in the same way. After all, as JMS astutely pointed out, the only difference between 1950 and now is that South Korea has a military. A military! Like that would make a difference in a war! What kind of crazy ivory tower academic would come up a notion like that?

[Mad Mike]

Frances Maginot line was thought to be impregnable too, so was Germanies Siegfried line... Sadam thought he had pretty great defenses in Kuwait and Southern Iraq too. None proved more than an inconvience.

General Patton said in WWII that static defenses were a testiment to man's stupidity....

Static defenses in time of war haven't really been deterministic since the end of WWI. The offense has all the advantages in warfare today....

The time and money sunk into the South Korean defenses were always thought to be more of a tonic for nervious civilians than something which would be decisive in the event of a North Korean attack. The largest mine field in the world, can be defeated by a few rope charges today. If you know where they are, and everybody does, they are pretty much irrelivent.

I've been reading this thread since it was started and I have to tell you, you are severely mistaken if you think the north can make any real advance into the south.

As I have said before. The north can do a lot of damage in the initial attack primarily due to artillery and missiles, most of which will be quickly destroyed in the first wave of counter fire. As for the north's manpower and numeric advantages. They are poorly trained and their tanks and aircraft are one and two generations behind the equipment the south is using.

The north's equipment can best be compared to Iraq in the first gulf war, while the south is fielding tanks based on the Abrams, F15s and F16s, Advanced US missile systems and ships with Aegis. Their army is better trained and their air force practices with ours in Red Flag exercises. That's not including the advantage actual US forces would have.

Then there is the advantage that comes with a prepared defense. (And for the record. The Germans didn't beat the Maginot line, they went around it as we did with Saddam's defenses; something the north cannot do since the line of defense stretches from coast to coast.) The north's options are further limited by geography to choke points which are pre-targeted by more firepower than you can even comprehend.

These things combined with COMPLETE US air dominance and the US Navy 7th fleet will not only blunt the north's sword. They will completely destroy it.

In short. You really don't know what you are talking about.

[JMS]

As I have said before. The north can do a lot of damage in the initial attack primarily due to artillery and missiles, most of which will be quickly destroyed in the first wave of counter fire.

I would take issue with the word quickly.

You think we are going to quickly destry 13000 artillery tubes? 40-50% of South Korea's population lives within 40 miles of the north... How quickly do you think we will be destroying those tubes?

As for the north's manpower and numeric advantages. They are poorly trained and their tanks and aircraft are one and two generations behind the equipment the south is using.

The north's equipment can best be compared to Iraq in the first gulf war, while the south is fielding tanks based on the Abrams, F15s and F16s, Advanced US missile systems and ships with Aegis. Their army is better trained and their air force practices with ours in Red Flag exercises. That's not including the advantage actual US forces would have.

What kind of equipment did Saudi Arabia have in the first gulf war? What kind of equipment did Kuwait have for that matter.. I'm not arguing the United States couldn't adiquately defent South Korea if we got there... I'm arguing we likely could not get there, certainly not in time...

I'm further arguing that South Korea would need us, even require us to defend themselves.. A statement other folks seem to discount.

Then there is the advantage that comes with a prepared defense. (And for the record. The Germans didn't beat the Maginot line, they went around it as we did with Saddam's defenses;

something the north cannot do since the line of defense stretches from coast to coast.)

? Swartskalf went around the defenses... The Marines went right through them in 1990...

We also went right through the Iraqi defenses in the second gulf war. Not around them.

The north's options are further limited by geography to choke points which are pre-targeted by more firepower than you can even comprehend.

So haveing a vastly superior number of artillery tubes you are saying would be an advantage then.

These things combined with COMPLETE US air dominance and the US Navy 7th fleet will not only blunt the north's sword. They will completely destroy it.

Like it did in Korea in the 50's, Vietnam in the 60's, or Afganistan yeasterday. Korea isn't like Iraq. South East Asia has a tendency and well documented history of blunting air superiority....

In short. You really don't know what you are talking about.

Well I've been called on facts several times in this thread and corrected. but I've also corrected others..

Like you saying we went around Iraq's fortifications in 1990 or 2003.

I guess that's why we have these discussions.

[JMS]

Look at a map. Korea is a narrow mountainous peninsula. There is no Belgium next to South Korea that would allow North Korea to bypass the static defenses the way the Nazis bypassed the Maginot line. There are oceans - and North Korea has no navy. They have to take those defenses on head on.

So you are saying prepared static defenses are still decisive.. Please give me one major battle where they were desisive in the 20th century after WWI and I will give you 10 where they were not.

All you need is one hole, and the entire thing collapses.

Static defenses are pretty useless against modern mobile armies operating in space. North Korea is neither of those, as you have said yourself, and there is no space to maneuver even if they had the capability of doing so.

Modern like General swarskof in 1990?

or

Modern like General Patton in 1944?

I would argue North Korea could muster the latter and the former would not be required. I can think of two modern wars where static defenses were important..... Israel's 2006 Hezbollah war. The Iran Iraq war. I would say neither is applicable.

In 2006 Hezbollah didn't defend ground so much as kill tanks. They built underground fortifications and would pop up from holes and shoot tank killing munitions and anti personell weapons at the Israeli's. Israel could and did easily bypass the fortifications, but couldn't dislodge the hezbollah fighters without unacceptable losses... That tactic wouldn't work if Hezbollah actually cared about those who were behind them, and wouldn't work for south korea either..

The Iran Iraq war also saw decisive defensive fortifications. The IRaqi's outnumbered went to their great military planners who dusted off WWI tactics and ran with them. The Iranian who suffered from poor equipment and even worse leadership, couldn't figure out how to defeat the antiquated defense. That's what they get for killing off all the Shah's generals.

[PeterMP]

France's Maginot line was thought to be impregnable too, so was Germany's Siegfried line... Sadam thought he had pretty great defenses in Kuwait and Southern Iraq too. None proved more than an inconvience.

General Patton said in WWII that static defenses were a testiment to man's stupidity....

Static defenses in time of war haven't really been deterministic since the end of WWI. The offense has all the advantages in warfare today.... have for 100 years.

The time and money sunk into the South Korean "defense" line was always thought to be more of a tonic for nervious civilians than something which would be decisive in the event of a North Korean attack. The largest mine field in the world, can be defeated by a few rope charges today. If you know where they are, and everybody does, they are pretty much irrelivent.

When was the last time defensive fortifications played a significant role in a war? I would go with Iran Iraq.... IRan who executed all their competent generals, and who relied on human waves of children were the last ones who had a significant problem with static defenses.... before that you would have to go back to the Kiaser.

The difference is none of those cases did they have the advantage of knowing where the opposing force was.

The N. Koreans are coming into built up static defenses that will take time for them to cross when the enemy from satelite and reconiassance air crafts will be able to identify where they are trying to cross and start shelling them from land based artillary and navy and attacking them from the air.

The idea of massing and troops and surprising your enemy, when your enemy has a clear advantage in terms of reconissance, NEVER happened.

The reason that the Maginot line failed is:

1. The French didn't know where the German forces were. Will NOT happen in Korea with US and Japanese support for intelligence.

2. The Germans moved faster than the (nonstatic) French troops could. Will NOT happen in Korea as S. Korea has the more advanced technology and an actual air force.

And the last people to attack static defenses forces was the Isrealis, and the did pretty well. For the same reasons the Germans did. They were faster than the enemy, and the enemy didn't know where they were.

The opposite is true in Korea. The N. Korean troops will move more slowly and won't know where the enemy is, but the enemy will know where they are if they come out of their holes and try and advance in any large numbers.

[BigDFan]

I just read this entire thread and I am LMAO that JMS is basing everything he is saying over a propaganda paper put out by North Korea

[Predicto]

So you are saying prepared static defenses are still decisive.. Please give me one major battle where they were desisive in the 20th century after WWI and I will give you 10 where they were not.

All you need is one hole, and the entire thing collapses.

You know what country closely resembles Korea in topography?

Italy.

Ask General Mark Clark how much fun it was to advance up the Italian Peninsula in 1943 through 1945. First fight past the Volturno Line, then the Barbara Line, then the Gustav Line, then Monte Cassino, then the Gothic Line. It took almost 20 months for the Allies to advance to the top of Italy despite massive advantages in manpower and weaponry, and total command of the skies and seas.

And no, the whole thing does not collapse if you have one hole. Not unless you can exploit that hole. And not if there is a second line, and a third line, and a fourth line, like there is in the hills of Korea.

Modern like General swarskof in 1990?

or

Modern like General Patton in 1944?

I would argue North Korea could muster the latter and the former would not be required.

Patton ate people up with speed and maneuvarability on the open plains of France, North Africa and Sicily. Cutting supply lines, outflanking the Germans. None of that is available to the North Koreans, fighting with footsoldiers in the mountains, using antequated tanks with little fuel.

[PeterMP]

Patton ate people up with speed and maneuvarability on the open plains of France, North Africa and Sicily. Cutting supply lines, outflanking the Germans. None of that is available to the North Koreans, fighting with footsoldiers in the mountains, using antequated tanks with little fuel.

Patton was faster than his opponents, and they had little abililty to track his movements.

The N. Koreans have NEITHER advantage.

It isn't comparable.

(and I understand that it is your point)

[JMS]

And no, the whole thing does not collapse if you have one hole. Not unless you can exploit that hole. And not if there is a second line, and a third line, and a fourth line, like there is in the hills of Korea.

So you are saying since Korea has hills, that gives them a second defensive line behind the DMZ.... All that's immediately behind the DMZ Predicto is Seoul, and 40% of south Korea's population.

I agree that korea's terain is tough... not as bad as Vietnam or Afghanistan, but much worse than Iraq... That would mitigate our air superiority.

Patton ate people up with speed and maneuvarability on the open plains of France, North Africa and Sicily. Cutting supply lines, outflanking the Germans. None of that is available to the North Koreans, fighting with footsoldiers in the mountains, using antequated tanks with little fuel.

Patton did all those things... And he did them with 1940's technology... But I mentioned him because he also punched right through the Sigfied line and had a very memorable quote on the intelligence of static defenses on a 20th centery battle field.

[JMS]

Patton was faster than his opponents, and they had little abililty to track his movements.

The N. Koreans have NEITHER advantage.

It isn't comparable.

(and I understand that it is your point)

Yes Patton was faster than the stationary Siegfed line which he punched through.. Quickness had less to do with it than manuverability and fire power... Even the antiquated North Korean equipment is decades younger than Patton had....

Here is the point... If you can give me one war after WWI where defensive fortifications were decisive... then argue it's applicable to North Korea's situation.... 1960's and 70's era technology going up against numerically inferior 1980's and 90's technology... then you've addressed this point..

If not, conceed that it's a fair point I'm making and lets move on.

[Larry]

I agree that korea's terain is tough... not as bad as Vietnam or Afghanistan, but much worse than Iraq... That would mitigate our air superiority.

:secret:Airplanes fly over terrain. Mechanized troops do not.

It's that 3rd dimension thing.

[Predicto]

So you are saying since Korea has hills, that gives them a second defensive line behind the DMZ.... All that's immediately behind the DMZ Predicto is Seoul, and 40% of south Korea's population.

Sigh.

As I understand it, there are four separate defensive lines set up in the hills between the DMZ and Seoul.

South Korea would appear to have outright superiority, as measured by these types of static indices, once one factors in the effects of superior training, equipment maintenance, logistics and support equipment like reconnaissance and communications gear (to say nothing of the advantage of fighting from prepared positions.) Quantifying the importance of these effects is difficult, but those who have attempted to do so have found impressive results.

ROK and US forces possess a noticeable technological advantage over DPRK forces. For the most part ROK forces would be facing increasingly outdated DPRK equipment using modern and well-kept equipment outfitted with current detection and targeting systems. The most modern pieces of DPRK armor showed its age in the 1991 gulf war (although terrain variations must be taken into consideration) and the most plentiful pieces were not particularly capable 35 years ago, let alone today.

....

The North Korean avenues for attack are heavily defended by hardened, well-prepared ROK defenses. These forces are densely located along the demilitarized zone. The force-to-space ratio has been calculated at one division per 10 kilometers. Given these force-to-space considerations, the inability of DPRK forces to maneuver around the defending units in the DMZ, and the likely ineffectiveness of unconventional forces inserted behind the defender, DPRK forces are not likely to be able to quickly push through and create a breakthrough.

The South Koreans have a series of defensive lines that cross the entire peninsula, but with the exception of the South Barrier Fence, they aren't connected completely across the peninsula. They are designed to withstand an attack and allow a minimum force to hold a line while reinforcement/counter attack forces are assembled and sent to destroy any penetrations.

The Korea Barrier System (KBS) consists of tactical obstacles to support the defense of the Republic of Korea. It is an extensive, in depth, and integrated series of obstacles and barriers, including minefields, concertina wire, and dragon's teeth. The combat multiplication that the Korea Barrier System affords defending forces is fundamental to halting an attack north of Seoul with the forces currently available.

....

Force-to-space ratios imply that there is a limit to the amount of force that can be brought to bear on a kilometer of front -- the "crossing the T" problem. Above a certain force-to-space ratio invading forces will have to be echeloned, which will makes them vulnerable to long-range interdiction. Furthermore, only a fraction of the firepower of the attacker can be brought to bear against the defenders, whereas defenders using long-range indirect fire weapons from shielded positions may cover a large frontage plus follow-up forces without being deployed at the FEBA (forward edge of battle area) at all.

Not all the North Korean forces may actually come into play, because of topography. With merely 238 km of border between the two Koreas, half of which is blocked by mountains. The topography of the DMZ is not conducive for rapid advance and gives defensive forces a further advantage. The channels of attack and predetermined bridge and road demolition planning can funnel attacking forces into focused ROK firing positions. This defensive advantage may be somewhat nullified by a winter assault, which would open up, though not completely, a larger number of avenues of approach.

While both sides have a large number of artillery pieces focused on the region, defensive forces would have an advantage over attacking forces. Hardened bunkers would protect defensive forces; attacking ROK forces would be exposed to artillery without the benefit of hardened positions. North Korea could use smoke and other vision impairing implements. These would likely be overcome by superior ROK and US reconnaissance aircraft radar systems which could provide a significant advantage.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-2.htm

[Predicto]

Yes Patton was faster than the stationary Siegfed line which he punched through.. Quickness had less to do with it than manuverability and fire power... Even the antiquated North Korean equipment is decades younger than Patton had....

Here is the point... If you can give me one war after WWI where defensive fortifications were decisive... then argue it's applicable to North Korea's situation.... 1960's and 70's era technology going up against numerically inferior 1980's and 90's technology... then you've addressed this point..

If not, conceed that it's a fair point I'm making and lets move on.

I did that. Italy. 1943-1945.

It's not a fair point that you are making.