CNN: North Korea rejects torpedo findings, threatens war

[JMS]

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

(1) I have seen no evidence the the rense paper is a product of North Korea. If you have such please supply.

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

(2) The jist of the rense paper is that North Korea would engage the United States in an all out war, something we haven't had since perhaps the civil war. North Korea having the ability to strike into US terriotry. Docummented capabilities which I have not really gone into.

(3) I used the paper to document what the United States General in charge of Korea stated about how long the US troops would last in a war with N Korea. That quote exists elsewhere and can be redily documented elsewere.

If you don't like the Rense report... How about the Senate armed Services Commitee with a former General in charge of Korea testyfying..

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2001/010327ts.pdf

I didn't know North Korea had the largest submarine force in the world.

[Mad Mike]

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?

Pretty damn quickly. Modern counter fire uses radar to determine the exact location of artillery guns and we have a huge arsenal designed to destroy those guns once located. In fact I would bet that more than 2/3 of them are located right now through reconnaissance capabilities that we have and the north lacks. Furthermore, while large population centers are within range of the north's guns, the bulk of military forces that would be used in a counter attack are not.

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.

Of course the south needs us. That's why we are there and that's why we have an even larger force in reserve in Japan. Furthermore, you dont seem to understand that we don't need manpower to blunt and crush any invasion from the north. We need artillery, including rockets and missiles and air power which we have in spades.

? 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.

In both cases WE had complete air dominance, and a ten to one technological advantage in equipment and training. In the case of the first gulf war, the republican guard was pinned and crushed behind the lines and never had a chance to survive, much less counter attack. In the second war Saddams "defenses" were a complete joke and so outclassed in both technology and numbers that it wasn't even a fight. To compare either to Korea is laughable.

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

When they are used in defense, under the proper circumstances, yes.

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....

No. It doesn't. Not in a conventional war where large numbers of troops and tanks are exposed to devastating air power. Furthermore a great deal of effort has been applied to technologies used to target and destroy forces in that environment since the last Korean war and Vietnam. And again... In the first Korean war the north had somewhat comparable and in some ways superior fighters. Today THEY DO NOT.

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.

Look man. I'm not trying to be an ass here. But your knowledge of actual war fighting has some huge gaps. You know just enough to be dangerous.

I won't claim to be an expert on the level of a real general but having played hundreds of sophisticated wargames, sometimes against real military people who studied at war colleges, and having done my level best to study warfare in order to compete and often defeat them, I have a pretty good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of static defenses vs mobile, and the applications of force to choke points. The lessons learned at the battle of Thermopylae still apply. Please trust me on this. The north is NOT going to advance very far into the south.

[PeterMP]

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.

Look at what happened to the Arabs during the Yom Kippur war. They advanced slightly, but with huge losses and were pretty quckly turned back and ended up being routed.

There were fortified areas along the Suez canal that the Egyptians never took.

Advancement for either the Syrians and the Egyptians was limited by the mobility of their SAM shields.

That's what the N. Koreans are looking at it, but is even worse because the technological bridge between the Isrealis and Arabs at the time was not as great as that between the S. Koreans and the N. Koreans.

The Arabs, for the time, had modern SAMs. The N. Koreans are essentially using the same SAMs that the Arabs had. The Isrealis were not capable of off shore bombardment from a navy. The Isrealis dependend on air power to turn back massing troops (hence the effectiveness of the SAMS). The S. Koreans have ships with essentially tomahawk missles making the the SAMs the N. Koreans have even less meaningful.

If the Isrealis had tomhawk missles, the Arabs wouldn't even gotten as far as they did.

In addition, the technology to veiw troop movements and massing is even greater than during the Yom Kipur war.

AND the Arabs were able to start two front attack. The N. Koreans can't even do that.

The N. Koreans are essentially coming forward with an army equivalent of that the Arabs had with a single front, while the forces the S. Koreans have is superior to the Isrealis of the 1973.

[mcsluggo]

JMS ... you appear to be getting bogged (or creating bogs) on specific details and minutia. We are losing sight of the forest for the trees here.

The South Koreans have a much more modern military, and they have the inteligence support of the US (satelites et al).

Everyone here is contemplating an attack by the north, so the South will be on home ground, with superiour weapons, intellegence, and established defensive postions. As well as UNQUESTIONED control of both air and sea.

Do YOU think that the North Korean forces could overcome an inferiority in equipment AND air support AND intel AND logistics to overwhelm the South's defenses? Yes or no?

[Hubbs]

(2) The jist of the rense paper is that North Korea would engage the United States in an all out war, something we haven't had since perhaps the civil war. North Korea having the ability to strike into US terriotry. Docummented capabilities which I have not really gone into.

I'm going to have to assume that you're strictly talking about the possibility of North Korea somehow managing to gear up for total war without anybody noticing, then successfully launching an ICBM before cruise missiles rained down upon their missile sites, then watching that ICBM actually hit within the necessary margin of error to destroy its target, and then the nuclear weapon contained within that ICBM actually detonating properly. And the only US territory within range is Hawaii and maybe Alaska. And the North Koreans would have to do this knowing full well that we could respond by turning all of North Korea into glass immediately afterward. That's what I'm assuming you're talking about. Because if you mean to say that North Korea has any other capability whatsoever of hitting US territory - that North Korea could pull off some sort of Pearl Harbor-style attack using conventional weapons - then you're officially living in a video game.

[PeterMP]

If you don't like the Rense report... How about the Senate armed Services Commitee with a former General in charge of Korea testyfying..

I didn't know North Korea had the largest submarine force in the world.

Did you read it?

"Training is the cornerstone of our combat capability and level of readiness. Our combined forces continue to remain trained and ready. We can

fight and win! The North knows it. They fear our power and might. We are

fully capable of decisively defeating North Korea and destroying the regime."

He's not even talking about just repeling an invasion. He's talking about destroying the regime.

Info on the Rensee paper:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/53274-north-korean-war-plans-published-government.html

When did he say it? What was true in 1980, is no longer true today.

[JMS]

I did that. Italy. 1943-1945.

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

How was defense decisive in the WWII Italy campagne?

We won WII, and Italy fell before Germany or Japan.

Try again.

[PeterMP]

How was defense decisive in the WWII Italy campagne?

We won WII, and Italy fell before Germany or Japan.

Try again.

Because the US had superior equipment, mobility, and air power.

None of which the N. Koreans have.

And anyway, the Yom Kippur War.

See my other post.

[Predicto]

(1) I have seen no evidence the the rense paper is a product of North Korea. If you have such please supply.

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

Have you done a google search for the "Center for Korean Studies" yet? Have you found it? How bout a google for the author, Han Ho Suk? Have you found him?

He pops up out of nowhere, and apparently he and his "Center" have written only one paper in their history that has made it on to the Internet. How likely is that?

That paper contains a tremendous number of boasts about North Korean military prowess and fighting spirit, and even claims that North Korea can defeat and destroy the Unites States. The paper is rife with comments like:

"North Korea does not regard South Korea its main enemy because South Korea is a client state of the United States and has no ability or power to act independent of the US. North Korea's war plan is not for invading South Korea but for destroying the US."

"American and Western tank commanders do not know how to fight tank battles in rugged terrains like those of Korea. Tank battles in Korea will be fought on hilly terrains without any close air cover, because North Korean fighters will engage US planes in close dog fights."

"North Korea's anti-tank missiles are rated the best in the world"

"The US army has A-10 attack planes to counter North Korea's mechanized units. In case of war, the skies over Korea will be filled with fighters in close dog-fights and the A-10s would be ineffective."

"North Korea has the largest special forces, 120,000 troops, in the world. These troops are grouped into light infantry brigades, attack brigades, air-borne brigades, and sea-born brigades - 25 brigades in total. These troops will be tasked to attack US military installations in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam. North Korea has the capacity to transport 20,000 special force troops at the same time."

"North Korea has operational fleets of ICBM and intermediate-range missiles equipped with nuclear warheads... North Korea has more than 100 nukes including hydrogen bombs."

"In case of war, North Korea's small crafts and submarines will swarm around US carrier task forces and destroy them."

"In case of war, North Korean planes will fly low hugging the rugged terrains and attack enemy targets. US planes are parked above ground at bases in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam, and make easy targets for missile, rocket and air attacks. When war breaks out, North Korean missiles, rockets and heavy guns will destroy the 8 US airbases in South Korea, and any plane in the air would have no place to land."

"Korea is 100 km wide and 125 km long, and so US air-to-air missiles would be of limited use and effectiveness, because North Korean MiGs would approach the US planes in close proximity and commingle with US planes, and air-to-air missiles will become useless and machines guns will have to be used. MiG19s have 30mm guns, MiG21s have 23mm guns, and F-14s have 20mm Valkans. North Korean pilots are trained to hug the enemy planes so that air-to-air missiles cannot be used... F-15s will become easy targets for North Korea's MiGs.."

"In a war game conducted in 1991 by US war planners, North Korea came out the victor with and without nuclear weapons. Kim Jong Il has no doubt that his army can beat the US army."

" In general, Western experts tend to underestimate North Korea's military strength. Politicians in America and South Korea play down North Korean threats for political reasons... In the next war in Korea, the US army will face an enemy much more determined and better equipped than the army in the Korean War of 1950-53."

Is this an objective analysis, in your opinion?

(3) I used the paper to document what the United States General in charge of Korea stated about how long the US troops would last in a war with N Korea. That quote exists elsewhere and can be redily documented elsewere.

Yes. We all agree that the small US force on the DMZ border would not last long. It is a tripwire. So what?

[mcsluggo]

How was defense decisive in the WWII Italy campagne?

We won WII, and Italy fell before Germany or Japan.

Try again.

you seem to PURPOSELY miss the point, whenever you want to!

the US had an UNQUESTIONABLY superior force, and it took years trudge up the Italian penninsula. YEARS.

North Korea has none of the advantages over South Korea that the US had over Italy... how long will it take THEM to trudge down the peninula? will their supplies and logistics hold up?

[Predicto]

How was defense decisive in the WWII Italy campagne?

We won WII, and Italy fell before Germany or Japan.

Try again.

You are missing the point. It took almost 2 YEARS for us to get from the bottom of Italy to the top. North Korea won't have an Eastern Front, or Normandy Landings. It has to go straight through.

Do you think that North Korea can sustain an all out war for 2 years? How about 2 weeks?

Static defenses can be very effective if you HAVE to go straight through them and you are technologically inferior.

[skinfan133]

One of the main reasons that North Korea will not actually try and start a war that will involve the United States is because they are privilege to certain information. There will be a major difference between the first active part of the Korean War and any present-day continuation of the conflict. What exactly am I talking about? Standing orders and procedure that didn't exist in the 1950's that do today for American forces on the Korean Peninsula. If any North Korean troops cross the border and engage US forces, nuclear authority no longer becomes a presidential prerogative. What I mean by that is that US commanders in the region will be given authority to launch tactical nuclear strikes, down the chain of command as far as the rank of Colonel given some contingencies. That is something North Korea knows and we've made sure they know, and it is a powerful deterrent.

North Korea will engage in its certain style of brinkmanship, mainly because it can get away with it, but it will not actively try and go to war, simply out of self-preservation. Now, accidents do happen, and history has taught us this over and over again...

[JMS]

Did you read it?

I skimmed it... I thought it had a lot of good info and it's from 2001.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2001/010327ts.pdf

As big as they are, North Korea continues to

position forces into the area just north of the DMZ— in a position to

threaten Combined Forces Command and all of Seoul with little warning.

Seventy percent of their active force, including approximately 700,000

troops, over 8,000 artillery systems, and 2,000 tanks, is postured within 90

miles of the Demilitarized Zone. This percentage continues to rise despite

the June 2000 summit. Most of this force in the forward area is protected in

over 4,000 underground facilities, out of over 11,000 nationwide. From their

current locations, these forces can attack with minimal preparations or

warning. The protracted southward deployment follows a tactic of “creeping

normalcy”—a significant movement over a period of many years that would

6

attract too much international attention if accomplished over weeks or

months.

The North fields a total artillery force of over 12,000 systems.

Without moving any pieces, Pyongyang could sustain up to 500,000 rounds per

hour against Combined Forces Command defenses, and Seoul, for several hours.

This artillery force includes 500 new long-range systems deployed over the

past decade; however, most dangerous is the accelerated deployment over the

past two years of large numbers of long-range 240 mm multiple rocket launcher

systems and 170 mm self-propelled guns to hardened sites located along the[/left]

DMZ. Current training continues to improve their capabilities.

Info on the Rensee paper:

[/size][/font]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-affairs/53274-north-korean-war-plans-published-government.html

I can't find anything at all on The Center of Korean Affairs, or Mr. Han Ho Suk. But I don't flind a blog entry all that authoratative either.. The only thing I found on it was that the paper is a translation of a paper which was featured on the south korean defense board.

When did he say it? What was true in 1980, is no longer true today.

on March 7, 2000, Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, the US commander in Korea at the time, testified at a US congressional hearing that "North Korea is the country most likely to involve the United States in a large-scale war."

North Korea developed nuclear weapons after 2000.

[JMS]

One of the main reasons that North Korea will not actually try and start a war that will involve the United States is because they are privilege to certain information. There will be a major difference between the first active part of the Korean War and any present-day continuation of the conflict. What exactly am I talking about? Standing orders and procedure that didn't exist in the 1950's that do today for American forces on the Korean Peninsula. If any North Korean troops cross the border and engage US forces, nuclear authority no longer becomes a presidential prerogative. What I mean by that is that US commanders in the region will be given authority to launch tactical nuclear strikes, down the chain of command as far as the rank of Colonel given some contingencies. That is something North Korea knows and we've made sure they know, and it is a powerful deterrent.

North Korea will engage in its certain style of brinkmanship, mainly because it can get away with it, but it will not actively try and go to war, simply out of self-preservation. Now, accidents do happen, and history has taught us this over and over again...

Do you have a link for that? I believe we removed all our nuclear weapons from South Korea after 1990 when the Soviet Union evaporated.

South Korea has declined to request us redeploying them on their soil...

To date I am only aware of our "pledge" to protect South korea with our nuclear deterant from North Korea's nuclear threat, not conventional threat...

The USFK removed its nuclear stockpiles in 1991. Prompted by mounting concerns about the security of such weapons in the former Soviet Union, then U.S. President George Bush announced in September 1991 that the United States would eliminate its entire worldwide inventory of ground-launched tactical nuclear weapons and would remove all nuclear weapons from surface ships and attack submarines.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/05/205_64622.html

Now the United States has instead pledged that it will provide South Korea with a nuclear umbrella to thwart North Korea's nuclear threat.

I've never heard anything about Army non flag officers being able to authorize a nuclear strike without a Presidential consent... I have a very hard time believeing that....

Still I wouldn't say you were entirely wrong. The United States has refused to say we wouldn't use nuclear weapons first in the event of an invasion of Europe in soviet days. It's not a streatch we might have suggested it in Korea.... I don't believe we would thout.... Can you think of how pissed china would be? We had the bomb in the 50's and we didn't use it.

[Predicto]

One of the main reasons that North Korea will not actually try and start a war that will involve the United States is because they are privilege to certain information. There will be a major difference between the first active part of the Korean War and any present-day continuation of the conflict. What exactly am I talking about? Standing orders and procedure that didn't exist in the 1950's that do today for American forces on the Korean Peninsula. If any North Korean troops cross the border and engage US forces, nuclear authority no longer becomes a presidential prerogative. What I mean by that is that US commanders in the region will be given authority to launch tactical nuclear strikes, down the chain of command as far as the rank of Colonel given some contingencies. That is something North Korea knows and we've made sure they know, and it is a powerful deterrent.

I do not believe this for a minute.

[skinfan133]

Do you have a link for that? I believe we removed all our nuclear weapons from South Korea after 1990 when the Soviet Union evaporated.

South Korea has declined to request us redeploying them on their soil...

To date I am only aware of our "pledge" to protect South korea with our nuclear deterant from North Korea's nuclear threat, not conventional threat...

no, as a matter of fact I don't. There's tons of SOP that doesn't exist in cyberspace. This assertion isn't classified, but it is slightly sensitive for various reasons, and as such I'll decline to identify the source of this knowledge on my part. Just know that it comes from someone with particular knowledge within the defense community who was once in the chain of command.

and this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons within South Korea. Tactical nuclear weapons are rarely land-based missiles. These would be most likely deployed by air or from submarine. The key word is tactical here, we're not talking about massive ICBMs, but rather smaller yield precision weapons.

Now the United States has instead pledged that it will provide South Korea with a nuclear umbrella to thwart North Korea's nuclear threat.

I've never heard anything about Army non flag officers being able to authorize a nuclear strike without a Presidential consent... I have a very hard time believeing that....

Still I wouldn't say you were entirely wrong. The United States has refused to say we wouldn't use nuclear weapons first in the event of an invasion of Europe in soviet days. It's not a streatch we might have suggested it in Korea.... I don't believe we would thout.... Can you think of how pissed china would be? We had the bomb in the 50's and we didn't use it.

I'm also not saying the SOP is to immediately launch strikes if the North crosses the border, I'm saying the capacity to make decisions regarding tactical nuclear strikes passes down the chain of command. Different scenarios dictate just how far down the chain of command that authority goes.

[JMS]

You are missing the point. It took almost 2 YEARS for us to get from the bottom of Italy to the top. North Korea won't have an Eastern Front, or Normandy Landings. It has to go straight through.

Do you think that North Korea can sustain an all out war for 2 years? How about 2 weeks?

Static defenses can be very effective if you HAVE to go straight through them and you are technologically inferior.

Predicto.. North Korea and the United States chased each other up and down the Korean Peninsula for 3 years. The landscape didn't give any advantage to the defensive party. The only thing which changed the innitiative in the Korean war was massive influx of new troops and massive domanant artillery. Massive new troops first by MacAurthor at Inchon, Then by China at the Chosen resevior..... Finally massive rolling artillery by "old iron tits" General Matthew Ridgway after MacAurthor was relieved of command by Truman.

[Predicto]

no, as a matter of fact I don't. There's tons of SOP that doesn't exist in cyberspace. This assertion isn't classified, but it is slightly sensitive for various reasons, and as such I'll decline to identify the source of this knowledge on my part. Just know that it comes from someone with particular knowledge within the defense community who was once in the chain of command.

He may believe it, but I still do not believe it. I suspect that this is an urban myth.

and this has nothing to do with nuclear weapons within South Korea. Tactical nuclear weapons are rarely land-based missiles. These would be most likely deployed by air or from submarine. The key word is tactical here, we're not talking about massive ICBMs, but rather smaller yield precision weapons.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept the idea that any plans call for the President to delegate to anyone in the military the authority to set off the first offensive nuclear attack since Nagasaki. Nope. That awesome responsibility will not be delegated.

I'm also not saying the SOP is to immediately launch strikes if the North crosses the border, I'm saying the capacity to make decisions regarding tactical nuclear strikes passes down the chain of command. Different scenarios dictate just how far down the chain of command that authority goes.

Nope. Not buying it.

[JMS]

I do not believe this for a minute.

It is hard to believe we would give junior officers in the military the authority to authorize nukes... It's hard to believe we would give senior officers in the military authority to authorize nukes without Presidential authorizaion.

I know nothing about it... I've heard stranger tails which turned out to be true, mostly involving Reagan and UFO's... but not many.

[Predicto]

Predicto.. North Korea and the United States chased each other up and down the Korean Peninsula for 3 years. The landscape didn't give any advantage to the defensive party. The only thing which changed the innitiative in the Korean war was massive inclux of new troops and massive artillery domination. Massive new troops first by McArthor at Inchon, Then by China at the chosen resevior..... Finally massive rolling artillery by "old iron tits" General Matthew Ridgway after McAurthor was relieved.

Who gives a crap? That was 60 freaking years ago.

Watching reruns of M*A*S*H does not give you special insight into what the real Korean situation is in 2010 after a half century standoff and massive technological changes. You might as well start talking about Napoleon at Austerlitz.

(In case you can't tell, I'm getting frustrated discussing this with you.)

[JMS]

Nope. Not buying it.

Isn't that actually what got MacAurthor relieved of his command... He asked the President of Taiwan for troops, and publically called for authorization to use the bomb against China....

Truman was like, you're done...

[Hubbs]

Predicto.. North Korea and the United States chased each other up and down the Korean Peninsula for 3 years. The landscape didn't give any advantage to the defensive party. The only thing which changed the innitiative in the Korean war was massive inclux of new troops and massive artillery domination. Massive new troops first by McArthor at Inchon, Then by China at the chosen resevior..... Finally massive rolling artillery by "old iron tits" General Matthew Ridgway after McAurthor was relieved.

So, just to be clear, you're saying that in a war that lasted three years, neither side was able to take full control of the peninsula. Simultaneously, you're saying that, despite the fact that South Korea now has one of the largest militaries in the world, if American forces weren't on the ground, the North would have a good chance of taking the South in a matter of weeks.

You are stating both of those things, yes?

[skinfan133]

He may believe it, but I still do not believe it. I suspect that this is an urban myth.

I'll take their expertise over yours any day. No offense.

I'm sorry, but I do not accept the idea that any plans call for the President to delegate to anyone in the military the authority to set off the first offensive nuclear attack since Nagasaki. Nope. That awesome responsibility will not be delegated.

This occurs only if certain events happen. This authority does not currently exist. It could happen if North Korea purses certain course militarily, namely invading the south and directly engaging U.S. forces. I'm not claiming to know or have read the SOP regarding this (and I'm guessing it's incredibly complex), but I am fairly certain it exists.

[Nope. Not buying it.

I really don't care if you buy it

what's important is that apparently the North Koreans buy it.

[Predicto]

I'll take their expertise over yours any day. No offense.

I'm not claiming expertise. But plenty of people with expertise have believed completly untrue rumors and have passed them along.

This occurs only if certain events happen. This authority does not currently exist. It could happen if North Korea purses certain course militarily, namely invading the south and directly engaging U.S. forces. I'm not claiming to know or have read the SOP regarding this (and I'm guessing it's incredibly complex), but I am fairly certain it exists.

Not to be rude, but I'm fairly certain that you don't know any more about it than I do.

I really don't care if you buy it

what's important is that apparently the North Koreans buy it.

Now this part may actually be true. We might have sold this bill of goods to the North Koreans, and they might just be paranoid enough to buy into it. That is a completely different question than whether it is really true.

[JMS]

Have you done a google search for the "Center for Korean Studies" yet? Have you found it? How bout a google for the author, Han Ho Suk? Have you found him?

I have, and I have not found him.

He pops up out of nowhere, and apparently he and his "Center" have written only one paper in their history that has made it on to the Internet. How likely is that?

unlikely.

That paper contains a tremendous number of boasts about North Korean military prowess and fighting spirit, and even claims that North Korea can defeat and destroy the Unites States. The paper is rife with comments like:

........................

Is this an objective analysis, in your opinion?

Ok, you proved that point.... I was looking hard.. I was trying to fight it... You got me though...

Yes. We all agree that the small US force on the DMZ border would not last long. It is a tripwire. So what?

So what exactly will it Trip? We don't have a spare 200,000 guys sitting around waiting to go anymore...