CNN: North Korea rejects torpedo findings, threatens war

[mcsluggo]

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

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.

Nope. Not buying it.

much less.. a Colonel!!!??

[skinfan133]

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

you're not thinking in strategic terms. What on earth males you think the United States intends to be involved in a land war with North Korea? How can the U.S. profit from such a conflict?

Our involvement would be mostly strategic in any future conflict. Our air superiority will be the biggest factor in any fight on the peninsula. To suggest North Korea would even be able to take the skies against our Navy and Air Force is simply absurd. We have no reason to engage the North on the ground.

[JMS]

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.

No I'm not saying that, I'm actually saying the oposite.. I'm saying that both sides took control of the Peninsula at times. First the North had the UN bottled up at pusan, necessitating MacAurther's landing at Inchon. Then the UN forces had pushed North Korea forces all the way up to the chinese boarder resulting in the Chinese entering the war at the Chosen Resevoir, which again reversed the tide of the war and rolled up UN forces to bellow Seoul..

Resulting in Ridgway coordinating advances behind an unbrullah of rolling artillery fire to curb and erase the Chinese gains...

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?

South Korea does have one of the largest militaries in the world... LARGER than the United States in fact... yet they spend 4% of what we do on defense...

Also North Korea's military is a lot larger than South Koreas.. Both of their militaries are big dumb blunt objects in my opinion. In such a contest I believe numbers and offense would trump defense and inferior numbers. That's what I'm saying... I also believe I'm on pretty safe historical grounds in that assertion.

[skinfan133]

much less.. a Colonel!!!??

As the point flies over your head...

given a huge number of contingencies, that is as far down the chain the authority goes. It does not start there, and it is highly unlikely it would ever get that far down the chain.

This whole SOP I'm talking about is probably contingent upon factors of time and communication. I'm not suggesting that U.S. Army Colonels are waltzing around South Korea with launch codes in their back pockets...

[BigDFan]

(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

Lets see the website it was posted on is a conspiracy websites that believes in aliens, 911 being an inside job, ghosts, says the holocaust didnt happen and has a general anti Semitic slant to it, The original article came from onekorea.org a North Korean propoganda website that is banned in South Korea. Not to mention the fact that The "center for korean affairs" doesnt actually exist

(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.

LMAO they cant hit the US they couldnt even get a missile over Japan. the DPRK would be taken out in short order

(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.

I googled the quote and only found reposts of the propganda document I did not find it anywhere else please present a link too any news org in the USA with the story about that quaote because you know it would be huge. Its also wierd he would say that and then write a report saying the South Koreans could destroy the North on their own as he did in the link your provided below

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.

great link I like this part

Unquestionably, our South Korean partners are professional war fighters. They can mobilize over 4.5 million service members and can bring 54 divisions to the fight. Our combined war

fighting assets include over 1,500 strike aircraft that can launch over 1,000 daily sorties, over 1,000 rotary aircraft, more than 5,000 tracked vehicles, 3,000 tanks and over 250 combat ships to include 4 or more carrier battle groups. If necessary, this unequalled combined combat power and might can defeat a North Korean attack and destroy its military and regime. It is this power and might that strengthens our deterrence mission and ultimately provides regional security.

[skinfan133]

South Korea does have one of the largest militaries in the world... LARGER than the United States in fact... yet they spend 4% of what we do on defense...

Also North Korea's military is a lot larger than South Koreas.. Both of their militaries are big dumb blunt objects in my opinion. In such a contest I believe numbers and offense would trump defense and inferior numbers. That's what I'm saying... I also believe I'm on pretty safe historical grounds in that assertion.

you obviously know very little about South Korea's modern military. They are at least 20-30 years ahead of North Korea technologically speaking.

[Predicto]

I have, and I have not found him.

unlikely.

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

Way to man up, sir!

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

It serves as a tremendous disincentive for North Korea to try and cross the border. We may not be able to swing a couple hundred thousand troops over there at a moment's notice, but we can do a lot of other things fast. Things like air and naval attacks, cyber attacks, financial pressure. We still are the 900 pound gorilla in the room, even if it might take us a little while to bring full forces to bear. We can guarantee that even if an attack on South Korea has unexpected success at first, within a very short time after that, the North Korean regime will be taken down. We can do that, easily. No one can go toe to toe against the US at this moment in time and hope to win.

(what we can't deal with so well is insurgencies, those inconvenient things that tend to rise up when WE are the ones who are percieved as starting the war)

Ask yourself - when was the last time anyone in the entire world actually openly attacked the United States Military? It was Korea, sixty years ago. There is a reason for that.

I think we would be fine with 2 thousand soldiers on the border. Just enough for North Korea to know that if they attack, the inevitable hammer will start to fall.

[JMS]

you're not thinking in strategic terms. What on earth males you think the United States intends to be involved in a land war with North Korea? How can the U.S. profit from such a conflict?

Well hell, that's an entirely different argument... I think it's assumed the US would want to take an active role in South Koreas defense... How exactly do you think our other allies in assia will feel if we just wave in response to a north korean invasion? Japan, Taiwan, even the Philipenese would all kind of loose faith in the value of our friendship wouldn't they?

Our involvement would be mostly strategic in any future conflict. Our air superiority will be the biggest factor in any fight on the peninsula. To suggest North Korea would even be able to take the skies against our Navy and Air Force is simply absurd. We have no reason to engage the North on the ground.

I agree about air superiority... I'm less clear that that would be decisive against a massive north korean invasion when the invasion force is already stationed right on the boarder with the South.....

South east asia isn't the same as the deserts of Iraq where air power was decisive.

[Predicto]

As the point flies over your head...

given a huge number of contingencies, that is as far down the chain the authority goes. It does not start there, and it is highly unlikely it would ever get that far down the chain.

This whole SOP I'm talking about is probably contingent upon factors of time and communication. I'm not suggesting that U.S. Army Colonels are waltzing around South Korea with launch codes in their back pockets...

I seem to recall that there is a fine tradition in the military called "pulling the leg of the young guy at the military academy."

[skinfan133]

I seem to recall that there is a fine tradition in the military called "pulling the leg of the young guy at the military academy."

Not in this case Predicto :cool:

seriously though, this is solid information.

[JMS]

you obviously know very little about South Korea's modern military. They are at least 20-30 years ahead of North Korea technologically speaking.

Obviously... still 4% of the US defense budget, for a numerically larger force... Do you really think that would give South Korea's forces claim to parity with the US, in training, or equipment?

If not how inferior would you guess a 4% defense budget would get you?

I just don't see the jugernaut you are trying to sell me.

They would have to be well trained too, because they would be on the defensive, and they would be outnumbered about 2-1.

[mcsluggo]

its all those bases South Korea maintains globally that really eats into their military budget. Not to mention the the two active wars they are fighting. and the huge fleet of planes and ships they keep thousands of miles from home to respond to nutjob hotspots. a few nickels and dimes here and there and that stuff really adds up.

[skinfan133]

Well hell, that's an entirely different argument... I think it's assumed the US would want to take an active role in South Koreas defense... How exactly do you think our other allies in assia will feel if we just wave in response to a north korean invasion? Japan, Taiwan, even the Philipenese would all kind of loose faith in the value of our friendship wouldn't they?

not at all, all I'm saying is that we can't possibly expect to be able to fight a direct fight with North Korea for a variety of reasons. Mostly because we can win without doing so, and the fact that we simply don't have troops ready to mobilize for such a fight. We most certainly can beat the North with superior air operations. And you're really not giving any credit to the South Koreans. They have the boots on the ground to engage the infantry, we have the technology to strike them where it hurts, and North korea simply can't counter that (and they know it).

South east asia isn't the same as the deserts of Iraq where air power was decisive.

Air superiority is the key to modern combat. regardless of whatever geography we're talking about.

[JMS]

its all those bases South Korea maintains globally that really eats into their military budget. Not to mention the the two active wars they are fighting. and the huge fleet of planes and ships they keep thousands of miles from home to respond to nutjob hotspots. add a few nickels and dimes here and there and that stuff really adds up.

Excellent points, and if you had read the thread; I thought those were excellent points when Predicto first brought them up...

My response was to compare South Korea with Israel. Israel has a modern effective military, uses comparable weaposn with south korea, and doesn't have any global assets or force projection capabilities either... Two purely defensive forces.... I also described Syrian forces... a country with a military basketcase defense force...

Financially in what South Korea spends per soldier she is more closely related to Syria, than Israel. Ahead of Syria, but closer to Syria than they are to Israel.

[JMS]

Air superiority is the key to modern combat. regardless of whatever geography we're talking about.

What's your last name again... Westmoreland?

[Predicto]

Not in this case Predicto :cool:

seriously though, this is solid information.

I can't prove a negative, so I guess I have to let it go.

But I'm still not even close to buying it. I've read enough about Presidential decisionmaking to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that being the first to use a nuke since WWII will not be a decision made outside of the Oval Office. If you were talking about RESPONDING to a nuclear attack by another country, then I dunno. But first strikes? No freaking way does anyone but the President make that call.

[Predicto]

Excellent points, and if you had read the thread; I thought those were excellent points when Predicto first brought them up...

My response was to compare South Korea with Israel. Israel has a modern effective military, uses comparable weaposn with south korea, and doesn't have any global assets or force projection capabilities either... Two purely defensive forces.... I also described Syrian forces... a country with a military basketcase defense force...

Financially in what South Korea spends per soldier she is more closely related to Syria, than Israel.

What they spend per soldier, standing alone, does not prove anything. You made that up as a "significant fact" and you keep repeating it. No defense analysts I have read ever mention this.

South Korea spends twice as much in total as Israel, 20 times as much as Syria. Those extra billions are not all squandered on kimchee and uniforms for the conscripts. Some of it buys weaponry too.

[Pwyl]

Obviously... still 4% of the US defense budget, for a numerically larger force... Do you really think that would give South Korea's forces claim to parity with the US, in training, or equipment?

If not how inferior would you guess a 4% defense budget would get you?

I just don't see the jugernaut you are trying to sell me.

They would have to be well trained too, because they would be on the defensive, and they would be outnumbered about 2-1.

Why do you keep comparing SK defense expenditures to the US? SK doesn't need to buy and maintain carriers, billion dollar bombers etc. to meet their defense needs like the US does. SK isn't paying for military infrastructure to maintain bases all over the world, or the ability to project power globally.

If you want to do an "analysis" of how modern SK's military is, you need to look at their weapons and training, and quit trying to extrapolate it from some percentage equation of their defense expenditures.

[skinfan133]

Obviously... still 4% of the US defense budget, for a numerically larger force... Do you really think that would give South Korea's forces claim to parity with the US, in training, or equipment?

If not how inferior would you guess a 4% defense budget would get you?

I just don't see the jugernaut you are trying to sell me.

They would have to be well trained too, because they would be on the defensive, and they would be outnumbered about 2-1.

You're basing your entire analysis of a foreign military on a brief glance at what percent their military spending directly coincides with U.S. spending? That's just faulty analysis on multiple fronts.

Here's just the numbers, lets completely discount operational capacity, technological sophistication, etc. just numbers:

-South Korea spends 15% of its national budget on its military, which equates to roughly 2.8% of GDP.

-South Korea's economy is one of the most highly developed in the world, boasting one of the world's top ten GDP's.

That information right there will tell you that that isn't a small amount of military spending. South Korea has the world's 12th largest military budget. While it is true that the United States' military budget dwarfs Korea's in terms of sheer dollars, you have to keep in mind that the US's military spending accounts for more than 40% of world military spending, and its budget is bigger than the next 14 nations, including South Korea, combined. That puts South Korea's spending on par with nations like the India and Italy. Given South Korea's size, that is impressive.

we're not even discussing South Korea's technological sophistication and constant training. You are trying to paint a picture of millions of poorly equipped troops, essentially saying South Korea has a ton of boots toting guns. I have to tell you, that's what North Korea is. South Korea has a highly sophisticated modern military.

[Mad Mike]

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...

Nope. No way. Not gonna happen.

There are contingencies for launch in response to an attack on the United States where communication may be lost. But to authorize the use of nukes in response to a conventional attack on another nation without presidential authority? Are you freekin' kidding me?

[skinfan133]

What's your last name again... Westmoreland?

See I hate the Air Force, I'm an Army ROTC cadet. Even I know that air superiority is the key to modern warfare. That and technology. You seem to seriously doubt the benefit of both.

[thebluefood]

Every time I think about the possibility of another Korean conflict and how many soldiers we stand to lose in the conflict, and how we'll probably have to send troops over there to help, and how we're already stretched out so much around the world...all I can think about is this man:

"Didn't I tell you people it was a bad idea to get involved?!"

[Predicto]

Nope. No way. Not gonna happen.

There are contingencies for launch in response to an attack on the United States where communication may be lost. But to authorize the use of nukes in response to a conventional attack on another nation without presidential authority? Are you freekin' kidding me?

It's solid, inside information Mike.

[nonniey]

:laugh:

much less.. a Colonel!!!??

Hey, I've got my hopes up now. Next promotion and bye bye North Korea.:laugh:

[skinfan133]

It's solid, inside information Mike.

actually, its more like solid gold