What impact will a possible war with North Korea have on American troops?

[Borg]

Also, the North has brainwashed its people so bad that someone would have to unscrew their heads for a long time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...orth-korea-you-will-love-it-115875-21394846/".

I read earlier today that the announcement to prepare for war was literally broadcast directly into people's homes. I'm guessing that isn't the only time that they've used the speakers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks"
Seoul-based North Korea Intellectuals Solidarity said Tuesday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il last week ordered his military to get ready for combat.

The group, citing unidentified sources in North Korea, said the order was broadcast last Thursday on speakers installed in each house and at major public sites throughout the country.

 

[zomgwtf]

Also, the North has brainwashed its people so bad that someone would have to unscrew their heads for a long time. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...orth-korea-you-will-love-it-115875-21394846/".

I read earlier today that the announcement to prepare for war was literally broadcast directly into people's homes. I'm guessing that isn't the only time that they've used the speakers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100525/ap_on_re_as/as_skorea_ship_sinks"
Seoul-based North Korea Intellectuals Solidarity said Tuesday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il last week ordered his military to get ready for combat.

The group, citing unidentified sources in North Korea, said the order was broadcast last Thursday on speakers installed in each house and at major public sites throughout the country.

Yup, I think it's quite odd that the have cut off all ties with Seoul. Probably not the smartest move for the best interests of your nation...
The claim of war isn't at all surprising though. I think North Korea goes into a fit at least once a month about going to war with its enemies. It'd be a shocker if they continue to pull of such attacks and attempts at being aggressive to the South. Surely they know if they keep it up it'll be the end of that particular communist regime?

It's kinda weird they have those speaker systems installed in the homes of the citizens though. Imagine your just watching TV and suddenly the speaker over in the corner of your home, which never makes a sound, just suddenly starts broadcasting to prepare for war. Quite 1984ish.

 

[magpies]

Ya but in this case they would be watching the speakers as they probably don't have tv.

 

[Borg]

Yup, I think it's quite odd that the have cut off all ties with Seoul. Probably not the smartest move for the best interests of your nation...
The claim of war isn't at all surprising though. I think North Korea goes into a fit at least once a month about going to war with its enemies. It'd be a shocker if they continue to pull of such attacks and attempts at being aggressive to the South. Surely they know if they keep it up it'll be the end of that particular communist regime?

It's kinda weird they have those speaker systems installed in the homes of the citizens though. Imagine your just watching TV and suddenly the speaker over in the corner of your home, which never makes a sound, just suddenly starts broadcasting to prepare for war. Quite 1984ish.

What's really scary is that they seem to believe some outrageous stuff.

People look at you with a straight face and explain that a double rainbow greeted Kim Jong Il's birth, along with birds that sang in human voices.

I'll bet that even Tiger Woods wishes that he could golf this good (#2):

http://www.11points.com/News-Politics/11_Craziest_Kim_Jong-Il_Moments"

 

[mheslep]

Given the post tangents (non-existent Korean jungles, US job exports, CIA did it, etc) maybe the OP should have included background on the proximate cause of the recent heightened state of hostilities in Korea:

On http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042503113.html" forty-six S. Korean naval personnel were killed when its naval vessel Cheonan was torpedoed and split in half while it was cruising in S. Korean waters. Since then S. Korea has slowly, methodically and publicly invited experts from all over the world to participate in the forensics which proved the torpedo was N. Korean.

After ~two months S. Korea has very reasonably, in my view, http://online.wsj.com/public/resour...=653&h=401&title=WSJ.COM&thePubDate=20100524"

 

[zomgwtf]

Given the post tangents (non-existent Korean jungles, US job exports, CIA did it, etc) maybe the OP should have included background on the proximate cause of the recent heightened state of hostilities in Korea:

On http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/25/AR2010042503113.html" forty-six S. Korean naval personnel were killed when its naval vessel Cheonan was torpedoed and split in half while it was cruising in S. Korean waters. Since then S. Korea has slowly, methodically and publicly invited experts from all over the world to participate in the forensics which proved the torpedo was N. Korean.

After ~two months S. Korea has very reasonably, in my view, cut all trade with the North and denied transit of S. Korean waters by N.K. vessels.

As well for more background information back in November of last year I believe there were small 'skirmishes' in the same area, spouting from claims that South Korean ships went into North Korean territorial waters. However, the Cheonan was not in North Korean waters and I'm pretty sure it never was. I feel however this played a pretty important part in the attack that took place in March.

 

[mheslep]

Imagine if the Iranian military purposely sank a US warship in the Persian Gulf, and killed nearly fifty of our servicemen. Would we be as patient?

The analogy would be not in the Persian gulf, but off the US coast line. The Cheonan was in S. Korean waters.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think right now would be the perfect time for China to flex some of it's political muscles and tell NK to calm the heck down... or else.

 

[mheslep]

As well for more background information back in November of last year I believe there were small 'skirmishes' in the same area, spouting from claims that South Korean ships went into North Korean territorial waters.

That was 10 November and it took place in 'disputed territorial waters' per this WSJ source. Two patrol boats exchanged gun fire for some two minutes, damaging both vessels but with no reported injury to the crews. That was the first exchange of fire in seven years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125782605421040551.html

 

[mheslep]

I think right now would be the perfect time for China to flex some of it's political muscles and tell NK to calm the heck down... or else.

Perfect time for S. Korea perhaps. Just the opposite for China. China clearly enjoys using N. Korea as thorn in the entire E. Asian theater. N. Korea threatens S.K, Japan and everyone else in the area, and nobody can (easily) stop it without China's acquiescence. Thus if the West threatens tough trade agreements or pushes China to stop biasing its currency, oops, Pyongyang launches another three stage 'test'.

 

[mheslep]

Family members of deceased sailors, April 30th

 

[zomgwtf]

Perfect time for S. Korea perhaps. Just the opposite for China. China clearly enjoys using N. Korea as thorn in the entire E. Asian theater. N. Korea threatens S.K, Japan and everyone else in the area, and nobody can (easily) stop it without China's acquiescence. Thus if the West threatens tough trade agreements or pushes China to stop biasing its currency, oops, Pyongyang launches another three stage 'test'.

While this is true, surely an actual escalation to the point of war in the area will not do good for China, who I am confident will be a large part of the clean up process and will have damaged the public image it's been generating.

EDIT: As an aside I heard that the Navy vessel had aboard Navy students which in my mind makes it all the more tragic.

 

[zomgwtf]

That was 10 November and it took place in 'disputed territorial waters' per this WSJ source. Two patrol boats exchanged gun fire for some two minutes, damaging both vessels but with no reported injury to the crews. That was the first exchange of fire in seven years.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125782605421040551.html

Yup, that's the one I'm talking about.

 

[mheslep]

While this is true, surely an actual escalation to the point of war in the area will not do good for China, who I am confident will be a large part of the clean up process and will have damaged the public image it's been generating.

If China does nothing other than issue the same useless 'lets all get along' public platitudes that its already been doing, how does doing nothing harm them in any way? They may well want a limited war, in which they can come to the defense of a poor N.K. at the last minute just as they did fifty years ago. This time they could show off their substantial naval power, maybe make the US back down from defending Taiwan.

 

[zomgwtf]

If China does nothing other than issue the same useless 'lets all get along' public platitudes that its already been doing, how does doing nothing harm them in any way? They may well want a limited war, in which they can come to the defense of a poor N.K. at the last minute just as they did fifty years ago. This time they could show off their substantial naval power, maybe make the US back down from defending Taiwan.

This isn't China and NK 50 years ago. This is China today, and NK today... situation is quite different. I think China has shown time and again that if NK gets too out of hand with it's antics it will take decisive measures to push back.

Sure sometimes NK acts favorably for China, it maintains a distance between China and American soldiers and democracy but that doesn't mean everything it does is favorable to China. A war in that area will be one of those things that probably will not shape up too well for China. I do not believe in a war China will support NK and take on America/South Korea and whoever else decides to join. When NK loses the war and reunification occurs China will have a border with an extremely free democracy and be right next door to tens of thousands of American soldiers... hardly pleasant. AND China will most definitely be involved in a clean up of that area after a war as well as taking care of all the refugees that will pour into the country.

IF however China flexes its muscles as it did in 2005 (remember cutting off the oil pipes?) NK will stop its crazy antics, no ill-effect to China. China can then concentrate on the next communist government that will head up North Korea after Kims death, which is supposedly not too far away. This will work most in favour for China because it will increase it's 'favourable' view to the world, it will get exactly what it wants out of the Koreas and it won't have to deal with American soldiers.

Why do you suggest it would want to show of its military strength? I highly doubt any nation doubts the military prowess of China. It knows this and it has no reason to show off, let alone anything to gain from it. China wants to be seen as a powerfull, yet 'stabilizing' nation. Not only that but South Korea and China are pretty major trading partners.

EDIT: personally I think that China is not supporting the West/South Korea simply out of fear of North Korea. It doesn't want a nation with a capable military which is nuclear, AND has a crazed/erratic dictator at its border who thinks China is against them. However China should understand that any action from North Korea will be met by the world and not just by it's nation. As well, I feel that the North Korean military power is far less than that of China making the potential threat negligible. An attack on China from North Korea will also spell certain doom for the nation as it is dependent on China for it's mere existence.

 

[Proton Soup]

While this is true, surely an actual escalation to the point of war in the area will not do good for China, who I am confident will be a large part of the clean up process and will have damaged the public image it's been generating.

EDIT: As an aside I heard that the Navy vessel had aboard Navy students which in my mind makes it all the more tragic.

oh really? so it's possible this was just a training accident?

 

[russ_watters]

It is a powder-keg and no one seems to be panicking just yet.

The only people who have cause for panick are the residents of Seoul and the North Korean army.

And for the residents of Seoul, I would hope they have an evacuation plan in place. Even if they don't, though, I can't imagine the artillery threat on Seoul could last more than an hour or two.

 

[zomgwtf]

oh really? so it's possible this was just a training accident?

Hmm I'm not sure I'm following where this came from. If it's from what I said about 'clean up' I meant after a potential war in Korea.

EDIT: If it's about the 'naval students' part then first I'll add that this is just something I came across online and have been unable to find in anyother source (it was posted in someones comment on a news article and I can't find the comment now haha). Second even if it's true that they were naval students participating in some type of naval training the torpedo found had North Korean markings and it is conclusive that it came from a North Korean submarine. (based on the markings etc.) Unless of course it's just one big conspiracy: maybe that torpedo was there from years ago during the last naval battles and they couldn't tell...

 

[russ_watters]

Imagine if the Iranian military purposely sank a US warship in the Persian Gulf, and killed nearly fifty of our servicemen. Would we be as patient?

See...

USS Cole: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
USS Stark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_(FFG-31 )

 

[russ_watters]

I recall another war in recent history that the US entered into with that philosophy...

Presumably, you are talking about the Iraq war. I don't think there is a better word to describe what happened to the Iraqi military than "stomped".

North Korea's military would almost certainly fare even worse under a similar attack.

Also, presumably, you are referring to the protracted insurgency. Even if included and the war is judged as a whole, the war was spectacularly easy except under the most modern, intestinal-fortitude-lacking interpretation. At the ame time, the fact that people don't have the stomach to hear about even a few dozen military deaths anymore is a testament to just how spectacularly dominant the US (and western militaries in general) are. If you told a WWII general that he could defeat an entire country of substantial military power (by world ranking) while losing only 5,000 troops and with a kill ratio of 100:1, and with the conquering of the government and distruction of the military requiring only 6 weeks, he'd be downright giddy with glee!

 

[turbo]

Presumably, you are talking about the Iraq war. I don't think there is a better word to describe what happened to the Iraqi military than "stomped".

North Korea's military would almost certainly fare even worse under a similar attack.

Right. NK's army is configured preferentially toward fighting a war that they lost almost 60 years ago. What good is a huge standing army? It saps the strength of the country to no advantage.

 

[mheslep]

This isn't China and NK 50 years ago. This is China today, and NK today... situation is quite different.

Different how, that is relevant?

I think China has shown time and again that if NK gets too out of hand with it's antics it will take decisive measures to push back.

Name one such time?

 

[zomgwtf]

Right. NK's army is configured preferentially toward fighting a war that they lost almost 60 years ago. What good is a huge standing army? It saps the strength of the country to no advantage.

To put things in furtrher perspective:
North Koreas military budget:
$5,500,000,000 (2005)
North Koreas purchasing power parity:
$40B

Compare it to even South Korea:
$25,500,000,000
and
$1,364,148,000,000
Not to mention the vast infrastructure advantages given to South Korea over the North.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a terrible opinion piece on CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/05/24/armstrong.north.korea/index.html

The analysis of the situation is pretty good, but the opinion part is what is terrible:

On the other hand, there is a real danger of this war of words escalating into a shooting war. With well over a million Korean troops facing each other across the Demilitarized Zone separating North and South, along with 29,000 U.S. troops in the South, and North Korea now armed with nuclear weapons, the consequences of a renewed Korean War would be catastrophic for the Korean peninsula and the entire Northeast Asia region.

More catastrophic than having millions of North Koreans live the next 50 years under dictatorial oppression? That's not the really bad part though:

Rather than lead to deepening confrontation, this tragedy may be an opportunity to re-engage North Korea in talks to scale back and ultimately eliminate its nuclear program, and to promote security and economic cooperation with its neighbors.

This is, of course, exactly what North Korea wants. They are now in an endless cycle of provocation followed by concessions from us in return for little more than ending the provacation. We should not be encouraging this behavior, we should be trying to break the cycle, by demanding concessions and not negotiating for them, but by dictating them.

 

[russ_watters]

Right. NK's army is configured preferentially toward fighting a war that they lost almost 60 years ago. What good is a huge standing army? It saps the strength of the country to no advantage.

Yes: A lot is made of the number of soldiers in North Korea's army, but numbers really mean very little in the modern age of warfare. The primary risk in a war is for the soldiers of the North Korean army, who could literally die by the hundreds of thousands if the war develops slowly. Counterintuitively, if the South (and US) are able to mobilize a proper army, they can simply drive through North Korea unopposed and take down the government, all but ignoring the North Korean infantry. If the South (and US) can't mobilize a proper army, the North will have an opportunity to engage with their infantry. They will succeed only in getting themselves killed by the hundreds of thousands, only slightly delaying their defeat.

 

[turbo]

Yes: A lot is made of the number of soldiers in North Korea's army, but numbers really mean very little in the modern age of warfare. The primary risk in a war is for the soldiers of the North Korean army, who could literally die by the hundreds of thousands if the war develops slowly. Counterintuitively, if the South (and US) are able to mobilize a proper army, they can simply drive through North Korea unopposed and take down the government, all but ignoring the North Korean infantry. If the South (and US) can't mobilize a proper army, the North will have an opportunity to engage with their infantry. They will succeed only in getting themselves killed by the hundreds of thousands, only slightly delaying their defeat.

At least the rations allocated to the NK army could be diverted to the citizens. I hate be ghoulish about this, but the NK citizens have suffered severe deprivation so that the glorious leader could have a huge standing army.

 

[zomgwtf]

Different how, that is relevant?

Of course it's relevant you're saying that maybe China will pull a good old let North Korea get it's but kicked and the swoop into save the day just like back in the good ole' days. I'm saying the situation is different in both countries and I have high doubts that this will be the case. The most important difference has to do specifically with China and the image it is trying to create for itself. Back in those good ole' days they had Mao Zedong heading up things. Are you going to honestly ask 'how' China is different now days relative to being under his leadership?

Name one such time?

Other than the time I had already listed? (2005)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/world/asia/30iht-oil.3334398.html?_r=1 October 2006

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOOkWZ_b4TEY (2009)

There was also a case of this happening back in 2003 but my wireless is being kinda screwy so maybe I'll post it later tonight.

 

[Proton Soup]

Hmm I'm not sure I'm following where this came from. If it's from what I said about 'clean up' I meant after a potential war in Korea.

EDIT: If it's about the 'naval students' part then first I'll add that this is just something I came across online and have been unable to find in anyother source (it was posted in someones comment on a news article and I can't find the comment now haha). Second even if it's true that they were naval students participating in some type of naval training the torpedo found had North Korean markings and it is conclusive that it came from a North Korean submarine. (based on the markings etc.) Unless of course it's just one big conspiracy: maybe that torpedo was there from years ago during the last naval battles and they couldn't tell...

for something that causes so much damage, it seems remarkably intact

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-ship-sink-pictures,0,5983865.photogallery

 

[zomgwtf]

At least the rations allocated to the NK army could be diverted to the citizens. I hate be ghoulish about this, but the NK citizens have suffered severe deprivation so that the glorious leader could have a huge standing army.

If you look at the link of crazy things Kim has done during his dictatorship you will notice that there are plenty more crazy things that could instead be diverted to the people. I.e buying 10s of millions of dollars worth in just Mercedes? (Not including any other cars)... He has all his rice checked to ensure it's precisely the same size by a team of females... I doubt he gives the rice discarded back to the citizens. He spends all this money while the people live there in horrible conditions for around 900$ a year.

 

[russ_watters]

oh really? so it's possible this was just a training accident?

Not unless they were practice-firing North Korean torpedoes, no.

for something that causes so much damage, it seems remarkably intact...

That looks intact to you? Really?

Are you being serious here or are you just playing games? Do you have any actual reason to believe something other than the reported cause and could you specify what, exactly it is that you believe?

 

[zomgwtf]

for something that causes so much damage, it seems remarkably intact

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-ship-sink-pictures,0,5983865.photogallery

Relative to what? A non-exploded torpedo? Great job, you make a fine detective. First of all this is all the parts that were scavenged, by a highly knowledgeable team of personell including a few people from my own country (Canada) who also concluded this was a North Korean torpedo which had recently exploded.

Second of all your claim is rediculous. Comparing a torpedo which has already exploded to a non-exploded torpedo means nothing, find me some images of other torpedos post explosion and after their parts have been scavenged and put in proper places etc.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not unless they were practice-firing North Korean torpedoes, no. That looks intact to you? Really?

Are you being serious here or are you just playing games? Do you have any actual reason to believe something other than the reported cause and could you specify what, exactly it is that you believe?

no, I'm not playing games. it just surprises me is all. not really looking for an argument here.

 

[mheslep]

Of course it's relevant you're saying that maybe China will pull a good old let North Korea get it's but kicked and the swoop into save the day just like back in the good ole' days. I'm saying the situation is different in both countries and I have high doubts that this will be the case. The most important difference has to do specifically with China and the image it is trying to create for itself.

Which is?

Back in those good ole' days they had Mao Zedong heading up things. Are you going to honestly ask 'how' China is different now days relative to being under his leadership?

I didn't simply ask how China is different between now and 1949. I asked how it is different that is relevant to the situation at hand with N. Korea.

Other than the time I had already listed? (2005)

Sorry, missed that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/world/asia/30iht-oil.3334398.html?_r=1 October 2006

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aOOkWZ_b4TEY (2009)

Yes thanks, I'd heard of those announcements; though I've never seen if they actually carried through. After all, there is no CNN-China that can report "the Beijing government never actually suspended oil shipments to North Korea as had been announced"

Do you think that this characterization in Bloomberg:

China agreed for the first time to punish senior North Korean government officials for defying United Nations resolutions barring nuclear and missile tests, China’s deputy ambassador said.

and

Although China has long protected the North against outside pressure, analysts said the nuclear test surprised and angered the Chinese leadership.

after all of the years of previous UN sanctions against N.K, supports your statement that "China has shown time and again" it will act against N.K.'s interests? Also, I'd like to see that China actually followed through, though I expect that will be (much) harder to verify.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

for something that causes so much damage, it seems remarkably intact

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-korea-ship-sink-pictures,0,5983865.photogallery

Of course the back end of the torpedo is going to be mostly intact. It is the nature of the weapon. A torpedo kill is done with a shaped charge, it has to slice through several meters of steel hull to make a hole in a ship. The weapon designers do not need to waste energy on destroying the weapon.

On a converse note a missile relies on high speed shrapnel to kill a plane. Mostly because the amount of damage needed to be done to down aircraft is relatively light. The lighter the plane the better for all performance aspects. Where as a warship if the thing is as big as a city, well just put some more defenses on it, give it a thicker hide, and put a bigger power plant in it.

 

[Mu naught]

Of course the back end of the torpedo is going to be mostly intact. It is the nature of the weapon. A torpedo kill is done with a shaped charge, it has to slice through several meters of steel hull to make a hole in a ship. The weapon designers do not need to waste energy on destroying the weapon.

On a converse note a missile relies on high speed shrapnel to kill a plane. Mostly because the amount of damage needed to be done to down aircraft is relatively light. The lighter the plane the better for all performance aspects. Where as a warship if the thing is as big as a city, well just put some more defenses on it, give it a thicker hide, and put a bigger power plant in it.

I'm pretty sure no ship ever built has a hull "several meters" thick. Do you know how thick a meter is?