South Korean navy ship sunk by North?

[t68]

I personally believe if the north fires first and catches the south unaware the first 24 hours will be critical for the south in relation to how well they could protect the civil population and military installations. How often does South Korea practise civilian evacuation plans?

OPLAN 5027 Major Theater War - West

According to this piece on OPLAN 5027 article the north could sustain a bombardment of the south of 500000 rounds per hour for several hours, even if the north could do that for two hours and then sustain a bombardment of 10000 per hour after the initial bombardment the south will be in serious trouble till US and UN forces come to the aid of South Korea.

The US has considerable amount of TAC-AIR which it could call on from Japan, USAF has approx 130 fighters are stationed in the Misawa Air Base and Kadena Air Base and The 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force is based in Okinawa with there F/A18 and AV-8B Harrier force plus the US seventh fleet, what would the time be for them to forward deploy on short notice?

I would imagine US /UN forces would take about a week to deploy in numbers, it be how well the command and control of South Korean Forces handles the initial engagement from the north in the first 24 hours will ultimately determine the outcome of the second Korean war.

 

[Lindermyer]

The Topics progressed a bit since l last looked - so apologies for going back again.

Re south korean Response
a military response will only strengthen the north korean leaderships position - by virtue of proving the imperialists are out there.

The suggestion that the south Korean govT milks this with maximum air time and full state funeral for the fallen - has merit , i would also follow this up with a propaganda campaign aimed at countering the official story in the north
also a world wide campaign with the aim of making supporting NK an exceedingly embarrissing proposition.

perhaps encouriging china to organise an internal coup. (this may be best of solution all round- china keeps her buffer state and the south gets to share its border with a more stable regime,

Re more recent commentry on military comparisons,

1) North Korean fortifications and stores depots. Whilst extensive and potentialy effective (the survivability of this viz a viz modern airpower is up for debate). They are only useful if the N.Ks are on the defensive, once they move forwards there exposed -same as any one else.
I would argue that in the face of modern airpower and such like, the norths logistical system would in all probabillity collapse.

2) Conscript armies- I am of the opinion that conscript armies tend to lack the morale, cohesion etc of proffesional forces when used for expeditionary warfare.
When fighting for there homeland however the motivation factor is generally more than sufficient. to this end I see no reason the south should collapse under the norths onslaught, just because the NK troops are fanatically indoctrinated.





















who suggested

 

[Toby]

wow ive stirred up a hornets nest
this is all hypothetical anyway the north is just saber rattling and the south doesn't want war either what will happen is a slap on the wrist of naughty north Korea

also to opssg please rethink how you are writing things differing of opinion doesn't mean limited understanding . which is rather offensive, please let us have a discussion not an argument and take both sides into account just like i can understand the souths strengths lets be academic about this not just argumentative armchair historians.
cheers for posting that asia balance of power its interesting im only just starting to read it im busy reading the globilisation of world politics atm and thats heavy reading
also tank warfare was in an infantry support role and there was no major tank engagements also look at the terrain it doesn't take a genius to work out its not tank territory.

yes i do know the difference in definitions if i wasnt aware of what i was saying i wouldnt have posted my opinion .
gulf war one may have been a bad analogy but iwas trying to explain that there are alot of unkown variables
robert kaplan as a source is one of them

a quote that supports you air argument however would be
The US-ROK defense plan would be shaped not only by the threat but also by the mountainous terrain. Korea is commonly regarded as rugged infantry terrain that invites neither mobile ground warfare nor heavy air bombardment, but North Korea has assembled large armored forces that are critical to exploiting breakthroughs, and these forces would pass down narrow corridors that are potential killing zones for U.S. airpower.

also supports my assumptions of low maneuver warfare however without american support would the south have the air capability alone? this is deciding question i believe if the north attacked the south their Armour would be mauled as there is no way the north korean air force can deny the air in the south ( it can however in the north) however inflitration in depth and irregular warfare would be the norths tactics it would vary on the effectiveness of the northern infantry i believe if it could become a war of attrittotion which i believe it would without the united states or chinas support. then terms would be reached ( the south would struggle due to defence in depth by the north) and the north would struggle with their supplies i believe ( however we do not know how good their underground or supply infrastructure is)

 

[Firn]

Some posters already tried hard to bring this discussion on the right track by bringing facts and sensible arguments grounded in reality into it. I will just post some important concepts:

a) Risk. Risk is perhaps the main reason why both the NK or the SK kept the conflict fairly limited. The government of NK has pushed the limits from time to time, for internal and external reasons alike, but has shied away from large military operations for equally important reasons. The current political status gives the current political elite through political power a lot of relative well-being. A less limited war against a stronger opponent with a stronger set of alliances would put all this favorable status quo at a huge risk. (I paraphrased Clausewitz on this one)

b) The relative geostrategic strenghs. SK has twice the population of NK, and 15 times the GDP. In short SK commands far more available manpower and far far more industrial efficiency due to money, more industrial productivity and an far far easier, efficient access to military and commercial ressources and technology. This is the main reason why the NK elite would risk a lot if their provocations would slip out of their hands into war.

I will leave it there as others, especially OPSSG have already written much about the strictly military side of things.


Firn

 

[merocaine]

Have China strategic considerations in regard to Korea changed since the Korean war?
Would China interfere if the South tried to unify the Country?

 

[gf0012-aust]

Have China strategic considerations in regard to Korea changed since the Korean war?
Would China interfere if the South tried to unify the Country?

Its not in Chinas interest to have a unified Korea.

 

[swerve]

In a hypothetical war between South and North Korea, Seoul will be destroyed in the first 30 minutes of the conflict. Right now, most of North Korea's artillery is pointed at Seoul, a city of 10 million. Experts say that Seoul will be vapourized within the first 30 minutes of a war and millions will die. Seoul won't have any inhabitants left -- not even reservists. Seoul will have to be abandoned initially. It's just too dangerous in the first stages of the war. .

You need to do a little arithmetic. Anyone who makes such ridiculous claims is not an expert: it would require North Korean artillery to be several orders of magnitude more destructive than any artillery has ever been before. Such a level of destruction is only possible if North Korea uses nukes.

Consider some WW2 battles, e.g. the Soviet conquest of Berlin. The Red Army deployed far more artillery pieces against the city than total N. Korean artillery strength, & most of that N. Korean total is out of range of Seoul*. Unlike the N. Koreans, the Red Army was able to deploy guns & rocket launchers all round the city, & thus strike all of it, even short-range guns being able to shell the city. Yet most of the population (99%!) survived. Seoul is more vulnerable, because it is more densely populated, but would receive far less shellfire.

The defenders of Berlin were hugely outnumbered (over 10 to 1 for the assault on the city itself), & even more outgunned, unlike the defenders of Seoul. N . Korean artillery will be subject to intense counter-battery fire by guns & aircraft which have mapped all their hardened emplacements, & have excellent artillery locating radars.

*The distance from the N. Korean border to Seoul is greater than the range of the majority of N. Korean artillery pieces. Only long-range guns & rocket launchers can hit the city. Only the satellite city of Goyang can be hit by most N. Korean guns & MRLs, & even then, only from a small area of N. Korea.

 

[Falstaff]

On a sidenote to this discussion, when trying to get a glimpse at the mindset of the North Korean people I found the documentaries listed below helpful. They're short and don't offer anything of value regarding the NK military, however I think you do get a faint idea what a very, very bizarre country NK really is. For sure, in a military conflict South Korea would fight for survival. Nobody can actually want to be a part of this, honestly.

Discovery Times: Children of the Secret State (2000)
Welcome to North Korea (2001)
The Game of Their Lives (2002)
Frontline/World: Suspicious Minds (2003)
Secret Nation (2003)
Nuclear Nightmare: Understanding North Korea (2003)
A State of Mind (2004)
North Korea: A Day in the Life (2004)
Access to Evil (2004)
Return To The Border (2005)
CNN Presents: Undercover in the Secret State (2005)
Seoul Train (2006)
60 Minutes: The Hermit Kingdom (2006)
Crossing the Line (2006)
ABC news A rare look inside North Korea (2006)
A State of Mind (2007)
National Geographic: Inside North Korea (2007)
Undercover in North Korea (2007)
An American in North Korea (2007)
North Korea: Hell on earth
National Geographic: Don’t Tell My Mother I’m In… (Episode on North Korea)
North Korea a legacy of tension (2007)
The Vice Guide to North Korea (2008)
Kimjongilia (2008)
Themepark 1984 (2009) [1]
Kim Jong Il's Comedy Club (2009)
Friends of Kim

 

[Lindermyer]

Looking at it from a more cynical perspective, every gun firing on seoul with the aim of terrorizing and killing civillians, (however horrific it may be) is a gun not firing at a military target . so if NK decide to rain fire down on seoul , They wont be inflicting as much damage on the south korean military .

Despite the threats and propganda would NK really make such an unwise decision, -


note - at the point NK tries to occupy seoul , then obviously it becomes a target - but for military reasons not political/ propoganda.

 

[swerve]

Globalsecurity.org, apparently quoting US military briefings, reckons 500 N. Korean guns within range of Seoul by 2005. This is far more than ten years before, apparently due to redeployment from other parts of the border.

500 guns at 6 rounds per minute over 30 minutes = 90000 rounds, which one can increase by an appreciable fraction to allow for artillery rockets - but remember, they have a much lower reload rate. For them to destroy a city of ten million requires each shell to kill about 100 people. Historically, the ratio has been the other way round, with many shells fired for each casualty, even in the shelling of crowded cities.

A US military analysis in 1994 estimated that N. Korean conventional shelling of Seoul might kill 40000 civilians - but that was apparently a worst-case scenario. Horrific, but not the 'vapourisation' of the city. N. Korean artillery strength within range of the city has doubled since then, but the ability to locate & destroy those guns & rocket launchers has also greatly increased.

The use of chemical weapons by the north could greatly increase those numbers.

 

[Ibizan Hound]

South Korea backs off of threats but warns about the future

South Korea will not seek sanctions, retaliation but has warned North that in the future they may do something in response to an attack.

S Korea warns North of defensive moves
Mon, 24 May 2010 13:59:05 GMT

South Korea's President Lee Myung Bak has threatened strong measures against the North amid heightening tensions between Seoul and Pyongyang.

Lee said in a strongly worded televised address on Monday that Seoul was ready to take "self-defense” measures against that he termed as future North Korean Provocations.

"If our territorial waters, airspace or territory are militarily violated, we will immediately exercise our right of self-defense," Lee said.

The comments follow Seoul's claims that a North Korean torpedo sank a South Korean warship on March 26, a charge that Pyongyang has fiercely rejected.

The South Korean president says he will follow up the case at the UN Security Council. He also promised to cancel inter-Korean agreements.

Seoul says an international investigation team has found that North Korea was behind the incident that killed 46 sailors.

Pyongyang, however denies any involvement, warning that any retaliation by Seoul would lead to an open war.

Seoul has planned an anti-submarine exercise off the Korean peninsula in response to the warship incident. US military forces will join South Koreans in the war games.

Tensions between the two Koreas, which are technically still at war, remain high over the incident.

S Korea warns North of defensive moves

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Globalsecurity.org, apparently quoting US military briefings, reckons 500 N. Korean guns within range of Seoul by 2005. This is far more than ten years before, apparently due to redeployment from other parts of the border.

500 guns at 6 rounds per minute over 30 minutes = 90000 rounds, which one can increase by an appreciable fraction to allow for artillery rockets - but remember, they have a much lower reload rate. For them to destroy a city of ten million requires each shell to kill about 100 people. Historically, the ratio has been the other way round, with many shells fired for each casualty, even in the shelling of crowded cities.

A US military analysis in 1994 estimated that N. Korean conventional shelling of Seoul might kill 40000 civilians - but that was apparently a worst-case scenario. Horrific, but not the 'vapourisation' of the city. N. Korean artillery strength within range of the city has doubled since then, but the ability to locate & destroy those guns & rocket launchers has also greatly increased.

The use of chemical weapons by the north could greatly increase those numbers.

That certainly wouldn’t be comparable to a counter value nuclear attack, a single MIRVed Trident would do an order of magnitude more damage to Pyongyang in a matter of 40 minutes. However 40,000 civilian casualties represent a massive lever Pyongyang holds over Soul and its one that’s extremely difficult to counter. As good as modern ROK ISTAR is it’s not going to be easy to suppress or destroy 500+ well dug in arty tubes in that terrain, although a chemical solution could do the trick.

I tell you I’d hesitate to escalate a situation to a military level if Melbourne faced such a threat.

 

[sgtgunn]

The North Koreans really do have the ROK over a barrel. While the ROK military should be able to beat the DPRK military like a bad monkey, they will do everything in their power to avoid war with the North because of the potentially severe damage the DPRK could inflict on the ROK capitol, infrastructure and civilian population before they went down - and this is not even adding the DPRK's nuke capability (whatever that is) into the equation. Worst case doomsday scenario for the ROK is a massive DPRK chemical (or maybe even a nuke if they have one that works and figure out how to deliver it) attack on Seoul and other population centers near the DMZ. Destroying the North would be a pyrrhic victory for the ROKs (at best) and then the aftermath with it all of the economic disruption, refugee crisis, etc. would be staggeringly bad. Look how long the FDR had to pay to integrate the DDR - and the DDR makes North Korea look like Belgium.

So Kim Jong Il can keep poking his sharp stick in the ROKs eye and laugh because he knows they will endure almost anything to avoid war. This current incident is case in point. Given that deliberately sinking another sovereign nation's warship is about as serious of an act of war you can commit - the fact the ROK didn't follow up their press release with airstrikes is a good indication that North Korea can do just about anything short of invading the ROK with little fear of military retaliation.

Can you imagine if it were 2 other countries? What if Japan had sunk a PRC ship? WWIII would have already started.

Adrian

 

[Marc 1]

I tell you I’d hesitate to escalate a situation to a military level if Melbourne faced such a threat.

Bugger that! I'd be fuzing the rounds for the Norkors, however if it were :heart Sydney :heart...

 

[Marc 1]

The North Koreans really do have the ROK over a barrel. While the ROK military should be able to beat the DPRK military like a bad monkey, they will do everything in their power to avoid war with the North because of the potentially severe damage the DPRK could inflict on the ROK capitol, infrastructure and civilian population before they went down - and this is not even adding the DPRK's nuke capability (whatever that is) into the equation. Worst case doomsday scenario for the ROK is a massive DPRK chemical (or maybe even a nuke if they have one that works and figure out how to deliver it) attack on Seoul and other population centers near the DMZ. Destroying the North would be a pyrrhic victory for the ROKs (at best) and then the aftermath with it all of the economic disruption, refugee crisis, etc. would be staggeringly bad. Look how long the FDR had to pay to integrate the DDR - and the DDR makes North Korea look like Belgium.

So Kim Jong Il can keep poking his sharp stick in the ROKs eye and laugh because he knows they will endure almost anything to avoid war. This current incident is case in point. Given that deliberately sinking another sovereign nation's warship is about as serious of an act of war you can commit - the fact the ROK didn't follow up their press release with airstrikes is a good indication that North Korea can do just about anything short of invading the ROK with little fear of military retaliation.

Can you imagine if it were 2 other countries? What if Japan had sunk a PRC ship? WWIII would have already started.

Adrian

I wouldn't be quite so sure - the next time the Norkors try a stunt like that it just may mean they end up with Soukor retaliation. Who says the South need to invade the North and take over their country? What if the retaliation was against the artillery emplacements? Sure they would not get all of them, but a limited strike against a few combined with CAP's preventing NorKor penetration of the South's airspace. Continue striking at the Norkors every time they get near the border. Don't invade just stand back and hit them with a big stick.

Every time the North launches a naval foray, sink 'em. Sure, Seoul will cop a pasting and most things within say 50km of the border - but hey, I wonder what 20 Iron Domes could do to assist?

I guess I just don't 'buy this idea that the only way the south can deal with the north militarily is to invade and crush the country.

 

[fretburner]

Sokor has Iron Domes? Did Israel just started fielding them?

 

[Marc 1]

Sokor has Iron Domes? Did Israel just started fielding them?

Not that I'm aware of - more wondering how say 20 of them would change the status quo...

 

[swerve]

I wouldn't be quite so sure - the next time the Norkors try a stunt like that it just may mean they end up with Soukor retaliation. Who says the South need to invade the North and take over their country? What if the retaliation was against the artillery emplacements? Sure they would not get all of them, but a limited strike against a few combined with CAP's preventing NorKor penetration of the South's airspace. Continue striking at the Norkors every time they get near the border. Don't invade just stand back and hit them with a big stick.

Every time the North launches a naval foray, sink 'em. Sure, Seoul will cop a pasting and most things within say 50km of the border - but hey, I wonder what 20 Iron Domes could do to assist?

I guess I just don't 'buy this idea that the only way the south can deal with the north militarily is to invade and crush the country.

If you start knocking out N. Korean artillery emplacements, then you take away all their reasons not to use the massed guns & rocket launchers. You present them with a 'use them or lose them' scenario.

If you were running South Korea, would you really choose that over the current state? How many tens of thousands of your own people dead is it worth to you to stop a few skirmishes?

 

[StevoJH]

If it came to a retaliatory strike, degrading air defenses would probably be a better option. North Korea can replace Artillery Pieces, can they replace SAM systems and Combat Jets?

 

[Marc 1]

If you start knocking out N. Korean artillery emplacements, then you take away all their reasons not to use the massed guns & rocket launchers. You present them with a 'use them or lose them' scenario.

True, when you put it that way, it then becomes a choice of a massed air/guided arty strike to take out a majority of the arty emplacements (which would be seen a disproportionate response by the UN). Hence my comment on Iron Dome, you can be selective and take out a few in a proportionate retaliation, if you can then mostly/partly defend your territory if the North decides to go postal.

If you were running South Korea, would you really choose that over the current state? How many tens of thousands of your own people dead is it worth to you to stop a few skirmishes?

Problem is the Koreans have a reputation as being the 'latinos' of asia (no disrespect intended to any group - more a way of saying they have firey tempraments). On TV there were some reports that there are demo's on the streets - don't know if this is a widely held belief but there will come a time when the ongoing provocations will push the soukors too far then it will be a case of, yes we may get hit and hit hard but we will hit them too and show them we will not just sit passively. When that happens things could get interesting. Particularly as the US has dropped the ability to sustain a 2 front war.