North korea v South Korea and UN
- Thread starter bonehead
- Start date
My personal experience over there was in 90-91 and 94-95. In both cases I had opportunities to work with the ROK Army. My impressions were generally favorable. They seemed well disciplined (very harshly by our standards), fit, well motivated, and well equipped. Some of their equipment was outmoded compared to ours, but it was universally superior to the North's. Since they were (and still are) primarily a conscript army, their level of training and professionalism was not as high as ours (or that of other professional armies) but it was still very good. The general consensus among the people I knew was that the ROKs would fight, and fight hard. From what I understand, not all ROK units are created equal, and there were some formations that were better equipped (and perhaps motivated) than others - the White Horse Division, ROK Marines & Rangers, etc. but we never had much doubt they would fight. KATUSAs were another matter. While there were some excellent KATSUAs, many of them sucked, and we considered them unreliable/lazy/etc. They typically came from the wealthy social and political elites of S. Korea, and were "spoiled rich kids". They tended to be political, and I have heard more than few tell us they had no intention of fighting with "their brothers to the north". There was a running (if pretty black) joke among US troops - Q."Who was the first Korean you shot when the fighting started?" A."CPL Kim, your KATUSA".
Adrian
I fail to see the comparison between the conflict in Vietnam and a potential conflict in Korea, other than the very superficial they both have a communist North and Western backed South.
North Vietnam had the advantage a grossly corrupt and ineffective South Vietnamese government which had little moral legitimacy, strong support and and an effective guerrilla movement in the the South, safe havens to move troops and supplies in Cambodia and Laos, one super power (USSR) willing to militarily and financially back the North Vietnamese government, and another (China) whose mere presence nearby limited the United States activities politically.
The situation in Korea is completely different. South Korea is a wealthy, healthy and dynamic state, with a democratic government with the full support of the vast majority of its population and full legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. It has a large, powerful and well trained military, and powerful allies in the United States and Japan. There is no support for the aims of the North Korean government in the South, no pro-North Korean political movement, no guerrilla force to wage an insurgency against the ROK government. North Korea is a pariah in the world community, has no support outside China (who only gives a bare minimum, grudgingly), is dirt poor, starving and has a huge but unwieldy army with grossly obsolete equipment better suited to fight a war in 1960 than 2010.
South Korea and its allies need only fight a defensive campaign. The burden of attack is on the North - to win they have to not only defeat the ROK and US forces, but also be able to seize control of the entire peninsula, then somehow figure out how to pay for and govern what's left surrounded by mortal enemies in the US and Japan.
All the ROK and US need to do is keep the North from making headway. The best the North can hope to do is ruin a large portion of South Korea and kill a lot of innocent civilians. Sooner or later, the onslaught of US, ROK and probably Japanese air and sea power is going to cripple what's left of their pathetic infrastructure and slaughter their troops until the whole rotten house of cards collapses. You can bet it won't take long for the various factions in the North Korean military and security apparatus start shooting each other (Kim Jong Il will either escape and disappear into exile in China, or more likely by shot by someone and end up in a ditch).
The Chinese are going to be more worried about keeping all those unwashed starving North Koreans from flooding into Manchuria than helping out their "ally" and when the dust settles, they'll probably be the ones that negotiate the ceasefire between the UN forces and the new "legitimate" (i.e. picked by the Chinese security apparatus) government of North Korea. That way they can play the "peacemaker" and try to come out of a bad situation looking like a good guy.
When thinking about how China would react to North Korea invading the South consider:
In 2007, the US, Japan and South Korea accounted for ~$700 billion of trade with China. In comparison North Korea's trade with China amounted to just $1.6 billion in 2005.
The plutocratocommunists in China know which side their bread is buttered on - and its not on the crazy, embarrassing, weird cousin North Korea side. They'll try to save face and maximize their influence on the Korean peninsula as long as they can, but when push comes to shove, my money says they'll bail on North Korea (while acting like there not).
Adrian
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The U.S. wouldn't have to commit a ground component other than as strategic reserve. Air and naval power would gut the NorthKor military machine from the inside as long as the SouthKor forces can absorb the blows - which they are more than capable of.
Technology matters a great deal. And the gap is widening - e.g the most recent arty introduced by the NorthKor army is 1970s class tech, while the south is getting K-9 and the like. The gross and effective fires the south can sustain outclasses the North - even if the south only has 5,400 guns and howitzers and the north 10,000. And they can do so while being more survivable - consistent move and scoot .
No one ever mentions this... but ok, pyongyang is not with southkor tube arty range
Night fighting equipment: the south owns the night.
Technology matters a great deal. And the gap is widening - e.g the most recent arty introduced by the NorthKor army is 1970s class tech, while the south is getting K-9 and the like. The gross and effective fires the south can sustain outclasses the North - even if the south only has 5,400 guns and howitzers and the north 10,000. And they can do so while being more survivable - consistent move and scoot .
No one ever mentions this... but ok, pyongyang is not with southkor tube arty range
Night fighting equipment: the south owns the night.
I see your point and agree with you in some way except the being another Vietnam part First of all the area is not same as Vietnam and you don't have guerilla fighting in S Korea . Dont take N korean forces lightly if they are put up against a corner they will fight just as hard as the S Korean. The problem I see is that they are being hurt by the sanctions. The effects can be bad they can either give up or fight like they want to die and that my friend is not good. Overall the fight if it happen is gonna to be bloodbath. A army unit that bend on trying get food and equipment can be determined as any army unit it begin with NCO and commanding officers. In other words the spirit of the unit will be up to the NCO. I dont think that the N Korean with fall that fast they have that warrior spirit all military personal who serve in a highly spirit units know what Im taking about.
Nope. Nor Op Plan 5028 to probably invade Togo, or OP Plan 5029 which may be an embassy evacuation plan for the US embassy in Tanzania. These Op Plans exist so that in the event of a crisis of some sort at short notice the US or any defence force worth its salt has some type of plan to initiate without starting from scratch. Just because they have an OP Plan 5027 that may be for the invasion of North Korea doesn't mean they are about to use it.
So, please enlighten us more as to Op Plan 5027, oh and whilst you are at it provide the sources to the info you posted earlier.
EDIT: OK, read that little globalsecurity link you provided. The first 2 lines had this:
"Under Operations Plan 5027 (CINCUNC/CFC OPLAN 5027), the United States plans to provide units to reinforce the Republic of Korea in the event of external armed attack."
So, contrary to what you assert that this is a plan to invade North Korea, that's just rubbish. Its a plan to reinforce South Korea after the North attacks. There is speculation later in the piece about possible attacks by the USMC (reminiscent of the Inchon landings - so I doubt the North would fall for that one again!). I would just about guarantee that this rubbish about an ampibious landing would be in some fanboi's mind. The OpPlan is really about getting the forces on the ground to reinforce the south, not about how to fight or win the battle later. It is said that no plan survives contact with the enemy intact - and there would be no way that this plan would be trying to set that chain of events in concrete - too many 'what if's'.
Last edited:
Do you currently or have you in the past served in the armed forces?
US troops make up less than 5% of the total ground forces defending South Korea.
North Korea is not Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. We are not discussing a hypothetical insurgency, or externally supported guerrilla war, drawn out for years. There is no prospect of such a conflict. North Korea has a huge but outdated conventional army, similar in size & firepower, but not in modernity, to that which Iraq had in 1990. Need I remind you of the outcome of that war?
North Korea is not able to support an insurgency in South Korea. There is no support in the south for it, no sea for the guerrilla fish to swim in - unlike in South Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. The border is short, & tightly sealed - unlike the borders of South Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Your arguments are relevant to different places, with different circumstances.
And will you please supply a link to the statement by General Schwartz. Any such claim needs to be supported by evidence & put in context, so its validity can be assessed. NB. Han Ho Suk is not a credible source, & nor is Kim Jong Il.
North Korea is not Vietnam, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. We are not discussing a hypothetical insurgency, or externally supported guerrilla war, drawn out for years. There is no prospect of such a conflict. North Korea has a huge but outdated conventional army, similar in size & firepower, but not in modernity, to that which Iraq had in 1990. Need I remind you of the outcome of that war?
North Korea is not able to support an insurgency in South Korea. There is no support in the south for it, no sea for the guerrilla fish to swim in - unlike in South Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. The border is short, & tightly sealed - unlike the borders of South Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq. Your arguments are relevant to different places, with different circumstances.
And will you please supply a link to the statement by General Schwartz. Any such claim needs to be supported by evidence & put in context, so its validity can be assessed. NB. Han Ho Suk is not a credible source, & nor is Kim Jong Il.
Again, I do not see how this is a plan for the invasion of North Korea. You seem a tad paranoid on this issue.
Don't bet on it. Besides the most recent two gulf wars proved that victory need not mean massive casualties any more.
You obviously have absolutely no idea that China has chosen to make themselves a far more technolgically competant defence force. They have cut the size of their military and are now relying on quality not quantity. Please explain how a North Korean Mig 17 is going to defeat an F-22.
A small 1,200 tonne patrol vessel - given that the vessel was in South Korean waters at the time and that there is not an active conflict between the South and the North, you seem to think that a submarine ambushing a ship during 'peacetime' is a grand achievement?
Yes, infiltrators probably pose the biggest risk. Its not an insurmountable problem though.
Possibly. There is basically one US division there if that US division bore the brunt of a North Korean attack, it could be effectively destroyed as it inflicts massive casualties and a time delay on the North. But that's why OP Plan 5027 exists - to rush reinforcements to Korea.
An eye for an eye eh? When did a South Korean submarine torpedo a Northern 1000+ tonne warship?
BTW, I understand your reluctance to debate me further, being on the losing side in any conflict isn't fun.
That's a very foolish thing to say. Nobody here has made any such claim. Kim Jong Il is not credible because what he says is meant mainly for internal consumption. It's not factual.
You have referred. more than once, to the insurgencies in Iraq & Afghanistan as demonstrating weaknesses of the US military, & you have mentioned Vietnam as illustrating how high technology can be countered by lower technology forces.
Why do you constantly refer to the Americans? Over 95% of the ground troops in South Korea are Korean, & when their reserves are mobilised that share would increase. They have over 95% of the tanks & artillery defending the country. Most of the combat aircraft, ships, SAMs etc. are Korean. Any new Korean war would be overwhelmingly Koreans fighting Koreans.
BTW, it would be polite to try to use punctuation, & capital letters when appropriate. You're not texting your school friends now.
you (chief of staff) do realise that the time scale for victory in a conventional war,when compared to victory on a war based on counter insurgency are greatly different.just because the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are taking awhile it isnt necessarily a sign of incompetence...
[Mod Edit: "Chief of staff" has been banned for 2 weeks for not providing proof of his claims and insulting other members. Upon his return he will be required to provide proof of his claims or face a permanent ban. Given the above decision by the Mod team, members are requested to stop responding to past posts by "Chief of staff", as he will be unable to respond. Thank you for your attention.]
[Mod Edit: "Chief of staff" has been banned for 2 weeks for not providing proof of his claims and insulting other members. Upon his return he will be required to provide proof of his claims or face a permanent ban. Given the above decision by the Mod team, members are requested to stop responding to past posts by "Chief of staff", as he will be unable to respond. Thank you for your attention.]
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes I did
Admin: Its a requirement of this site that when people claim to have served or are serving that they provide proof of life of such claims. Failure to do so can result in suspension from the site. We take such claims seriously.
Please forward copies of relevant material to either Web or any of the Mod team so that we can verify your claims to prior service.
Last edited by a moderator:
I talked to a individual with credentials who stated that North Korea will maybe get two or three burps out of their artillery and then there will be so many cruise missiles and other goodies flying in from the south side that it will be very fatal for even an aircraft to be flying low. Estimates place 70% destruction of North Korean force structure with in 48 hours.
U.S has already stated that we only need to lend a naval and air hand to the ROK.
Yes, ROK forces would eventually win but having the U.S involved would end hostilities rather quickly thus eliminating casualties on the ROK side and minimizing the damage to the Souths economy.
Ok as soon as I get the information out from my files I will forward copies to Mod team
Bergerpollm
New Member
The 45,000 American soldiers stationed in Southern Korea single handedly could wipe out the entire North Korean army because they are special forces(and are the best trained soldiers in the world) As well as their determination in their cause. The South Korean Army, as well, is trained by the Americans meaning South Korea has a model army facing up against a lack luster, Communist army. I doubt the North Korean Army would be determined in their cause, because I know that the they'd know the men that are about to defeat them will make a better life for their children.
The US troops in South Korea are not special forces, & there aren't 45000 of them nowadays. While I have no doubt they'd give a very good account of themselves, they could not wipe out the North Korean forces.
There are about 29000 US military personnel in S. Korea, including a few thousand KATUSAs (S. Koreans serving in the US military). Of those, just under 20000 are army, just under 9000 USAF, & small numbers of USN & USMC. There is one Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division, plus one artillery brigade, one combat aviation brigade & supporting troops.
There are about 29000 US military personnel in S. Korea, including a few thousand KATUSAs (S. Koreans serving in the US military). Of those, just under 20000 are army, just under 9000 USAF, & small numbers of USN & USMC. There is one Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division, plus one artillery brigade, one combat aviation brigade & supporting troops.
Tactics ?
It is interesting to note the delay between the release of the International investigation into the sinking of the SK Patrol boat, and the subsequent threat by the North that any attempt by SK and the UN to pose further sanctions would be regarded as an act of war, and the actual logment to the UN security council. Do you think this may be a tactic by SK/USA to ensure everything is in place and ready to go just in case the situation escalates ? Would be interesting to know what range most of the US CGB's are now within the region ? I would assume they have been gingerly moving towards to region for some time within effective strike range, it would also be a good bet that the USMC MEU's are on a pretty high state as well
It is interesting to note the delay between the release of the International investigation into the sinking of the SK Patrol boat, and the subsequent threat by the North that any attempt by SK and the UN to pose further sanctions would be regarded as an act of war, and the actual logment to the UN security council. Do you think this may be a tactic by SK/USA to ensure everything is in place and ready to go just in case the situation escalates ? Would be interesting to know what range most of the US CGB's are now within the region ? I would assume they have been gingerly moving towards to region for some time within effective strike range, it would also be a good bet that the USMC MEU's are on a pretty high state as well
USS George Washington should be there by now to support war games that are being taken up by ROK and the U.S.
First of all they will not wipe out the N Korean Army. The N. Korean will lose the war U.S. and S. Korean will lose alot soldiers like I said before Korean are not like Iraqi soldiers not to make Iraqi soldiers look bad they didnt perform well in 2003 there were already hurting from the U.N. sanctions. The Iraqi couldnt defeat a mess up Iranian Army. The N.Korean are hurting from the sanction too. If you ask a Korean War U.S. vet they will tell you the North and South Korean fought hard. If China assist N.Korea that will change the whole fight. China right now is trying get there forces ready for a big conflict will Taiwan and U.S. they dont want this fight to start right now. The U.S. forces are spread out but the U.S. can handle it. There is no other force in the world who can do this. It not too many communist countries left. If China still act like the old communist ways they will help N. Korean just because it a communist country.