The tension in Korea

Number24 · August 2017

I started this thread to get it away from Random Chat. Is the title OK?

The Chinese (government controled) newspaper Global Times says: "Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand."

Link: http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1060791.shtml

We can be sure this is China's official stance. I think it's likely it's their real plan. The question is what is ment by "a firm hand".

Chriscoop · August 2017

That depends on what happens, China backed the last round of sanctions I don't think Chinese military action is off the table.

Number24 · August 2017

I think most things have to go wrong before China uses military force in this conflict. They are much more likely to use diplomatic and economic measures.

Joshua · August 2017

I saw the television news today and it seems to me that America has two positions on this. I see Trump speaking then one of the secretary of state saying something else. It is almost like they have two governments!

Chriscoop · August 2017

The problem is that the rhetoric is getting to such a place where backing down or inaction would be disastrous for the POTUS and his administration, it's getting more obvious that n Korea will not back down or play ball. China are struggling to put Kim Jong Un back in his box which I think has surprised them. I hope military action is avoided but then further sanctions only harm the citizens and not the regime. At any rate North Korea really deserves a regime change, the suffering that goes on there is already horrific.

Number24 · August 2017

I know there were low-level talks between NK and the US hosted by Norway earlier this year. Something tells me it didn't go well...
No-one expects NK to talk like adults, but Trump talking like them is unlikely to calm things down. It only adds to the confusion that others in Trump's cabinet try to talk like diplomats or presidents. During any other presidency the US would give the same message, from the president down.

minigeff · August 2017

Seems Donald has upped the ante again by saying all Kim has to do is mention one more threat....

Locked n loaded.

This couldn't get any more Jerry Bruckheimer if it tried. (Cue dramatic music)

Number24 · August 2017

Trump and Kim Jun Un are both used to opponents talking in a polite, reserved diplomatic language no matter what. So they they let it rip in their aggressive, hyperbolic style, feeling that they are on top of things because they sound though using only capital letters. I think they are both shocked and confused by being talked back to the way they are used to talking themselves.

minigeff · August 2017

Almost makes them sound like schoolyard bullies....

Number24 · August 2017

That comparison has been made a few times.
Defense Minister Mattis is the member of the Trump cabinet I really like and respect, and these last few days he has earned it. An experienced and level-headed soldier.

Thunderpussy · August 2017

Am I the only one who isn't in the least bit worried ? ..... As usual after all the school yard
Hard man talking, ..... Nothing much will change.

Chriscoop · August 2017

Thunderpussy wrote:

Am I the only one who isn't in the least bit worried ? ..... As usual after all the school yard
Hard man talking, ..... Nothing much will change.

No, I'm not worried about nuclear holocaust, and the North Koreans don't worry me at all, even if they did launch a missile at Guam the Americans THAAD system would intercept it. The US would retaliate in the form of conventional missiles or Bombs and that would be that.... For the time being

Bond44 · August 2017

What I don't get is what has poor old Guam done to deserve a strike from NK?

Reality is NK wants its place at the nuclear top table and is prepared to do whatever it takes.

The US seems in disarray with a President currently fighting fires on all fronts and a fluid administration with staff constantly changing and constrained by Congress (who is really in control?).

NK probably assesses this is a good time to make their bid because the world no longer led by the US would be powerless to respond. Even if US territory is attacked will this invoke the whole of NATO to respond in support - it's unlikely as there is no apppitie for another war. If US responds it has a stock of conventional weapons before going nuclear.

China also seems powerless which is unusual for them and all they can do is add to the threats as well - interesting. How would they respond if NK strikes first would they side with the US (interesting situation)

European leaders talking down the bluster to try and relieve the tension in their usual ineffectual style (but aware they have a vested interest under the NATO mandate like it or not).

UK saying sod all under their strong and stable leadership (really) wake up Whitehall

Beyond all the bluster of the two leaders we have to believe common sense will prevail

Interesting times ahead

Cheers :007)

Joshua · August 2017

I bring over what I wrote from the other discussion:

"It seems that no one can reason with the dictator, not even his allies in China. I wonder if the end of the regime might come not from America but from China itself? By this I mean that they are in a position perhaps to engineer a coup against the dictator and replace him with another who they can then control? I think perhaps that Chinese intelligence will have many powerful men they speak to in the North Korean military. Would it be better for the Chinese to end this, keep control of the area (or have more control in the end) without having a war and not also the possible South Koreans and Americans take control of the North in a war?"

On the news today the retired admiral of the Royal Navy was on and he said that Britain could perhaps take part if the Americans attack, but only to support or with intelligence.

Chriscoop · August 2017

Bond44 wrote:

What I don't get is what has poor old Guam done to deserve a strike from NK?

Reality is NK wants its place at the nuclear top table and is prepared to do whatever it takes.

The US seems in disarray with a President currently fighting fires on all fronts and a fluid administration with staff constantly changing and constrained by Congress (who is really in control?).

NK probably assesses this is a good time to make their bid because the world no longer led by the US would be powerless to respond. Even if US territory is attacked will this invoke the whole of NATO to respond in support - it's unlikely as there is no apppitie for another war. If US responds it has a stock of conventional weapons before going nuclear.

China also seems powerless which is unusual for them and all they can do is add to the threats as well - interesting. How would they respond if NK strikes first would they side with the US (interesting situation)

European leaders talking down the bluster to try and relieve the tension in their usual ineffectual style (but aware they have a vested interest under the NATO mandate like it or not).

UK saying sod all under their strong and stable leadership (really) wake up Whitehall

Beyond all the bluster of the two leaders we have to believe common sense will prevail

Interesting times ahead

Cheers :007)

Guam has 2 US military bases and is considered as American soil, Trump is the president of Guam but they have a devolved power system headed by a governor. I may be wrong but people from Guam are legally considered US citizens.

I think China have stated that they will deal with the aggressor, so we can take it that if N Korea stuck first China would be all over them, if The US launched a preemptive Strike I'd like to think they would garner China's support first, otherwise US vs China? Not a pleasant thought.

Number24 · August 2017

I think a military coup in NK would be very difficult, even for China. NK is a regime controled by extreme controll and fear, it would be like staging a coup against Stalin or Mao.

The Chinese governemt has said through their completely government-controlled media what they will do, at least in gneral terms.

"Beijing is not able to persuade Washington or Pyongyang to back down at this time. It needs to make clear its stance to all sides and make them understand that when their actions jeopardize China's interests, China will respond with a firm hand."

So if NK strikes first China will remain neutral. If the US strikes first they will react somehow. We don't know if it will be militarilly, economically or politically. I think it will be economically and politically. China has nothing to gain by a war with the US.

Chriscoop · August 2017

In this instance no one gains anything from war, unless the end result is the removal of NK's regime in which case the people of North Korea gain. If NK strike first I think China could not remain neutral, by backing the recent sanctions they have essentially condemned NK's actions.

Sir Miles · August 2017

Thunderpussy wrote:

Am I the only one who isn't in the least bit worried ? ..... As usual after all the school yard
Hard man talking, ..... Nothing much will change.

Nope...I'm with you...it's all hot air and gas...it's just a pissing contest 8-)

Number24 · August 2017

Hopefully, and absolutely most likely, you're right. But there is some chance this will turn violent. We also need to remember this doesn't need atomic bombs to kill a very large amount of people. Seoul has almost ten millon people within artillery range of NK.

Number24 · August 2017

Fun fact: USA and Canada managed to stop the South Korean nuclear program in 1976.

Chriscoop · August 2017

Number24 wrote:

. Seoul has almost ten millon people within artillery range of NK.

That's true but the US THAAD system is installed along the north/south Korean border. During the first gulf war the Iraqis were firing scuds all over the place, a large proportion of these were taken out, technology has moved on and THAAD is very reliable.

Higgins · August 2017

Hopefully you are correct, CC.

May I ask, what happens with the nuklear fallout, if THAAD takes them out?

Chriscoop · August 2017

Two trains of thought here Higgins, firstly it depends on what type of nuclear device is intercepted most modern nukes have multiple warheads that in fact do not explode via collision of fire or actually hitting a target they are set to go off while still in the air a few hundred meters up. In all probability n Korea don't have these and as THAAD has an effective range of 200 km any missiles sent in south Koreas direction would be destroyed while still in North Korea the nuclear warhead would not detonate and most likely north Korean troops would try and recover it. Second train of thought is that if the missile is intercepted and destroyed it would likely drop it's atomic warheads and even if they did explode would only leak the toxic ingredients not cause an atomic chain reaction.. Obviously this has never been tested and let's hope it's not needed.

Higgins · August 2017

Well, I am concerned

- that the "problem" of not setting up the chain reaction has been "solved"
- and even if not, the raining down of some hundred kilograms of Uranium may be not nice as well

That all, if the THAAD works 100% successfully

Number24 · August 2017

Chriscoop wrote:

Number24 wrote:

. Seoul has almost ten millon people within artillery range of NK.

That's true but the US THAAD system is installed along the north/south Korean border. During the first gulf war the Iraqis were firing scuds all over the place, a large proportion of these were taken out, technology has moved on and THAAD is very reliable.

Artillery

SCUD missile:

You can't shoot down artilery grenades, Chriscoop. Even without a single atomic bomb being set off, a new Korean war will have huge casualties.

Chriscoop · August 2017

Number24 wrote:

Chriscoop wrote:

Number24 wrote:

. Seoul has almost ten millon people within artillery range of NK.

That's true but the US THAAD system is installed along the north/south Korean border. During the first gulf war the Iraqis were firing scuds all over the place, a large proportion of these were taken out, technology has moved on and THAAD is very reliable.

Artillery

SCUD missile:

You can't shoot down artilery grenades, Chriscoop. Even without a single atomic bomb being set off, a new Korean war will have huge casualties.

You're right about the artillery, but conservative assessment suggests that the north Koreans aged and troublesome artillery batteries could only be effective to south Koreas northern border and the Northern outskirts of Seoul. They also have limited amounts of ammunition. There airforce would be a bigger worry but I'd suggest that this would be a first target priority for any US led offensive.

Joshua · August 2017

I do not know what sort of equipment the North Koreans use but I think it all will be Chinese or Russian. Their artillery will be towed? Firing this from fixed positions mean that a counter fire or attack by aircraft would be quick to follow. I also think that the Americans will have the radar to pick the shell fire - I think this is possible with mortar fire but mortar rounds will not fly as fast?
Even if they moved quickly after firing the North Koreans artillery would only have a limited area of operation? I mean that they could not be taken too far from the front area or they would not be able to have the range to hit targets. This limited range would be of help in also narrowing the area for search and counter attack?

Chriscoop · August 2017

Joshua wrote:

I do not know what sort of equipment the North Koreans use but I think it all will be Chinese or Russian. Their artillery will be towed? Firing this from fixed positions mean that a counter fire or attack by aircraft would be quick to follow. I also think that the Americans will have the radar to pick the shell fire - I think this is possible with mortar fire but mortar rounds will not fly as fast?
Even if they moved quickly after firing the North Koreans artillery would only have a limited area of operation? I mean that they could not be taken too far from the front area or they would not be able to have the range to hit targets. This limited range would be of help in also narrowing the area for search and counter attack?

They are indeed Chinese and Russian but old now. I think satellite technology would mean that the US have a pretty good idea where the artillery is. Also special ops will probably be deployed if they aren't already and they can paint any targets for the airforce to strike.
North Korea essentially has a proud but dated view to military might. It's OK parading 500,000 conscripts through Pyongyang and hovercraft and old tanks but the modern equipment used by the US renders such forces ineffective. The use of smart warfare can quickly diminish such a force. The north Koreans have an airforce of just under 940 aging aircraft 2 euro fighters would be more effective than 20 of theirs. It would be like ten badly trained men firing catapults at an m1 Abrams tank.

Number24 · August 2017

Good points. Eventually (after a few days? a week or two?) the US and South Korea will have wiped out most of NK's artillery. But the North Korean People’s Army Artillery Command is responsible for 12,000 pieces of tube artillery and 2,300 pieces of multiple launch rocket artillery over 107-millimeters. I dread to think of the damage that kind of firepower can do to South Korean cities in just one day. The NK military is also outdated and badly in need of repair. But the Korean peninsula is a relatively small geographical area, here NK is compared to north-eastern US:

At the same time it's very urbanized. NK has a population of 25 million and South Korea has about 51 million people. Since this is a peninsula, South Koreans can only flee by boat or planes.

Chriscoop · August 2017

This is true, but I'm pretty confident that things will not get that far, at the first sign of hostilities you would expect a mass evacuation of south Koreans south, let's not forget that south Korea is a highly developed country and at present has good relations with China, south Korea also has an advanced fighting force of course backed by the US which let's not forget have around 30,000 troops based there. Any invasion of south Korea by North Korea is simply untenable and wouldn't get past the demilitarised zone in any kind of threatening nature.

Joshua · August 2017

It is only my guess of course but I think that many north Korean officer and soldiers would not want to die for the dictator and many would want him to be killed or captured soon in the fight. I was a soldier in the army of the dictator and this makes me think when i see the soldiers around the North Koreans dictator that their support for him would not be as he expects.

The tension in Korea

Comments