South Korean military ship sunk by torpedo possibly launched by North Korea.....
 

Could be a world-changing event if it was North Korea that fired the torpedo..........

S.Korean ship sinking, North attack suspected: report

Wow, scary stuff.

looks like NK is looking for a little attention. theyre like a brat kid who pulls on a girls hair to get attention is school

This would be a bit more than hair pulling if they are to blame.

What's it been, about 24 hours since NK promised nuclear attacks on SK and the US?

Well considering we are still tied up in the Middle East I am thinking there will be a fuss but this will mostly blow over. We cant really deploy the number of troops there that it would take for this to go full blown. Maybe a nice commando team could go in and take care of this but it might be one of those better the crazy dictator you know than the one you dont.

If they actually managed to hit what they were aiming at with a hypothetical nuclear warhead, the last thing we'll be sending in are troops. But a nuclear strike that killed US troops in the area? I have a tough time imagining that anything short of a nuclear response would be accepted by enough of the American people to make failing to do so an option.

I was referring to a non-nuclear escalation of the situation involving the ships. If they launched a nuke obviously there would be nothing left of North Korea and rightly so.

DAMN YOU HANS BRICKS!!!!!!

If North Korea was stupid enough to launch a nuke on South Korea, I think what would happen is our nukes go on a hair trigger, and all the countries around North Korea will back off and say 'just don't go in our backyard'.

Then we would launch a conventional war ass kicking to level their military capacity. If there is anything you can say about the US the ability to rapidly knock out and destroy military hardware is unmatched. Where we have quagmires is where we try to occupy territory, no army except a very brutal one is equipped for that.

I doubt there would be a nuclear response to North Korea other than to stop an eminent threat of further nuclear attack. In either case the American public would be a non-factor. The reaction time required is so miniscule that anything that launches our nukes the public wouldn't have even been aware something happened in South Korea before North Korea would become a radioactive wasteland. The public ego factor is a non-issue... if there is any duration of time long enough for the American public to express an opinion on it what we will end up with is a conventional war in North Korea.

Every time I think about this initially, I say to myself that there's no way in hell North Korea is that dumb. Then I realize we're dealing with a partially paralyzed mad man and I have to rethink that thought.

He's going to write a letter saying how angry he is.

Haha! I'm going to have to watch that movie now.

Having lived in Korea for a decade in the Intel field I will say this would not even come close to starting anything. Seoul is full of NK apologists,sympathizers and sleepers agents so world changing event doubt it especially since Bush is no longer in office though this is one theater I would like us to be much more aggressive in.

Yes!

Where are you getting that it was nuclear?

I-10! I fuckin' knew it! NO ONE goes for I-10!

Pretty sneaky, sis!

oops wrong game

A conventional air and navy airbased attack would not have as much effect as you would think unfortunate the NKs have been burrowing under ground for the last 60 years and they could literally take there entire society(what there is of it) deep,deep under the mountains. Maybe the newer weapons we have for cutting into bedrock and mountains may get to stuff but I do not think that is at all expected.

You get em underground and unable to project further attacks that is all you need to do, smoke em out of the holes as you can. I'd only see the use of nukes if that is determined to be the best tactical response for preventing an attack, not an 'american vengeance' play as Jon describes.

Sure that worked well for us smoking em out from underground in Vietnam:)

Simple. Just run a hose down the hole. Water 'em out.

Just drop a few of those bunker bombs and they'll come out with their ears bleeding.

Didn't work for Bill Murray in Caddyshack.

I'd rather avoid Vietnam and Fallout 3, we'd only need to smoke out (or bunkerbuster) the military hardware. I'd personally say leave a trail of destroyed military machinery and then ditch the place, launching a missile whenever they try to build anything somewhat sophisticated.

If you make it so the military is afraid to come out of their hole, you let the unwashed villagers do whatever the hell they want. Our problem in Vietnam is we are trying to occupy a territory where people hated us, and were living all around us every day (same in Iraq/Afghanistan). My solution is to not live there, just kill anything we hate that does live there, and leave the mess for them to clean up or prey upon each other.

I doubt they'll be able to keep a repressive closed borders regime when all of their military is sitting scared shitless in a bunker, and when they try to roll a tank to suppress a revolt in a village it gets blown to bits by a bomber.

Basically play to our strength and most importantly, don't present our people or property with any weaknesses by not making it accessible to attack. If we don't have a base crawling with Iraqis or Vietmaneese in close proximity I'd like to see them get close enough to do guerilla tactics. Same with the British in the Revolutionary War, they did reasonably well at occupying strong points, particularly where they had naval support to break up approaching attacks. They sucked ass trying to travel or go cross country, where terrain knowledge played to guerilla strategy. Or in maintaining industrial/civilian capacity when the populace was littered with militants or 'traitors' (from their perspective).

The problem is people consider war to be occupation, and they think with their egos instead of their heads. All we need to do to North Korea is disable its capacity to project attacks on South Korea, we don't need their shitty land, let them rot in it. We don't need the nuclear fallout from that option, the threat being not direct radioactivity or retaliation capability from North Korea, but rather secondary damage to South Korea and China which will make them royally pissed off at us. A nuclear option should only be considered from the standpoint of disabling North Korea launching a nuclear attack on its neighbors, in which case we have enough moral high ground and backup from China (which doesn't want nukes flying in its backyard, bad for business) to at least constrain the costs to environmental damage and not political blowback.

Does this make any sense? An occupation would go exactly as you describe, they'd burrow and we'd spend years digging out guerilla fighters while getting spit on by the people. On the other hand, a military ass whooping, we identify their concentrations of equipment and men, devastate them, and prevent them from controlling the population. We also don't present any targets of opportunity for them to rally the people around.

SD: That strategy works fine until they start co-locating military hardware with civilians.

Na, it continues to work fine... if the target is important enough... kill the civilians. The notion that war is something that can be done cleanly is the greatest tragedy or crime perpetrated on human morality in the past two decades.

I'd probably be considered a person of great evil for even thinking such in our PC culture... but really it is exactly like a hostage situation in a bank heist. Do everything you can to save each hostage, but as the threat to life escalates there is a breaking point where the risk to a particular hostage is outweighed by the cost of more lives.

Are we any better in Iraq with all our supposed smart weapons and 'clean tactics'? Civilian casualty estimates are fairly large, not to mention the daily interference in people's routines with an occupying force and a guerilla war around them constantly for years. At least when it comes to only attacking concentrations of military hardware, after a point the civilians see a Korean tank rolling into their village they are going to run for the hills.

Not to mention there are a lot of conventions of war that hiding among civilians is pretty much a 'war crime', and there are no conventions (other than our culture) saying that civilians cannot die if fighting erupts among combatants entrenched in population centers. IT ALREADY IS HAPPENING, so you can make the argument that my way saves lives, even if on the surface it is more vicious.

Clarification: civilian casualties in recent wars are significantly reduced proportionately to other wars in history. Tactics and technology help a lot to reduce the toll on civilians, but the amount of damage to civilians has and always will be significant. Whether troops are embedded among the populace or not. They should be content that at least we are not firebombing cities for the hell of it anymore (see WWII). If there was to be a war between major powers I would expect the civilian casualty rate and those old tactics to make a return... its easy to take it light when you have a superior advantage, but in a fight for your life against a matched foe you do what you have to.

Then say goodbye to your public support for your tactics, as learned in Vietnam, Iraq & Afghanistan. So then you're left with an occupying force on the ground, which is a technique you've already discounted.

Although it would be interesting to see SD's tactics in a war that is (quasi) universally thought as justified.

Were people up in arms about Dresden/Hiroshima?

You believe that civilian casualties had anything significant to do with any lacking public support for our efforts in Iraq & Afghanistan?

Or did you mean international support rather than "public" (which I'd kind of lean toward being more synonymous with "domestic"?

I mean that civilian casualties were a direct contributor to diminished support for Iraq especially, but also for Afghanistan, amongst the American populace. In fact, I believe you even agreed as much, in making the case that the average American protesting the war on the basis of civilian casualties was an idiot.

It may be idiocy to believe that civilians shouldn't be harmed in warfare, but its not idiocy to understand that the death of civilians will generally lessen support for a war even amongst the populace of the country doing the killing (even if by accident).

I personally believe that if the North ever used nuclear weapons, it would be dangerous for us not to return in kind. There needs to be a world understanding that if you go after one of our allies with nuclear weapons, then we are going to bring the total and complete destruction to your doorstep.

I'd definitely agree that it can be a factor, I have a tough time imagining that I would call it a particularly significant factor. But I also wouldn't be shocked if I agreed to it in some context, frame of mind, or simply out of time constraint or pure laziness.

Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan all were wars of occupation pretty early on. In Vietnam the dumb attempt to maintain basically colonial repression was the whole war to begin with, and to own land you need to occupy... so I don't really see those as examples of what I suggest.

I don't think we have an example of massive declines in public support without a war of occupation being involved. And we have certainly had civilian casualties.

Look at the first Iraq War, not a war of occupation, pretty much a hardware on hardware conflict (to prevent Iraq from performing an occupation). Civilians died in many of the attacks that took place on Iraqi cities, which were aiming for anti-air and communication infrastructure targets. The problem is that military targets are almost always NATURALLY COLOCATED WITH CIVILIANS. That is what a city is, and military equipment (or equipment useful for a war such as radio gear) is scattered over these cities.

I don't recall the massive outcry of public hatred at those casualties in that conflict. It was in the news, it was sad, and there may have been some speeches about the tragedy of unintended casualties in war... and then the news continued on and people cheered as they pretty much completely destroyed the Iraqi armor capacity.

More than anything people hate the feeling of losing, and that comes with the war of occupation. If the news comes up with 'US aircraft and paratroopers destroyed missile launchers with chemical weapons hidden among North Korean hospitals today....' the people would go 'those evil Korean military' and they'd consider it a justified loss.

And don't forget one of the options on the table is nuclear war apparently... which is civilian casulaties of much higher magnitude per unit of military damage.

But I probably won't convince you of this point, so lets just say we disagree on how public support varies based on attacking targets colocated near civilians. I will admit mine is based on mere opinion and observation of historical cases from my interpretation.

I believe the context in question was you calling the Bush Administration pussies for not being more aggressive in Iraq because they were concerned about the public opinion fallout that would occur if civilian casualties stepped up even more.

I'd try to find it via search but so many pixels have been killed about Iraq on this board that I doubt I'd find it.

The point being missed here though is that we don't have the capacity to go after North Korea in a significant conventional way. Not only are troops tied down elsewhere but the military's hardware and equipment has been stretched to the limits and is not available to immediately turnaround in a new large scale conflict.

I don't think anything like that is going to erupt, and partly because we know we can't handle it right now.

Don't discount the fact that we could in no way stop NK from overrunning South Korea in a short period of time, if they choose to do so. In that scenario, we would have to rely on sending ground forces in.

Oh shit, don't bother to hunt it, I'll just stipulate that I said it. Ain't remotely worth the effort of trying to find by searching a crowded topic here. In that context I imagine I'm talking more about not wanting to deal with the whining than about there being a significant portion of the population who gave a damn about it.

I am not 100% sure about this. While the Army and the Marines are without a doubt tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, I wouldn't be surprised if the Air Force and Navy are pretty bored right now.

Opinions on Dresden and Hiroshima have been changing over time and demographic. I am not sure on this, but I vaguely believe that general support during the war was high (all that really matters you can argue, because everyone is an armchair general after the war). Probably for most people they simply did not understand what the scope of these actions were or meant.

Also for say England, they had felt the fear of urban bombardment and I'm sure no small amount of 'fair vengeance' public opinion comes into play.

In a fight for all the marbles, public support in my opinion becomes a question of what people think best helps them survive. This is why isolationism was wildly popular in the world wars, people generally hate to get involved in fighting unless they feel they have to.

What we are dealing with is arguably fights to police the world. The stakes are not as high for the public, and on the surface seem like they will never reach a serious threat. Public support for those might be a different beast than Hiroshima... since there is always a feeling of 'do we really need to be here at all?' to combat.

I think if we are reasonably selective of targets (WMD, military hardware being used to kill villagers, large concentrations of equipment, or equipments in aggressive positions towards South Korea) that public support would understand a degree of civilian casualties. Even 'deliberate' ones as I would authorize in the most necessary cases.

At some point the damage gets to a point where NK has trouble maintaining its particular type of control over the populace. In my opinion I'd even foment this as a form of cheap ground warfare (I'm a big fan of taking away the bully's club and seeing how they handle ten times as many angry victims).

SD: I feel we've gotten away from the original argument, so I'm going to re-boot this:


My point was that you can continue to oppress a country just fine without much in the way of military hardware. A combination of a loyal military, automatic weapons, and propaganda will work.

Plus, it's easy to say that you'll put the country on lockdown and blow up any military hardware that shows its face, but how long are you willing to spend the money to keep military satellites on 24-hour surveillance and launch $million-a-pop cruise missiles to zap random tanks?


This is not to say that I would be against zapping via remote control a good portion of NK's conventional military capability. My understanding, however, is that we have not done this because it's figured it would encourage an actual invasion and/or use of nuclear weapons and then the situation simply gets more-and-more messy from there.

Also, it is my understanding that SK prevents us from doing this because, in general, they wish to handle their relationship with NK themselves. To which one could argue: "OK fine, if we can't do this our way, then we're leaving." But if we do that, then either NK invades and gets SK's industrial capacity, or they don't but have increased autonomy. Neither situation helps our non-proliferation aims.

Yet another tactic would be a series of targeted assassinations of NK's leaders until either a) the whole country destabilizes and SK can invade and reunite the country or b) a more reasonable leader takes power. However, there's still an effective international ban on this type of thing (adhered to only by certain states, of course), so....

Easier to play defense than offense... we'd have a good portion of the populace that likes their high standard of living and video games on our side. I'd spend troops on the ground in South Korea, I just wouldn't try to occupy North Korea.

Autumn and Airhog make good points though, whether we would be able to mobilize enough forces conventionally in time to head off North Korea occupying South Korea. Even with my confidence in our military capability, I don't know... armies can move fast at that sort of proximity.

I don't think nukes could stop it though, if NK is preparing at all they'd be mobilized on the border, and would we really nuke all of northern South Korea to potentially stop North Korea from occupying northern South Korea? I'm doubtful. Nuking NK proper wouldn't make a difference, their army would be on the move and worst with nothing more to lose.

War sucks no matter what, and it never changes!

I think the threat is more of NK raining down artillery shells on any town near the DMZ. NK doesn't have any great supply of oil for training tanks or mechanized troops. They're focused more on artillery and special forces (by NK standards).

Years of playing Starcraft will finally pay off!

You guys are forgetting how close Seoul is to the border. Maybe 10-15 miles?

I'm actually pretty sure NK could shell Seoul from the border just with regular artillery. Further, IIRC, most military analysis believe there's little the U.S. & SK could do to stop an initial, full-on invasion with the amount of manpower on the ground right now and the size of NK's standing army.

Ya I see your point flere... you can't stop oppression from afar. I do think it would become a bit more difficult for them though, and given that a part of keeping the people down is keeping them in awe of your power (as well as fear)... its hard to do that with no buildings and no equipment in plain sight. Still it ain't gonna be a happy time just because we blow up some gear, I agree.

I'd be content to just minimize their firepower aimed towards South Korea. Particularly anything that can project long distances (missiles/artillery) and anything mobile. The goal would be to keep them bottled in North Korea long enough to get enough defensive troops in position to head off a ground invasion.... which I'm legitimately scared they could beat us to the punch.

------

As for why we are not in a war with them, I agree on pretty much all of your points. This entire line of thought deals with what happens if NK starts the damage first (and perhaps, whether NK ever explodes a nuke on a target). My assumption is that the line will be crossed and SK, Japan, and even China will be requesting immediate assistance.

I hear NK has studied the Zerg Rush extensively!

I wonder if North Korea's military is as scary as advertised. Sure, the numbers of troops, etc, is impressive, but the country is an economic catastrophe. Nothing works.

It's long been my suspicion that our policy vis-a-vis NK is effectively to wait for them to do something stupid enough that even the Chinese will agree something has to be done.