The fear of North Korea

[Clinton Huxley]

Hmmm. Iraq had a large army. A large, shit army.

North Korea is, realistically, a threat only to itself and, to be fair, has managed to give itself a good kicking.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We're arming our troops with packs of hot dogs. The NK troops will surrender in droves.

[Clinton Huxley]

I should imagine that if it kicked off, South Korea and the US would be collecting prisoners as the British did against the Italians in North Africa- by the acre.

[Ian]

North Korea launching an attack against South Korea or anyone else would be a remarkably bad idea since, one way or another, it would end disastrously for the North.

However, explaining that to ourselves as the #1 reason why they'll never do any such thing runs a fine line between rational assessment and wishful thinking. The same sort of thing could be said about Japan prior to Pearl Harbor; prior to the attack, many Japanese leaders, including those responsible for deciding to attack, knew full well that Japan could not prevail in a full-scale war against they US. They talked themselves into attacking anyway.

People tend to look at predicting a nation's behavior like they look at economics: that the leaders will weigh risks and rewards rationally and choose the most pragmatic course of action for their nation. But many other factors often come into play, and history is replete with instances of groups of people, from army companies up to whole nations, running headlong into catastrophe - even when, in hindsight, they were being irrationally reckless with their own existence.

[klr]

You have to believe for all their rhetoric, those at the very top of the NK leadership know full well that launching any serious attack would mean the end of North Korea, and the end of them personally. What's more, the must surely know that this would happen extremely quickly. The Japanese leadership c. 1941 could at least count (or so they thought) on wearing down the will of the USA and others in a prolonged fight that would follow if they went to war.

But then I'm a realist. I sometimes find it hard to put myself in the position of such people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have to believe for all their rhetoric, those at the very top of the NK leadership know full well that launching any serious attack would mean the end of North Korea, and the end of them personally. What's more, the must surely know that this would happen extremely quickly. The Japanese leadership c. 1941 could at least count (or so they thought) on wearing down the will of the USA and others in a prolonged fight that would follow if they went to war.

But then I'm a realist. I sometimes find it hard to put myself in the position of such people.

The last thing the IGHQ wanted was a long war.

[pErvinalia]

If I was in charge of China, I would keep supporting North Korea.

If the US insists on supporting Israel, a looney nuclear state, then China has every right to support North Korea.

Remove the nukes from Israel, and North Korea, and Iran. With full independent inspection and verification.
Result, a better world. The US started the mess by arming Israel. It's gigantic hypocrisy to call for North Korean and Iranian de-nuking.

Yeah, true dat. Although, I think China is getting the dick with NK. China's interests are far more interwoven with the capitalist west than some loon bag regime at the arse end of the civilised world.

[MiM]

Isn't the current limit for field cannons just about 50 km? On the other hand DPRK has a lot of stationary pieces along the border, which could have a longer range, and probably rocket launchers too, unless these are all phoney (which they definitely might be).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

16" guns on battleships strained to hit 50 km, IIRC.

[klr]

Isn't the current limit for field cannons just about 50 km? On the other hand DPRK has a lot of stationary pieces along the border, which could have a longer range, and probably rocket launchers too, unless these are all phoney (which they definitely might be).

...

IIRC: For 152/155 mm artillery, the usual maximum range is about 30-40 km with "regular munitions, and possibly up to 80 km with extended range munitions, depending on the gun.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Isn't the current limit for field cannons just about 50 km? On the other hand DPRK has a lot of stationary pieces along the border, which could have a longer range, and probably rocket launchers too, unless these are all phoney (which they definitely might be).

...

IIRC: For 152/155 mm artillery, the usual maximum range is about 30-40 km with "regular munitions, and possibly up to 80 km with extended range munitions, depending on the gun.

But that's cheating.

[Clinton Huxley]

How long for the S. Korean airforce and USAF to take out the static NK artillery positions?

[Rum]

You have to believe for all their rhetoric, those at the very top of the NK leadership know full well that launching any serious attack would mean the end of North Korea, and the end of them personally. What's more, the must surely know that this would happen extremely quickly. The Japanese leadership c. 1941 could at least count (or so they thought) on wearing down the will of the USA and others in a prolonged fight that would follow if they went to war.

But then I'm a realist. I sometimes find it hard to put myself in the position of such people.

Bush and Blair (apparently) convinced themselves of the wisdom of invading Iraq. They even believed dubious evidence to convince themselves. War is irrational and pretty well always an evil thing, so why should we expect rationality from those who wage it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How long for the S. Korean airforce and USAF to take out the static NK artillery positions?

Two minutes after the war actually starts.
Seriously.

[Rum]

I imagine given the time they have had for rehearsal the thing would all go off like clockwork and certainly all the major targets would be gone in the first hour.