North Korea readies missiles against the USA

[dtugg]

Our being all that and a bag of chips didn't keep China from crashing US wargames via submarine. It's not always the size of your tool, but how you use it.

Or so the Navy says. As WildCat pointed out they have every reason to pretend that the submarine surprised them and no reason to say they saw it the whole time and could have sunk it if they wanted if that was indeed the case.

 

[keale]

Looks can be deceiving...

That plane looks like it can go supersonic to me

 

[MG1962]

Or so the Navy says. As WildCat pointed out they have every reason to pretend that the submarine surprised them and no reason to say they saw it the whole time and could have sunk it if they wanted if that was indeed the case.

The US carrier groups has always had a weakness against diesel electric subs. On exercise the Australian navy used to take out the carriers on a fairly regular basis.

The Australians would always debrief and tell the Americans how exactly they did it. So clearly they have the oppotunity to learn from the encounters

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why on earth would they train their troops to deal with a collapse of command structures? That's dangerous. It violates the fiction that North Korea is strong and we are weak, but more importantly, cultivating independence of thought and action among those with weapons is the LAST thing a totalitarian and oppressive government is going to want to do. That's how you encourage a coup.

Most people would regard Nazi Germany as a totalitarian and oppressive government, yet the ability of the Wermacht in 1944-45 to continue functioning, right down to squad level, when its command structures were in tatters, is legendary. Just sayin'.

Dave

 

[WildCat]

Most people would regard Nazi Germany as a totalitarian and oppressive government, yet the ability of the Wermacht in 1944-45 to continue functioning, right down to squad level, when its command structures were in tatters, is legendary. Just sayin'.

Dave

German field commanders were given more leeway than Soviet-style command structures, of which N. Korea has.

 

[IDB87]

Saddam's army folded rather quickly.

Are you suggesting China will send its troops into N. Korea disquised as civilians and planting mines along the roads?

Not to mention the Fedayeen Saddam were fanatically loyal, well fed and taken care of by the regime. They were also the ones to blend in with civilians after they were defeated, along with the secret police.

Does NK have anything similar to the Fedayeen, who aren't stunted and starving?

 

[IDB87]

Most people would regard Nazi Germany as a totalitarian and oppressive government, yet the ability of the Wermacht in 1944-45 to continue functioning, right down to squad level, when its command structures were in tatters, is legendary. Just sayin'.

Dave

But that's also due to the generations of renown military officers that reformed the Wermacht into what it was. Can the same be said about NK?

 

[Dave Rogers]

But that's also due to the generations of renown military officers that reformed the Wermacht into what it was. Can the same be said about NK?

Probably not. I'm just pointing out that it is not axiomatic that the soldiers of a totalitarian state will be unable to function when their command structure is compromised.

Dave

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

You know, as someone who is getting tired of NK's ****, I would say this:

Hey, China, you listening? You want your subservient buffer state between you and the 'merkins in South Korea, right? But we know you're just as annoyed with Kim's antics as we are. Then you kick Kim's ass. Really, just clear it with NATO and make it clear you'll stop at the border, and you can replace Kim with a saner puppet of your own choosing.

 

[McHrozni]

Somehow I suspect that China does not want the total mess that is North Korea on Their hands.

Tough luck. If it weren't for China, there would be no North Korea. I have no symapthy for them whatsoever.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I believe that much (not all though) of the wikileaks stuff on China's NK position was based on American diplomats reporting what their South Korean counterparts had told them. South Korea may have an interest in over-selling China's displeasure.

Yes, that is certainly possible. I hope you're wrong though

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

Most people would regard Nazi Germany as a totalitarian and oppressive government

They were quite oppressive, but not nearly so totalitarian as North Korea. And they had a military tradition extending to before the rise of the Nazis which followed the western model. North Korea... not so much. The only military tradition it's got left now is what the Soviets handed them. Which... isn't known for such independence of action.

I'm just pointing out that it is not axiomatic that the soldiers of a totalitarian state will be unable to function when their command structure is compromised.

Sure, it's not axiomatic. But it's definitely the trend, and we have every reason to expect that trend to hold in the case of North Korea.

 

[egslim]

Interestingly, the wikileaks cables show that China is already tired of NK's petulance, and wouldn't mind a unified Korea.

They just don't want it to cost them face, and they probably want the US military to abandon Korea after unification. At least China does not want US military bases in NK.

----
In case SK invades NK with air and naval support from the US I expect China to intervene.

With a massive influx of cheap anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles, together with large numbers of "volunteers". No big tail or other valuable targets for US air power, but causing a lot of attrition on SK vehicles and US aircraft.

Of course NK will shoot a lot of artillery at Seoul during the initial phase, missile attacks continue after that.

Eventually it becomes a war of attrition, where the SK/US forces have to maintain a huge occupying force and large numbers of tanks, aircraft and ships. Whereas China only has to maintain an influx of plentifully available manpower and relatively cheap missiles. The burden of the attacker versus the benefit of defense. And since NK is far more important to China than it is to the US, the latter will bow down first.

As for SK, unless NK invades them first they'd be crazy to invade the North. The cost would be prohibitive.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Hey, China, you listening? You want your subservient buffer state between you and the 'merkins in South Korea, right? But we know you're just as annoyed with Kim's antics as we are. Then you kick Kim's ass. Really, just clear it with NATO and make it clear you'll stop at the border, and you can replace Kim with a saner puppet of your own choosing.

I'm having a difficult time seeing a serious downside to this idea, even for the average North Korean.

Dave

 

[IchabodPlain]

(I apologize if this has already been brought up)

It seems, in all the talk of military capabilities, that what is being ignored is the trade relations between SK and China. SK currently runs a trade surplus with China of over 30bn. Relations between these countries are not icy/cold/lukewarm/whatever. It is SK who is providing cars, cell phones, and other electronics to China which enables their growth and rises in living standards - not NK. Combine SK's trade with that of the US and Japan with China, and you have trade worth over 300 times what NK provides. SK is not a threat to Chinese security, so "buffer-state" claims seem ridiculous.

What is China getting, currently, from NK? I see a whole lotta nothing.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is China getting, currently, from NK?

A proxy to cause problems for the US.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm having a difficult time seeing a serious downside to this idea, even for the average North Korean.

Dave

The problem is that China sees a downside: it would cost them a lot of money. The status quo is much cheaper.

 

[MikeMangum]

Most people would regard Nazi Germany as a totalitarian and oppressive government, yet the ability of the Wermacht in 1944-45 to continue functioning, right down to squad level, when its command structures were in tatters, is legendary. Just sayin'.

Dave

The German army was as successful as it was because it had the exact opposite philosophy of the communist bloc militaries who are so concerned with centralised control and decision making. They trained their officers very well and gave them the authority to make decisions (and expected them to) at the tactical level. Hitler certainly interfered with that at the strategic level, but he wasn't part of the Wermacht. Pushing decision making authority (and the habit of taking initiative) down to lower level commanders and noncoms requires trust.

Even the overtly political units of the German army, the SS divisions, didn't have political officers, whereas the NK army has a political officer in each unit down to the company level. Every order given by the unit commander must be approved by the political officer. This clearly shows a high level of distrust with the officer corps, even though the officer corps is one of the largest bases of support for the government.

 

[pipelineaudio]

So why didn't this prediction hold true for Vietnam? The only area the Vietnamese got close to parady with the US was in aircraft, and that was only with the handful of Soviet MIG pilots. Yet for 8 years the US was unable to defeat the NV forces...why?

You may want to reread some history books there guy