- This topic has 450 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 5 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 9, 2009 at 5:35 PM #413631June 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM #413115
surveyor
Participantiranic
arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.
When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.
Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.
We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.
And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.
Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.
June 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM #413350Participantiranic
arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.
When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.
Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.
We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.
And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.
Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.
June 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM #413595Participantiranic
arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.
When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.
Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.
We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.
And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.
Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.
June 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM #413663Participantiranic
arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.
When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.
Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.
We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.
And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.
Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.
June 10, 2009 at 9:42 AM #413815Participantiranic
arraya: while I do not generally read a lot of “christian” and “jewish” based publications about Iran, does that make the facts that they report less valid? I generally dislike accusations of “right-wing” and “left-wing” and other labels as proof that an argument is overblown or fraudulent because these labels are not logically connected.
When an iranian mullah and iranian tv says that America should be destroyed and jihad should be waged against the west, it doesn’t matter that a jewish publication or secular publication reports this. The mullah still said it and he still means it.
Credibility is often used as a means to buttress an argument, but lack of credibility does not mean that the argument is necessarily false. Consider that as a logical exercise.
We used to be able to say in America “stick and stones don’t break my bones but names don’t hurt me”, but we have to now look and at least acknowledge the threat.
And so, in response to the Iranian argument and its perception as a threat, you bring in an article about how the “apocalypse industry” is playing up the conflict. While it’s interesting, bringing up those facts do not make the iranian mullah’s words less valid.
Is Iran a threat? Sure. How big of a threat? Don’t know. Is it solveable? Probably. Will it launch a nuclear weapon against Israel and the west? Don’t know. Do you want to take that chance? NO.
June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM #413182dbapig
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.
As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.
In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.
The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.
It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]
Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.
During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.
A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.
I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins. [/quote]
Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM #413415Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.
As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.
In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.
The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.
It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]
Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.
During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.
A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.
I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins. [/quote]
Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM #413660Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.
As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.
In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.
The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.
It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]
Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.
During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.
A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.
I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins. [/quote]
Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM #413729Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.
As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.
In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.
The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.
It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]
Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.
During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.
A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.
I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins. [/quote]
Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM #413883Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=dbapig][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Afx: There is quite a bit of ground between appeasement and invasion when dealing with a rational player (say Russia). You can bring everything from diplomatic to economic pressure to bear, including sanctions and embargoes.
As you find yourself moving further and further away from rationality (like with Iran), your options narrow. In the case of Iran, I think the best option is for change from within and the upcoming elections may wind up shocking a lot of people, including President I-Am-A-Dinner-Jacket.
In the case of North Korea, we’ve tried everything from bribery (Clinton, 1994) to bullying and then backpedaling (Bush, 2000 – 2008) to “soft power” and diplomacy (Obama). None of this works because Kim could give a shit what the US does or says, he knows that ultimately we won’t invade the North; we cannot afford to (monetarily or militarily). He is holding all the cards and he knows it. The only country that can truly bring meaningful pressure is China and they don’t have much of an incentive to do so, either. The North stands as a counterweight to the South and a reunified Korea and is a cat’s paw for Chinese policy against Japan.
The North is unlikely to invade the South, because Kim knows neither he nor his regime will survive that conflict. However, it remains a credible threat and one that can be amplified by continued ballistic missile testing and the threat of nukes.
It’s a game of high speed chicken and, right now, Kim has bigger balls than anyone playing.[/quote]
Kim of NK looks like he’s got bigger ones but actually he’s the most desperate one. His health is failing and he doesn’t have a succession plan in order. His army is rusting away…
[/quote]Dba: Everything about a Korean conflict is designed to negate American technological advantages: The terrain is Godawful and prevents a war of maneuver, which favors the current American “big iron” approach; NK has tons of cannon fodder to throw at us and a willingness to soak up casualties (and let’s be honest: America hates casualties); NK has the ability to deliver one hell of a first strike against Seoul and exact a propaganda victory at the outset; and, they really have nothing to lose.
During my time in the Army (1983 – 1988), we heard constantly from the USAF about “air superiority” and how it would turn the tide in the event of a Soviet/Combloc/Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. However, our Oplans were a good deal more sanguine on the subject and forecast a more realistic “air superiority neutral” scenario.
A lot of the talking heads opine that American air power would blunt or even turn back a North Korean invasion. Well, check out how well air power functions in countries with really shitty terrain and low tech opponents (like Afghanistan). The reality is always different than the scenario.
I did three years of counterinsurgency work in Central America and I’ll tell you that air power and artillery don’t mean dick in those type of environments. It’s Balls and Bayonets and the mofo most willing to bleed, wins. [/quote]
Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
June 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM #413244Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=dbapig]Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
[/quote]
Dba: While I certainly agree that the terrain in Afghanistan is worse than Korea, the terrain in Korea largely prevents a war of maneuver (and, sadly, the US Army is still fighting the Soviets in Western Europe in terms of mission profiles and force posture) and that is where the US Army excels.
If you look at the war in Iraq, the US Army easily won the “set piece” element of the war (US Army versus Iraqi Army), but rapidly bogged down when the counterinsurgency element of the war began.
North Korea is smart enough to recognize that a “force on force” approach vis-a-vis the US military (Army, Marines and USAF/USMC/USN air support) is suicidal and they’ve therefore organized their army into loose battalion and brigade size units that are meant to freely maneuver and use the terrain to their maximum advantage.
Again, while Korea is nowhere near as funky as Afghanistan, terrain-wise, there are major problems with a lack of road networks and maneuvering through the various defiles, ravines, small towns/villages, etc would be a nightmare.
The key point here is when you bog down M1s and M3s in this environment, they became relative easy to “mission kill”, meaning you knock out treads with RPGs or AT weapons. Happened in Iraq far more than anyone in the Army wanted to admit. The Marine LAVs are much better vehicles for this environment, but, again, you’re now fighting units that are smaller, more maneuverable and less dependent on technology and support than you are.
NK’s strength here is their willingness to bleed and that is why I agree with you and pray that we don’t have a repeat of the Korean War. My dad was there from 1950 – 1951 with the Marines. He landed at Inchon, fought through Seoul and wound up at Chosin Reservoir that winter. He told me that Korea was way worse than WWII for him (he was with the 6th Marines at Okinawa in 1945). I would have to imagine that this go-round would be exponentially worse than that.
June 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM #413475Participant[quote=dbapig]Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
[/quote]
Dba: While I certainly agree that the terrain in Afghanistan is worse than Korea, the terrain in Korea largely prevents a war of maneuver (and, sadly, the US Army is still fighting the Soviets in Western Europe in terms of mission profiles and force posture) and that is where the US Army excels.
If you look at the war in Iraq, the US Army easily won the “set piece” element of the war (US Army versus Iraqi Army), but rapidly bogged down when the counterinsurgency element of the war began.
North Korea is smart enough to recognize that a “force on force” approach vis-a-vis the US military (Army, Marines and USAF/USMC/USN air support) is suicidal and they’ve therefore organized their army into loose battalion and brigade size units that are meant to freely maneuver and use the terrain to their maximum advantage.
Again, while Korea is nowhere near as funky as Afghanistan, terrain-wise, there are major problems with a lack of road networks and maneuvering through the various defiles, ravines, small towns/villages, etc would be a nightmare.
The key point here is when you bog down M1s and M3s in this environment, they became relative easy to “mission kill”, meaning you knock out treads with RPGs or AT weapons. Happened in Iraq far more than anyone in the Army wanted to admit. The Marine LAVs are much better vehicles for this environment, but, again, you’re now fighting units that are smaller, more maneuverable and less dependent on technology and support than you are.
NK’s strength here is their willingness to bleed and that is why I agree with you and pray that we don’t have a repeat of the Korean War. My dad was there from 1950 – 1951 with the Marines. He landed at Inchon, fought through Seoul and wound up at Chosin Reservoir that winter. He told me that Korea was way worse than WWII for him (he was with the 6th Marines at Okinawa in 1945). I would have to imagine that this go-round would be exponentially worse than that.
June 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM #413724Participant[quote=dbapig]Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
[/quote]
Dba: While I certainly agree that the terrain in Afghanistan is worse than Korea, the terrain in Korea largely prevents a war of maneuver (and, sadly, the US Army is still fighting the Soviets in Western Europe in terms of mission profiles and force posture) and that is where the US Army excels.
If you look at the war in Iraq, the US Army easily won the “set piece” element of the war (US Army versus Iraqi Army), but rapidly bogged down when the counterinsurgency element of the war began.
North Korea is smart enough to recognize that a “force on force” approach vis-a-vis the US military (Army, Marines and USAF/USMC/USN air support) is suicidal and they’ve therefore organized their army into loose battalion and brigade size units that are meant to freely maneuver and use the terrain to their maximum advantage.
Again, while Korea is nowhere near as funky as Afghanistan, terrain-wise, there are major problems with a lack of road networks and maneuvering through the various defiles, ravines, small towns/villages, etc would be a nightmare.
The key point here is when you bog down M1s and M3s in this environment, they became relative easy to “mission kill”, meaning you knock out treads with RPGs or AT weapons. Happened in Iraq far more than anyone in the Army wanted to admit. The Marine LAVs are much better vehicles for this environment, but, again, you’re now fighting units that are smaller, more maneuverable and less dependent on technology and support than you are.
NK’s strength here is their willingness to bleed and that is why I agree with you and pray that we don’t have a repeat of the Korean War. My dad was there from 1950 – 1951 with the Marines. He landed at Inchon, fought through Seoul and wound up at Chosin Reservoir that winter. He told me that Korea was way worse than WWII for him (he was with the 6th Marines at Okinawa in 1945). I would have to imagine that this go-round would be exponentially worse than that.
June 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM #413794Participant[quote=dbapig]Respect for your service.
About your point regarding the Air Force, yes I agree. The joke (or the truth?) is that US has not won a war since separate Air Force was formed. Korea, Vietnam, etc etc.
However, the next Korean War will be different. Let me pause here and say that I pray there will not a Korean War 2.
1st, NK will certainly not get the support it got during KW1 from China/Russia.
2nd, advanced technology. Yes it’s over rated sometimes but it does matter here. Up until 1980’s, it was routine for NK agents/guerillas to infiltrate across the DMZ. Ever heard how 30 men team from NK crossed the DMZ in 1968 to try to raid the Blue House (SK version of White House) and kill the President Park? Just a little foot note is that the team crossed through the sector US 2nd Div was in charge… Than ROK started employing radar/infrared devices to monitor DMZ and the infiltration across DMZ basically stopped. It was relatively easy to sneak across at night when all that could be used to watch was human eyeballs. But a different story when radar/nightvision devices were used. Just a small example of how tech does really work.
http://rokdrop.com/2008/12/30/dmz-flashpoints-the-blue-house-raid/
And than there’s the smart bombs/choppers etc etc. We won’t see the repeat of SK/US troops getting trapped somewhere due to difficult terrain. There are choppers. And GPS guided parachutes to resupply troops.
3rd, during the early part of KW1, battle fronts moved back and forth quickly. But during 1952 and 53, it was mostly fight for the highest ground in the area. Battle fronts barely moved much. They fought for highest ground because it allowed the owner to monitor the lower area and call in artillery etc. With the UAV/satellite/2000lbs-smart bombs, that kind of tactic will not be repeated.
And the terrain in SK isn’t as bad as Afg. Sure there are mountains in SK but they are nothing like Afg.
[/quote]
Dba: While I certainly agree that the terrain in Afghanistan is worse than Korea, the terrain in Korea largely prevents a war of maneuver (and, sadly, the US Army is still fighting the Soviets in Western Europe in terms of mission profiles and force posture) and that is where the US Army excels.
If you look at the war in Iraq, the US Army easily won the “set piece” element of the war (US Army versus Iraqi Army), but rapidly bogged down when the counterinsurgency element of the war began.
North Korea is smart enough to recognize that a “force on force” approach vis-a-vis the US military (Army, Marines and USAF/USMC/USN air support) is suicidal and they’ve therefore organized their army into loose battalion and brigade size units that are meant to freely maneuver and use the terrain to their maximum advantage.
Again, while Korea is nowhere near as funky as Afghanistan, terrain-wise, there are major problems with a lack of road networks and maneuvering through the various defiles, ravines, small towns/villages, etc would be a nightmare.
The key point here is when you bog down M1s and M3s in this environment, they became relative easy to “mission kill”, meaning you knock out treads with RPGs or AT weapons. Happened in Iraq far more than anyone in the Army wanted to admit. The Marine LAVs are much better vehicles for this environment, but, again, you’re now fighting units that are smaller, more maneuverable and less dependent on technology and support than you are.
NK’s strength here is their willingness to bleed and that is why I agree with you and pray that we don’t have a repeat of the Korean War. My dad was there from 1950 – 1951 with the Marines. He landed at Inchon, fought through Seoul and wound up at Chosin Reservoir that winter. He told me that Korea was way worse than WWII for him (he was with the 6th Marines at Okinawa in 1945). I would have to imagine that this go-round would be exponentially worse than that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.