North Korea: 2012-2016

[Coldstreamer]

I've got all that...tons and tons of coventional, stacked and ready...

But my point is, are they genuinely likely to launch a first strike if NK mainland has not been targeted. Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening. A hell of a lot of the usual piss and wind...but then again that's what we've had from appeasing them, to a degree. But the problem with appeasement is their tech and proliferation is still getting out. So we still lose.
Fundamentally, I suspect regime survival is all, and they won't invite a Western retaliation. Hence 1st strike unlikely.

But as Ken says...early days. Another thing to pray for.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening.

I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.

[Hacksaw]

The answer to your question is that it depends...

Are the ROKs a first rate Army??? Yes and no... BCT and below they are excellent... Div and above - not nearly as proficient...

Would the US need to committ ground forces??? Maybe, maybe not... If the NK launch all their stuff... air could kill vast majority of heavy equipment (highway of death to the nth power)... and the counterfire fight would eventually attrit indirect fires to the point that ROK forces could certainly restore the international border.... but, if the NK conduct a limited attack and the ROKs/Coaltion want to go north...we better have a whole lot more than the ROK Army and air superiority...

Terrain favors the defender in the extreme on the Peninsula... as I stated earlier in this thread... what kept me up at night wasn't defeating a NK attack... rather it was going North into a defense dug into granite with templated TRPs and fields of fire painted onto the walls....

bad bad bad juju

Slumbering peacefully in Kansas

[Coldstreamer]

I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.

Fair one. Prediction's always a dangerous sport. But going off past experience, rewarding bullies and lunatics always empowers them (back to Saddam and April Summer's ambiguous messages to him in 1991). Where as good old fashioned bullying, of the sort conspicuously absent in our dealings with..er..Korea and Iran, tends to yield results. Bcause the lines are thus clear. If we reward unreasonable behaviour we incentivise it. And, of course, all the while these nutters are spreading the WMD risk with characters like AQ Khan and the Iranians - because we haven't gripped them early.

[J Wolfsberger]

Based on his past experience, Kim probably believes that he can threaten, bluster, and rattle some sabers, resulting in the west will sign an agreement to give him something, in this case food. He can then renege on whatever he promised to do.

The problem this time around is that we might actually do something - stop and search shipping to and from NK. He desperately needs the foreign currency from arms sales to purchase food. Given his health, some rumors I've read of a rise in influence of the armed forces, he could just be desperate enough this time around to follow through on his threats.

A lot of the behavior we've seen before. What's new, and a bit ominous, is the repudiation of the Armistice, and that he isn't raising the stakes in a transparent effort to get food.