Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 48 of 48

Thread: If N Korea goes too far and is attacked what airborne assets would be used

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,397
    My world is turned upside down ! Is nothing anymore sacred ?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,240
    Kim's rule #1 is to preserve himself. #2 is to preserve the kingdom.
    He's not suicidal. He hasn't been spending the money, consolidating power by getting rid of internal threats just to get himself killed.

    He might use the threat of nuclear weapons to peacefully invade S.Korea, figuring (probably correctly) the the U.S. (and the rest of the world, I don't see anyone else taking a physically risky moral high ground) won't resort to or risk an exchange of nuclear weapons to save S. Korea.
    Unlike 1950, the UN won't help and the U.S. won't risk losing Hawaii or Seattle.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    And are we happy to see the South Korean people reduced to the situation of the North, only worse because they are not brainwashed into thinking they live in a paradise? Rather than trust that an apparent man-child with ropey but growing nuclear capability will act rationally over his own potential invasion of a neighbour would not the right thing to do be to avoid being forced by Kim into walking any kind of moral /strategic line, or worse having to make the decision between the two?
    Last edited by Beermat; 5th September 2017 at 10:37.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,240
    How?

    Sanctions don't work with China and Russia taking his side.
    Obama tried paying him off to behave, that didn't work...
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    I would suggest military action. It's funny how it's 'worth the risk' when there's oil, but 'inconcievable' when there isn't.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Finally arrived in God's own country!!!
    Posts
    110
    Well Russia has supported sanctions since 2009. It doesn't believe they have had any effect, so is non-commital about further sanctions. China which really holds all the aces cannot countenance a flood of N.Korean refugees in the even of hostilities. But China could flick a switch and turn off most of the bilateral trade. Which would have the effect of starving out the populace long before the elite suffered any reduction in living standards. But once the military were starved of the good life Kim's days might be numbered.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    But why would China do that?

    I'm sure it makes a lot of Chinese - especially those who were taught their history in China - quietly happy that thw Japanese feel threatened without them having to do it. And they get to trade a lot of oil.

    There will never be an effective international consensus for any one kind of action. What is clear is that sanctions do not work unless everyone does it. All they do is create mutual interest with the sanction busters.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    Finally arrived in God's own country!!!
    Posts
    110
    And of course those last two sentences have been equally applicable across the globe since man first imposed sanctions.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,240
    What country is going to risk a nuclear attack for going to S. Korea's aid?
    Certainly no one in the EU. They haven't cared about S Korea since the "police action" ended, and given their half-hearted commitment during the war, a case can be made that they didn't care then. And there was no oil involved, just like Vietnam.
    And the US will not risk becoming the international "bad guy" by being the first to use nukes if the North invades the South.

    The world would gladly sacrifice South Korea to avoid a nuclear conflict.

    Now if S. Korea were a major UK holiday destination or had a great football or cricket team....
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, Duxfordshire
    Posts
    3,454
    Fair enough except for one point of logic in that if the North invades the South it's not a question of the US using nukes, no one was suggesting that would be a suitable means of defence. Isn't the concern a nuclear strike by North Korea as a defence against conventional military action, and is that in fact near impossible for them right now (though it won't be in the future)? It isn't likely that Kim will hurl a rocket at Japan or anywhere with a nuclear warhead as an escalation of a conventional conflict within Korea. But if he is mad enoigh to be of a mind to do so at some point it makes sense to take him and his nuclear programme out now. If he's actually a rational military expansionist then ditto.
    Last edited by Beermat; 6th September 2017 at 08:03.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,595
    It might surprise those who know me as a 'Liberal Guardian reading Leftie' (I'm not really, but compared to John I suppose I might look like it), but...

    I believe the US with the full support of its allies should simply go in to North Korea in a simple old fashioned conventional assault with the aim of taking out the leadership or denying them the ability to lead. It was done that way in Iraq. it might be the only scenario in 70 years in which they were truly 'liberators' with no global economic motive. It will also head off a possible nuclear conflict - and even if its only a remote possibility it is worth doing, surely.

    It has to be better than looking back with 100% hindsight and saying 'We should have done something'...

    Would any other nation seriously oppose this and escalate? That is less likely than some nuclear catasrrophe triggered by Kim. NK is a little way from being able to respond with a nuclear strike - at least one that won't take weeks to prepare and which won't be shot out of the sky if not destroyed before launch - but that won't last forever.
    China. China came to the Norths aid to stop them being wiped out the first time around, and sure as heck they do not want a Country with the USA based in it on their borders. So they would become involved and the fear is escalation

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,240
    Beermat, I agree the main issue is NK threatening nukes to prevent them from being stopped in a conventional invasion.
    But there is a danger that the only way for their presumably superior forces could be stopped would be by Americans using tactical nukes. The 28000 Americans certainly could be reinforced, but by who? The U.S. could send more forces to the peninsula at the risk of stripping other areas bare, but no troops would come from the UN, EU or anyone else.

    At the end of the day, I don't see the international community risking anything to do with nukes for the sake of a free S Korea. After all, they didn't care about Vietnam.

    Kim just has to say he has a missile pointed at Seoul (and Tokyo) 'so don't stop my guys in oversized green hats' as they make their way through the DMZ minefields or land in AN-2s.
    Last edited by J Boyle; 6th September 2017 at 14:42.
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,895

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,595
    Americans using tactical nukes
    No such thing...a nuke is a nuke and once you drop one, the cork is well and truly out of the bottle, especially as Chernobyl showed that even with a small leak you contaminate huge areas, most of Europe for one, radiation fallout was found in the UK and France...

    It was always the thinking during the cold war, if the Russian hoards invaded Europe we would use a limited tactical nuke strike to blunt their assault, the thinking being tactical....... as if that would matter to the opposition, the minute you started using any nukes you instantly ramp up the war to a full blown nuclear one...... would you as the opposition seeing your troops glowing in the dark not retaliate, of course you would and the end game would be the mother of all end games.

    Totally agree with Putins assesment that they would eat grass first before giving up their weaponary.. the one thing the North Koreans have had since birth is propaganda pumped at them telling them the west want to attack and destroy them so we need strong forces to stop them and a naive belief that the forces they have are a match for the west.. It is how the little short fat one and his predecessors have survived, give the populace a constant fear of attack from the west, which diverts them from seeing the truth of their existance, poor food, poor accomodation, a lack of the basics the rest of the world enjoys and cut them off from the western media so they are unaware of the lies being told to them, be ruthless in executing high ranking threats but reward those in the inner circle to keep them on side by showering them with gifts, food and the high life, while imbibing the country with a near God like reverence for himself and his family, thus ensuring a loyalty and following that is akin to mass brainwashing.

    I would give their Airforce a couple of days at best, Saddam even with his modern equipment which Korea does not possess was trounced in less, their Army is probably different, their is a strength in numbers no matter how badly equipped. The world put up with all this verbage coming out of Korea as they saw it for what it is, bluff and guff aimed at the poplulace, so they could see the beloved leader as their savior from the west that would do them harm... his downfall in all of this was going the extra mile in aquiring a missile that is an actual military threat, and thus threatens the west.
    Last edited by TonyT; 7th September 2017 at 14:41.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,397
    JB

    Your sense of history is truly creative ! The EU did not exist during the Korean War. Even now, despite much posturing, the EU do not have any offensive or defensive capability - none. They possess not a single tank, aircraft or ship. They do not have a unified command structure. They do not speak with one voice in a single language.

    The only worthwhile military component within - for the present - the EU, is British. The Germans are feeble and the French unreliable and inclined to do their own thing.

    If, if nothing else, KIm needs to justify the expense of his huge military establishment to his subservient population, then a non nuclear invasion of SK by the North is conceivable.

    In a possible re-run of the first Korean conflict, a re-invigorated America and a less than enthusiastic Britain and British Commonwealth combo will once again hit the beaches running. I don't at any time see the nuclear card being played by any side apart that is, from the means of - ultimately - delivering the coup de grace, if things become too one sided.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Where you wish you were.
    Posts
    9,240
    Of course the EU did not a exist then, I was referring to the member states of the EU...it's just easier to say that than list the countries or saying "Europe" which would be technically incorrect as well.
    I really thought the meaning and useage was clear to a reasonable adult.

    My point was, lack of self interest will limit the response from most, if not all European countries.

    Another case of. "I'm alright Jack...let the Yanks fix it..."
    There are two sides to every story. The truth is usually somewhere between the two.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    8,595
    I also see guff is coming out from both sides, the USA's stance is they do not want him to have the ability to nuke the USA, well if he has the bomb, he surely has the means already, he has already succesfully avoided the embargo placed on his country for years, by running shell companies and ships on different countries registers to avoid detection, there are more ways to deliver a strike than a missile, a ship carrying one docked anywhere in the World would do exactly that, from Guam to New York.

    remember this?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pa...96K0EH20130722

    I personally don't think even the little fat one is stupid enough to go down that route, as it would be endex for the his regime and the country. But we are closest now to a war not of our making since the Cuban missile crisis.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    6,397
    Yes, I did wonder. 'Europe' would have been less obscure. It's easy to be deceived, given your acknowledged unique slant on history.

    "let the Yanks fix it." A phrase, of which we should be very wary !

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES