"If the northern army push south as they did in the autumn of 1950, the south and the US will lose the war."
Nah, the preparation argument applies to both sides, the South and the Septics have had just as much time to plan. Seoul will take a beating on the first day and lots of civvies will die but the airpower of the US and the South is so overwhelming that a massed advance South will slaughtered. Quantity having a quality of its own was a useful maxim in the seventies but massed ranks of obsolete armour trying to advance against all weather delivery of modern sub-munitions is only gong to end one way.
Quite why the North have ramped up the rhetoric at this time is an interesting question. I have seen opinions varying from an internal power struggle (the new guy is trying to consolidate his hold on the military) to a new round of attention/aide seeking, but I am not sure anyone actually knows. One of the problems the DPRK face is that having used similar tactics in the past to finesse aide they have to go to further extremes each time they play this game to get noticed. If the Chinese don't reign them in or the Sceptics don't play ball this time, how does Kim back down without losing too much face with his own generals?
Thats more or less how I see it. The North have lots of hardened artillery bunkers that could pound Seoul, but their other assets would last maybe a day before being obliterated by US and South Korean air power and smart munitions. They will collapse as swiftly and completely as Saddams equally impressive paper army. Technology rules in modern conventional war.
The artillery bunkers will be tough though. Are drones and smart weopons accurate enough to fly through their firing slits? Or will it be the traditional combat engineers job with flamethrowers etc? You can bet the South Korean Army has a plan, and it wont be half measures.
I understand your thinking, but it is very dangerous to underestimate the NK. The crew of the ROKS Chenoan learnt that the hard way. If there is war, the NKs will not behave in a manner that allows the US and allies to work in the way they plan or organise for. Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Tet Offensive, will show them the way forward.
Overwhelming airpower did little good in Vietnam, even when the US had had time to organise it well enough to maximise effectiveness. The NKs are not stupid; if they attack, it will be in a way to maximise their advantages and minimise those of the allies.
It will not be a war fought in the western style. For one thing, IMHO there will be many Tet-style attacks - the NKs have been infiltrating the south for years. They will not all have been captured.
Yesterday I spoke about Herself's reaction to the £306 gas bill. We have just had the electric bill (£230) and she has gone ape-shit. It is all my fault apparently, "Spending all day on that bloody computer". I may be away for some time.
Given that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese I am not sure you are advancing your argument by citing it.
I said Tet-style.; in the end the South Vietnamese and US were just too strong for the Tet Offensive to work. The political impact was much greater than the military impact, especially in the US.
And within a few years, North and South Vietnam were united under the Communists. NK will see that as a good omen - in the long run it worked for NV.
A war with South Korea would be very different. The force balances are different, as is the terrain and the objectives. However the idea of small bands of forces attacking strategic targets is a valid one; that is what I was referring to.
Still, you may well be right. But there is a dramatic danger in being complacent when it comes to NK. They will not fight on out terms, as they have shown many times. For instance in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens; or in the repeated submarine landings; or in the ROKS Chenoan incident.
Comments
Overwhelming airpower did little good in Vietnam, even when the US had had time to organise it well enough to maximise effectiveness. The NKs are not stupid; if they attack, it will be in a way to maximise their advantages and minimise those of the allies.
It will not be a war fought in the western style. For one thing, IMHO there will be many Tet-style attacks - the NKs have been infiltrating the south for years. They will not all have been captured.
Needless to say, I hope I'm wrong.
Given that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for the North Vietnamese I am not sure you are advancing your argument by citing it.
And within a few years, North and South Vietnam were united under the Communists. NK will see that as a good omen - in the long run it worked for NV.
A war with South Korea would be very different. The force balances are different, as is the terrain and the objectives. However the idea of small bands of forces attacking strategic targets is a valid one; that is what I was referring to.
Still, you may well be right. But there is a dramatic danger in being complacent when it comes to NK. They will not fight on out terms, as they have shown many times. For instance in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens; or in the repeated submarine landings; or in the ROKS Chenoan incident.