Posted on 10/15/2006 6:58:44 PM PDT by blam
Navy 'too weak' for big role in Korea blockade
By Thomas Harding, Damien McElroy in Washington and Richard Spencer in Beijing
(Filed: 16/10/2006)
Plans to impose a blockade of North Korea to prevent the regime acquiring nuclear weapons were thrown in disarray last night.
China said it would oppose attempts to inspect suspect vessels and Royal Navy commanders said Britain was unable to make a significant military commitment to the proposed United Nations naval task force.
The United States is leading attempts to put together a force that would prevent suspect cargoes from entering the Marxist dictatorship and stop North Korea exporting weapons of mass destruction technology to rogue regimes such as Iran and terrorist groups.
Attempts to assemble the force began in earnest yesterday after the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution late on Saturday imposing tough arms and financial sanctions against Pyongyang following its claim that it had test-fired a nuclear warhead last week.
The UN resolution prompted an angry response from North Korea, which said it would regard the imposition of sanctions as an act of war and described the resolution itself as "gangster-like".
China, which voted in favour of the resolution at the Security Council, immediately cast doubt over the effectiveness of the proposed naval force when government officials said they did not approve of the inspections regime and would not take part.
Amended rules of engagement have been drawn up for the US 7th fleet, which is based in North Asia, and Pentagon officials said yesterday that they could count on support from the vessels of 15 "core" members of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which was set up in 2003 to prevent North Korea acquiring weapons of mass destruction technology, and includes Britain, Australia, Japan, and Singapore.
Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, will this week begin an intensive round of shuttle diplomacy, visiting China, South Korea, Japan and Russia in an attempt to shore up support for the UN resolution.
But senior Royal Navy officers last night cast serious doubt over Britain's ability to make a significant naval contribution to the proposed UN force, claiming that drastic cuts in government spending on the navy over the past decade had severely reduced their ability to participate in major foreign operations.
"I am staggered that the Government is trying to make this commitment when it knows what our Armed Forces are going through," a senior Royal Navy officer last night told The Daily Telegraph.
"But it knows that to keep our presence on the Security Council Britain needs to demonstrate what we can do."
Defence experts predicted that the most the Royal Navy could contribute was a single frigate, a Royal Fleet auxiliary support vessel and a Trafalgar class hunter killer submarine.
But senior navy officers expressed deep concern about their ability to defend their ships against a hostile missile or fighter threat after a decision was enforced six months ago to scrap the Sea Harrier fighter.
As a result of government cutbacks any British ships deployed to the South China Sea to enforce the UN resolution would depend on the American or French navies to provide "beyond visual range" air defence with their aircraft carriers.
The Navy has been cut by almost a third since Labour came into power, and the admission by Royal Navy commanders that they were struggling to find suitable ships to deploy to the UN force will raise further questions about the Labour government's handling of the armed forces' budget. Britain's military commitments to Iraq and North Korea have exposed glaring deficiencies in resources and equipment.
The approval of the Security Council resolution bolsters the right of US naval commanders to stop and search suspect vessels. North Korean trade will now be liable to constant scrutiny.
The nerve-centre of the non-proliferation web around the Korean peninsula is the USS Kitty Hawk, a nuclear powered aircraft carrier that commands a fleet of 60 ships and 350 aircraft.
China has repeatedly promised to tighten restrictions on North Korean shipments but any crackdown has so far been limited. A Chinese vessel carrying North Korean radar was intercepted in the Mediterranean last month.
Security experts also fear that increased US air and sea activity around China will raise the risk of a clash with the 600-ship strong People's Liberation Army Navy.
Pause and reread my post.
Apparently, you've been playing too much military games on PS2.
NK Army
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/army.htm
You can also find info at this site on NK AF & Navy
I've been doing this sort of thing longer than you've been alive.
You're hitting on a good point, and the root of North Korea's collapse. Rigid, centralized hierarchies are rapidly eroded when discipline is unenforced.
Let's face it. North Korean enlisted men aren't cooking up these ideas. The penalty for doing such an act would be immediate and lethal, without some top cover.
Their company and field grade officers are okaying this. Not only that, but they're getting used to being able to do whatever they need to do to keep local control. Whether or not the central military commission is unable or unwilling to enforce discipline, the result will be the same.
Might the military central authorities, up to the executive level, be okaying this, or turning a blind eye? Possibly, but again, throwing out military discipline is a dangerous move. You might need it sometime. Even if these moves are directly ordered from on high, as a way to do some creative financing, it makes it clear just how desperate the situation in North Korea really is to everyone involved.
Ambitions military men could take advantage of such desperate situations, when the time comes.
Well, so much for scraping your Navy.Real bright move there.
Little fun fact, here, but the Korean People's Army (KPA) is one of a handful that still fields the T-34 main battle tank. Those tanks are, at best, half a century old.
We were wargaming some stuff out a few years ago, against certain targets in North Korea, and the T-34 popped up on an order of battle chart. Several people in the unit had no idea what they were, and were amazed to find out that they were still around. They were good tanks in the day, and soundly defeated everything the South Koreans, and our own Task Force Smith, initially threw at them. They are deathtraps today.
Their armored units consist mostly of T-72s and T-62. Those tanks are obsolete against what we or the South Koreans have waiting for them. They have almost no fuel for training, and little in the way of spare parts. Their strategic reserves are minimal, at best.
I don't remember their armored personnel carrier types off the top of my head, but without armor leading the way, they'd be sliced to ribbons against the South's defenses. The Korean terrain is murderous, and channels vehicles into narrow valleys, on narrower roads. You'd be better off taking your chances on foot, sneaking through the hills, rather than ride around well known roads in third rate armor.
Their mechanized threat is a joke. The infantry and artillery can cause some trouble, for a while, but they have no staying power. Holding down the trigger until you're out of ammo is a great way to cause chaos, but it won't win you a war.
They had to give up rum. Sodomy and the lash were spared.
It's not like the British have a naval base in Hong Kong anymore...
The threat of mines is almost as effective as the mines.
Folks, Western Europe is a military shell of its former self and we're only seeing the beginning of its military erosion (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6120659,00.html).
It's time for us to wake up to the reality and realize we're on our own.
"...Their mechanized threat is a joke. The infantry and artillery can cause some trouble, for a while, but they have no staying power. Holding down the trigger until you're out of ammo is a great way to cause chaos, but it won't win you a war."
You're forgetting Vietnam (and the will they showed against better equipped American shoulders) and the possibility China could intervene on North Korea's behalf (as it did in the Korean war). NK's army is poor, but dedicated and they might get help from big brother under a war scenario. That counts for a lot.
--------------------------------------------
Another PWAC (Poster Without a Clue).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.