Posted on 12/21/2010 9:22:33 AM PST by jhpigott
12/20/10
As the Korean peninsula enters what U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates calls "a difficult and potentially dangerous time," the long-dormant Korean conflict is rumbling back into the public consciousness. Government officials from the U.S., South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and other states throughout the region are planning for the worst-case scenario: renewed war, perhaps nuclear, and a massive exodus from South Korea. If tensions continue to escalate, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians living in South Korea will flee, sparking one the biggest mass-evacuations since the British and French pulled 338,000 troops out of Dunkirk in 1940.
(snip)
If North Korea launches another artillery strike against South Korea--or simply hurls itself at the 38th parallel--the resulting confrontation could trigger one of the largest population movements in human history. According to one account, 140,000 U.S. government noncombatants and American citizens would look to the U.S. government for a way out. And that's just the Americans. Hundreds of thousands of South Korean citizens and other foreign nationals would be clamoring for any way off of the wintery, dangerous peninsula.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Great tag for a person who doesn't have one... (hint hint)
there have been no evacuations because all those civilians, especially the Americans are human shields and pose a trip wire that ensures the North Koreans that the US will retaliate for the civilian deaths if they attack
pulling civilians out would be interpreted by the North as an act of South Korean/US preparations for war
Like I said, not alot of good options. What do you think happens if the NEOs start evacuating US civies from Seoul? How do you think Pyongyang is going to react to that?
Got to figure out a way to do it quietly . . . good luck with that.
Quite right.
The thing is .... military planners have probably already written off that part of Korea.
If there's an invasion, it probably follows the same routes from 1950, through Seoul and down the eastern coast:
Given the mountains in the center and eastern portion of Korea, the plan would probably be to channelize them and cut them off at the mountains to the east, and possibly along the Han river in Seoul itself.
I’d be just as concerned about Seoul’s reaction if US civilians “cut and run” on the advice of the uS govt.
There is no quiet way. But if I was a diplomat stationed there I’d send the wife and kids “home for Christmas”
Yea. If this crisis has any legs to it, wouldn’t suprise me if we started hearing murmurings about non-essential personel taking extended vacations back to the States.
Another sign of the times . . . these things can start to take on a life of their own.
ThinkStrat Aaron Ellis by Galrahn
recommends ‘Volunteers flock to bolster S Korean army’, BBC News (@BBCNews) http://fb.me/Qkzvxqth
41 minutes ago FavoriteRetweetReply
from the article -
The attack on Yeongpyeong island presented South Koreans with pictures they hadn’t seen for half a century - civilians attacked and killed by their Northern neighbours; houses destroyed; people running from their homes.
The military says applications for its elite marine units have spiralled since the attacks.
But the army in general suffered a blow to its image: hampered by equipment failures, labelled weak and slow to respond.
Many here believe the army needs to get much tougher.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12015526
Hey, I like that idea.
When such suggestions & efforts become official, it’s too late.
Should US troops actually get involved in Korea in a big way, we've got a military that has recent combat experience, and a modern and (more importantly) battle-tested approach to war-fighting.
Pretty much we (and to some extent the British) are the only nations that can make such a claim. Certainly the North Koreans cannot make it. But we can (and probably have been) train the South Koreans to use what we have learned.
Again assuming that sufficient equipment and men can survive the first barrage, I have to think that a North Koreans attempt to mount anything like a conventional war, will have results very similar to what happened to the British during the first few days of the Battle of the Somme in WWI.
He’s demonstrating the insanity of the new post-DADT policy.
Such a perverse idea, you want to shoot the messenger.
Perhaps. But that's predicated on the assumption that a new assault would be staged under the same sorts of circumstances that held in 1950 -- and that's not true for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that the South Koreans are prepared for an invasion. Not only have they got the local defenses set up, but they also undoubtedly have troops and equipment positioned in such a manner that they can attack the North Korean flank should they actually invade with a massive assault.
Plus which, it would be very difficult for the North Koreans to gather the requisite forces in secret -- surprise is probably not in the cards for them; the best they could hope for, would be unpreparedness.
Beyond that, is the fact that NK has no hope of gaining or maintaining air superiority, which would leave their large masses of troops open to annihilation from the air.
Also, I have to think that the use of nuclear weapons would pretty much exclude the possibility of a massive assault, simply because the radioactivity in the blast zones would render their invasion routes unusable.
As to Seoul ... it might well be taken, but remember that the South has been planning and preparing for that. For NK to go beyond Seoul would leave them with long flanks, and the North Koreans would have an expensive time trying to protect them.
Granted, but I think Kim will be content to keep the bulk of his conventional forces behind the DMZ and try to blow up Seoul from stand-off ranges and protect the approaches to Pyongyang.
I could see him using his sizeable Special Forces and assymetric (read SRBMs) to wreak havoc nationwide.
I think the extent of a NORK invasion (realistically) would be a land grab for the 5 Yellow Sea Islands, and try to take and hold a 5-10 mile corridor south of the DMZ (ala the Egyptians in 73’) and sue for peace. Maybe he could make a very abbreviated/suicidal run for Inchon and Seoul . . . I think that is about the best he could hope for.
“Plus which, it would be very difficult for the North Koreans to gather the requisite forces in secret — surprise is probably not in the cards for them”
70% of their active duty Army (est 950K x .7 or about 665K troops) are permantently garrisoned within 90 miles of the DMZ . . . If Kim wanted to get crazy and throw himself headlong into a wall, we wouldn’t have all that much lead time.
No doubt. But as soon as he tries to blow up Seoul, he also invites a massive cross-border response against the conventional forces.
His options then are to keep them in large bodies, which exposes them to attack; or to scatter them, which makes them militarily useless -- and in these days of GPS-guided bombs, it's not all that expensive to attack even the scattered groups directly.
I could see him using his sizeable Special Forces and assymetric (read SRBMs) to wreak havoc nationwide.
Yes, especially among civilians. The question then would be the extent to which he could disrupt the SK military response.
I think the extent of a NORK invasion (realistically) would be a land grab for the 5 Yellow Sea Islands, and try to take and hold a 5-10 mile corridor south of the DMZ (ala the Egyptians in 73’) and sue for peace.
I agree with your take on what's realistic for the North Koreans to accomplish with conventional forces (assuming they're sane, of course).
And it may well be in their plans to sue for peace, hoping to keep what they've taken by threat of nuclear retaliation should the South refuse to give in. But that presupposes that the South Koreans are willing to bargain with them on that basis.
But I think that, strategically, it would make more sense for SK to clean them out of the corridor; and I think enough other countries are ready to take care of the NK problem, that the US (and probably the South Koreans themselves) can credibly threaten a nuclear response if the North Koreans try to make nuclear threats following an attack.
True. But there would always be some lead time -- a couple of days, anyway.
btw ... I’m enjoying the conversation. Thanks!
Thank you
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.