DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Money Money Money » Big War Machines Pushed for Korea Fight

Big War Machines Pushed for Korea Fight

There are still a whole heap of unknowns, in the wake of North Korea’s nuclear test. But here’s some­thing you can take to the bank: every admi­ral, every Air Force gen­eral, and every Congresscritter with a big, hulk­ing, weapon sys­tem is going to crow about how his gazillion-​​dollar machine is the key to fix­ing the Korean prob­lem.
ddxs.jpgEven before Kim’s October sur­prise, Air Force offi­cials like Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr. were rail­ing against “boots-​​on-​​the-​​ground zealots” and “neo-​​Luddites” who “quot[e] coun­terin­sur­gency man­u­als from the horse cav­alry era.” Instead, Dunlap insisted, we should be pour­ing money into “air power our most effec­tive national secu­rity com­po­nent.“
With the Army lob­by­ing for a big­ger chunk of the Pentagon bud­get, expect the vol­ume on these Air Force and Navy-​​first screams to be turned up sev­eral notches in the months to come. Wanna shell the Norks’ nuke facil­i­ties from way out in the sea? Then you need a big ol’ DD(X) destroyer to do the shelling. Attacking from the air? For that, you just have to have a next-​​generation, long-​​range bomber. Oh, and a whole bunch of conventionally-​​armed Trident bal­lis­tic mis­siles, too. And so on…
Of course, “American air units in South Korea, Japan, and the United States, plus the US Third and Seventh Fleets, are avail­able to block­ade North Korea and strike at tar­gets of oppor­tu­nity” today, Arms and Influence notes.

However, it remains to be seen what oppor­tu­ni­ties for puni­tive and dis­arm­ing strikes exist, or what the North Korean response would be… The facil­i­ties are too dis­persed, often in the worst kind of geog­ra­phy for pre­ci­sion bomb­ing, moun­tain­ous ter­rain. Even if the US were able to hit every North Korean nuclear and pro­duc­tion facil­ity, the obvi­ous ques­tion would be, What’s next?
We can pre­dict at least one imme­di­ate con­se­quence: a North Korean attack on South Korea. Whether the North Korean army tries to seize con­trol of the South, or merely retal­i­ate with con­ven­tional and chem­i­cal artillery attacks on Seoul and other pop­u­la­tion cen­ters, the US would need ground forces to take the next step: elim­i­nate the North Korean gov­ern­ment. Even with its nuclear fangs removed, the North Korean gov­ern­ment would remain a men­ace to the South, and per­haps would have rea­sons to try for one last gam­ble to end the decades-​​long stale­mate on the Korean penin­sula…
The United States has an impres­sive array of car­rier bat­tle groups, attack sub­marines, tac­ti­cal air assets, and strate­gic bombers that it can hurl at North Korea. However, the last sev­eral years have taught Americans an impor­tant les­son about war­fare: your own strength mat­ters far less than what you actu­ally do with it.

UPDATE 4:39 PM: The Herald-​​Tribune has a good run­down of just how piss-​​poor the Norks’ con­ven­tional forces really are.

The mil­i­tary in North Korea is by far the largest con­sumer of the coun­trys scarce resources. But even so, its com­bat jet pilots get only about two hours of fly­ing time a month, its sol­diers some­times have to grow their own food, and much of its equip­ment is old and out­classed by that of its neigh­bors. According to South Korean and Western experts, if a con­ven­tional war breaks out on the Korean Peninsula, the best the North Korean mil­i­tary could man­age would be to fight to a bloody stale­mate.
It is the deep inse­cu­rity born of these short­com­ings, the experts say, and not any desire to grab atten­tion or gain lever­age, that drove President Kim Jong-​​ils deci­sion to defy inter­na­tional warn­ings and declare this week that his coun­try had tested a nuclear weapon.

Share |

October 10th, 2006 | Money Money Money, Strategery, Those Nutty Norks | 214029 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/10/10/big-war-machines-pushed-for-korea-fight/Big+War+Machines+Pushed+for+Korea+Fight2006-10-10+20%3A50%3A09jason You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Nork Fallout: Asia Arms Race? | Congo Drone Crash Kills » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. pacificdave says:
    October 10, 2006 at 6:32 pm

    Damn… great insight­ful write up. I read your posts every­day and this one really kept my atten­tion from the first word to the last. Thanks…

    Reply
  2. BT says:
    October 10, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    If it wasn’t for the thou­sands of artillery pieces lob­bing shells into Seoul at the first sign of an Allied attack, NK would have been his­tory, and finally reunited with the South. We could destroy most tar­gets by air. Unfortunately it would be the mother of all human­i­tar­ian and peace­keep­ing oper­a­tions after the war, and we have proven clue­less and impo­tent in that par­tic­u­lar mis­sion.
    It is any­one look­ing for­ward to another 50 years of that nut job Kim in power? Why does the world tol­er­ate this BS?

    Reply
  3. Robot Economist says:
    October 10, 2006 at 8:19 pm

    BT cap­tured the two key rea­sons why an air power/​naval bom­bard­ment cam­paign wouldn’t work:
    1) The Norks have hun­dreds of artillery pieces scat­tered just beyond the DMZ that could eas­ily reach Seoul.
    2) An attack on the Norks will spark an enor­mous human­i­tar­ian cri­sis within the DPRK, caus­ing thou­sands of refugees to flood towards the Yalu and the DMZ.
    Any attack on the DPRK will result in the lev­el­ing of Seoul by con­ven­tional muntions. It could be even worse if the Norks actu­ally use their anti­quate chem­i­cal weapons or man­age to piece together a func­tion­ing nuke. Scale and uncon­ven­tional weapons are the poor man’s answer to a tech­no­log­i­cal supe­rior force armed with PGMs.
    Furthermore, a large num­ber of troops will be needed to sta­blize North Korean soci­ety and take out the rem­nants of the Kim regime. Even though the human­tar­ian sit­u­a­tion in the DPRK is more dire than it was in Iraq circa 2003, we shouldn’t under­es­ti­mate pop­u­lar resis­tance to the U.S. and ROK.
    The Kim regime has cul­ti­vated a nation­al­is­tic ide­ol­ogy (Juche) that empha­sizes sus­pi­cion towards for­eign­ers and the U.S. and South Koreans in par­tic­u­lar.
    My biggest con­cern is that the cur­rent debate over air power/​naval bom­bard­ment doesn’t con­sider the role of third par­ties. What if the People’s Liberation Army crosses the bor­der to sta­bi­lize the sit­u­a­tion in the DPRK when the dust set­tles? They def­i­nitely have the man­power and the rel­a­tively good image to suc­cess­fully occupy North Korea if it appears that the Dear Leader and his allies will crum­ble.
    Although the Chinese wouldn’t annex the DPRK out­right, I wouldn’t put it past them to install a pup­pet regime in Pyongyang. They would claim the north isn’t ready to be inte­grated into a demo­c­ra­tic, cap­tial­ist soci­ety and needs to be man­aged by a revi­sion­ist Communist party. That would really muck things up, wouldn’t it?

    Reply
  4. AGBrina says:
    October 10, 2006 at 11:03 pm

    The United States should not under­take any uni­lat­eral action against the North Koreans. Whatever we would do, the great­est pain which would be the con­se­quence of such action would be borne by the South Koreans first, and by the Japanese sec­ond. We have so lit­tle at risk, com­pared to what is at stake for these two coun­tries; but what we have at risk is not insignif­i­cant: about 30,000 ser­vice­men and an equal num­ber of American civil­ians in South Korea; and there are even more sta­tioned in and around bases in Japan.
    North Korea has been prepar­ing for a con­fronta­tion with American and South Korean forces for decades. Everyone is free to spec­u­late how the North would try to gain a quick mil­i­tary advan­tage against the US/​ROK joint forces. But it is entirely fea­si­ble that the North could take 25–50 miles of South Korean ter­ri­tory, cap­tur­ing or killing most of the U.S. mil­i­tary and civil­ians in and near Seoul. Given our small and exhausted mil­i­tary, the U.S. can’t be sure of pre­vent­ing this cat­a­stro­phe from occur­ring with­out resort to imme­di­ate and first use of tac­ti­cal nuclear weapons against the North on our part.
    We have no options but to defer to the polit­i­cal wills of South Korea and Japan on this matter.

    Reply
  5. ohwilleke says:
    October 11, 2006 at 1:40 am

    Don’t for­get the CG(X), which is now being touted as a mis­sile defense cruiser, repur­posed a year or two ago from pre­vi­ous mis­sions to fit the lat­est hot threat and the Navy’s suc­cess rel­a­tive to the Air Force in mis­sile defense pro­gram tests.

    Reply
  6. Rolf Larsen says:
    October 11, 2006 at 5:17 am

    A com­ment on the “lets use the old WWII Battleships ” post­ing .
    This bat­tle­ships were mag­nif­i­cent and pretty much invin­ci­ble –in the 1940s​.As you say they could sail up and down the coast of the two Koreas and shell the hell out of some­thing .And noth­ing could stop them –unless you count a nuclear device as a threat ? Hello! Massive ground or sea oper­a­tions against a quirky nuclear power — no there is a plan with a few big IFs in it..
    Rolf

    Reply
  7. Bill Pojedinec says:
    October 11, 2006 at 11:55 am

    The Navy Admirals/​Defense Contractors strike again. Betting on the DDX Destroyers with their paper thin plat­ing, 5 inch guns, slow speeed. I believe the cost of one round is $1,000,000 each. Their stealth capa­bil­i­ties are use­less now since China, Austraila, France, etc. have bought the next gen­er­a­tion of radar. These ships can­not be reloaded from the sea they have to go back to a base to be reloaded. In addi­tion, the first ship will not be ready until 2010.
    The Battleships not just two of them but all four of them need to be recom­mis­sioned. Yes, these ships are 60 years old but what about the B-​​52 Bombers. Aren’t they over 50 years old? They are still in ser­vice and keep on get­ting upgraded. Why not the Battleships? The Battleships were designed to go toe to toe with the Japanese 18″ guns and sur­vive. During WWII, the Battleship USS Carolina (smaller bat­tle­ship than the Iowa Class) took a tor­pedo hit from a Japanese sub. The Carolina was not dam­aged and con­tin­ued the fight. This tor­pedo was load with 2,000 pounds of TNT, almost the same amount used on the USS Cole. The Cole almost sunk. Currently, there is noth­ing out their as far as the anti ship missles that would put a scratch in the Iowa Class Battleships. In 1968, the mil­i­tary already had tested rounds fired from the 16″ guns that had a range of 100 miles. These ships are fast. They can do up to 35 knots. They can refuel other ships. They have the facil­i­ties to serve as a hos­pi­tal. They have served as an addi­tional air traf­fic con­trollers. These ships can hold a ton of sup­plies. They could sus­tain shore bom­bard­ment for a week/​s where the DDX (approx­i­mately 20 DDXs would be needed to equal the fire­power of one Battleship) and in two to three days would have to leave to get resup­plied. The his­tory of the ships prove how valu­able they have been in the US war efforts. These ships can save many lives (There is no dol­lar amount that you can assign to a life)and air­crafts. Plus if there is bad weather, where are you going to get your air sup­port if needed. It would take numer­ous flights (air­craft at appx $350 mil­lion each)to deliver the same amount of fire­power from one shell from a Battleship.
    Finally, please see the Commentary dated 6/​18/​06, the “Iranian Threat Defined” by William L. Stearman.
    In August 2002, the Pentagon Joint Forces war game, Millennium Challenge 2002 (Persian Gulf Area), the Red(Iranian) Team headed by ace war gamer Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper USMC (Ret.), launched a salvo of cruise missles, includ­ing Sunburns, from air­craft, small ships, and shore bat­ter­ies which over­whelmed the Aegis cruiser defense and sank 16 Blue Team (US)ships includ­ing an air­craft car­rier, Aegis cruis­ers, and six amphibi­ous ships. (Gen. Van Riper’s far to real­is­tic sce­nario was dis­al­lowed and remains closely-​​held by the Pentagon).

    Reply
  8. Noah (the other one) says:
    October 11, 2006 at 9:12 pm

    Anyone want to explain why, more than 53 years after a cease fire was signed between North Korea and the U.S., there is still no peace treaty between the two? Or why the U.S. fails to answer the DPRK’s calls for a peace treaty?
    Enemies are good. They jus­tify a whole bunch of stuff that you couldn’t oth­er­wise do … what would a hot war in Asia accom­plish, aside of course from fur­ther global destabliza­tion, more indi­rect eco­nomic attri­tion of American cit­i­zens, higher prof­its for mil­i­tary indus­tri­al­ists, etc.?

    Reply
  9. Brian says:
    October 12, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    Boy, the retards are out in force today. Must be field trip day.
    The rea­sons we don’t use old bat­tle­ships are numer­ous. For one, they’re expen­sive as all hell, not only to build, but to main­tain, as well. Not to men­tion those things are too anti­quated, and don’t have the power sys­tems to oper­ate a mod­ern radar sys­tem. You over­es­ti­mate their dura­bil­ity as well. Battleships weren’t invul­ner­a­ble in WWII, and they aren’t today either. The dif­fer­ence is, when a bat­tle­ship sinks, you lose 1000+ sailors, instead of the hun­dred or so on a DDX. One mine is all it takes, and those things will sink like a stone.

    Reply
  10. Fred says:
    October 13, 2006 at 8:18 pm

    People here are think­ing too small. An old army Sgt. told me he was sta­tioned on the DMZ for a while way back in the day. The Norks poured across the bor­der and killed some American solid­ers. We fought them back to their side, then the CO ordered nuclear rounds from howitzer’s lobbed at them. So they were. Another nuclear exchange that you never knew about. They are just wait­ing to fire up those guns again.

    Reply
  11. inarguable says:
    December 28, 2006 at 10:59 am

    Colleen, thanks for the rant. Wonderful punc­tu­a­tion btw. Now, take another deep hit off that crack pipe you are smok­ing, and stop your off-​​topic whining.

    Reply
  12. rf money says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:26 pm

    So I know my par­adise Nana, and some friends. Bu then, I added AQQI. And a vari­ety of rea­sons, and the sum­mer of cake, magic rab­bit, blue shocks, such as sev­eral friends built a new coun­cil: Return of the King. And I rec­og­nized the beier­tuo broth­er­hood. As the help of this friends and will help in grow­ing, and this time sheikhs left the group B, the new pres­i­dent rose, lead us to defend the B group. We Society of Friends also actively par­tic­i­pated in the mine war­fare, win­ning glory for the fam­ily. Later, because a num­ber of rea­sons I left the RF. And I took my all RF money send my friends.

    Reply
  13. buy rupees says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    Leave for three years, I have quite repeat­edly returned to the Rappelz game. I con­tinue for good equip­ment to buy rupees. Three years of time I have played many games, but no a game can let me real input. By now I have found that the orig­i­nal is the lack of a per­son accom­pa­ny­ing me.

    Reply
  14. iro zeny says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    95 lev­els, to me this had been a friend of the peo­ple around, the new ser­vice first hand the hand of a per­son to man­u­ally 95, it is really dif­fi­cult for my them­selves, but I have been have a lot of iro zeny.

    Reply
  15. cheap mesos says:
    August 13, 2008 at 11:37 pm

    I am sorry to my friends, sorry to my hus­band. I was too silly and too not care, I lost the account, lost the all cheap mesos.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage