Korean artillery exchange.

[Chris Werb]

Quality post Simon.

[Heirophant]

A unified, militarily neutral Korea would suit China just fine - this would be analogous to a unified Vietnam, a nation which does not allow foreign bases on its soil.

 

Of course, China would prefer compliant states (as would we Americans), but independent-minded nations who are springboards for no one are perfectly workable neighbors. This is classic long-term, millennia-old Chinese strategy. The less compliant North Korea becomes, the more tempted China is to drop Pyongyang and have Seoul as its neutral buffer instead - less beholden, but far more reliable as a partner, allowing China to march forward into developed nation status undisturbed.

 

Obviously, foreign bases and troops in either a UNIFIED Korea or Vietnam can only be aimed at China itself - so those ideas are total non-starters. This was the situation during the height of the Cold War, and China and the region don't want to go there again. China doesn't want to be surrounded, and the nations of Asia don't want to do the surrounding.

 

But this isn't the Cold War, and this isn't the old, weak China. Without any belligerent overt moves, the fact that we even discuss their possible reaction means China has the means, economically, diplomatically and if needed militarilly, to help shape the eventual outcome.

 

A unified Korea, non-aligned, poses no threat whatsoever to China. It never has in the past, and it certainly won't in the future. Only in alliance with the United States and/or Japan can it do so:

 

1) If unified, Korea will probably ask for a drawdown of US forces - it would have to for China to agree. China can live with a very small US presence, perhaps in the Pusan area.

 

2) The idea of Japan allying with Korea to threaten China is ludicrous, due to the long-term suspicion and animosity of these two peoples.

[Paul in Qatar]

Thank you for the photos, h18w777.

[Gabe]

A unified, militarily neutral Korea would suit China just fine - this would be analogous to a unified Vietnam, a nation which does not allow foreign bases on its soil.

 

Of course, China would prefer compliant states (as would we Americans), but independent-minded nations who are springboards for no one are perfectly workable neighbors. This is classic long-term, millennia-old Chinese strategy. The less compliant North Korea becomes, the more tempted China is to drop Pyongyang and have Seoul as its neutral buffer instead - less beholden, but far more reliable as a partner, allowing China to march forward into developed nation status undisturbed.

 

Obviously, foreign bases and troops in either a UNIFIED Korea or Vietnam can only be aimed at China itself - so those ideas are total non-starters. This was the situation during the height of the Cold War, and China and the region don't want to go there again. China doesn't want to be surrounded, and the nations of Asia don't want to do the surrounding.

 

But this isn't the Cold War, and this isn't the old, weak China. Without any belligerent overt moves, the fact that we even discuss their possible reaction means China has the means, economically, diplomatically and if needed militarilly, to help shape the eventual outcome.

 

A unified Korea, non-aligned, poses no threat whatsoever to China. It never has in the past, and it certainly won't in the future. Only in alliance with the United States and/or Japan can it do so:

 

1) If unified, Korea will probably ask for a drawdown of US forces - it would have to for China to agree. China can live with a very small US presence, perhaps in the Pusan area.

 

2) The idea of Japan allying with Korea to threaten China is ludicrous, due to the long-term suspicion and animosity of these two peoples.

 

How can China be sure a unified Korea will not become a belligerent neighbour, because it says so? While in theory it's possible a unified Korea could be neutral, the reality is it's highly unlikely to be. It is a powerful industrialized state surrounded by even more powerful states. Korea needs the US to raise it's international profile. And why should the US leave after unification? We're still in Germany and a new base is being built in Poland. So although Chinese diplmats may say they could live with a hypothetically neutral Korea, the reality is they have no idea if this will ever happen, but they want to know what South Korea would offer.

 

Apparently the South Koreans offered verbal commitment to benign neutrality and commercial incentives. I doubt that's satisfactory.

[JOE BRENNAN]

1) A unified, militarily neutral Korea would suit China just fine - this would be analogous to a unified Vietnam, a nation which does not allow foreign bases on its soil.

 

2) The idea of Japan allying with Korea to threaten China is ludicrous, due to the long-term suspicion and animosity of these two peoples.

1) Yes, but there's no realistic possiblity of a fully unified Korea soon, even assuming the Kim regime collapses soon. It's too difficult given the relatively large population, extreme poverty, and extremely warped political system of NK v SK. The significant size, lower wealth and different political perceptions of the East German population were enough to pose real challenges to instant reunification in that case, even though EG was much smaller, richer and less warped compared to West Germany than NK is compared to SK.

 

Even assuming the Kim regime goes quietly and is replaced by some interim group with no desire for aggressive war, NK still poses a huge dilemma. It can't be really unified into ROK without destroying the latter (suddenly 1/3 of the voters are from a place with a few % the per capita economic output, and just coming off prolonged brainwashing). But the NK people really believe in unification, which they always been told, and more pointedly in recent years and decades, is not happening because the ROK is a US colony politically. Even the pretense that the ROK is poor too has been mainly dropped because so obviously untrue.

 

OTOH overt Chinese control of NK is a non-starter: the Koreans were struggling not to be under shadowy semi-control of China in the 19th century back when they (reformer/modernizers anyway) viewed Japanese influence in the country as a positive. Some kind of N-S confederation, but without freedom of movement and still clearly not of equals? still hard to envision. The most practical interim arrangement would be a genuinely pliable (by China) theoretically communist regime in a still independent DPRK, which moves that country forward economically, to eventually allow reunification on less unequal terms But China would have to help that outcome along, and very deftly. And the ROK would have to 'come clean' that it rejects unification with the current people and state of things in NK.

 

2) The ROK and Japan are de facto allies as it is through each's alliance with the US. That could continue for a long time into the future, or intensify, depending on the overall situation (including the possibly long drawn out evolution of issue 1, even post-Kims) and perceived need to avoid Chinese domination, not to 'threaten' China from their POV. Vietnam also has more interest lately in cultivating ties with other countries including the US, for the same reason. China OTOH might view it as 'threatening': in the eye of the beholder.

 

Joe

[Archie Pellagio]

How can China be sure a unified Korea will not become a belligerent neighbour, because it says so?

 

For the simple reasons that

1. Korea is already heavily dependent on the PRC economically and is becoming so at a rapid rate.

2. A unified Korea would be broke as batshit and thus even more economically dependent on China.

[Ken Estes]

No capitalist in ROK would wish for unification. Imagine the labor costs in the north. What would an auto worker in NK charge per hour, $0.50 or 0.75? It would do more to workers in the south than they have done to the Japanese, who did it to the UAW in the US; consider Hyundai, for example.

[Ken Estes]

The selection of photos of the current exercises have been limited. Lets take a look at exercises conducted earlier this year instead.

 

....

Great stuff, but an island w/i range of the mainland will not be able to win an arty duel; it is all about anti-landing potential. See Quemoy and Matsu, a generation or two ago off the coast of China.

 

Again, the timing is well chosen, not to speak of the object in question. Nothing worth dying for. The NK are past masters at this kind of stuff, as were the PRCs, in their time as bottom-feeders.

[Marcello]

No capitalist in ROK would wish for unification. Imagine the labor costs in the north. What would an auto worker in NK charge per hour, $0.50 or 0.75? It would do more to workers in the south than they have done to the Japanese, who did it to the UAW in the US; consider Hyundai, for example.

 

To be fair they might not have the luxury of being able to choose. The events will dump the hot potato in their lap, whether they like it or not.

It is hard imagining an independent post Kim north korean government being able to carry on for any great lenght of time: what sort of answer could they give to the "Why don't we join the South?" question, once Juche & Kim are tossed overboard? The southerners don't want us to spoil their precious 1st world lifestyle?

Very unpleasant situation if you ask me.

[Heirophant]

 

2) The ROK and Japan are de facto allies as it is through each's alliance with the US. That could continue for a long time into the future, or intensify, depending on the overall situation (including the possibly long drawn out evolution of issue 1, even post-Kims) and perceived need to avoid Chinese domination, not to 'threaten' China from their POV. Vietnam also has more interest lately in cultivating ties with other countries including the US, for the same reason. China OTOH might view it as 'threatening': in the eye of the beholder.

 

Joe

 

You left out the third and IMHO fairly plausible possibility: the alliances with the U.S. could slowly, over the long run, fade away. The Chinese are in no rush to see this happen, as things are going well for them at this point.

 

But as an analogy, the United States would not have been comfortable with large British forces in Canada, or French in Mexico.

 

In the past, we have had the Monroe Doctrine, since in our eyes the presence of European troops in our hemisphere were a threat aimed at squarely us - while in the eyes of Europeans, they had the right and obligation to "stay engaged" in our hemisphere, and for the Latin Americans, such alliances were not meant to "contain" the U.S., merely to avoid our perceived domination. A giant neighbor leaves everyone else uneasy.

 

For a long time, Mexico felt itself under America's thumb, though whether that was actually true, and whether we could actually call the shots there other than in the border areas, was open to doubt. This is analogous to the perceptions of Japanese and Koreans over the centuries with regard to China.

 

The Monroe doctrine was based on the changing power dynamics (over several decades) between the United States and Europe. The growth of American industry and the ability to challenge British and French power projection made America feel more secure, but increased the animosity from Mexico, for example.

 

The long-term solution was something like NAFTA and a closer alliance among equals in North America, thus removing the incentive for extra-regional foreign alliances from those nations.

 

IMHO, a similar (long-term) dynamic is at play in Asia. The RELATIVE economic power of Japan and Korea will continue to decline vis-a-vis a developing China. China's growing but not surging military and naval power will make the ability of the U.S. to project power in the region increasingly difficult. At the same time, China will continue to draw the Asian countries into a closer economic relationship, which leads to political accomodation. The situation is like a combination of Monroe + NAFTA, or if you like "carrot and stick" - China's stick is getting bigger, and the carrot is ever more juicy.

 

The Japanese and Korean alliances with the U.S. are subject to the changing power dynamics as above, and though little movement is perceptible now, we could see something very different in 20 years. All 3 countries, China, Japan and Korea, are in no hurry.

[swerve]

It is hard imagining an independent post Kim north korean government being able to carry on for any great lenght of time: what sort of answer could they give to the "Why don't we join the South?" question, once Juche & Kim are tossed overboard? The southerners don't want us to spoil their precious 1st world lifestyle?

Very unpleasant situation if you ask me.

Point them to the example of E. Germany, which hasn't caught up with the West, has lost people, has higher unemployment, & is dependent on subsidies. Compare it with the independent neighbours, which had smaller post-communist slumps & have successfully reformed their economies with less disruption & a fraction of the economic assistance.

 

A self-governing (for the time being) but economically dependent N. Korea is probably the best possible solution for everyone. Southern firms could invest, taking advantage of the cheap labour. Southern money could modernise northern infrastructure. Losing low-paid jobs to the north would cost much less than keeping 20 million people on the dole, which is what would happen if northern producers were exposed to southern competition within the same country. There'd be some return to the south, in construction contracts & the like.

[Jeff]

That is of course the last resort as a successful atomic attack on Seoul would result in Pyongyang being turned into a glazed car park.

Who's going to do that? I seriously doubt the US will hammer the NorK's with nukes for any reason.

[Guest JamesG123]

Considering this Administration I would have to agree with you. Maybe a strongly worded speech?

[Mike Steele]

Considering this Administration I would have to agree with you. Maybe a strongly worded speech?

 

If he can get the TOTUS in place.

[h18w777]

Supposedly this is a sat photo showing the impact results of the South Korean counterbattery fire.

 

 

I will defer to genuine experts for BDA and photo interpretation.

 

Here is another link to an Israeli site that has high res sat photos of the area in question.

 

Israeli Sat Photo Site

[Manic Moran]

Supposedly this is a sat photo showing the impact results of the South Korean counterbattery fire.

 

 

I will defer to genuine experts for BDA and photo interpretation.

 

Here is another link to an Israeli site that has high res sat photos of the area in question.

 

Israeli Sat Photo Site

 

They appear to have generally missed.

 

I wonder why they went with impact fuses instead of airburst? Unless they mixed the two, perhaps the reason the impact fuses were North of the pits is that they fired everything with the same ballistic trajectory and whilst the VT fuses detonated on top of the pits, the impact fuses carried on North a bit until they hit the ground. In which case they probably want to review their conduct of fire.

 

NTM

[crazyinsane105]

They appear to have generally missed.

 

I wonder why they went with impact fuses instead of airburst? Unless they mixed the two, perhaps the reason the impact fuses were North of the pits is that they fired everything with the same ballistic trajectory and whilst the VT fuses detonated on top of the pits, the impact fuses carried on North a bit until they hit the ground. In which case they probably want to review their conduct of fire.

 

NTM

 

How did they manage to miss? Well now that I think of it...there was this video made by the Taliban (which was even posted on this forum). Basically it was a mortar team shelling a US outpost. The US was hitting back with artillery, but because the Taliban were on a certain side of the mountain, the radar wasn't giving the correct firing formula. This in turn gave the Taliban a chance to keep attacking without the fear of being decimated. Maybe the North Koreans positioned their guns not only in that location but throughout the DMZ in order to confuse the artillery fire finding radar. If that's the case, then taking out North Korean artillery will be much, much more time consuming...

[Sikkiyn]

How did they manage to miss? Well now that I think of it...there was this video made by the Taliban (which was even posted on this forum). Basically it was a mortar team shelling a US outpost. The US was hitting back with artillery, but because the Taliban were on a certain side of the mountain, the radar wasn't giving the correct firing formula. This in turn gave the Taliban a chance to keep attacking without the fear of being decimated. Maybe the North Koreans positioned their guns not only in that location but throughout the DMZ in order to confuse the artillery fire finding radar. If that's the case, then taking out North Korean artillery will be much, much more time consuming...

 

a.. With that sat photo in hand, they should know now the adjustments they need to hit the target. Surprised they didn't use primarily AB to begin with.

b.. familiar with the video you are speaking of, along with a large host of others across the net and am very surprised at the fusing used. Many situations would have been better served with VT vs PD fusing.

[Marek Tucan]

Isn't CB against mobile rockets waste of time anyway?

[Guest JamesG123]

No, why would it be? They can be reloaded to fire again so disrupting or destroying them is useful. You could say a successful CB mission against one is more of an achievement than against a tube battery as they usually salvo the rockets off and then displace quickly.

[Ken Estes]

Once they fired, they most likely returned to their adjacent bunkers. A matter of a few minutes.

[JOE BRENNAN]

The picture in post 167 shows shells which landed near MRL positions in area of Gaemeori. There are 14 craters. The ROK defense ministry says a total of 30 shells fell in Gaemeori area and some others fired at other MRL positions caused damaged, but no publicly released photo's showing that, AFAIK. A further 15 shells fell on Mu-do, and another publicly released photo shows all of those, one of which hit the corner of a barracks structure (red circle), and some reports have also referred to the apparent damage to communications trench toward the bottom of photo from one of the 'misses'. 35 shells fell in the water near Mu-do or the coast at Gaemeori, of 80 total fired, it was officially reported. It doesn't seem that any were proximity fuzed, since the subject of proximity fuzes has come up, some of the NK projectiles were said to be (perhaps the 76mm which fired alongside the 122mm rockets, at least some rounds), but such fuzes are not mentioned in any of the reports about ROK return fire...which is a notable controversy in ROK, as part of general theme of non-impressive results by ROK military in recent incidents.

 

In this article, KPA defectors of the 'North Korean People's Liberation Front' a defector org in ROK, including a guy who served with the 33rd Division of KPA, which is the unit stationed in that area, discuss how much emphasis is put on personnel getting into underground shelters really fast after coastal gun firing, and rockets moving out. The ROK SPH's first fired around 13 minutes after the big initial barrage; these guys rate as basically zero the chance the ROK guns inflicted any casualties. A guy who served in coast artillery on the east coast said, interestingly, that a KPA commander who executed a pre-planned attack and lost any personnel would be in big trouble: casualties are not acceptable where they could be avoided by proper planning. That's not a revolutionary concept obviously, but shows the KPA might not be quite as different from other military orgs as is sometimes assumed.

http://www.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?art_id=1120703

 

fall of shot on Mu-do

 

Joe

[Gunguy]

The new minister of defense of South Korea say if attacked again they will respond with air strikes. I guess the artillery just isn't up to the job. I would think they would have great artillery procedures but I guess not. Air power will do the job much better.

[crazyinsane105]

The new minister of defense of South Korea say if attacked again they will respond with air strikes. I guess the artillery just isn't up to the job. I would think they would have great artillery procedures but I guess not. Air power will do the job much better.

 

It definitely would in a skirmish, but in a full blown war, air power would just take too much time in being able to knock out all the artillery pieces the NKs have.

[ShotMagnet]

AOL news showed a picture of some ROK troops around what appeared to be the turret of an ADATS launcher, and identified it as an anti-aircraft missile launcher.

 

I couldn't find a source which confirmed that the ROK has ADATS, and I don't trust the fourth estate to distinguish a tank from a pick-up truck when it comes to correctly identifying military gear.

 

Does the South have ADATS vehicles?

 

 

Shot