So now that South Korea has vowed retaliation, what happens with the next provocation?
Since y'all don't seem to big on writing any comments on the courses of action, we'll just let you vote on your most likely...
By: Brant
08 December 2010
COA Analysis: The Next Nork Attack (Reader Participation Required!)
So now that South Korea has vowed retaliation, what happens with the next provocation?
Since y'all don't seem to big on writing any comments on the courses of action, we'll just let you vote on your most likely...
By: Brant
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
No comment.
:p
I see #2 or #4 being the most likely. The US cannot support major combat operations in Korea due to everyting being tied up or worn out from sandbox.
China will fully support the North and I would expect Nukes or Bio/Chem (a most likely event if there is a war) to be unleashed. So Hillary and Company are urging restraint while the South Koreans seem to be apathetic.
I plumped for "courageous restraint" because it was the closest there was to what I think will happen: there might be further exchanges of fire, or missile tests, but there will be no invasion.
We have to ask, "cui bono?" Who would benefit, and how, by the DPRK invading the South? I don't think anyone outside the DPRK would conceivably benefit by it, except that doing so would IMO cause the DPRK government to collapse and so cease to be an organized threat to anyone - but it would still be a threat and generate tremendous chaos in the region. China would definitely not want that. The DPRK Army leadership and membership benefits from the current situation, in that they get priority for industrial goodies and their soldiers are not starving, and it does not benefit them to smash it all up in a war with the South - a war that even the most deluded of their generals know will not be the almost-success of 1950. They could invade and destroy Seoul, or lay waste to large parts of the countryside, but they could not comprehensively defeat the ROK Army or make the government collapse and surrender.
The yelling, and maybe a bit of shooting, will go on, but there will be no war.
Slim chance of open conflict, in my opinion. South Korea has too much to lose. Prosperous nations don't seem to like to fight war on their own turf. They'll huff and puff, but I don't seem them getting froggy without the US by their side. I agree with anonymous that the US military has its hands full with other conflicts.
On the other hand, what kind of conflict could North Korea sustain economically? War fighting materials aren't cheap and North Korea isn't exactly wealthy.
That's just my simple hip pocket analysis.
South Korea's key limiting factor seems to be the fact that Seoul is in artillery range from the DMZ. If the Norks can pound Seoul from behind the DMZ, the SK government will be in deep kimchee if they try anything
Post a Comment