Some noob questions and clarification about the DMZ

As I am a noob and interested in Korea, i would like to have a few questions answered.

1. Do the North Koreans have a massive stockpile of rockets and artillery in the hills on their side of the DMz as some (actually most) have said?
A lot of people have said they could flatten Soeul and punch holes in the South Korean defences with this, but after the whole WMD thing i doubt every piece of intelligence I hear.

2. Is there any comparable stockpile of fortified weapons on the Southern side?

3. What is the plan to defend against such an attack?

4. WOuld North Korea ever attack the South Korea, or are they just bluffing?

i think there's already a thread about this somewhere. but i'll answer some of it anywayz

1) there's are literally thousands of artillery pieces pointed at seoul , and since the city is so close to the DMZ, the artillery can pretty much platen the city given sufficient time and ammuition.. but i'm sure the north koreans stocked pilled on that too.

2) the south have less weapons stocked up, but they do have some close to the DMZ and in the south.

3) it will be very hard for south korea to defend an attack from the north, and that's where the americans comes in. if the north ever attacks, you'll be sure a few aircraft carriers will be sending in planes to bomb pyongyang 24/7.

4) kim (north korean leader) is crazy, so anything is possible. especially with the whole developing nuke thing right now. but attacking the south is pretty much suicide, bc not even china will 100% help them now a days, since south korea is a major chinese export distination.

hope that helps

The spelling is Seoul...

Another factor that might be worthy of some thought is the mindset of the North Korean soldiers. After all these years of famine and such, many are simply frustrated enough to do anything to try to take matters into their own hands. The way they see it, they'll either die in war or die of starvation, so they may as well have a fighting chance of surviving.

At least that's what I gathered from some great analysis of North Korea in a book called "Under the Loving care of the Fatherly Leader" (Not by a North Korean) that covers most of Korea's history, and is probably very accurate at depicting the current state of North Korea. Doubtless Kim Jong-il is a dangerous man to have around, but it's possible you'll find many people agree that they'd rather face off against him in a potential military conflict as opposed to Kim Il-Sung.

Military plans to defend South Korea aside, as far as I know there have been many efforts from the South and the US to spread information/propoganda regarding life outside North Korea, including leaflets and radio broadcasting.

About Kim being crazy...

I don't think that he's crazy in the normal sense of the word. I think that he threatens and blusters to keep himself in power and would never do anything to threaten his hold on power (such as invade South Korea). And about the bomb: 2 out of three "axis of evil" countries have gone after the bomb and the other one got invaded. Seeing a pattern? I think both Iran and North Korea want to have the bomb for the same reason everybody else does-as a detterent. For example Iran must feel marked for death because it has been encircled by countries occupied by the Americans and is going to get the bomb to protect its self. But that may be counter-productive!ff

I also read about Rummy repositioning American forces in South Korea away from the DMZ and out of range of an initial attack. The purpose of this would be to allow more powerful American forces to make a counter-attack while South Koreans took the casualties (preventing an outcry in the States). South Korea wouldn't care because they were fighting for survival.

I am not so sure on the positioning of American forces in South Korea, but I do agree very much with practically all of what PiSigma said. The North is somewhat at a crossroads, their economy is failing and the South's economy is flourishing. Kim says that his main goal is 'reunification of the Korean peninsula,' but how and under what terms? That is still in question. War with the South is suicide. But I don't think that a democratic reunification of governments will be acceptable to the North Koreans, and besides isn't it true that there is still alot of dissent between these two peoples?

What do other people think of the possibility of a future military conflict between the North and South, and inevitably the U.S. And what are the chances of China getting involved if there was such a hypothetical situation?

I once read a very intresting...I think it was a Blog, from a guy who went to both North and South Korea, the South first. He was told by the South Korean tour-guide that a North Korean government building, and all buildings along the DMZ were simple cardboard props. He then found that the buildings were very real. It's both funny and a little sad that both sides are so propaganda soaked. The only one in this blog who seemed to have any common sense was an older man serving as a North Korean DMZ tour-guide. Earlier the author had been chewed out by a twenty-something NK Tour Guide who seemed utterly ignorant to the realities of his nation. But the older guide seemed more down to earth.

As far as invading South Korea? It's unlikely that they will attempt it, but Kim Jong is a crazy mo-fo, for sure. So it is possible he might try something.

North Korea would most likely pound Seoul with artillery, then the ROKAF comes in and bombs the crap out of them with F-15s and F-16s and blockades North Korea while firing missiles straight at P'yongyang. Meanwhile An-2s are dropping in North Korea's so-called special ops to sabotage and gain intel. South Korea launches a massive counterattack on like the third day after North Korea pushes through, like 30 miles inward, and they win the war. South Korea only needs US aircraft. That's all.

Seems like you got somethin' against North Korea...I kid. You do, but I dont really care. :rofl:

To quote one of my faveorite video games: "We have always known for fifty years the North Korean objective would be to take Seoul." I think that is pretty acruate...

Though, and here is the question I pose to you...Is this second quote acurate.

"We have never been able to make a fesable defense of Seoul without nuclear weapons."

??

Kampfwagen said:

Though, and here is the question I pose to you...Is this second quote acurate.

"We have never been able to make a fesable defense of Seoul without nuclear weapons."

??

Click to expand...

Um... who was this quote by? The South Koreans? You don't "defend" a place with nuclear weapons, you only assure that if you get hit you can hit them back a lot harder than they hit you...

If it's by the North Koreans then I'm assuming that "Seoul" means defending against the South Koreans (and the US) and that if they didn't have nukes there wouldn't be anything stopping the North from being invaded.

Finn McCool said:

Do the North Koreans have a massive stockpile of rockets and artillery in the hills on their side of the DMz as some (actually most) have said?
A lot of people have said they could flatten Soeul and punch holes in the South Korean defences with this, but after the whole WMD thing i doubt every piece of intelligence I hear.

Click to expand...

Most major North Korean artillery and missile sites are bunkered in and well fortified, flanked by air defences such as SA-2s, so they are obviusly considered highly important to the KPA. Their existence has been confirmed by observations from the South side of the DMZ and by U.S. satellite photos. The obvious intention is to protect them from air attack, which will happen almost instantly - the USAF and ROCAF have bomber aircraft on standby in South Korea. But by the time they reach their targets, the KPA will ahve had the cahnce to fire plety of shells and missiles at South korea. Most of these weapons are aimed at targets in Seoul, and the sites that use long range weapons such as the Nodong or Taepo-dong missile are probably aimed at Tokyo aswell...
The U.S. believes one in every four artillery rounds contains a chemical or biological warhead. I know that may sound hard to beleive, given Iraq's invisible WMD, but North Korea is known to have one of the worlds largest colections of chemical weapons, such as chlorine or mustard gas. It also has an active biological weapons programme, which has produced agents such as Anthrax, Salmnella and Botcholism, although this programme is not as well developed as the chemical programme.
As for the Nuclear programme, I don't think there is much to worry about. They said they had Nuclear weapons, and we have seen what looks like warhead tests. But there is a difference between building a bomb and building one that is actually usable. The North Korean bombs are only test devices. The next step is build a nuclear weapon which is small enough to be carried by a bomber or a missile. This is much harder than actually builing a bomb in the first place, and the North simply doesn't have the expertise. If anyhting I think there should be more concern over North Korean chemical and biological weapons than their Nuclear programme.
As for a war with the south, I think that will always be a possibility, given that there are weekly incidents at the DMZ and in South Korean territorial waters. The North is superior in manpower to the south (the KPA is the world's fourth largest standong army) but the South is superior to the North in terms of training, leadership, technology and tactics. If there is a Second Korean war, it will probably have just as many casulaties on both sides as the first, both civillian and military. I think it will only be a matter of time before an American or South Korean spy plane or even a combat arivraft is shot down. But hopefully it will not end in conflict.