South Korean counter attack plans

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by winnfield, Jun 22, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Get rid of the NK artillery threat as soon and as quickly as possible.

  2. Andy_S

    Andy_S LE Book Reviewer

    Given that there are believed to be 300-500 tubes deployed (in casements) ranged in on Seoul, whatever they plan to do, they had better do damned fast. Seoul has extraordinary population density, and given SI's significance as a trading economy, any rounds landing in Seoul are going to give the global capital markets a sound shaking.

    I don't know much about counterbattery fire, but the land-to-sea missiles dug in along the Yellow Sea coast don't strike me as a particularly easy target either.

    Anyway, yours truly is taking a trip out with the SK Coastguard next week, followed by a demo of the Coast Guard's "counterterrorism team." Should be interesting, though I doubt the hovercraft will take us much further than Incheon harbour entrance.
  3. Isn't this just going to make the DPRK go for broke - should they get itchy trigger fingers ?
  4. Yes, but surely North Korea, for all its unpredictability, WON'T in its wildest moments begin a war? I feel sure it will flout international laws in both the near and far future, but it realises that if push comes to shove it will be torn to pieces.
    On the other side of it, the west (including South Korea, for reasons stated above) doesn't want war either we have plenty of military commitments as it is. Bush may have done, but I don't think the new president would without very VERY just cause, which we don't have. We would do if North Korea could either fire the missiles properly, or if we had inadequate anti missile defences, but neither is the case.
    In this light, I think that the publishing of these plans has served its purpose already-reminding North Korea that war would be a poor move. But if, as in this case, it is only a deterrant strategy, a first strike action from the South/our yankee cousins would be an uneccesary addition to the many many problems we face already.
  5. Already in hand. There are massive arrays of loudspeakers ranged all along the border.

    As soon as hostilities start, the South Koreans will start playing 'I am so lonely' as sung by Comrade Kim in the film 'Team America: World Police'.

    While the North Korean gunners are rolling on the floor laughing, South Korean special forces will nip across the border and disable the NK artillery.

    Seoul will be saved.
  6. Both sides are fully aware of this. Backs up my earlier point rather well.
  7. Mr D, not doubting the existence of these missiles, but wouldn't they need a hell of a range to be an effective threat? Considering that a carrier could happily sit 250 miles from the coast, the Norks would need to get targeting data wouldn't they?

    Also, IIRC, Aegis is designed for saturation missile attacks. I think they had 90-odd missiles per, so that's 30 missiles taken out per cruiser escorting- and I'm sure the USN could mass the escorts to the point where the surviving missiles would have to slalom round to get to the damn CVN!
  8. "So if the US send in a carrier they launch a barrage of anti-carrier missiles - just slightly too many for the carrier to counter in one go so they guarntee to sink it. "

    Great clancy like fiction that - in reality most of the missiles will fail, blow up early, or simply dissapear. Those that do will be fired off, with no means of finding the carrier, and no means of providing mid course guidance corrections in the event the carrier moves.