There are ways of crossing minefields. Some are crude but they do work. If huge minefields were an insurmountable defence they'd be used a lot more often than they are.

Seems to me that all he has to do is send a few poor saps through first to clear a path of mines, and then everyone else can follow along that path. I certainly wouldn't put it past someone like him to just kill of a portion of his army to get through such a minefield.

He has this satellite that gathers solar energy then can direct a beam across the parallel whiping out all the mines and opening up a path for his hovercrafts, or haven't you seen Die Another Day?

oops wiping, not whiping.

I remember a nice little story

north korea had dug some tunnels under the DMZ, and at some point, some of the tunnels collapsed and were uncovered.
north koreas official explanation was "coal mines"

of course, the geological layer didn't bear any coal at all.
so what did they do ?
they painted the tunnel black

no joke

they actually painted the tunnel black to fake it being a coal mine.


for a country that struggles hard to be taken seriously, that's kinda embarrasing

Will the US have to go back in and kick commie ass again-wasnt the korean war counted as a "draw" and the vietnam war was against "commies" and we all know what happened there, the bay of pigs etc

Why bother slipping across? He has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to level it - a low tech but effective method of Mutually Assured Destruction.

He is doing it for the same reason he has acted belligerant for the last decade - to blackmail consessions. Why wouldn't he - it works, after all

Because he is out of his mind.

I don't think there will be war there, not for decades at least.

@Thucydides - "Because he is out of his mind." Amen.

He isn't. He wants the Americans to disable it in order to provide escape routes for soldiers.

@Hamilton - Disable what? The minefield? I don't recall that ever being mentioned as part of negotiations over anything with N. Korea. How exactly would the Americans do that? it's my understanding that at least some of the mines there are North Korean.

Like, if the US sends in a team to take such and such artillery position, but they have to leave, aerial rescue would not be effective, so it'd have to be retreat by foot or reinforcements from across the DMZ. The US would end up dismantling the line for him.

could just aim that artillery at the minefield im sure there is nothing in any rules that says you cant fire at a dmz.

You could clear the way the US did the first Gulf War or do what the Russians did during WW2, or Iran did against Iraq. Have a bunch of "volunteers" and patriots run across it. A mine field only slows down or redirects an attack.

Just a thought, but what if he nuked a portion of the minefield? If the bomb was set off deep enough (they dig deep tunnels) it would turn over the soil and detonate most of the mines.

Few in any people would die as a direct result. He wouldn't be nuking a city, nor a military base. It wouldn't be classed an atrocity.

It might be an excuse for retaliation, but only in the short term and if we nuked some of their cities *we* (the West) would be the bad guys who used city-busters, not him.

Minutes after the bang the Norths soldiers are up and running south. The faster they run, the less fall-out they experience (there's an incentive to run real fast).

If we didn't nuke them 'til they glow within a few minutes of the bang, then it would be a no-lose scenario for the North.

So, how wide and how deep is the mine field?

they can outfit tanks like they did in WW2 with giant lead balls attached to 6 foot chains that pound the ground to make the mines detonate

"largest known minefield" - Is there really a possibility that there's a larger unknown minefield in existence?

I have to say I don't see why the minefield is an issue to him. Artillery/missles can cross it, and no-one can get to him.
Oh, and I don't think he's out of his mind that's the issue. He has a set of beliefs we don't agree with, but he is completely within his mind and when it comes down to it everything I know of him doing is very logical. After all, there is nothing the international community can do other than declare war after his recent tests, and he knows they don't want to do that. Moreover, he's really increased their bargaining position, so if they do go back for talks they'll have to give him something in return for it.

As a side issue, I take it everyone's heard the comment that America only aren't invading because it's no fun? After all, what's the point in searching for WMDs if you already know where they're hidden...

With the poor stait of the North Korean economy, they could only fight for about a week before running into supply problems. That's why I think the only fighting the North would want would be a border skirmish in the DMZ at best. Anything longer and they will need Chinese help. This would kill trade between China and the western world, and is not what China wants as it would destroy it's economy.

In short North Korea needs Chinese support to do anything major, and it will not get it.

@diplomat. If the US had "kicked commie ass" in the first place, there wouldn't be a North Korea!

@ Draugnar-

Die Another Day was the inspiration for this thread.

I don't think the minefield is a relevant issue. In a fucked up kind of way, Kim Jong Il has almost won by successfully testing nuclear weapons. I don't (at least I really hope) think that war will happen if they have nuclear weapons. The risk is too great. I don't think he's actually crazy, though he's definitely got an enormous ego. I think he has gambled on nuclear weapons securing more political power for North Korea, and he's probably right.

North Korea is so mysterious. I remember hearing a funny idea that Kim Jong Il is actually dead, but they have a doppelganger carrying on as Kim Jong Il. Even funnier is Kim Jong Il's purported prodigal golf skills.
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2004/ea_nkorea_06_16.html

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but the last war hasn't actually finished yet has it? There has been a ceasefire in place for over 50 years but never a peace declaration.

I'd say the real reason America and co wouldn't ever consider attacking North Korea has nothing to do with oil as the conspiracy freaks claim but is the same reason they had the ceasefire in the first place. Sure they can kick North Koreas butt but then China could just step in and kick theirs.

So North Korea can't attack South Korea because they would lose and South Korea can't attack North Korea because they would lose so either side can threaten what they want and even have small skirmishes safe in the knowledge they won't be invaded. (Unless North Korea pisses China off)

While a battle between China and America on Korean soil would have devastating casualties, I seriously doubt that China has any capacity to "step in and kick [America's butt]".

China's army and airforce may be the largest, but the tech behind them is also antiquated and their navy can't dp much more than coastal patrols. Until they purchased a couple of squadrons of Su-27s from the Russians, their planes were all from the Vietnam era. And while they may have four Kilo subs from Russia, everything else is in their navy is from WWII or Korea.

And their 2.8 million conscript soldiers are severely undertrained and no match for the well-trained and well-equiped US soldiers.

All the ideas of nuking and tanks with weights aren't as bad as what one middle east country did ina war: they gave 13-year old boys a plastic key and told them if they walked across the minefield, the key would open Heaven.

China already has been pissed off by North Korea: do you know how many immigrants from North Korea they get? And China is pissed because they have their one child policy to deal with population growth and refugees/immigrants tax the system more.

@Trim101: Bay of Pigs had Jack... to do with North Korea, Bay of Pigs was a CIA-allied operation on Commie Cuba.

@DangerMouse: Yes, in Russia, and Sarah Palin can see it from her house.

@Chrisp and @Draugnar Isn't that what America thought during the last Korean war? Just before China stepped in and pushed them right back to where they started? China was technically inferior then too and the gap has closed since then.

Clearly America is the most technically advanced and powerful nation but overconfidence after beating up a few minnows is not a good idea. China also has the huge homegame advantage whereas America has a long way to bring that spiffy technology and people and large amounts deployed in other theatres.

Su-27s can't hold a candle to an F-15, F-16, or any other American fighter.

I also second everything Draugnar said.

and USAF and USN pilots are trained WAY better then Commie pilots. That's how they won the skies in the Korean War. The F-86 Sabre was actually inferior to the MiG-15 in almost every way, but the F-86 still had a 10-to-1 kill ratio over MiG-15s because UN pilots were better trained.

diplomat1824, I think it's pretty clear that the main reason for this latest nuttiness in North Korea was to make the world respect the announcement of his successor, who's only about 25.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8078324.stm

You're pretty naive to think everything would be so easy in defeating China. For one thing, it's no where near a guarantee that China would support North Korea again. How could any nation truly support such a regime. At any rate, in the event of a war with China, we probably could win conventionally in the air and at sea. In fact, almost certainly. I highly doubt an actual invasion where US soldiers march through Beijing is possible, though.

Even if the US totally won, we'd lose because a conflict, even a very limited one or a serious standoff, would completely wreck the entire world economy. Short of a direct, unprovoked Chinese invasion of Taiwan or a naval clash over the South China Sea, there will never be a shooting war between America and China.

Stripy, you overestimate China in the early 50s. The US fought a limited police action in Korea, so we had one hand tied behind our back once China got involved. Truman rightly knew that a war in China would be a terrible distraction to the bigger threat of the Soviet Union in Europe. We didn't draw so much as we decided to stop fighting seeing a other places had a higher priority.

The US war in Korea in the 50s was unsuccessful because it was a UN action. And anyway, China would never risk losing their greatest trading partner over North Korea.

I second Invictus. History Buff of 1900's?

diplomat, you can't just take simple kill ratio because the MiG's weren't targeting Sabres, they were targeting B-29 Superfortress bombers. Sabres were deployed with the specific intent of taking out MiG's. Considering that the Soviet Union offered relatively limited air support for the Korean War, I don't think you can draw any conclusions saying that American pilots were somehow far superior to "Commie" pilots. I think most American pilots at the time had a healthy respect and fear for their Soviet counterparts.

Stripy, what Invictus said.

Also that news link is pretty interesting.

Korea was not a war but a police action. In effect, we weren't allowed to take offensive action other than to retake lost territory. We were there to establish and maintain a boundary, not to beat North Korea into submission.

And my analysis wasn't what I think will happen but more of a force to force comparison. I've no doubt the losses on both sides would be huge if we went head to head with China, and the whole world would suffer, which is why it will never happen. But someone suggested that China would kick our buts and I seriously doubt either side would so domintae as to kick the other's butts. China has numbers, we have training and tech. The scales are pretty evenly balanced in that regard.

@Invictus I'm no expert on the subject so I'll accept what you say regarding accepting a draw. I am opinionated though so I'll still stick my oar in :)

The US calls it limited police action, everybody else calls it a war. According to wikipedia the US lost over 36000 men and had nearly 130,000 dead and wounded in a much shorter period than the Vietnam war. That sounds like a pretty major commitment to me.

Also another perspective is China didn't draw, they just decided to stop fighting once they had pushed the allied forces back to the 38th parallel? And anyway the US always likes to call things UN actions to give them legitimacy.

We've strayed out of my areas of knowledge a bit far though, I'm sure some of the comments here are from people more knowledgeable on the subject than me so I'll stop winding you up now. My main point was originally supposed to be regarding how, in the present the US won't attack North Korea without the express support of the Chinese.

I would be curious though if anyone knows of or has a link to the total number of US troops deployed in Korea

@Draugnar sorry I can't let that stand, even I know that's not true. If you were just there to establish and maintain a boundary why did the allied forces go so far past the original boundary before turning around and heading back?

There still is a war there. As I understand it there never was a treaty to end that war.

@Stripy - you may be right on the overall movements (I've studied WWII more than Korea) but we don't just call it a UN action. It is either authorized by the UN and includes more than just US forces or it isn't. Korea was authorized and included 16 member nations' troops under the United Nations Joint Command. Yes, MacArthur was in charge of that force until he was fired, but his actions to push into North Korea rather than stopping at the 38th was responsible for both the Chinese entry and his geting sacked. But the 38th became a stalemate line for BOTH sides.

P.S. I got this off a British History site, not a US one.

@Draugnar I won't start another argument about the UN :)

I wasn't aware of that, thanks. I knew MacArthur was fired but I didn't know it was for pushing into the North. I thought it was for getting his butt kicked or something :) A little knowledge etcetc

"The US calls it limited police action, everybody else calls it a war."

It was a war in the sense that there was fighting and people died, but there were limited goals and it was done totally in the name of the UN. A police action isn't based on how many deaths there were, but on the reasons for the conflict itself. It's mostly semantics, but it explains why the US didn't actually carry the war to China when they attacked the UN forces.

"Also another perspective is China didn't draw, they just decided to stop fighting once they had pushed the allied forces back to the 38th parallel? And anyway the US always likes to call things UN actions to give them legitimacy."

China didn't draw at the 38th, they went further, capturing Seoul, before being pushed back again. If they could have China would have taken the whole of Korea, just like we would have if the Chinese never went in or we were prepared to really fight China instead of fighting China in Korea. I hope that makes sense.

Also, the UN did condemn the North's invasion and called for action. I don't know why you seem to think the United Nations is America's puppet.

"US won't attack North Korea without the express support of the Chinese."

The US won't attack at all. The US would respond to North Korea aggression as it is bound to do by the UN business from the Korean War and treaty obligations with South Korea and/or Japan.

MacArthur was fired because he advocated attacking China to Congress after Truman told him not to. He stepped beyond the proper parameters of civilian control of the military and Truman fired him for THAT.