Gadhafi wins Lybian Civil War

Proof that it's a myth? Because that is the cornerstone of North’s deterrent and ROK government holds monthly (IIRC) civilian shelling drills at Soul.

This is a good beginner's reference.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...40-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009)

All you have to do is look at a map and look up the range of artillery. Seoul is well beyond the range of all but a fraction of North Korea's artillery. Civil defense drills are prudent, but doesn't prove the myth that the North can level Seoul. The North can do some damage for a few days before their arty gets suppressed. But this is survivable whilst their nukes provide the real threat.
 
Because France and England were involved, then NATO went in, Gaddafi was doomed. Even if it was Just Britain and France he'd still have more than he could handle, he intentionally kept his military sub par, so any western intervention was more than he could handle.

Only two outcomes for a win I can see.

1. No Western involvment means a bigger slogging match with many more people killed. Then he manages to crush the rebellion after a long slog, and in ten to five years theres another uprising as people become more militant, probably an active insurgency.

2. Back in May (I believe correct me if im wrong it may have been in the summer) the West was incredibally and stupidly pessimistic and suggested the country be partitioned into East pro rebel and West pro Gaddafi. Thats only if the West became extremely stupid and somehow reasoned they couldn't properly back the insurgency.

In terms of point 1, the rebels may in fact turn to grow radical as Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations offer to provide training, arms and logistics to the remainders. If these rebels manage to overthrow Gadhafi, we might be looking at a Saudi-Arabia like regime.

I remember how Sean Mulligan saying back in that time that the fall of the Benghazi regime was inevitable. To be honest, back then I didn't think he was entirely wrong. The NTC's military forces back then were woefully amateurish and I didn't think they'd be able to train enough combat ready units to oppose Gadhafi before Benghazi fell. Nobody wants to end up backing the wrong side of a Civil War, there was the fear that the West could intervene, but that Gadhafi would win anyhow and that would further de-stabilize the region. Then there was that stalemate that last for like four months and the perception was that it would harden into a Korean DMZ like divide, and then negotiation would be necessary.

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, and thankfully the decision for NATO to intervene was the correct one.
 
In terms of point 1, the rebels may in fact turn to grow radical as Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations offer to provide training, arms and logistics to the remainders. If these rebels manage to overthrow Gadhafi, we might be looking at a Saudi-Arabia like regime.

I remember how Sean Mulligan saying back in that time that the fall of the Benghazi regime was inevitable. To be honest, back then I didn't think he was entirely wrong. The NTC's military forces back then were woefully amateurish and I didn't think they'd be able to train enough combat ready units to oppose Gadhafi before Benghazi fell. Nobody wants to end up backing the wrong side of a Civil War, there was the fear that the West could intervene, but that Gadhafi would win anyhow and that would further de-stabilize the region. Then there was that stalemate that last for like four months and the perception was that it would harden into a Korean DMZ like divide, and then negotiation would be necessary.

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, and thankfully the decision for NATO to intervene was the correct one.

I personally never thought that the Benghazi regime would fall, hence my very scathing remarks. I found such pessimism completely unfounded and i considered that there was a stalemate to be extremely tactically significant. With no stalemate and a successful Gaddafi offensive with the Rebels only holding on to some Eastern coastal towns, then i would have said there was trouble, but the fact that Gaddafi didn't launch a successful counter-attack was key, it pretty much showed he was doomed. If he had actually succeeded in breaking the stalemate for any length of time then i might have been pessimistic, since it was the rebels, well our pessimism was utterly unfounded.

Pardon the rant I just found that to be completely inexcusable by our politcians.
 
If UK, France and all don't intervene, Gadhafi wins easy.....
Some even think that the decision is made even before the 'civil war' starts.
 

whitecrow

Banned
This is a good beginner's reference.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...40-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009)

All you have to do is look at a map and look up the range of artillery. Seoul is well beyond the range of all but a fraction of North Korea's artillery. Civil defense drills are prudent, but doesn't prove the myth that the North can level Seoul. The North can do some damage for a few days before their arty gets suppressed. But this is survivable whilst their nukes provide the real threat.

Looks long, but I'll give it a read when I have time. One question for you though: if, as you claim, the artillery is of no real threat while the nukes are than why didn't ROK bomb DPRK's nuclear site? You know, like how the Israelis bombed Iraq's & Syria's nuclear sites they deemed a threat. After all, you say the artillery is of no real consequence so what does South Korea have to loose?
 
Looks long, but I'll give it a read when I have time. One question for you though: if, as you claim, the artillery is of no real threat while the nukes are than why didn't ROK bomb DPRK's nuclear site? You know, like how the Israelis bombed Iraq's & Syria's nuclear sites they deemed a threat. After all, you say the artillery is of no real consequence so what does South Korea have to loose?

Because they know North Korea is scared and cornered but not suicidal. Their nukes and their crazy antics are a form of deterrent. Unless South Korea invaded the north, there's little worry of Kim actually using a nuke.
 
Looks long, but I'll give it a read when I have time. One question for you though: if, as you claim, the artillery is of no real threat while the nukes are than why didn't ROK bomb DPRK's nuclear site? You know, like how the Israelis bombed Iraq's & Syria's nuclear sites they deemed a threat. After all, you say the artillery is of no real consequence so what does South Korea have to loose?
DPRK is paranoid, and has a very large air defense system specifically designed to protect against the ROK, doing so without a full scale war to wear down the defenses would be suicide for anything but a USAF B-2 or F-117 and not exactly healthy for them
 

whitecrow

Banned
Because they know North Korea is scared and cornered but not suicidal. Their nukes and their crazy antics are a form of deterrent. Unless South Korea invaded the north, there's little worry of Kim actually using a nuke.
Again, if what you say about the artillery is true why didn't ROK bomb DPRKs program BEFORE they built the bomb? You know, like Israel did with its enemies' programs. If your enemy had no deterrent or leverage, why let him get a deterrent?
 
Again, if what you say about the artillery is true why didn't ROK bomb DPRKs program BEFORE they built the bomb? You know, like Israel did with its enemies' programs. If your enemy had no deterrent or leverage, why let him get a deterrent?
See above post, the ROK is concerned about its pilots lives and the DRPK has better air defenses than Syria or Iraq
 

whitecrow

Banned
DPRK is paranoid, and has a very large air defense system specifically designed to protect against the ROK, doing so without a full scale war to wear down the defenses would be suicide for anything but a USAF B-2 or F-117 and not exactly healthy for them
Not so sure. North Korea's air defense system is large, yes, but it is also outdated. And Iraqis had a good AAA system in 1983 when Israeli F-15s showed up, no?
 
Not so sure. North Korea's air defense system is large, yes, but it is also outdated. And Iraqis had a good AAA system in 1983 when Israeli F-15s showed up, no?
Outdated yes, far larger with less airspace to defend yes. Iraq also was at war with Iran at the time and could not concentrate fully on Israel the DPRK has not such trouble and would be more likely to scramble air defense fighters. The DPRK is less than 1/3rd the size and lacks neighboring neutral countries airspace to violate, sake the PRC who would not be amused
 
The rebels might have turned to Al-Quaeda, which would have forced the West to support Gadaffi against their insurgency. Given that Gadaffi would be seen as a mass murderer, it would have done serious political damage to Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy.
 
Top