North Korea/South Korea

[alfaniner]

It seems like things have been escalating for some time. But this is the first time I heard the same kind of rhetoric from South Korea. In fact, it's almost the same thing NK said, about "reducing the country to ashes". (They really should fire that speech writer...)

I had the first bad inklings a couple years ago, but it seems clear to me that something "big" will be happening soon (within months).

 

[Ian Osborne]

I wonder how feasible it would be for the south to make a pre-emptive strike, taking out NK's missile capabilities then rolling over the border? I'm not suggesting it should, but would it be an option if the situation became too dangerous?

 

[theprestige]

I wonder how feasible it would be for the south to make a pre-emptive strike, taking out NK's missile capabilities then rolling over the border? I'm not suggesting it should, but would it be an option if the situation became too dangerous?

From what I understand, the North Korean artillery is too well entrenched to get it all in a first strike. There would always be substantial risk of a chemical counterattack on South Korean civilians. So preemption is pretty much a non-starter, unless a North Korean attack is already clearly imminent.

 

[McHrozni]

It seems like things have been escalating for some time. But this is the first time I heard the same kind of rhetoric from South Korea. In fact, it's almost the same thing NK said, about "reducing the country to ashes". (They really should fire that speech writer...)

I had the first bad inklings a couple years ago, but it seems clear to me that something "big" will be happening soon (within months).

You don't announce you're going to destroy your enemy before you do it. Such proclamations are intended to act as a deterrent all by themselves. It marks a change in South Korean strategy towards the North from accommodation to confrontation.

It's a risky, but sensible change. Accommodation evidently didn't work, so they think it's time to try something different.

McHrozni

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Unlike the joke that is the 2nd Amendment when it comes to protecting the US from foreign invaders, all people in North Korea have had years of military training. A ground attack really would be the mother of all bad ideas, no matter who is doing it.

But I am certain that China is just as pissed at Kim Jong Il as the US is. If they are ever so stupid as to launch an actual missile at another country's land territory, even China wouldn't object to having North Korea's nuclear facilities bunker-busted into the earth's core.

 

[theprestige]

First, universal militia service can't make up for profound deficiencies in doctrine, equipment, manpower, supply, and morale.

Second, North Korea's nuclear facilities are not the threat. Their deeply entrenched heavy artillery formations, massed along the border and capable of launching chemical weapons against South Korea's civilian population, are the threat.

In terms of modern conventional warfare, without China's involvement, and accepting the concurrent loss of South Korean civilian lives, a combined arms invasion of North Korea would be an absolute curb stomp.

 

[3point14]

...Marilyn Monroe.

(just Me then? Sorry. )

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

First, universal militia service can't make up for profound deficiencies in doctrine, equipment, manpower, supply, and morale.

Second, North Korea's nuclear facilities are not the threat. Their deeply entrenched heavy artillery formations, massed along the border and capable of launching chemical weapons against South Korea's civilian population, are the threat.

In terms of modern conventional warfare, without China's involvement, and accepting the concurrent loss of South Korean civilian lives, a combined arms invasion of North Korea would be an absolute curb stomp.

It would be a bad idea to compare North Korea to something like Iraq.
The jungles and mountains would make a guerrilla a nightmare, plus the fact that noone really knows just how indoctrinated the average North Korean is.
The Iraqies pretty much surrendered whenever they got the chance, but will North Koreans?
Destroying the infrastructure won't actually change that much for the average North Korean, so a bombing campaign is of limited use.
A land campaign would be won, but the cost in lives could potentially be along the lines of WW2 campaigns and most likely be worse than Vietnam.
There is also the fact that Seoul lies well within conventional weapons range for North Korea, and they've pretty much said they have chemical weapons lined up to fire.

 

[McHrozni]

There is also the fact that Seoul lies well within conventional weapons range for North Korea, and they've pretty much said they have chemical weapons lined up to fire.

Those weapons are necessarily arrayed along a fairly small area. Any attack would drown have to suffocate them in a chemical attack first, in napalm second, then precision bombing would take out anything that's left. Potential nuclear launch sites would have to be taken out at the same time. After that, North Korean military can be taken out at leisure, air force first.

South Korea might not be able to do it alone, it would need US support (specifically, from B-1B and B-2s). It would be risky and expensive, but it is within capabilities of ROK military forces if US lends a hand.

Occupying North Korea would be a different sort of problem altogether of course.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

It would be a bad idea to compare North Korea to something like Iraq.
The jungles and mountains would make a guerrilla a nightmare

"Jungles"? According to Environment of North Korea^WP

The forest types are mainly subarctic (boreal) and cool-temperate forest.​

And this cool weather forest has recently been "devastated" by misuse and natural disasters.

 

[McHrozni]

"Jungles"? According to Environment of North Korea^WP

The forest types are mainly subarctic (boreal) and cool-temperate forest.​

And this cool weather forest has recently been "devastated" by misuse and natural disasters.

Yeah, good catch. North Korea is anything but a jungle.

It's still rather mountainous though, good for defense and hard to attack.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Yeah, good catch. North Korea is anything but a jungle.

It's still rather mountainous though, good for defense and hard to attack.

McHrozni

You've already told us that you are thinking in terms of heavy bombers.

South Korea might not be able to do it alone, it would need US support (specifically, from B-1B and B-2s). It would be risky and expensive, but it is within capabilities of ROK military forces if US lends a hand.

Quite so. Then the US will have a chance to repeat this activity

American planes dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on Korea - that is, essentially on North Korea - including 32,557 tons of napalm, compared to 503,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire Pacific theatre of World War II. The number of Korean dead, injured or missing by war’s end approached three million, ten percent of the overall population. The majority of those killed were in the North, which had half of the population of the South; although the DPRK does not have official figures, possibly twelve to fifteen percent of the population was killed in the war, a figure close to or surpassing the proportion of Soviet citizens killed in World War II.​

But I hope you intend that bombing should be directed at military targets rather than include the total destruction of cities this time.

 

[theprestige]

I guess it depends whether the North Koreans have colocated their military installations with their cities, and then proposed to fight a war on such a basis.

Also, modern bombing is much more accurate. The same military goals can now be achieved with a fraction of the raw tonnage of bombs needed six decades ago. And without having to resort to similar volumes of area effect munitions.

 

[McHrozni]

But I hope you intend that bombing should be directed at military targets rather than include the total destruction of cities this time.

I would say entrenched weapons systems designed to terrorize Seoul would reasonably count as military targets, yeah

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

I would say entrenched weapons systems designed to terrorize Seoul would reasonably count as military targets, yeah

These weapons systems would indeed. But you also refer to "the N Korean military can be taken out at leisure" which for all I know means among other things attacking the population from which that military machine draws its recruits. Arguments of that order have been made in the forum recently in justification of the carpet bombing practiced in WW2.

But strikes directed at entrenched weapons systems are not carpet bombing, I agree.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Because of the military service, there would be no way to keep military and civilian targets separate.

I believe that a decapitation strike against the Kim Jong would probably be enough to bring the generals to a negotiation table.

 

[crescent]

I tend to think China would not tolerate an occupation of N.K. by anyone other than China. The Korean War is still remembered with great pride in China. So if a shooting war started, I would expect China would come in from the north much faster than the U.S. or S.K could come up from the south.

ETA: Not to defend N.K., but to decapitate it themselves and replace the current regime with a more sane, but still pro-China regime. I think Korean unification (by any mechanism) will stay off the table until the last Chinese veterans of the war are long-dead.

 

[Puppycow]

It seems like things have been escalating for some time. But this is the first time I heard the same kind of rhetoric from South Korea. In fact, it's almost the same thing NK said, about "reducing the country to ashes". (They really should fire that speech writer...)

I had the first bad inklings a couple years ago, but it seems clear to me that something "big" will be happening soon (within months).

I doubt it. Nothing has really changed all that much. Rhetorical changes are just sabre-rattling. The underlying strategic calculus remains the same: the costs are too high for either side to really want a real war.

 

[Delvo]

If the command structure and internal communications system is known well enough to outsiders, a bomb strike wouldn't even need to get all of the artillery, or at least not be too pressed for time to do so. Hitting the places where the orders to fire would come from could still have the desired effect, preventing NK from firing (or at least delaying it long enough to buy SK and its allies more time to keep hitting more artillery sites).

After that, an invasion on the ground wouldn't even be necessary... but SK might not want the NK government & military system decapitated without a plan for how to take care of the citizens afterward... and just trying to send in the resources to govern and feed the country might look like an "invasion" anyway.

 

[McHrozni]

These weapons systems would indeed. But you also refer to "the N Korean military can be taken out at leisure" which for all I know means among other things attacking the population from which that military machine draws its recruits. Arguments of that order have been made in the forum recently in justification of the carpet bombing practiced in WW2.

There is no need nor reason to carpet bomb recruitment potential of an army that was obsolescent 50 years ago, hopelessly obsolete 30 years ago, that lacks fuel and spare parts to be of much of an offensive threat. Situation in WW2 was profoundly different, what was justified there and then is not necessarily justified against North Korea.

McHrozni