• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

North Korea/South Korea

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.

That's the biggest issue. North Korean army and political system could reasonably be brought down without too much hassle, assuming a full scale commitment of ROK and US armed forces. What happens afterwards is the real problem.

Imagine Iraq, but with far worse infrastructure, a populace that is potentially far more resistive and much more difficult terrain. It wouldn't be pretty.

McHrozni
 
That's the biggest issue. North Korean army and political system could reasonably be brought down without too much hassle, assuming a full scale commitment of ROK and US armed forces. What happens afterwards is the real problem.

Imagine Iraq, but with far worse infrastructure, a populace that is potentially far more resistive and much more difficult terrain. It wouldn't be pretty.

McHrozni

Err. no
This is not the biggest issue

The biggest issue is that the world has changed since 2003.

Let` s check every single aspect of a possible strike by the US in North Korea

1) North Korea honchos are not exactly living in a palace where they can be take off easily. And the military infrastructure of North Korea is quite extensive and well protected so in order to take everything off the US would need to find a number of bases around NK and be prepared for a long aerial campaign. From a sheer economic point of view, the US is now not in the condition of doing this

2) An attack to NK would require the OK from the UNSC which would be blocked by China. So the US could still go ahead and do it but it would be an act of aggression. The United States, especially after the disaster in Iraq, can not afford to be seen as an aggressor by the international community as an aggressor again

3) China is heavily supporting North Korea. China` s military is quickly improving and they have a military budget now about half that of the US. A large number of domestically manufactured planes, aircraft carriers, destroyers and one of the largest in the world arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world. Considering that the United States could not force militarly Iran to abandon their nuclear program, it is impossible for them to force North Korea to surrender, considering that China would almost surely support

4) An attack to NK by the US would start a confrontation with the no. 1 economy of the world, China, which is growing at 7%. The US can not win the battle
 
Err. no
This is not the biggest issue

Yes, it is.

1) North Korea honchos are not exactly living in a palace where they can be take off easily. And the military infrastructure of North Korea is quite extensive and well protected so in order to take everything off the US would need to find a number of bases around NK and be prepared for a long aerial campaign. From a sheer economic point of view, the US is now not in the condition of doing this

A large portion of work would be done by South Korea anyway. US is well able to afford it, although it would prefer not to.

2) An attack to NK would require the OK from the UNSC which would be blocked by China. So the US could still go ahead and do it but it would be an act of aggression. The United States, especially after the disaster in Iraq, can not afford to be seen as an aggressor by the international community as an aggressor again

Nonsense. Any action against North Korea has had the blessing of the UN since 1950. There was no peace treaty, only a cease fire that North Korea declared was null and void two years ago. There are zero legal requirements to attack North Korea.

3) China is heavily supporting North Korea. China` s military is quickly improving and they have a military budget now about half that of the US. A large number of domestically manufactured planes, aircraft carriers, destroyers and one of the largest in the world arsenals of nuclear weapons in the world. Considering that the United States could not force militarly Iran to abandon their nuclear program, it is impossible for them to force North Korea to surrender, considering that China would almost surely support

The number of assumptions and outright falsehoods here is astounding. China doesn't have a large number of domestically manufactured planes (relying on license produced Russian export junk), aircraft carriers (one, Soviet produced, semi-submersible). They have domestic produced ships of untested quality, and a nuclear arsenal that is not particularly large, but it's also not trivial. They have no long range power projection capability, no long range aircraft, a very limited submarine force, hostile relations to almost all neighbors and no allies to speak of.

China has already stumbled heavily in their empire-building. Their economic growth, as always, brought aspirations for personal liberty as well. Chinese government didn't cooperate, so it did the thing countries in such situations do: invented foreign enemies and started foreign conflicts, in order to silence the opposition and divert attention. The result is that Vietnam and Philippines - two potential natural allies to the Chinese - are driven into the embrace of the US. The same goes for all other countries in the South China sea, which would be valuable allies to China, but instead prefer the US.

The main issue with China however that it's very doubtful China would be willing to go to war with it's largest trading partner, in order to defend North Korean regime. They would likely welcome what the effects would do to South Korean and US economy, but wouldn't intervene.

4) An attack to NK by the US would start a confrontation with the no. 1 economy of the world, China, which is growing at 7%. The US can not win the battle

Sure, keep telling yourself that. Especially the "can not win" part. Laughable. Chinese forces are capable of fighting off a US naval invasion and occupation of China, but their relative capabilities fall dramatically in any other scenario.

As for Chinese economy, you probably don't want to hear this, but it's not 7%, and probably hasn't been anywhere near 7% for quite a while. But that's a story for another thread.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
So sad..

It is impressive how people are blind to facts.

In the last 5 years:
1) the US has failed to end Iran nuclear program. Remember that the original goal of US and Israel was to have NO nuclear program in Iran, then it became OK nuclear program but NO enrichment
2) the US has failed to bring Iraq under their side
Now Iraq is going under Iran
3) the US has failed to contain Russia on Crimea
4) the US has been passed as 1st economy
5) China is now the major economy partner of all ex US allies

Considering that the US, at the peak of their power, lost to North Vietnam + China, it is utterly impossible for them to win in 2016 to NK + China
 
Last edited:
Considering that the US, at the peak of their power, lost to North Vietnam + China, it is utterly impossible for them to win in 2016 to NK + China

The only thing sad is your knowledge of history, which deserves a straight F-.

Vietnamese main ally was the Soviet Union. They don't like the Chinese for historic reasons. Vietnam actually fought a war against China shortly after the end of the Vietnam war. Still, if Chinese foreign policy was smarter than you, they could be a prime ally. Much stranger things have happened (UK-France, France-Germany) after all. US didn't exactly deploy the full might against Vietnam either (having ~1 million men ready in Europe and elsewhere to deter the Soviet invasion was a bit of a handicap you see), but that's another story altogether.

You are right on one thing though.

It is impressive how people are blind to facts.

People in this case means you, of course.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
A policy that would put a decapitated NK squarely in the sphere of influence of China, with a demilitarization of both North and South (including a US withdrawal) might be the way to get China on board a military intervention.
The risk is a weakened but not incapacitated NK leadership that might seek salvation in total war. Only a removal of the top brass plus assurances by China and the rest of the world for post-war reconstruction aid might prevent that.
 
"Jungles"? According to Environment of North KoreaWP
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.

It might have rainforrests, but they are more like the rainforests of the pacific northwest.
 
The only thing sad is your knowledge of history, which deserves a straight F-.

Vietnamese main ally was the Soviet Union. They don't like the Chinese for historic reasons. Vietnam actually fought a war against China shortly after the end of the Vietnam war.

Yawn..
During the Vietnam War (1959–75), North Vietnam balanced relations with its two major allies, the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Vietnam#Soviet_era

Still, if Chinese foreign policy was smarter than you, they could be a prime ally. Much stranger things have happened (UK-France, France-Germany) after all. US didn't exactly deploy the full might against Vietnam either (having ~1 million men ready in Europe and elsewhere to deter the Soviet invasion was a bit of a handicap you see), but that's another story altogether.

When I was 7 there was a buddy who, when losing, always claimed this is because he did not try hard enoguh
 
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.

Yes but...

It depends on whether Kim Jong-un finds himself facing personal ruin if he doesn't do something. An attempted coup for example, and he might think that he might as well gamble or go out in such a manner that he'd be remembered in history.


A policy that would put a decapitated NK squarely in the sphere of influence of China, with a demilitarization of both North and South (including a US withdrawal) might be the way to get China on board a military intervention.
The risk is a weakened but not incapacitated NK leadership that might seek salvation in total war. Only a removal of the top brass plus assurances by China and the rest of the world for post-war reconstruction aid might prevent that.

Indeed, if a conflict breaks out, that might lead to such a situation
 
A policy that would put a decapitated NK squarely in the sphere of influence of China, with a demilitarization of both North and South (including a US withdrawal) might be the way to get China on board a military intervention.
The risk is a weakened but not incapacitated NK leadership that might seek salvation in total war. Only a removal of the top brass plus assurances by China and the rest of the world for post-war reconstruction aid might prevent that.

I think it is unlikely for China to do this. They would have a lot at stake in invading North Korea including their diplomatic position on non-intervention in other countries' affairs - which they use to tell other countries to shut up about Taiwan and Tibet and their Pacific island claims. And for what gain? They know that people in North Korea hate China. Good luck in finding a reliable puppet there.

Also, there is already a demilitarized zone between north and south right now. Of course the demilitarized zone is the most heavily militarized section of land in the whole world so you can imagine the guffaws that a proposal to demilitarize the whole peninsula will engender.
 
Last edited:
I think it is unlikely for China to do this. They would have a lot at stake in invading North Korea including their diplomatic position on non-intervention in other countries' affairs - which they use to tell other countries to shut up about Taiwan and Tibet and their Pacific island claims. And for what gain? They know that people in North Korea hate China. Good luck in finding a reliable puppet there.

It would not be about China invading NK, but SK and the USA guaranteeing that they won't invade. NK is already depended on China, and has more economic and political ties than anyone else. If any outside power might be accepted as a Hegemon, it's China.
 
It would not be about China invading NK, but SK and the USA guaranteeing that they won't invade. NK is already depended on China, and has more economic and political ties than anyone else. If any outside power might be accepted as a Hegemon, it's China.

Not by the Koreans. The goal is to reunify not gift half the peninsula to an enemy.

While thats not possible the status quo wilk remain.
 
It would not be about China invading NK, but SK and the USA guaranteeing that they won't invade. NK is already depended on China, and has more economic and political ties than anyone else. If any outside power might be accepted as a Hegemon, it's China.

That's a big "if any...".

North Koreans have been indoctrinated to believe they are dependent on no one and the only country that North Koreans have any positive view of is Russia, not China.

China may have come to North Korea's aid during the Korean War and they may well provide fuel and food aid to Korea (as do the US and Japan, incidentally), but this is expunged from official accounts. In fact I might go as far as to say that the Koreans hate the Chinese and regard the country with suspicion as though it may invade. They have been angered by previous claims by China that an ancient Korean kingdom was once part of China. It was true enough but North Korea saw it as a claim on their territory.
 
True - Koreans want reunification.
But China has probably learned from the reunification of Germany that it would lose all influence if it allowed that.
So we can expect heavy opposition to any unification attempt, militarily or peaceful, if China doesn't have some agreed upon influence baked into the deal.
 
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.
I don't think it was justified then; and I agree that it is not justified now - but dear me, what is this?
Because of the military service, there would be no way to keep military and civilian targets separate.
 
They have been angered by previous claims by China that an ancient Korean kingdom was once part of China. It was true enough but North Korea saw it as a claim on their territory.

To be fair it's a sensible conclusion. If a large, hegemonic nation next to me would state I was once part of their territory, I would see it as a claim to my territory as well, especially if it were true.

Georgia, Ukraine, Baltics ... all have had the same experience, and would agree.

McHrozni
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom