Reality check. If the U.S. gets involved, they will lose. Period. Because while they might possibly have a chance fighting NK (although given the logistics, I'd argue that even that is debatable), they wouldn't have a freakin' chance once China got involved.
There are quite a few
very odd contentions in your posts, Wolfman. Here, for example, you seem to be envisioning a US invasion of North Korea while South Korea sits idle. But such a scenario is irrelevant. While it's possible the US might perform air strikes on North Korea on its own (and there's damn little North Korea could do to stop us), the only way the North is going to get invaded is if South Korea does the heavy lifting. And given the logistics, yes, the South could do it. The size of North Korea's army is irrelevant: the South would win, because it's vastly better trained, equipped, and supplied. The logistics favor the
south in such a conflict, not the north. The south, not the north, has the advantage in terms of supplies, fuel, food (
food, for Christ's sake, is a concern for North Korea), transport capacity - you name it. Now, the
willingness to invade (given that the costs would still be severe) is another issue, but let's be clear about this: any invasion of North Korea will be by South Korea with US assistance primarily in the form of air and naval support, it will NOT be driven by US ground troops.
Yes, China getting involved would change things quite a bit, but your conception of what would happen in the absence of China is WAY off base.
I'm not defending NK at all. The overthrow of their gov't would be the best thing that could happen, for their people, and for the rest of the world. And if South Korea can pull that off, without the involvement of American troops, China probably wouldn't do anything. But I seriously doubt that South Korea could win such a conflict on their own.
Why on earth would you think that? The south would definitely win. They've got VASTLY superior forces. Sure, the size of the army is much smaller, but if the last few decades haven't shown you how important force
quality is (and how vastly different force quality can be between sides), then you haven't been paying attention. The question for the south is not whether or not they would win, the question is at what
cost. If the cost is too high, then they won't do it, even though they would win.
The U.S. would have to fight a land war in N. Korea, if they were going to accomplish anything.
I don't know why you say that, because it's not true. It depends very much on our goals. An overthrow of the entire regime might require an invasion (but again, that would ONLY happen with South Korea taking the lead), but the crippling of nuclear facilities might be accomplished without boots on the ground.
Keep in mind that the people of the U.S. would almost certainly revolt against a government that got them tied up in yet another war, stretching their military beyond reason (and quite possibly requiring reinstating the draft in order to provide enough troops), and kicking the **** out of an already badly bruised economy.
This is a VERY strange contention. Especially given what else you say (more below).
Meanwhile, China's right there. Walk across the N. Korean border, and they're in China. They can throw wave after wave of soldiers at it...and also have a very impressive arsenal of weapons that they've been building over the years. Weapons that can very quickly and easily be shifted across the border, and deployed instantly...unlike American weapons.
Again, any land invasion would be mostly South Korean. And their stuff IS already there. And we can bring a LOT of air power to the scene with carriers, quite quickly. Who do you really think will rule the skies over North Korea? You honestly think the Chinese could hold air superiority for the North?
I think that you vastly underestimate China's paranoia about a nation that it still considers its political opponent, and a direct military threat, to be waging a war right on its very borders. China's far more willing to sacrifice economic gain for political victory than most Western countries would be...particularly when it knows that its got a good chance it would win.
Your point about China's paranoia is valid and quite relevant to the calculations. But again, the question isn't simply one of victory, but of cost. If China is willing to fight and lose more than we're willing to fight and win, then we still won't fight.
End result: China wins control of N. Korea, eliminating a threat to them, and the rest of the world. The U.S. backs down willingly, recognizing that with the Chinese in charge, the N. Korean threat is largely eliminated, and that they're very highly unlikely to win a land war against China. The U.S. has just spent billions of dollars they don't have, only to "lose" the war in N. Korea for a second time.
China has far, far less to lose from a war in Korea than the U.S. does.
You think China
wants the MASSIVE cost of keeping order in North Korea? You think they won't have a massive headache from refugees streaming north? China could indeed "declare" victory in such a scenario, but it would hurt them. A lot.
You also seem to think that only the US has budget problems. Well, China does too. Their banking system is rotten to the core. It hasn't imploded in crisis yet, but that's just a matter of time. Even if war doesn't trigger a banking collapse, it will leave them much less prepared to deal with what must inevitably happen.
China has the world's largest standing army...and is not currently involved in any wars. Their entire military force can be deployed and focused exclusively on N. Korea, which is directly across the border.
Dream on. China's army might not be involved in any wars, but it IS involved in keeping the peace. Your earlier reference to Americans revolting is quite ironic given how much closer to revolt China is
right now. There's no chance in hell the communist party is going to leave themselves vulnerable to revolution by moving their entire army to North Korea. They know exactly how badly such events can end for rulers when there's a revolt, because they
did it the last time.
Put that up against an American military that has to travel halfway around the world, with much of its strength already committed elsewhere, and an economy that, at best, is struggling.
The South Korean army doesn't need to move halfway across the globe, and we've already got carriers nearby. As for the economy, well, what precisly do you think will happen to the Chinese economy if they fight a war with the US? China makes up a big fraction of our imports, but we make up an even greater fraction of their exports. If we get in a war with China, what do you think is going to happen to that trade volume, and whose economy do you think that will hurt more?
Meanwhile, there's the knowledge that China most likely would win a conflict with the U.S. in North Korea...or at least be able to fight it to a standstill. Or, as I stated above, even depose the current N. Korean gov't, install a puppet gov't, then declare the war over.
Depends quite a bit on what one considers a victory condition. If China preventing the US from holding ground in North Korea counts as victory for them, they can probably achieve it, because we don't want that ground very much. But if the North Korean regime falls and China has to pick up the pieces, well, that's kind of victory for us. In fact, in many ways that's vastly preferable to us, because then we don't have the
cost of cleaning that mess up. China does, and they'd probably be welcome to it. And with China
actually in charge, they'd have to stop doing stupid **** like sinking South Korean warships or shelling villages, because we could hold them directly accountable.
Either of those scenarios leaves the Chinese gov't gaining huge amounts of face, and the very devoted support of their populace at this phenomenal demonstration of beating back the aggressive Americans.
They can have all the face they want to, if the
actual problem gets solved.
Economic instability? Child's play. The Chinese gov't is an experienced pro at dissolving internal discontent by focusing the citizenry's ire at external enemies.
And don't forget by
crushing the opposition.
Which, again, is why there's no chance in hell China would deploy their entire army.
Afraid you haven't been tracking China's military progress in recent years. Not to mention that the situation in N. Korea would be vastly different than that in Iraq (for one thing, the U.S. was able to devote much of its resources exclusively to that war...not the case in N. Korea, not by a long shot). Where exactly is all the equipment, manpower, weaponry, etc., going to come from?
As already mentioned, the US involvement would be primarily air and naval support. Any ground invasion would be primarily (if not exclusively) South Korean.
As I mentioned previously, the U.S. is having problems providing adequate supplies, machinery, armor, and transportation for troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, who are fighting against a far, far less powerful enemy.
Afghanistan is a landlocked nation with hardly any roads. Our only sea-borne access is through Pakistan, which is not a strong ally and which limits our transport options. Logistics issues for that conflict don't resemble what we would face in Korea.
And we're
not having a hard time providing adequate supplies in Iraq.
A US land invasion of North Korea was never in the cards. China would indeed responds, we have no interest in provoking such a response, and even if China wasn't involved, we're not interested in bearing the cost. Any invasion will be primarily South Korean, with the US in a supporting role.
But land invasion isn't the only form a war with North Korea could take. Even a war we start.
