Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:07 PM Mar 2013

What if North Korea does attack?

Personally, I don't think they will. I think Kim Jong-Un is just wanting attention and trying to keep his generals happy by presenting an image of a fire-breathing leader. But there is always the possibility of a miscalculation. The new president of South Korea has promised to not let the North get away with shelling the South or with sinking any ships. Or Un, even though educated in Switzerland, may start to believe his own BS. So what if they do attack?

The NK Air Force is pathetic. The airplanes include planes left over from the first Korean war (About 200), and Vietnam era planes (About 150), and a small handful of modern fighters (About 150). Their bombers were designed in 1948. The pilots get very little training as they don't have the money for fuel and maintenance on the planes.

The SK Air Force get lots of training and stays on alert to respond instantly to an NK attack, much like the USAF did during the Cold War. They have 178 4th generation fighters, and 212 3rd generation fighters.

Added to the mix would be the U.S. Air Force and whatever U.S. Naval carriers happen to be in the area at the time.

The NK Navy consists some worn out Russian diesel-electric subs and some coastal patrol craft. Easy picking for the modern SK Navy.

So the NK Air Force and Navy would be quickly eliminated. The problem is their Army. They have a huge army that has been forward deployed for many years. They can attack with absolutely no warning as they don't have to move into attack positions. They have enough fuel to sustain operations for about 100 days. However, the USAF has become extremely good at interdicting supply lines, so their operation forces should be out of gas in a few days.

The USAF, a few years ago, develop a new small diameter bomb of only 265 lbs that has pop-out wings that enable it to glide to its target. When dropped from high altitude with a favorable wind it can glide up to 50 miles to hit its target with GPS precision. So the launching aircraft does not have to come within range of the air defense missile batteries. And with bombs that are that light, on plane can carry a lot of them.

Seoul is within artillery range of NK, which has hundreds of artillery pieces in range of Seoul. However, they are mostly old WWII type pieces that are not quickly mobile. Satellite recon likely already has them targeted. In any case, as soon as one fires, precision radar will know the exact location from the back path of the shell that it fired. SK artillery would be able to send a GPS guided shell to the firing gun before its shell impacted in SK. But since they have hundreds of guns, it would take awhile to knock them all out - maybe an hour or two. During that time Seoul would get pounded by artillery. Figure lots of damage to Seoul.

The NK Army is large and would likely be able to punch through the DMZ. Standard military doctrine is to never try to stop a major enemy thrust at a front line but to give and envelope them as they push through, bringing in reserves to squeeze the enemy, while air power attrits their forces. So it would become a race between how fast the NK could push and how fast we could envelope them. Our forces would be hampered by floods of refugees clogging the roads.

The NK army is huge, but has the problem of obsolete equipment and poorly trained forces. As usual, it takes money to train troops to a high level of proficiency, and that is something that NK doesn't have.

The SK army has modern equipment and well trained troops, but will be outnumbered.

My prediction would be initial success for the NK due to them being able to choose the time and thus being able to surprise SK. SK does exercises that plan on being surprised and have to fight outnumbered. So NK Army will penetrate about thirty to fifty miles and then will get destroyed. Meanwhile, bombing will tear NK bases and supply routes apart in NK. It may even be enough to cause the collapse of NK.

China would not be happy about that, but they would stay out of it this time.

Does anybody see it differently?

84 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
What if North Korea does attack? (Original Post) GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 OP
North Korea isn't going to attack. That's fantasy. Cali_Democrat Mar 2013 #1
I hope you are right. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #5
Don't forget NK shelled a SK island a few years ago & sank a SK ship Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #64
i spent about a month in South Korea last year - my husband and I were working there. hedgehog Mar 2013 #2
I pretty much agree Niceguy1 Mar 2013 #3
It makes me think of the movie.... Bonhomme Richard Mar 2013 #4
That, or the Mouse that Roared Brother Buzz Mar 2013 #8
That was a hilarious book, and movie. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #14
Staring Peter Sellers, Peter Sellers, and Peter Sellers Brother Buzz Mar 2013 #43
The answer to your trivia quiz: CaliforniaPeggy Mar 2013 #60
One of my absolute faves! amandabeech Mar 2013 #73
The US has a bunch of ionizing laser cannons. Both mounted on planes and ground-based. TheBlackAdder Mar 2013 #6
The YAL-1 program was defunded in 2010. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #7
Better look into that... there are several new units that were field tested over the past 2 years TheBlackAdder Mar 2013 #22
Link? N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #23
Google is a great thing. TheBlackAdder Mar 2013 #25
I did google and didn't find anything of value. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #26
Here's some semi-current articles TheBlackAdder Mar 2013 #40
Iteresting. Thanks. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #42
I think it's bluster. If he goes nuts, his country will be shamed by the response. Hoyt Mar 2013 #9
Two problems Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2013 #10
US won't be involved? Think again: U.S. Signs Contingency Plan With South Korea for Attack by North bananas Mar 2013 #29
Reread my post. Not saying we won't be involved, just saying Benton D Struckcheon Mar 2013 #33
The US would absolutely be heavily involved in that kind of war. Posteritatis Mar 2013 #61
"Go Wolverines!" Starry Messenger Mar 2013 #11
Pobably not. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #12
Well, they'll get about 15 inches before running right into US troops. Starry Messenger Mar 2013 #13
It will be bad for South Korea until we coordinate a response. TwilightGardener Mar 2013 #15
I can see China coming in and taking over North Korea LibertyLover Mar 2013 #16
That would be intesting. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #17
Better China than NK in short-run. Long-term who knows how bit will work. Hoyt Mar 2013 #27
I suspect you're right Canuckistanian Mar 2013 #41
I doubt it. jeff47 Mar 2013 #66
This is what I know RobertEarl Mar 2013 #18
That was a nonsense response. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #19
No it wasn't... It was edgy and cool. n/t cherokeeprogressive Mar 2013 #50
It didn't address the question. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #53
I guess it is for some... cherokeeprogressive Mar 2013 #55
Spring Break; the high school sophomores are posting. . . nt Codeine Mar 2013 #65
I was only little in the 60s, but it sounds like another Vietnam to me. n/t woodsprite Mar 2013 #20
Vietnam entirely different. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #35
North Korean military capability will be destroyed. tabasco Mar 2013 #21
my heart would go out to the north korean people who probably already live in hell spanone Mar 2013 #24
I will add thousands of US casualties in the first 12 hours nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #28
Yes, the DMZ is little more than a small speed bump. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #30
Exactly nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #31
Interesting scenario. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #32
Yup nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #37
Yes, with nukes it could degenerate into a crap shoot. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #39
If you dont think china would step i would suggest you Drew Richards Mar 2013 #34
Situation was vastly different then. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #38
Agreed. I think the U.S. and China may have already secretly agreed on... backscatter712 Mar 2013 #72
Samsung and Hyundai are worth more to China jberryhill Mar 2013 #46
They are growing impatient with North Korea, however apart from that still_one Mar 2013 #52
What specifically leads you to believe that China would join in on an unprovoked attack LanternWaste Mar 2013 #56
This may seem strange, but things change in sixty years. (nt) Posteritatis Mar 2013 #59
There will be a lot of dead people, N.Korean, S.Korean, and American. oneshooter Mar 2013 #36
North Korea is the Mouse that Roared.. AsahinaKimi Mar 2013 #44
What if China doesn't think NK fired first? jberryhill Mar 2013 #45
I really don't see whats in it for China propping them up. Maybe China will get tired of the Erose999 Mar 2013 #47
Would only disagree in that you likely over estimate USA/Western military technology and tactic PufPuf23 Mar 2013 #48
The Pentagon will get even more money than a mere threat of the new bogeymam produces. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #49
If they crossed the border into South Korea they will lose still_one Mar 2013 #51
Things are more tense now than they have been in awhile agentS Mar 2013 #54
Look to the conventional war against Iraq in 1990 & 2003 for a hint Lurks Often Mar 2013 #57
One word guardian Mar 2013 #58
Unrealistic movie, but entertaining. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #68
The remake came out last year... JHB Mar 2013 #81
That explains post #58. Thanks. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #82
If North Korea does attack, they'd be wiped out in air combat, but still exact a very high price TimberValley Mar 2013 #62
Motherfucker! I better learn to start speaking Korean! Bucky Mar 2013 #63
Ever read the book, Red Phoenix? premium Mar 2013 #67
Yes, I did read it a few years ago. N/T GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #69
Yes, I read it, too. amandabeech Mar 2013 #74
I have the hard bound version of it. premium Mar 2013 #75
The Chinese are a big question. amandabeech Mar 2013 #77
I think that the Chinese will rein in NK as they don't want to lose their biggest trading partner, premium Mar 2013 #78
The USA will do something really stupid too. Coyotl Mar 2013 #70
I remember that we kicked the shit out of the their conventional forces. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #71
Paying the price of the hubris of the mighty Coyotl Mar 2013 #83
Better review your timeline. GreenStormCloud Mar 2013 #84
They may have weapons, but not enough food to feed their people fadedrose Mar 2013 #76
I think your understanding of their conventional capacity quaker bill Mar 2013 #79
Their only chance of winning is taking Seoul hostage, by artillery or by manpower. DetlefK Mar 2013 #80
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
1. North Korea isn't going to attack. That's fantasy.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:11 PM
Mar 2013

Just more paranoia generated by the Military Industrial Complex to justify a bloated defense budget.

Stationing all those troops and military assets in East Asia costs a lot of money. Meanwhile, many people in the US are homeless and struggling to find jobs.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
64. Don't forget NK shelled a SK island a few years ago & sank a SK ship
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:59 PM
Mar 2013

SK may not be in a putting-up-with mood much longer and seek to retaliate. Then, all bets are off.

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
2. i spent about a month in South Korea last year - my husband and I were working there.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:12 PM
Mar 2013

He's spent most of the last two years there in month to 2 month long trips.

What we noticed is that there weren't many people around who were our age. We were both born at the end of the last hostilities - 1954.

Whatever happens, it will be terrible. The people we worked with have families, homes, plans, dreams.

Brother Buzz

(36,374 posts)
8. That, or the Mouse that Roared
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:38 PM
Mar 2013

Their only course of action is to declare war. Expecting a quick and total defeat, the country confidently expects to rebuild itself through the generous largesse that the United States bestows on all its vanquished enemies

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
14. That was a hilarious book, and movie.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:17 PM
Mar 2013

For those not familiar, they screwed up and won the war with the U.S., and apologized to the U.S. for not having to money to be able to loan to the U.S. to rebuild itself. I remember reading that book in 1965 and just started laughing.

Brother Buzz

(36,374 posts)
43. Staring Peter Sellers, Peter Sellers, and Peter Sellers
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:04 PM
Mar 2013

Grand Duchess Gloriana (played by Peter Sellers): How did the war go?

Tulley Bascombe (played by Peter Sellers): Well, this is a bit of a surprise. A pleasant one, I hope. I think we've won.

Prime Minster Count Rupert Mountjoy (played by Peter Sellerss): You think you've *what*? My idea was sound. Only an idiot could have won this war, and he did.



Here's the trivia Quiz: Name another spectacular movie staring Peter Sellers, Peter Sellers, and Peter Sellers.

CaliforniaPeggy

(149,517 posts)
60. The answer to your trivia quiz:
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:55 PM
Mar 2013

Dr. Strangelove, of course.

He played:

1. Group Captain Lionel Mandrake

2. President Muffley (sp?)

3. Dr. Strangelove himself!

Brilliant and hilarious film, probably Kubric's best.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
73. One of my absolute faves!
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:37 AM
Mar 2013

I had it on video tape and of course I now have it on disc.

The movie seems to be a real source of "lines" on the internet involving precious bodily fluids, coca-cola and fighting in the war room.

I think I'll watch it for the umpteenth time over the weekend!

TheBlackAdder

(28,167 posts)
6. The US has a bunch of ionizing laser cannons. Both mounted on planes and ground-based.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:17 PM
Mar 2013

A bunch of them are already deployed.

Nothing is getting in our airspace.

TheBlackAdder

(28,167 posts)
22. Better look into that... there are several new units that were field tested over the past 2 years
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:53 PM
Mar 2013

Dozens are deployed.

TheBlackAdder

(28,167 posts)
40. Here's some semi-current articles
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:37 PM
Mar 2013

Deployed in the field now...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2214523/U-S-Army-soon-using-laser-guns-battlefield.html

Deloyed in the field now...
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=254109

Pending deployment...
http://www.tgdaily.com/security-brief/67039-us-navy-laser-based-weapons-on-track-for-deployment

I read about this being tested 2 years ago...
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/29/us-military-to-test-lasers-on-warplanes-in-2014/


There are a whole series of laser technologies that are deployed in the field, by the Army, Air Force and Navy.

I just did a quick Google search.

What is disclosed and what is non-disclosure are two different things.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
9. I think it's bluster. If he goes nuts, his country will be shamed by the response.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:46 PM
Mar 2013

But there is no way to know if the young king thinks like rational people, or even if his troops will follow his orders blindly. Just more BS from NK.

Hope Rodnan told him that he'd kick his ass across Asia if he does something that stupid.

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
10. Two problems
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 08:46 PM
Mar 2013

1. Nukes. Are they really a threat? Won't know until this happens.
2. There will be a necessary negotiation w/China, depending on how much they see NK as a buffer. I doubt they'd get involved this time unless there's some other overzealous MacArthur in the army. China only got involved with troops the last time because Mac decided to go all the way north to the Yalu River without, by the way, Truman's permission.

US won't have to be involved much on the military side, assuming nukes aren't a problem. We'll have casualties because of the troops up by the border, unfortunately, and that will mean we have some involvement. But I'm pretty sure the expectation at this point is that SK will be doing most of the fighting and have actual command of the response.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
29. US won't be involved? Think again: U.S. Signs Contingency Plan With South Korea for Attack by North
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:07 PM
Mar 2013
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014435909

U.S. Signs Contingency Plan With South Korea for Attack by North
Source: Bloomberg

The U.S. and South Korea signed a contingency plan of action against attacks from North Korea, which this month threatened preemptive nuclear strikes against the two allies.

General James Thurman, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, signed the agreement on March 22 with South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Jung Seung Jo, South Korea’s Defense Ministry said today in a statement on its website.

The document outlines South Korean-led, U.S.-backed action against various scenarios from a North Korean provocation, the ministry said. The two militaries decided to draft a joint blueprint after North Korea shelled the South Korean border island of Yeonpyeong in November 2010.

Inter-Korean tensions are the highest at least since the 2010 attack after Kim Jong Un’s regime detonated a nuclear device in February. The U.S. and South Korea are in the middle of military drills that North Korea has said put the peninsula on the brink of war, and the Obama administration is boosting its regional anti-missile defenses as a result.

<snip>

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)
33. Reread my post. Not saying we won't be involved, just saying
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:25 PM
Mar 2013

we won't be that heavily involved.

Look at this from your own post: The document outlines South Korean-led, U.S.-backed action against various scenarios from a North Korean provocation, the ministry said.
That's what I said. We'd be involved, but South Korea would be expected to take the lead this time. Obviously we'd be there as an ally. But it wouldn't be like the last time unless the Chinese decide to jump in with troops on the NK side. I doubt very much that happens.

Posteritatis

(18,807 posts)
61. The US would absolutely be heavily involved in that kind of war.
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:55 PM
Mar 2013

There's no way they couldn't be, especially given the losses the US Army would take in the first couple of days.

If things went hot, by the time the rubble started bouncing in North Korea a sizable chunk of the US army would be on the ground, South Korean leadership or not. There's no possible way that people would handle that in any way less than going at it flat out if North Korea actually tried to invade.

Smaller things that actually do 'just' count as provocations, like shelling border islands or torpedoing another South Korean ship? That's one thing. The difference with that agreement is that the South could theoretically call US assets in on any immediate retaliation. If North Korea actually out-and-out invades, or shells Seoul or something like that? The US would be quite heavily featured among the forces going back north.

Starry Messenger

(32,342 posts)
13. Well, they'll get about 15 inches before running right into US troops.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:10 PM
Mar 2013
I assume that will be a short contest.

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)
15. It will be bad for South Korea until we coordinate a response.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:20 PM
Mar 2013

Assuming they don't attempt to strike our bases first.

LibertyLover

(4,788 posts)
16. I can see China coming in and taking over North Korea
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:38 PM
Mar 2013

and stopping at the border with ROK. They are pretty much out of patience with DPRK and the stupidity coming out of its leaders. China doesn't want a real rogue state on its border.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
27. Better China than NK in short-run. Long-term who knows how bit will work.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:59 PM
Mar 2013

Certainty would seem better for N Koreans. Those folks are hurting.

Canuckistanian

(42,290 posts)
41. I suspect you're right
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:40 PM
Mar 2013

The Chinese leadership expressed displeasure with the latest nuke tests.

The last thing the Chinese want is trouble on their borders, especially with a US-friendly nation such as the ROK.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
18. This is what I know
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 09:43 PM
Mar 2013

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Just more naked apes rattling their cages.

They are caged because they can't behave.

They can't behave because they are mere naked apes.

But it makes for lots of jobs building cages and hiring keepers. $$

ETA:

You do have to remember that Bush is a naked ape that got out of the cage.

Him and a few generals and various other and sundry apes that escaped the confines of society.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
35. Vietnam entirely different.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:26 PM
Mar 2013

This would be a classic force-on-force war against an invading army, with front lines and all of that stuff. Vietnam didn't have front lines.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
28. I will add thousands of US casualties in the first 12 hours
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:02 PM
Mar 2013

As they go through the speed bump at the DMZ...

After that my only caveat is China actually getting involved. I don't think they will, unless a nuke is deployed by anybody.

For the Chinese we bleeding ourselves white is a good thing.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
30. Yes, the DMZ is little more than a small speed bump.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:10 PM
Mar 2013

It is designed to be that. Its purpose is to let the troops at the bases know that NK is coming and give them time to mobilize. The alert battalions should take only minutes. Troops further in the rear would take a little longer.

I don't think NK would be stupid enough to use a nuke. But if they do all bets are off. We would have to respond and the Chinese could not ignore a nuclear war that close to them.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
31. Exactly
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:14 PM
Mar 2013

And the nukes the NK are developing are damn perfect for clearing those mine fields. So I disagree, I think Pyongyang has a good chance to use them. Short yield, troops will run through, knowing staying there is a death sentence.

Hubby and I have gone through scenarios repeatedly.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
32. Interesting scenario.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:23 PM
Mar 2013

Even using the nukes to as tacticals to open a hole in the DMZ would still be using them on SK soil. U.S. response would have to be measured. We couldn't nuke Pyongyang as that would be too much, but we could nuke their troops, and possible their nuclear storage sites, if we know where those are. Maybe some other vital NK sites. But we would have to careful to not overdo it. Unless they nuked Seoul we would have to leave Pyonyang alone, except for conventional bombs.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
37. Yup
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:28 PM
Mar 2013

The problem is is Russia or China, or both, try to stop any response because it is Nuclear.

It has the very real potential of opening the gates of hell itself.

And china might decide to take out Pyongyang themselves, the only down side is prevailing winds which would bring the crap to main land China, but iirc that be Tibet, which they are having issues at...yes, racism is that deep, no loss as far as Beijing is concerned.

Clausewitz's dictum is of course at play here, no plan survives contact with the enemy.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
38. Situation was vastly different then.
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:33 PM
Mar 2013

China was committed to spreading communism world-wide at the time. The were part of the world-wide worker's revolution, or so they fancied themselves. Russia was pulling the strings of both China and of North Korea, and was militarily pressuring the free world in several places.

Now China is making lots of money by being capitalist, and doesn't want that boat to be rocked. If NK restarts the war, China may invade NK to shut them up. In that case, I think the U.S. would sit quietly by and laugh.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
72. Agreed. I think the U.S. and China may have already secretly agreed on...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:01 AM
Mar 2013

...how far US troops can push in a hot conflict with North Korea, the kinds of weapons that can be used, beginning arrangements for setting up the post-war political structure.

Neither the US or China want to be shooting at each other. They're trying to figure out how to deal with the problem child waving armies and nukes around.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
46. Samsung and Hyundai are worth more to China
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:35 PM
Mar 2013

Samsung, Hyundai, LG and other South Korean industrial giants have their manufacturing in China.

Why would China want to jeopardize them? The value of North Korea as a strategic ally against Russia or the US is lower than the dollar value of South Korean stability to the Chinese.

still_one

(92,061 posts)
52. They are growing impatient with North Korea, however apart from that
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:40 AM
Mar 2013

We owe chinaberry money than North Korea, and it definitely is not in their interest to piss us off

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
56. What specifically leads you to believe that China would join in on an unprovoked attack
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:40 AM
Mar 2013

What specifically leads you to believe that China would join in on an unprovoked attack risking that which they hold dearest-- the dramatic and consistent rise of Chinese GNP/GDP over the course of the last twenty-five years?

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
45. What if China doesn't think NK fired first?
Tue Mar 26, 2013, 11:32 PM
Mar 2013

How long does the "provocation" argument go on at the Security Council?

Erose999

(5,624 posts)
47. I really don't see whats in it for China propping them up. Maybe China will get tired of the
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:08 AM
Mar 2013

liability and just let NK fall.

Honestly, the South probably doesn't want re-unification. It would cost them magnitudes more $$$ than reunification cost the two Germanys. Most of NK doesn't have electricity or even running water. Prosperous South Korea doesn't really want to have to foot the bill for modernizing the North.

Also, consider that every other bag of rice in the markets on Pyongyang says "A Gift from the People of the United States" on it. NK is dependent on foreign aid and once the aid dries up the people won't be so supportive of the "dear leader". When they are shown how much better the standard of living is across the border, I don't think they'll put up much resistance.

I think Kim Jong Eun is bluffing, trying to consolidate his power inside his own borders, and get more leverage in negotiating for foreign aid.

PufPuf23

(8,754 posts)
48. Would only disagree in that you likely over estimate USA/Western military technology and tactic
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 12:18 AM
Mar 2013

as compared to that of the USA/South Korea and post WWII Western Bloc.

North Korea would be senseless to attack unless nihilist want for a large body count of Koreans, irrespective fof latitude, and minor footnote in history.

agentS

(1,325 posts)
54. Things are more tense now than they have been in awhile
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 09:22 AM
Mar 2013

I've been here for a few years now; thru both recent attacks and both presidential elections.
The Norks are known for pulling bullshit around/after presidential office changes, both stateside and in Korea.
It's like they wanna 'test the level of commitment' of the new leadership or something.
This time around they're up against a stronger ROK military (despite their draftee issues and poor food quality) AND a more robust US troop presence (10K more US troops on site this month) than they were during the Cheonan sinking. While the Norks under Kim Jong Fatty are certainly talking like they want a war, their actions have been a little 'wishy-washy'.

South Korea's woman president is trying to break the ice with some peace talk proposals.
http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20130327001014
But if the North slaps her hand and tries something, then she can tell the peaceniks "hey guys, I tried."

If the Norks send troops into my neck of the woods, I will fight and fight dirty, even though I would prefer to run. Why? They ain't the US, the ROK, or even the Russians. They will be targeting foreigners.
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2006/05/18/more-racist-tripe-from-north-korea/

The North’s delegation leader Maj. Gen. Kim Yong-chul started off an unfortunate thread by quipping, “Since the climate in the South is warmer, the farmers must be hard at work.” His South Korean counterpart Maj. Gen. Han Min-gu of the South replied, “The population of the farming communities is actually falling, and many bachelors from such areas marry women from Mongolia, Vietnam and the Philippines.”

Kim reportedly grimaced and snapped, “Our nation has always considered its pure lineage to be of great importance — I am concerned that our singularity will disappear.” Instead of contradicting him, the South Korean delegation said such dilution of the bloodline was “but a drop of ink in the Han River,” adding this would cause no problems “if we all live together.” But this failed to mollify the North Korean. “Since time immemorial, our nation has been a land of abundant beauty. Not even one drop of ink must be allowed to fall into the Han River,” Kim thundered.
 

Lurks Often

(5,455 posts)
57. Look to the conventional war against Iraq in 1990 & 2003 for a hint
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 10:49 AM
Mar 2013

In 1990 Iraq had the largest military in the Middle East. The Republican Guard and certain elements of the Iraqi Regular Army were well trained, well equipped and motivated. They were also so totally outclassed that it bordered on scary.

The North Korean army smaller quantities of much older equipment and training is limited due to lack of food and other resources. It is hard to say how motivated the NK army is, but if one's primary concern is one's next meal, it's hard to see them as extremely motivated.

In contrast the US military is significantly superior to the one that invaded Iraq in 1990. GPS and all of it's benefits and the advances in precision weapons have increased drastically in the past 20 years. My best guess is that the SK military is about 5 years behind us, putting the US & SK a good 20-30 years ahead of the NK military technology wise.

The US & SK WILL win, with the NK military either suffering very heavy casualties or mass defections. SK & US casualties will be less then commonly believed.



JHB

(37,154 posts)
81. The remake came out last year...
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 06:34 AM
Mar 2013

...after a yearlong delay to digitally turn the invading force from Chinese to North Korean.

Not that it was worth noticing.

 

TimberValley

(318 posts)
62. If North Korea does attack, they'd be wiped out in air combat, but still exact a very high price
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 06:55 PM
Mar 2013

South Korea's economy would suffer devastation as investment fled and industries of all sorts suffered lessened demand.


Now for the military aspect: Air-to-air, it's no match. F-15Ks, KF-16s against North Korea's handful of MiG-29s and even older aircraft? That particular aspect of the war would probably end decisively in the South's favor in a matter of hours or less.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
67. Ever read the book, Red Phoenix?
Wed Mar 27, 2013, 07:34 PM
Mar 2013

Last edited Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:19 AM - Edit history (1)

It's a fictional account of exactly that, a bolt out of the blue NK attack on SK and how the U.S., Russia, and China react to an all out invasion.
Pretty interesting read. Author is Larry Bond.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
74. Yes, I read it, too.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:48 AM
Mar 2013

Maybe its time to see if I still have it around.

I hope nothing happens in Korea, but the new kid on the block might have something to prove.

I think that the US should re-evaluate its military commitments worldwide, but I don't favor getting out of Korea until the North either collapses or becomes governed by some sort of reasonable regime that states that it will not invade the South. The Kim Dynasty is just too unstable and too interested in nukes for my taste.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
75. I have the hard bound version of it.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 01:57 AM
Mar 2013

I pulled it out and am re-reading it now. I am also of the belief that we shouldn't pull our troops out yet until the NK's sign a formal peace treaty.
I think that China is growing weary of supporting a failed state that wants nothing more than to create instability on the Korean Peninsula.
I remember being stationed in SK during the early 70's, it was very tense on the DMZ and as close to actual war as you can get without the actual shooting.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
77. The Chinese are a big question.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 02:04 AM
Mar 2013

They've been restless lately, at least at sea, but I don't see them looking for problems directly on their border.

I guess time will tell, and you have a better idea of what it's like than I do.

Thanks for you service, too.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
78. I think that the Chinese will rein in NK as they don't want to lose their biggest trading partner,
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 02:18 AM
Mar 2013

mainly, the U.S..
China has seemed to be signaling lately that if the NK were to initiate hostilities, they would not oppose an ass kicking of NK by the U.S. and SK.
Thank you, I came home from a tour in Vietnam only to be deployed to SK a few years later.

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
71. I remember that we kicked the shit out of the their conventional forces.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 12:47 AM
Mar 2013

What happend later as an army of occupation is another chapter.

 

Coyotl

(15,262 posts)
83. Paying the price of the hubris of the mighty
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 09:11 AM
Mar 2013

All that might didn't prevent the economy from collapsing after the money was transferred to war

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
84. Better review your timeline.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 10:23 AM
Mar 2013

The invasion of Iraq was in 2003. The economy didn't collapse until 2008. You sound like you would be happy if NK invaded SK and the U.S. were defeated.

fadedrose

(10,044 posts)
76. They may have weapons, but not enough food to feed their people
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 02:02 AM
Mar 2013

and their army.

Diplomacy needed desperately here. The Chinese don't take good care of them anymore, they're too busy running the world's economy, or should I say "ruining." No time for No. Korea..

quaker bill

(8,224 posts)
79. I think your understanding of their conventional capacity
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 05:54 AM
Mar 2013

underestimates reality substantially. I have no doubt NK would lose the engagement. However I think it would run longer and do alot more damage than you suggest. The reason that they lose is that I am pretty sure that they cannot even come close to matching us in the air. I also agree that our stand off capacity will leave much of their air defense obsolete. However, everything I have read suggests that they have alot of WWII to Vietnam era capacity on the ground. It will take far more than hours to destroy it, and it will do incredible damage on its way out.

Yes, we can do reverse targeting of artillery, but to some extent how well that works depends on how many shells are in the air at one time.

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
80. Their only chance of winning is taking Seoul hostage, by artillery or by manpower.
Thu Mar 28, 2013, 06:23 AM
Mar 2013

But then again, what do you do with this hostage?

And while the NK's try to extort and pillage, how do they protect their own country from retaliatory bombings? It's not like they have too many valuable installations they could use as back-ups.
1. Bridges and roads. They are what keeps a country going. Destroying them would immediately halt any transport of goods, supplies and soldiers while sparing civilian lives.
2. Precision-bombing of any installation related to the regime. With less and less control from superiors the morale of the north-korean army will deteriorate into two possible directions:
a) Why are we fighting here instead of protecting the homeland? (Especially if the US spreads propaganda that it would stage a counter-invasion.)
b) Why are we fighting at all?

The result for NK will be even more of ruins, poverty and famine, due to their destroyed infrastructure.
The result for SK will be losses of civilian lives and a temporary occupation (including looting and rape) by the NK army until their supply-structure breaks down and they are forced to retreat. Couple that with mass-desertions, because not every NK-soldier will want to go back to a country where hunger and oppression await him.

SK will be in the shits, but NK will be really deep in the shits.

SK will easily get credits to rebuild.
NK will only get credits under conditions like demilitarization and regime-change.

NK will win the battle and lose the war.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What if North Korea does ...