Its Getting Hot in Korea

[Tmutarakhan]

That's true. Their nuclear capabilities are overestimated. For all we know, they just have tactical nukes, which shouldn't be that dangerous.

Or a suitcase nuke.

I seriously doubt they have anything like a "tactical" or "suitcase" nuke. They have shown they can jury-rig a bomb assembled at the test-site to barely go off. I don't think they can assemble anything that they could manage to load on a plane let alone a missile, or even deliver by oxcart.

[Norstal]

I would agree with Alien Space Bats and Branden's analysis on DPRK's technological levels. I would also agree that the DPRK is looking for a casus belli, in which they seem to be successful in. It seems to be the perfect moment for them to strike, while the the U.S is still busy in the Middle East. Not to mention the Holidays are coming up. Really is the most perfect moment for them to shell an island and be the provocateur.

I seriously doubt they have anything like a "tactical" or "suitcase" nuke. They have shown they can jury-rig a bomb assembled at the test-site to barely go off. I don't think they can assemble anything that they could manage to load on a plane let alone a missile, or even deliver by oxcart.

You never know. Have to be prepared for almost everything. That's why, I think, the ROK should be defensive.

[Delator]

<extremely cogent analysis>

In a sense, I agree with you: North Korean war plans do suck, and suck badly. That said...

We've never seen nuclear weapons used on troop concentrations, so while we can readily calculate their physical (and physiological) effects, we have no idea what the morale effects will be. If they are profound enough, they might well break the fighting spirit of the South Korean military (which I would agree is one of the best in Asia) just from the sheer terror and sensory overload they invoke.

I honestly think the use of nukes, regardless of their damage, will do more to hinder NK's advance than they will do to reduce SK morale.

It's possible the use of nukes might increase the resolve of both SK's military and civilian population to resist. It's a threat every person living there has had to consider for some time now.

I agree that without nuclear weapons, the DPRK cannot hope to carry an offensive very far across the border. My earlier description of the likely results as a "train wreck" is probably charitable; it would be an unmitigated military disaster. With nuclear weapons, however, North Korea has a chance. Maybe not a great chance (and the logistical problems they would face are clearly an issue for them), but a chance nonetheless: It all depends on just how profound the effect of getting nuked is on the troops who get nuked.

Nukes are an unpredictable factor, to be certain. I'm just not certain that their use is entirely beneficial for the North. Again, I think they'd be better off using them defensively.

Of course, that cuts both ways. While I disagree with you about tit-for-tat retaliation (I think we'll refrain from using any more nuclear force than we have to, just because the world will be watching us carefully as the only nation that has ever used these things before), I fear that we might have to use more than we'd want, and I could see that provoking a huge wave of anti-American feeling overseas and domestic dissent at home. People have a visceral reaction to nukes that goes beyond the rational; they may condemn the Kims for their first use, but that doesn't mean they'll excuse a serious American retaliation in kind. Political winds blow funny sometimes.

Can't disagree with this...

I'd guess that if NK uses one or more nukes, we're going to use a dedicated package of at least a half-dozen strikes specifically designed to cut off NKs vanguard forces and prevent resupply over the DMZ. Probably hit their largest southernmost airbase as well. The US might take flak internationally, but better to ensure that SK is as minimally exposed as possible, and that means keeping the number of combat units that cross the DMZ to a minimum. Nukes will do that nicely.

Then we'll limit to conventional unless they up the ante...after that, who knows?

On the DPRK's prospects in a defensive war (which I just don't see happening), which are also its prospects once its offensive gets stopped dead (either by conventional arms or a tactical nuclear barrage to shatter its vanguard, whatever the case turns out to be), I disagree with you rather sharply on that score. North Korea probably cannot secure its own airspace and most likely therefore cannot protect its own supply lines from massive aerial interdiction. The same "box denial" systems the U.S. might employ to shatter advancing DRPK forces at the DMZ (like MRL's and clustered ordnance) have the capacity to turn North Korean forward positions into a killing zone beyond anything ever seen in modern warfare. The only effective DPRK counter would be an extremely deep mobile defense, in which scattered units stage blocking actions and counterattacks against advancing American and South Korean forces (similar to what NATO planned against a Soviet plunge into Germany during the Cold War); I don't think that North Korea has the doctrine, training, of leadership for something like that, so I rather expect them to die horribly and pointlessly around a series of strongpoints.

I was not thinking that NK would utilize set-piece military engagements. They can't win in such a scenario on defense, even if they had a better anti-air defense, and they have to know it after Desert Storm.

I was thinking of literally letting the enemy in and utilizing an insurgent campaign. We go in expecting a hard fight, and instead have to occupy and administer. Their problems become our problems.

The NK has, IIRC, nearly 2 million men in paramilitary organizations on top of their regular military. Nearly 4 million on a full call up. Don't organize...disperse. Disappear amongst the population and do what damage can be done as individuals and small groups. Drag it out like Iraq until we're sick of being there.

It's more likely to do more damage, kill more of the enemy, and end in an enemy withdrawl than any conventional campaign. It has the downside of the fact that even if the US leaves in such a situation, SK likely won't, but they can hope to extend the disorder south of the DMZ over time.

Still not likely to work, given all the issues they face (all this completely ignores possible Chinese intervention), but more likely than pretending our B-1's can't blow up their T-55s.

That said, there won't be any serious American or South Korean offensive into North Korean territory until the war has been on for a good 2-3 months (and possibly longer); that's partly to give the U.S. time to move units like the 1st Marine Division and the 1st Cavalry Division (which is now a heavy armored force with a strong air cavalry element) to the peninsula in order to prepare for the offensive and partly to give the Air Force and Navy a chance to mug the DPRK from the air. While I am not a believer in the concept that wars can be won with air power alone, Desert Storm proved that a long aerial "preparation" in advance of ground action can go a long way towards guaranteeing that, when ground action finally occurs, the enemy no longer has the capacity to effectively resist what's coming.

The US can't counterattack, but SK can...we'll support them via air and naval assets if they want to go in sooner. I expect they will. I don't expect it to be a problem, again, discounting nukes.

Yes, North Korea has one of the densest air defense systems in the world, but the U.S. has proven itself adept at penetrating such defenses; worse, as far as old-school (meaning Soviet-style) air defense systems go, the DPRK has one of the least modern around. In contrast, the U.S. has not stood still in the two decades since Desert Storm or the decade since Yugoslavia; our methods for suppressing and penetrating air defenses of the sort North Korea has established are likely to surprise some people.

Nothing I have read or seen has shown me that NK has any capability to stop a modern air-force, even of inferior size. Unless Russia has been selling them top-of-the-line SAMs under the table, it will be easy to establish air-superiority.

That doesn't mean there won't be loss of aircraft...it may even be significant. They won't, however, be able to stop us from bombing their bases, supply lines, or troop formations on a regular basis.

Let's also not forget that Drones and Cruise Missiles are difficult to shoot down.

Finally, I'll agree that if the North could win in a conventional war, they would have fought this conflict 20 years ago, as you say. What has altered the strategic matrix is their development of nuclear weapons; and - as of yet - I do not feel that the destabilization created by that profound change has yet run its course. If anything, what may keep this war from happening today (as opposed to a few years down the road) is the fact that - in some ways - the full impact of that change is going to increase across the short run.

There's a narrow window where NK can actually use nukes though.

Go too soon, and we know they don't have many, and we refrain and retain full moral legitimacy.
Go too late, and even if it isn't the case, the US and SK might have to assume NK has enough weapons in reserve to warrant a full retaliation, in order to prevent futher strikes on SK forces.

I think the bigger issue is the changeover in leadership when Kim-Jong Il dies. Things could get much worse, or much better, very quickly. Time will tell.

[Jari Head]

The US doesn't need to use nukes since we have this monster MOAB http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab-pics.htm it will produce everything a nuke has except the extreme heat and fallout.

[Delator]

The US doesn't need to use nukes since we have this monster MOAB http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab-pics.htm it will produce everything a nuke has except the extreme heat and fallout.

You have to drop MOABs or Daisy Cutters out of a cargo plane. NK might not be able to stop our front-line bombers and attack planes, but they can sure as hell shoot down a C-130.

By the time it's safe to use a cargo plane to drop a bomb of that size, there won't be any need to.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Lets just trade with North Korea, send them American loans and credits $, care packages, 2 million American tourists per year and they Will Change The Way We Can Believe Them. Lets just talk to all our enemies.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

The US doesn't need to use nukes since we have this monster MOAB http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab-pics.htm it will produce everything a nuke has except the extreme heat and fallout.

You have to drop MOABs or Daisy Cutters out of a cargo plane. NK might not be able to stop our front-line bombers and attack planes, but they can sure as hell shoot down a C-130.

By the time it's safe to use a cargo plane to drop a bomb of that size, there won't be any need to.

Indeed. Military technology has advanced so quickly that I can't see a war in Korea lasting longer than a month. Occupation will most certainly be lengthy, but I think the ROK has the men, money and material to handle that part on their own. That said, I don't think the DPRK has any experience in waging that kind of warfare, and the closest they would come to that would be outdated partisan fighting which is simply small units engaging in raids and attacks. There's no telling how their populace will respond to war, however, and suicide attacks may or may not be as common or more than in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, I would really think a war against the DPRK would go much like in Iraq, where the last vestige of official military action would be swept away in a few months and the remaining occupation would be as peaceful as the factions arising afterward will allow.

[Wamitoria]

You have to drop MOABs or Daisy Cutters out of a cargo plane. NK might not be able to stop our front-line bombers and attack planes, but they can sure as hell shoot down a C-130.

By the time it's safe to use a cargo plane to drop a bomb of that size, there won't be any need to.

Indeed. Military technology has advanced so quickly that I can't see a war in Korea lasting longer than a month. Occupation will most certainly be lengthy, but I think the ROK has the men, money and material to handle that part on their own. That said, I don't think the DPRK has any experience in waging that kind of warfare, and the closest they would come to that would be outdated partisan fighting which is simply small units engaging in raids and attacks. There's no telling how their populace will respond to war, however, and suicide attacks may or may not be as common or more than in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, I would really think a war against the DPRK would go much like in Iraq, where the last vestige of official military action would be swept away in a few months and the remaining occupation would be as peaceful as the factions arising afterward will allow.

Wouldn't you think there would be a larger proportion of DPRK soldiers fighting to the death than there were in Iraq?

[Norstal]

Indeed. Military technology has advanced so quickly that I can't see a war in Korea lasting longer than a month. Occupation will most certainly be lengthy, but I think the ROK has the men, money and material to handle that part on their own. That said, I don't think the DPRK has any experience in waging that kind of warfare, and the closest they would come to that would be outdated partisan fighting which is simply small units engaging in raids and attacks. There's no telling how their populace will respond to war, however, and suicide attacks may or may not be as common or more than in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, I would really think a war against the DPRK would go much like in Iraq, where the last vestige of official military action would be swept away in a few months and the remaining occupation would be as peaceful as the factions arising afterward will allow.

Wouldn't you think there would be a larger proportion of DPRK soldiers fighting to the death than there were in Iraq?

Ala Japan in 1945? Yeah, probably. The threat however, is of South Korea being overrun. If we can contain it in North Korea, we would win the objective. The occupation is a problem (not to mention how fervent they can be), but its certain not impossible. A little goodwill and a carrot on a stick will persuade them more than words.

[Jari Head]

Wouldn't you think there would be a larger proportion of DPRK soldiers fighting to the death than there were in Iraq?

Ala Japan in 1945? Yeah, probably. The threat however, is of South Korea being overrun. If we can contain it in North Korea, we would win the objective. The occupation is a problem (not to mention how fervent they can be), but its certain not impossible. A little goodwill and a carrot on a stick will persuade them more than words.

How would you figure an overrun of the south? To do that would require almost total suprise, an attack on a massive front, and nearly overwhelming firepower and manpower, also command of the air. The only thing they have is the manpower. The DMZ has a 50+ year old untouched forest in it and is the heavily defended and mined strip of land on the planet so crossing points become choke points. 'Modern army' is a contridiction in terms for the NK army. and forget about ruling the skies.

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Indeed. Military technology has advanced so quickly that I can't see a war in Korea lasting longer than a month. Occupation will most certainly be lengthy, but I think the ROK has the men, money and material to handle that part on their own. That said, I don't think the DPRK has any experience in waging that kind of warfare, and the closest they would come to that would be outdated partisan fighting which is simply small units engaging in raids and attacks. There's no telling how their populace will respond to war, however, and suicide attacks may or may not be as common or more than in Iraq.

Speaking of Iraq, I would really think a war against the DPRK would go much like in Iraq, where the last vestige of official military action would be swept away in a few months and the remaining occupation would be as peaceful as the factions arising afterward will allow.

Wouldn't you think there would be a larger proportion of DPRK soldiers fighting to the death than there were in Iraq?

I'm not certain the military is quite as indoctrinated as they project, to be honest. I can see the succession of Jong Un being followed by a behind closed doors struggle between the will of Jong Un and the demands of the military high command. That being said, I think the military leadership is more than capable of convincing their men to do whatever they think is in their best interests in the event of an all out war. North Korea is not as unified as it was during the initial war, and I think currently they are behaving a hell of a lot like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany near both of their ends, a lot of showing off by the government, declarations of unity, solidarity and this big pretend show that they're so organized and stable, but inside it is really the opposite.

[Neu Leonstein]

The NK has, IIRC, nearly 2 million men in paramilitary organizations on top of their regular military. Nearly 4 million on a full call up. Don't organize...disperse. Disappear amongst the population and do what damage can be done as individuals and small groups. Drag it out like Iraq until we're sick of being there.

That might be a smart strategy. But you have to remember that we're talking about North Korea here. They are a 'stand and defend' lot, and their leaders know that going underground will not bring them back to power. Instead they know they have a population ready to die for them, and that's exactly what they'll expect them to do, defending towns, factories and statues dedicated to Kim Il Sung.

[Dododecapod]

I was thinking of literally letting the enemy in and utilizing an insurgent campaign. We go in expecting a hard fight, and instead have to occupy and administer. Their problems become our problems.

The NK has, IIRC, nearly 2 million men in paramilitary organizations on top of their regular military. Nearly 4 million on a full call up. Don't organize...disperse. Disappear amongst the population and do what damage can be done as individuals and small groups. Drag it out like Iraq until we're sick of being there.

It's more likely to do more damage, kill more of the enemy, and end in an enemy withdrawl than any conventional campaign. It has the downside of the fact that even if the US leaves in such a situation, SK likely won't, but they can hope to extend the disorder south of the DMZ over time.

Still not likely to work, given all the issues they face (all this completely ignores possible Chinese intervention), but more likely than pretending our B-1's can't blow up their T-55s.

Won't work, for geographic and political reasons.

In Iraq, our numbers were never high enough that we could do one particular tactic that has stymied insurgencies for centuries: go to every house, and confiscate every weapon you find. You're not going to get them all, some will be hidden and some will be missed, but a disarmed populace is much less of a problem. As said, for reasons of numbers (and our idiotically wanting to "respect their culture") we couldn't do that in Iraq. In NK? With the ROK army supported by US forces? Easy as pie.
The geographic aspect is even easier. In Iraq, you have porous borders in every direction with neighbouring countries full of suicidal idiots wanting to die against our guns and slightly smarter people willing to fund the suicidal idiots. NK has no allies, no fellow believers, and a single, heavily policed northern border with the PRC. No outside supplies for an insurgency is guaranteed failure - and usually a very rapid collapse.

[Qwanch]

It suddenly changed into some dick-waving contest about who sent more troops, but it's all over now.

No harm done, now back to Korea!
They're threatening to use nuclear weaponry. Guess the U.S. is going to have to show them theirs...

The U.S. is in something of a dilemma with regards to framing a proper response to any North Korean nuclear attack.

We're not going to want to use nukes unless we have to. Anyone who thinks that the use of nuclear weapons by the DPRK gives America carte blanche to "glass" North Korea" really doesn't understand the subtleties of modern politics - or the capabilities of the U.S. military, which provide us with the opportunity to clean our opponents' clocks "with suitable restraint".

The first priority will be the elimination of North Korea's nuclear capabilities; this can be done almost entirely with conventional strikes, which pretty much suggests that it will be done that way. At most, a few very low yield earth penetrating weapons will be used as "bunker busters" to make certain that hardened nuclear assets are out of the way; radiation leakage from such strikes will be minimal, and while some gadflies will scream about this being yet another example of America waving it's "n-peen", most people will see it as a necessary evil that is wholly justified. The leakage from such attacks will probably constitute less of an environmental risk to the region than America's persistent use of DU ammunition does (whenever we have cause to use it).

The big question will then be what to do about North Korean conventional forces. If the North Koreans lack the ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in support of their attack, then there should be no need for the U.S. to employ tactical nuclear weapons in order to counter-balance such a move. In a straight conventional war, North Korea loses badly.

If North Korea does have the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons on ROK troop concentrations along the DMZ and does so, and if those strikes produce a North Korean breakthrough, then things are different. The United States is not equipped to repeat its performance of 1950 and mobilize large ground forces in an effort to drive the DPRK back over the DMZ; we would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our military, and it would take over a year to accomplish.

I have talked to retired military personnel (officers of command rank), and they believe that advanced American artillery systems (which we have not yet had cause to use in combat, due to the nature of recent conflicts) when combined with the way in which the terrain of the Korean peninsula channels movement, will result in a 21st Century "meatgrinder" (military history buffs will recall that the tactics used by U.S. and U.N. forces to push back the Chinese and North Koreans from 1951 onward were referred to my that same sobriquet, as "meatgrinder tactics") that will devastate the DPRK military in short order. I hope this is so, because if it isn't, the U.S. may be obliged to use tactical nuclear weapons on North Korean field units in order to prevent the peninsula by being overrun in the short term.

Too late, now...

[New Vudnia]

Normally I'd be worried because my baby sister is spending her year abroad just outside of Seoul.

Then I remembered this is North Korea dick-wagging again, so My little sister if perfectly safe.

[The Kal Empire]

Eventually Kim Jong-Un will show his utter stupidity to the world by attacking the South, and thus China wouldn't be able to support them, which we all know China would do if the South was the aggressor.

Once he attacks, the US, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, and possibly Russia & NATO, will bring the hurt down on them.

[Divair]

The U.S. is in something of a dilemma with regards to framing a proper response to any North Korean nuclear attack.

We're not going to want to use nukes unless we have to. Anyone who thinks that the use of nuclear weapons by the DPRK gives America carte blanche to "glass" North Korea" really doesn't understand the subtleties of modern politics - or the capabilities of the U.S. military, which provide us with the opportunity to clean our opponents' clocks "with suitable restraint".

The first priority will be the elimination of North Korea's nuclear capabilities; this can be done almost entirely with conventional strikes, which pretty much suggests that it will be done that way. At most, a few very low yield earth penetrating weapons will be used as "bunker busters" to make certain that hardened nuclear assets are out of the way; radiation leakage from such strikes will be minimal, and while some gadflies will scream about this being yet another example of America waving it's "n-peen", most people will see it as a necessary evil that is wholly justified. The leakage from such attacks will probably constitute less of an environmental risk to the region than America's persistent use of DU ammunition does (whenever we have cause to use it).

The big question will then be what to do about North Korean conventional forces. If the North Koreans lack the ability to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in support of their attack, then there should be no need for the U.S. to employ tactical nuclear weapons in order to counter-balance such a move. In a straight conventional war, North Korea loses badly.

If North Korea does have the ability to use tactical nuclear weapons on ROK troop concentrations along the DMZ and does so, and if those strikes produce a North Korean breakthrough, then things are different. The United States is not equipped to repeat its performance of 1950 and mobilize large ground forces in an effort to drive the DPRK back over the DMZ; we would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rebuild our military, and it would take over a year to accomplish.

I have talked to retired military personnel (officers of command rank), and they believe that advanced American artillery systems (which we have not yet had cause to use in combat, due to the nature of recent conflicts) when combined with the way in which the terrain of the Korean peninsula channels movement, will result in a 21st Century "meatgrinder" (military history buffs will recall that the tactics used by U.S. and U.N. forces to push back the Chinese and North Koreans from 1951 onward were referred to my that same sobriquet, as "meatgrinder tactics") that will devastate the DPRK military in short order. I hope this is so, because if it isn't, the U.S. may be obliged to use tactical nuclear weapons on North Korean field units in order to prevent the peninsula by being overrun in the short term.

Too late, now...

Why did you bump a two year old thread?

[Tsaraine]

Boom! Headshot.

~ Tsar the Mod is an Irwin.