CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I don't think you understand. The millions of dead Koreans are in a scenario WITHOUT nukes.
WI: Pre-Emptive Strike | USA vs North Korea
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
I don't think you understand. The millions of dead Koreans are in a scenario WITHOUT nukes.
No, but winds do tend to blow from West to East in the Northern hemisphere.
takerma
Banned
Actually only small fraction of that can reach Seoul. Damage to the capital will be heavy but nothing too crazy, with heavy counter battery and massive air counter attack they will not last long.
To get this you need to get South somehow pissed enough at North to trigger snap mobilization and invasion. North needs to do something absolutely batshit crazy insane. Assassinate the whole Southern government maybe? Then assumption might be that this is precursor to invasion and South pre-emptively strikes north?
To get this you need to get South somehow pissed enough at North to trigger snap mobilization and invasion. North needs to do something absolutely batshit crazy insane. Assassinate the whole Southern government maybe? Then assumption might be that this is precursor to invasion and South pre-emptively strikes north?
Economics, the US market is good for Korean companies. Also they would need the backing of a super power as even without the NoKo's they would have the Chinese on their border. I think that they (The south koreans) would look at history and say that being a client of the chinese didn't work out so well for them last time, perhaps having a big friend who doesn't border them would be preferable. Also they would probably be able to weasel more then a bit of restructering aid out of the US which would help as they tried to deal with the wreck of North Korean... of course thats all my opinion so take it as you will.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
The US market is good, but the Chinese market is better. China is South Korea's biggest trade partner, it's in their economic interest to keep good relations with China. And being a client of the Chinese wasn't going too badly until the Japanese came along. Speaking of which, which country is Japan's closest ally?
"Small fraction" meaning most of the northern suburb cities, which in turn translates into around 2 million people. Not to mention that the markets are not going to make much of a distinction between "Seoul being shelled" and "the Seoul metropolitan area being shelled". How do you say "global economic downturn" in Korean?
Assuming maximum incompetency on the part of the Norks on mitigating the effects of air and artillery counter-fire, suppressing the sheer quantity of artillery in question is a process that will take weeks, absent a costly frontal assault to physically overrun their positions and push the batteries back out of range.
Fair points.
Still, not saying the majority or even a fair number could actually escape, but the all it takes is one high ranking defection and, for a complete lack of a better phrase, the whole "rotten structure" could absolutely collapse.
It's a know fact the North Korean economy, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the great famine of the 90s has had to act as Mafia State to keep the state structure going. While I will agree there are definitely fanatics that populate the ranks of the military establishment, the trigger men for the Nukes are senior senior old guard officials, that have been around enough to become cripplingly corrupted by the status quo of black market economics.
So, I point to the western luxury goods because the consumption of it is a direct contradiction to Junche, the guiding principle of the Jong Regimes. If they currently perform this act of personal rebellion against the state ideology, Why then, would the Old Guard not gamble again for self preservation over death by nuclear fire?
Hardly. Most of the ballistic missiles North Korea would feasibly use in launching a nuclear strike are road mobile and would be manned by relatively middle-ranking loyalists. A single defection would not be able to give us any more then a general area those missiles are stationed and given the difficulties we faced in hunting down Iraqi Scuds in terrain that was far harder to hide in, this will not be enough.
And you think that matters? What guarantee do they have that they will have luxury goods after they lose their positions, which is the only means they have of acquiring luxury goods? In fact, what use is the promise of luxury goods to dead men?
Because they saw what happened to Saddam. They saw what happened to Qaddafi. They and their inner-circle were not permitted to retire into an exile of luxury. From all the other examples they have of regimes being toppled by the United States they will conclude that if North Korea falls, they are dead one way or another. What worth is there in gambling for self-preservation when your death is guaranteed?
1. Are you contending that China would NOT give asylum to North Korean army defectors?
2. Are you also contending that the Peoples Army would actually operate efficiently and loyally in spite of multiple purges, famines and that 90% of the army has more experience farming rice than conduct real life battle tactics.
How does the US justify this as being anything other than a war of aggression in this post-Iraq era?
skirmishes happen every few years, it could be a case of waiting for one to happen and taking advantage of it.
Depends. What can they offer the Chinese? Furthermore, why are we sure that this specific segment of the North Korean military would successfully defect when the North Korean state would make a maximum effort to ensure that the would not? As said as it is, totalitarian states are quite skilled at manipulating human ties to ensure loyalty and obedience.
This is something of an unknown. KPA military doctrine is based on a melding of Cold War Soviet theory with Chinese light infantry arts, and some homegrown modifications to Korea's particular terrain. There is a focus on massive preemptive strikes, and with heavy dashes of unconventional commando warfare behind enemy lines, while infantry are heavily armed with anti-tank weapons, and expected to deal with enemy armour themselves. For fire support the KPA concentrates on massed artillery barrages, using saturation rather than precision bombardment, and doesn't put a lot of stock in close air support. With pilots getting 15-25 flying hours a year and no advanced combined arms training areas in North Korea, that's probably a good thing - who knows what they'd hit.
All of this force is to be launched at the enemy with speed and surprise, to be part of a never ending attack that will keep the enemy continually on the back foot by its speed and ferocity. Logistically, this would be ferociously demanding, and there's no evidence to suggest whether the DPRK could sustain it. Pre-war expenditure calculations historically tending to be inadequate, and the limited nature of the Northern economy to take up the slack, I rather suspect not. But "One Blow Non-stop Attack!" sure sounds cool as a super-special ultimate combat move!
Although the KPA remains the fourth largest army in the world, its quality, both in relative and absolute terms, is declining. Due to famine and poor health, most KPA soldiers would now fall at the low end of what western militaries would consider fit for service. Although the KPA conducts continual low level modernization, it cannot keep pace with the development of arms in richer countries. It has conducted major modern training exercises since 2001, but these have been relatively modest affairs given the expense involved.
The DPRK is aware of this, and counters their growing material inferiority with an ideology encapsulated by the slogan "One a match for one-hundred!" The basic idea is that the KPA soldier is better prepared physically, politically and mentally for war than his Southern or American counterparts. KPA troops are taught that their "spirit" will overcome any hardship. This kind of thought is historically common among weaker nations attempting to convince themselves that they can take on a vastly more powerful foe due to some intangible benefit they possess and their enemy does not.
It's basically based on rampant self delusion. It didn't work for France when it was called "elan," it lead Japan to disaster when it was the "Banzai spirit," and it certainly won't serve the DPRK any better. However, a note of caution that just because this policy won't be effective does not mean it won't inspire blood lust that will wind up getting a lot of people (both the North Koreans and their enemy's) killed. The Japanese, after all, did manage to inflict significant casualties upon attacking US forces before being inevitably destroyed themselves. Likewise for the French.
It should further be noted that we honestly have very little idea how good the North Koreans actually are. Their doctrine itself seems to be based on wishful thinking ("one a match for one-hundred," and making a virtue out of technological backwardness). Under all that self delusion they might actually be decent soldiers... or years of resource starvation may have taken their toll, and they may be pretty horrible.
So in short, will North Korea fight efficiently? Kinda, maybe. Loyally? Maybe. We just can't know precisely how much the North Koreans have taken the above delusions to heart except by actually fighting them.
In any case, the performance of the entire KPA is not relevant in terms of the use of nuclear weapons. Only that segment entrusted with the DPRKs nuclear arms is the relevant segment and given the importance North Korea has thus far placed on their nuclear program, we can expect that segment to be the most loyal and competent segment of their entire military.
And they certainly have very little reason to defect to us. To start with, we'd have to kill a very large number of them to impose our power like we did with Iraq...
Of course, if the war were started by a crusading America out to "liberate" the North Korean people from the hateful Kim regime, China would see this as another threatening step towards legitimizing the dangerous "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine, but this time on its border in an area of vital interest. It would be quite likely to threaten intervention to get the Americans to back off. And it would be the Americans who would be insane if they persisted
Last edited:
The usa is still at war with DPRK....ceasefire ...no peace agreement yet
The only way I can see the South Koreans and the US launching a pre-emptive strike is if we had iron-clad intelligence that the NKs were about to launch nukes, and given our serious intelligence failures of the past, even then it would be unlikely. I really can't see Obama doing such a thing, or being convincing enough to either the Koreans or the Chinese (who, btw, may be preparing for their own war in the Spratly islands) to gain their approval or cooperation.
Pretty much this. While North Korea's actual statements are over the top, such as their threats to incinerate America, they have actually attacked South Korean and American forces several times in the past. In 2010 during a period of vociferous rhetoric they sunk a South Korean warship, and conducted a major artillery attack against a South Korean island. And those were just the most recent outrages, there have been many more. What people are forgetting is that when the North gets extremely bellicose, it often DOES follow words with actions, and people die. And yet the overriding American narrative is that they're a harmless joke.
The fact is that North Korean actions are relentlessly downplayed, from pooh poohing their first nuclear test to minimizing actual acts of war. The overriding narrative is that they're just full of hot air, despite them often acting - lethally - on those statements. It's because America and South Korea do not want a war with them, so all casus belli are downplayed. Were Iran to offer the same justifications, they would now be being bombed - because the US is one good excuse away from going in after Iran's nuclear program. Their vastly more modest actions have been blown up to "very serious" proportions by US officials.
It gives you a clue as to who we want to fight, and who we don't.
You know, the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organization?
They have no treaty obligations to commit to anything on the Korean Peninsula.
1. They might, but they also might not. China could realize that North Korea is never coming back and having these men under its protection will just look bad and hurt relations with the US and South Korea, who would want to try these men. And even if China did let the North Korean defectors in those men would always be at the mercy of China. Those men know that if China ever decides their a liability then they're off to Seoul in chains.
2. Probably not. However they only need to operate for long enough to get the WMDs ready.
I agree. South Korea will inevitably drift into the Chinese sphere if China withdraws its support of North Korea. They're just too invested in Chinese trade. It could theoretically pull a Japan and stay in the US sphere just to spite China, but unlike Japan it doesn't hate China with a fiery passion and has little reason to stick with the US.
Does the DPRK actually possess a warhead small enough to be put on a missile? Last I heard their nuclear development was in the Able stages. If they're going to drop a nuke, it'd likely be from an aircraft, and a North Korean aircraft would not make it over the DMZ without being eaten by Allied air defences. However, as the Allied forces push for Pyongyang, I could foresee nuclear traps being left, a bomb left in an abandoned farm house with a timer or remote detonator on it.
The PRC would probably be extremely annoyed though, whether they would militarily intervene is debatable, but the refugee crisis at the DPRK/PRC border would force them to do something. Possibly a swift drive south to take Pyongyang before the US does and basically a show down with the US at a point north of the 53rd. Unlikely either side would shoot, and the US would have to back off and accept the PRC either putting Jong-Un back in power or replacing him with a more reliable Chinese puppet.
Either which way, there's little the DPRK itself can do to defend itself, there would be Japanese Pacific War levels of casualties through human wave attacks, and South Korea would face heavy disruption through air raid warnings and special forces operations, but aside from a couple of shellings and possible short range missiles, it wouldn't be as bad for them as the last war.
The PRC would probably be extremely annoyed though, whether they would militarily intervene is debatable, but the refugee crisis at the DPRK/PRC border would force them to do something. Possibly a swift drive south to take Pyongyang before the US does and basically a show down with the US at a point north of the 53rd. Unlikely either side would shoot, and the US would have to back off and accept the PRC either putting Jong-Un back in power or replacing him with a more reliable Chinese puppet.
Either which way, there's little the DPRK itself can do to defend itself, there would be Japanese Pacific War levels of casualties through human wave attacks, and South Korea would face heavy disruption through air raid warnings and special forces operations, but aside from a couple of shellings and possible short range missiles, it wouldn't be as bad for them as the last war.