N. Korea threat over sanctions

[Grilla]

This whole topic gives a whole lot to think about with what could happen and who could get involved.  :-\

 

[JasonH]

Doesn't take much thinking to figure out both those.

It'll be a hell of a blood bath for either party involved and it'll be a long drawn out fight (NK would put up a hell of a fight no doubt, and public is touchy with death so were looken at another vietnam).

It'd be another Western vs Communist fight it seems.

 

[Baloo]

Those 10-15 thousand artillery tubes pointed at Seoul, South Korea, with the capacity of levelling that particular hub in several hours presents a mighty fine bargaining chip with which to deal. Attack from the South, or America and their allies, would undoubtably win the war. The problem is at what cost. South Korea's economy and infrastructure would be destroyed beyond repair (at least without billions in aid packages) and millions of civilian deaths. In the first few hours alone. I would find it unlikely that the attack would come from the West, more like a Chinese assault to overthrow Kim Jong-Il, and to install a new, friendly nation. China would not allow an American puppet on their doorstep, or to control all of Korea. The threat of North Korea towards the South is most likely the main reason nothing has occurred in the past few years. Full scale war means annihilation of the South. Sure, the war would be won, but at what cost?

Another problem, is the North Korean armed forces. Would they simply wither away, with mass defections (as several hundred of their top officers did several weeks ago) or would the army put up fierce resistance to an invasion force? The North lacks the capacity to attack across the line, their only hope in even stalling the Americans would be to fight on the defense. It would be a catastrophic war, mostly for the South Koreans. Hardship already plagues the North, so a war would hardly change things.

 

[Acorn]

First off, I apologize for being somewhat abrasive in my posts.

That being said, I'm still seeing "bean counting" in the assessments of people here (couchcommander, I'll address your issues of terrain below). Does anyone remember the gloom and doom of commentators about the first Iraq war? We were up against the world's fourth largest army. Thousands of tanks, hundreds of combat aircraft.

To risk cliché and quote Napoleon: "The moral is to the physical as three is to one." Perhaps it's our usual regard for the "inscrutable oriental" that we automatically assume the NK military is both technically capable and highly motivated. True, they are a highly propagandized force, with skillful indoctrination. However, the country is a shambles, with people eating grass. The military's primary motivation (at this time, my assessement) is that they are fed. If they are successful, they may well retain their motivation, by the factors I see point to a brittle force that will not be able to sustain much hardship. Their airforce and air defence forces are old, and more a means for US and Allied pilots to rack up kills than a credible capability. They are firmly planted in Soviet-style "top down" leadership, causing a lack of flexibility.

If they have any credible capability it's their SF, which has proven to be very well motivated and somewhat capable. They could easily cause difficulty in Allied rear areas, though those difficulties are not likely to be war winners.

Now, terrain. "Mountainous" is an oft-used description, but the Korean mountains are not the Rockies or the Alps. Look to the history of the Korean war and you'll see that it became a "battle of ridges" once the Allied forces left the roads. Massed armoured battles are not likely to be occurring there, but even in the days of the great Red menace in Europe armour battles would not have been Kursk or Iraq-like. Armour in Korea would be more effective and less vulnerable in the Korean terrain than it is in the urban terrain of Iraq today.

As for foliage and cover, couchcommander, you are right, much like the Eastern US, though the cover is much less now, as NK has been deforesting considerably in the past 10 years - the famine and lack of infrastructure means trees are fuel and food. However, the Eastern US is also quite developed. Korea is as well, which means things aren't as close as you may think. Yes, there will be defiles that armour may have to go through, but there were such things in Europe as well, and we trained for that. In terms of communications and vulnerability, it's clear advantage US. The NKs technology is likely more a restriction to them than to the US - the latter have satellites and air power far more capable than anything NK can cobble together.

A bloodbath? Probably, though most of the blood shed would be NK. This is not Iraq, either. There are millions of SK people who can, and would, provide propaganda value, translators, spies, SF and a variety of other functions that would reduce the US/Allied force's vulnerability to NK subversion, espionage, counter-intelligence.

Finally, it appears to me that most of the theories are predicated on a US/Allied attack. Such a scenario is pretty doubtful for a variety of reasons (like, it's been over 50 years already, why now?)

I ask that those who stand up with glib "it'll be a bloodbath" statements look at things in more detail. The number of factors that need to be taken into account are far greater than many of you seem to think, and the one most often missed is "the moral."

Anyway, I will now sign off.

 

[SHARP WO]

A couple of other things to consider...

I was in South Korea in 98 visiting my Dad, (he was an ESL teacher there for 4 years) I did see a few things you might want to consider.

1) the overall terrain is an equal mix of mountain and flat land,  digging in a high ground is next to impossible you would have shellscrapes at best. With the lack vegetation so near the border high ground is exposed.

2)  The Americans employ over 100,000 soldiers in S Korea along with almost a million S Korean Regulars. There are 4 main bases, 2 of which are in Soeul one on the south side of the river and one on the north.

3)  Soeul is 50 km south of the border and every highway, road and bridge is mined ready to be blown within 30 minutes of an attack by the North. with prepared defences along every possible route. If the North were to get to Soeul, all the bridges would be blown over the river(they are also mined).

4)  The DMZ is constantly being upgraded and is regularily patrolled by the S Koreans and the Americans. The only way to cross it is at designated points which are very heavily defended.

5)  The one thing the N Koreans have is the mirade of tunnels running all over the place, rumour has it that they run all the way under to  about 2 km south of the DMZ, but they are man sized, so no armour support. ( my dad visited the tunnels when he was there for a vacation in 97)


SHARP WO

 

[Baloo]

I do not doubt the capacity of the South Koreans to defend themselves. This war (if it occurred) would not be nearly a repeat of the last one. All I have tried to suggest or question, is North Korean ability to level the capital of Seoul, and the economy of their neighbour. Civilian casualties in such an event would not only be inevitable, but catastrophic. This seems endeniable however, it any case. Unless there is a serious mismanagement in intelligence where the North does not have this massed artillery strike prepared, or the gunners would not follow orders (both unlikely), South Korea faces the very real possibility of being crippled in their ecnomic sector.

There really could be no quarrelling over the outcome though. Even if the North fights to the last man, uncontested American and allied airpower would prevent anything other than total victory.