NKorea threatens SKorea with nuclear war

[Oberon]

Ten Taepodongs taped together? Heck, I'd pay to see that, the explosion would probably be bigger than the nuclear bombs (which would probably be a dud).

True, as a denial weapon I guess it would be rather limited, but then again in the media game, you've got to just inflict as much casualties as you can and last as long as you can until the US and EU media shows enough dead bodies coming home to set in war weariness. Pictures of mushroom clouds rising up over the DMZ, particularly if it's done on North soil, would make people question the decision to head north into the DPRK.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Ten Taepodongs taped together? Heck, I'd pay to see that, the explosion would probably be bigger than the nuclear bombs (which would probably be a dud).

It would go something like this I think:

True, as a denial weapon I guess it would be rather limited, but then again in the media game, you've got to just inflict as much casualties as you can and last as long as you can until the US and EU media shows enough dead bodies coming home to set in war weariness.

The DMZ is 160 miles long, assuming the DPRK put all of its suspected bombs along the DMZ it would cover just about 8-10 miles of it. The situation gets worse if the DPRK has to plan for an amphibious or airborne assault.

There are going to be a lot of dead bodies but most are going to be North Korean. But then again there are a lot of people dieing in North Korea right now with no war. If the balloon goes up US and ROK response is going to be amazingly swift and deadly, by the time the amount of dead bodies makes the west queasy it could be over. We took out the Iraqi army in a month with almost nothing prepositioned, we have had 60 years to plan and stockpile for the North Korean Army.

Now if the DPRK does do this, and some South Korean reporter digs up my assessment and sticks it on the news I'm hiding at your house Oberon.

Pictures of mushroom clouds rising up over the DMZ, particularly if it's done on North soil, would make people question the decision to head north into the DPRK.

Then again some might say we need to get rid of someone who would nuke their own soil even more.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

It would go something like this I think:


The DMZ is 160 miles long, assuming the DPRK put all of its suspected bombs along the DMZ it would cover just about 8-10 miles of it. The situation gets worse if the DPRK has to plan for an amphibious or airborne assault.

There are going to be a lot of dead bodies but most are going to be North Korean. But then again there are a lot of people dieing in North Korea right now with no war. If the balloon goes up US and ROK response is going to be amazingly swift and deadly, by the time the amount of dead bodies makes the west queasy it could be over. We took out the Iraqi army in a month with almost nothing prepositioned, we have had 60 years to plan and stockpile for the North Korean Army.

Now if the DPRK does do this, and some South Korean reporter digs up my assessment and sticks it on the news I'm hiding at your house Oberon.

Then again some might say we need to get rid of someone who would nuke their own soil even more.

Good points all, and I'm sure I can hide you in the wardrobe somewhere alongside the tanks and helicopters. A swift and decisive war against the North is a good outcome, however it is depending upon everything to work right first time. As we know, that doesn't always happen, an example that I recall was the laser guided bombs in the Kosovan war which had trouble during rain, as well as radar guided missiles having problems with reflections off tractors, and other objects in the countryside.
Now, even those problems aside, the DPRK is going to suffer extremely heavy casualties, however casualties on the Allied side might not be as light as you'd think, technology can only go so far and if the Koreans have learnt anything from the Vietnam war, then they will have plenty of roadside bombs and other traps as well as Korean undercover agents who stay behind in DPRK villages when the front line overtakes. Now, if the US public can be so divided over 629 average US soldier KIAs per year in Iraq (estimate), how many casualties will there be in a second Korean war?
Now, the first Korean war put out 36,516 US KIA, over a three year period of fighting, so an average of 12,712 per annum. Now, this is a completely different war to the one that we would fight if it all kicked off today, for one thing, the DPRK has no arms parity with us, back in the last war they had T-34s and lots of them, and the ROK was hideously unprepared, and their leader a murdering lunatic. However, we pulled off the Incheon landing and kicked them back over the DMZ and went north, only getting pushed back when the Chinese got involved.
Now, it's very unlikely the Chinese will get involved, the latest wikileaks indicate that they want a more stable government in Korea and reckon that a unified government under the ROK is that much more stable. So, we can march up to the Chinese border with no threat of the Chinese coming to meet us. That's good. However, casualties are still going to be at the level of or higher than the Iraqi war, that much surely must be certain, I mean, the DPRK may be years behind in technology but a bullet is still a bullet and a bomb is still a bomb. The Taliban is decades behind us in technology but they've still been damn hard to subdue.
Perhaps the North Korean people will welcome us with open arms? But then...we thought that of the Iraqis didn't we? And the Afghanis, and yes, some did, but others welcomed us with AKs and IEDs. Now, there's religion behind that, yes, and nothing drives a crowd like faith, but Kims personality cult day in and day out over sixty odd years must be a powerful force of its own, particularly if it is enforced by DPRK loyalist commandos, perhaps hiding in China and using the Chinese border to operate over into the former DPRK, just like Afghanistan and Pakistan...but we can't bomb over Chinas border, China wouldn't like that, but China wouldn't like the Allied forces to get away completely scot-free with an invasion and occupation/liberation of the DPRK and would encourage the US to tie down more forces in Korea and overstretch itself.
I do find it hard to believe that China would be happy with US forces that close to the Chinese border though...but likewise, the DPRK has been nothing but a continued annoyance. Unless China agrees to move in and take the north under its control when the war gets back to the DMZ, and then install a new more stable and easier to control government in Pyongyang...that's another idea.

However, there is one other factor which none of us have brought in whilst discussing a resumption of the Korean war. The economy.
Now, the Asian markets are on a fine line as it is, China is strong (ish), Japan is attempting to recover from the global slump which hit it so soon after the bubble burst, a resumption of the Korean war would smash the markets completely, and that's something China really does not need, and likewise America because if Chinas economy goes down the pan the America follows. Ok, America can pull itself out of the pan faster than China can, but it's still a side effect that's not going to be needed or wanted when coupled to news stories showing coffins draped in flags arriving back in airports in one shot, and market crashes and price rises in another.

Basically, if it was as easy as some people make out, I'm confident that it would have been done already. Therefore, other factors must be in play which discourage both Democrats and Republicans alike (bear in mind that the DPRKs been an absolute ass since 1953) from finishing the Korean job.

[TLAM Strike]

One thing I think we need to do is bring China in to this on our side. (Might be so difficult as some might think). After the huge air/missile/arty plastering the North gets drag them in to the UN (Korea is still a UN matter since the 1950 war) and demanded disarmament with Chinese forces compromising half the disarmament/peacekeeping force. China has a huge problem with people fleeing the DPRK in to China and ending up in all sorts of criminal activity (mostly against their will), and the North is providing WMDs and other weapons to nations in China's sphere of influence, and I doubt China wants that to continue. Their leadership must see that a unified and free Korea is in their best interests. Most of the Ideologues in the Chinese government are gone and they now mostly don't care that one nation is communist or not.

[vienna]

Well said, Oberon.
Much of the discussion has centered around scenarios where the U.S., the U.N., SEATO, or some other combination of some or all these, invades NK first. Given this then, yes, there will be as neat and clean an invasion as possible (I do agree with Oberon that a rear-guard/guerilla action would probably happen after the invasion). But what if NK strikes first? Remember, NK and its military is ruled by a family of fanatical madmen. If Kim Il-jong [or his son, an even bigger wildcard than his father] decides to invade SK, it will not be a classic military invasion to which the world has become accustomed. If Kim is in such a position that he feels he must invade, it will be full-force and savage. After all, in such a situation, he will have nothing to lose and he will probably choose to go down with one last hurrah. NK has a standing army of over 1.1 million with a reserve of over 4.7 million and they are all, relatively, in the same place, not spread over vast areas or in armed conflicts like the U.S. and its allies. An assault on SK would literally be the opening of the flood gates supported by armor, artillery, and air support going full-out (or in poker terms, “all-in”). Additionally, it has been long known that NK has placed operatives in SK with the purpose of not only spying on SK activities but to also actively sabotage or disrupt operations in SK, both military and civilian in the event NK invades. The amount of destruction would be immense before SK or its allies even had a chance to respond. As far as the troops, both SK and U.N. on the border are concerned; they are in a position akin to that of the NATO troops on the East/West Germany border. An Army friend of mine who was sent to West Germany during the height of the Cold War related how during the orientation the commanding NCO pointed across the border and told the troops the USSR troop and equipment outnumbered them by as much as 2:1 and that if war broke out, NATO troops in the area were basically done for.
As pointed out by Oberon, sophistication does not always equate to superiority. NK missiles do not have to be the most modern or technologically advanced. Seoul is only about 30 miles from the DMZ, roughly the distance from the Civic Center of Los Angeles to Long Beach. The missile just has to get there, no more no less and that NK can do in first strike. What happens after the invasion will probably be the obliteration of Kim and his reign.
China may not like NK and its current government but, I don’t see them getting chummy with the U.N. or the U.S. anytime soon. There is still a lot of ego in the Chinese government and they are very protective of the perception the world has of their place in international relations. There is still a strong sting of havng been second best to the U.S. and the West over the past century. Going in together with the U.N. with the U.N., and by extension the U.S., in the lead would be a bitter pill indeed. China would probably just deal with NK militarily on its own rather than being perceived as submitting to outside influences, much as it did with the slap down it gave Vietnam in the late 70’s. As far as the criminality and proliferation of WMD’s is concerned, after China takes out Kim, it all becomes a moot point.

[Oberon]

Agreed, working with China rather than against it is key here, but the question is, is the US willing to do that? They've had the knowledge for a while, after all, that the Chinese are irritated with Kim and yet they've seemingly failed to exploit it as fully as they should, instead choosing to send US carrier groups into the South China Sea and a frigate to Vietnam, both aimed at pushing at Chinas sphere of influence in South East Asia. I mean, I know there's the whole economic situation going on here, but if a prolonged war on the Korean peninsula breaks out, then China is going to lose as much as America in terms of the economy...more so in fact, so it's in Beijings best interests to work with the US on removing Kim, and they've admitted that a unified Korea under an ROK style leadership is the better and more stable option, and China likes stability, it can't handle instability at this point, so that's a key card to play in any talks with China, a long(er) war vs a short one and a greater Chinese say in the future of the Korean peninsula as opposed to having US and UN troops sitting on its border.

[Oberon]

Good points raised Vienna on China dealing with Kim ala Vietnam rather than agreeing to work with the US and UN, although if the US does some economic backroom deals with China I could see them perhaps being a bit more agreeable to it than before.

However, in terms of a DPRK first strike...well, it's probably in Kims best interest not to...ok, he's not the most level headed of characters, but he's not tried invading in the last 60 years and has usually known just how far he can push it and get away with it.

You see, if the DPRK strikes first, firstly it throws away the victim card which is an important card to hold onto for propaganda on both your own citizens and those of your aggressors nation. After all, since the US lead the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be easy to label it an 'imperialist warmonger' and gain some sympathy in peace protesters in foreign nations, particularly if you show pictures of destroyed 'baby milk factories'
But anyway, let's say that Kim does decide to throw away that card, and heads south. Well, first he's got to get across the most heavily mined and defended border in the world. Not easy. He can go under it, however the amount of troops that can go under the DMZ would be limited by the size and scope of the tunnels, and given that there is some pretty good equipment on the DMZ border for detecting earth tremors, I'd say that there aren't that many tunnels that aren't known by the ROK already, marked and probably ready to be exploded on top of any DPRK troops that mass through it.
He could try going over it, his wooden aircraft would make a low signature on the border radar systems, however again, there's the problem of numbers, most likely the AN-2s...if they can fuel enough of them...would be used for commando raids.
He could try blasting his way through, detonating a nuke under the DMZ would clear any mines and opposing forces out of the way...but then you've got only one clear exit route which would turn into Koreas own 'Hells Highway' through constant air bombardment.
Amphibious assaults around the DMZ are out of the question because the DPRKs surface navy is...lacking in the essential equipment, shall we say.
The last option is to human wave it, throw as many men as you can at it and force your way through with sheer manpower...viable, and likely to succeed but can be done only two ways. On narrow fronts, in which it incurs minimal initial casualties but then has the same problem as the nuke clearing option, or through a wide front in which high casualties are incurred but a greater section of the front smashed open.
In all scenarios, however, there is a massive loss of life on both sides in the opening stages, and that's before the ROK/US response. It is possible and likely that the DPRK can force several breaches in the DMZ, that much I will admit. However, proceeding beyond the DMZ becomes a bit more difficult. Forward units may reach Seoul, however their supply lines will be smashed to pieces by Allied air attacks and I'd estimate that the battle-line will stabilise about ten-twenty miles from Seoul.
Meanwhile inside the ROK, all hell will break loose, DPRK sleeper units will detonate bombs at army bases and airfields and inside Seoul and communications will be shot for about twenty four hours...however, the ROK and US will have been prepared for this and have secondary communications systems in place...if they're not prepared then I'd question what the US taxpayer is spending its money on TBH.
That twenty four hours of confusion will get the DPRK forces towards Seoul with high casualties along the DMZ as Allied units are overrun. However within that twenty-four hours a new defence line will be set up in front of Seoul. That line will hold, or if it doesn't the next one will. Soon the DPRK forces will find themselves low on ammunition and fuel. Small breakthroughs may occur along the defence line but the DPRK will lack the available material to exploit them because of lack of fuel and ammunition.
By this time, US reinforcements will be on the scene. DPRK subs and mini subs will try to hit the carrier fleets but most will be lost in the process, others though will be used primarily as commando landing craft, and will be hit by coastal sub-hunters.

If I had to guess...and this is pure guesswork here...I'd say that the front line will get this far:


Somewhere between the red and blue lines I'd say. I imagine Inchon would be a vital secondary target for DPRK forces because of its naval resupply ability for the Allied forces. So they'd probably make a drive south to try and get that.
So, DPRK is halted. The Allied forces are fully ready...the repulse will begin, driving the DPRK back to the DMZ...and then across it...what happens next is debatable...either a repeat of October 1950, or a collapse of the Kim regime and the appearance of a new (most likely military) leader who would sign a ceasefire and peace treaty, or the complete invasion and dismantling of the DPRK and incorporation into the ROK to become one unified Korea. It all depends on China really and the stance they take.
Either which way though, casualties will be high, but as in the last Korean war, they will be higher for the DPRK than for the Allies, and since Kim has thrown away the victim card, and hit first, public sentiment will be less against the war as it is a war of defence...although the deeper the Allies go into the DPRK the greater the call will be for them to have stopped at the DMZ and put things back into the status quo with a new leader in the DPRK. So war weariness will not be as much of a problem as it would have been if the Allies had struck first...and I'd say that Kim knows that, if he didn't know that, then he would have invaded long before now...but he knows, deep down, that he hasn't got a hope in hell of winning. So, he takes it to the edge, threatens everything under the sun, and then plays tennis with UN embargoes and the like, all the time working on the one thing that could possibly level the playing field, a nuke small enough to put on a missile and a missile system that can hit something that isn't the Pacific Ocean.

[Castout]

You guys really write too many sentences now I'll have to hold reading them until later

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Agreed, working with China rather than against it is key here, but the question is, is the US willing to do that?

Oh I think we are willing to work with anyone. That is a hallmark of America. Our greatest allies are Brittan and Japan: once two of our greatest enemies. France, Germany, Russia, Italy, Spain, Mexico we have all been at war with them and been allies with them. We armed the Vietcong before we fought them, We armed Iran before we bombed them, same with Iraq. For better or worse we will work with anyone who furthers are interests and our interests include a Korean peninsula where it is safe to play Starcraft without the threat of No-dongs raining down on you.

Originally Posted by vienna

NK has a standing army of over 1.1 million with a reserve of over 4.7 million and they are all, relatively, in the same place, not spread over vast areas or in armed conflicts like the U.S. and its allies. An assault on SK would literally be the opening of the flood gates supported by armor, artillery, and air support going full-out (or in poker terms, “all-in”).

I would not go by numbers. Most of their troops are poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly fed. Look at the Gulf War where there was little ground fighting except for a 7 or 8 engagements (all one sided except for the first). Iraq had half a million troops in the South (all told their force was close to a million split on four fronts). The Coalition force (also a million but only 3/4 "reliable forces", read: NATO forces and a sizable portion of them Naval based) demoralized them and walked over them with less than 400 troops dead.

Originally Posted by Oberon

He could try going over it, his wooden aircraft would make a low signature on the border radar systems, however again, there's the problem of numbers, most likely the AN-2s...if they can fuel enough of them...would be used for commando raids.

The stealth of the An-2 has been exaggerated. Its real advantage is its ability to fly at low altitudes, at night it would be suicidal to try (very few PVNGs in North Korea), in the day everyone with stingers would be shooting at you (there have been cases where An-2s were shot down by Hueys armed with automatic rifles). Plus any troops that land would lack heavy weapons and vehicles.

He could try blasting his way through, detonating a nuke under the DMZ would clear any mines and opposing forces out of the way...but then you've got only one clear exit route which would turn into Koreas own 'Hells Highway' through constant air bombardment.

Again that's either one 8 mile corridor or 8 1 mile corridors for troops with minimal/poorly made CBRN gear. Not to mention we can re-mine it with FASCAM.

Amphibious assaults around the DMZ are out of the question because the DPRKs surface navy is...lacking in the essential equipment, shall we say.

I would not count this out completely for the outlying islands. The DPRK converted a large number of PT boats in to fast LCPs. And they have a large number of submarines used for commando operations. Best defense against those would be coast watchers who can call in arty or a few platoons of marines.

If I had to guess...and this is pure guesswork here...I'd say that the front line will get this far:

If I was the South I would try to hold them at the river just south of the DMZ (the Imjin River, the British delaying action there in '51 cost the Chinese 10,000 men) by using mobile mine laying systems and large numbers of USAF B-52 sorties dropping CBU-97s and JADAMs. A few copperhead rounds guided in by a drone could end the North Korea offensive right there if done right, eliminate any attempt a bridging or crossing on barges and any mechanized invasion ends there. Then there is cake...

By this time, US reinforcements will be on the scene. DPRK subs and mini subs will try to hit the carrier fleets but most will be lost in the process, others though will be used primarily as commando landing craft, and will be hit by coastal sub-hunters.

US and Allied (read: Japan) naval forces could be on the scene in the Yellow Sea in 24 hours, but our carriers would most likely be operating in the Sea of Japan and in the deep waters south of Korea in the East China Sea aprox. 500 nm from the nearest North Korean naval bases at Haeju and Ongjin.

The large submarines (Romeo, Whiskey, Sang-O) could be a threat to where our Carriers would be operating (but honestly they don't stand a chance of making it that far), their newer Yono class subs would be hard pressed to operate out that far (not to mention the crew exhausted from spending 2 or 3 days aboard something you can't stand up in... then again North Korean are tiny and maybe they can stand up strait in one.)

Originally Posted by Castout

You guys really write too many sentences now I'll have to hold reading them until later

But unlike Skybird we include pictures occasionally with our walls of text.

[the_tyrant]

@TLAM Strike
you are AMAZING!!!!!

just one question, are you CIA?

[Sledgehammer427]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

@TLAM Strike
you are AMAZING!!!!!

just one question, are you CIA?

We DO call him our own Jack Ryan....

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

just one question, are you CIA?

I can neither confirm nor deny...


... hay wait how did this picture get here!
Yes that really is my Firefox theme right now!

[the_tyrant]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I can neither confirm nor deny...


... hay wait how did this picture get here!
Yes that really is my Firefox theme right now!

Your stuff is way better than 99% of the S**T from most of the military magazines and websites
Your best posts are as good as the stuff thats on Jane's Defence Journal

[Sledgehammer427]

you know, they would prolly get mad at you for using a work computer TLAM

[Krauter]

...

Based on what I'm reading from Oberon and TLAM.. It all sounds like the next Tom Clancy novel in the making.