Might invading North Korea be both a moral duty, and a sure thing?

[Recliner]

I was just reading about the conflicting reports of the WHO and Amnesty International on NK's healthcare system (an odd flap, but basically, WHO praises it, Amnesty says its "medieval"), and now I'm thinking: should "we" ("we" defined variously) perhaps just say that enough is enough, and end this disgusting regime?

The timing is probably wrong, at the moment. Kim Jong Il will be dead very soon, and I suspect there's some clever maneuvering in place for when it happens. But say he manages to transfer power to another Juchified party, and the rest of the world is faced with another few decades of awful, awful NK horror stories. Should we? Could we?

They have a huge standing army, famously; I also can't believe that there's much loyalty there, in the face of the obvious shit-assedness of their lifestyles. Saddam's Republican Guard were "famously loyal", and they turned in a quick moment upon facing an actual challenge. If the UN, say, were to gather a true "Coalition of the Willing", bearing both intense military force, and bountiful food/medical aid -- would the North Korean army quickly fold? Or, to our collective horror, would they stand firm to the last man, in true Juche fashion?

Since I'm a betting man, I'm honestly going to say that I believe they'd fold, and fold quickly. Latest I've read said that something like 9 million are believed to be starving. Hungry people don't tend to fight hard, particularly when the opponents come bearing food -- and good will.

I know the politics of this, particularly in terms of the Two Koreas, are incredibly complex. But I ask, what would happen if we tried? Fifty years from now, will we regret not doing so?

[GIGObuster]

I'm afraid you forgot to ask China.

[Squink]

Moral duty?
How about we take care of uplifting our own huddled masses before haring off after yet another bullshit holy war?

[Der Trihs]

But I ask, what would happen if we tried? Seoul gets leveled by massed NK artillery, with huge civilian casualties. Basically, NK has the capital of SK held hostage.

[Boyo Jim]

I'm afraid you forgot to ask China.

I think we should tell China that, should they need a few million more workers to coat toys with lead paint and dig in their coals mines, we won't object if they absorb all the North Koreans into their labor force.

[Recliner]

I think we should tell China that, should they need a few million more workers to coat toys with lead paint and dig in their coals mines, we won't object if they absorb all the North Koreans into their labor force.

It's largely immaterial, but I'm fairly certain my dog was killed by that tainted Chinese dog-food thing. Bastards!

[Oakminster]

Hell no we don't need to invade a third country. We're already in two wars, one of which we had no damn business starting in the first place, and both of which need ending as soon as practical. Let China spank its own puppy, unless and until NK invades SK, in which case we have to act.

[Wesley Clark]

Supposedly the blind loyalty people associate with North Korea has died down dramatically in the last 20 years due to the death of Kim Il Sung, the famines of the 1990s, and the proliferation of mobile phones and VHS tapes letting N. Koreans see what life outside North Korea is actually like.

So the concept that there'd be loyalty to the government doesn't really sit well with me. Supposedly there were several very serious coup attempts in the 1990s, a few generals were going to march on Pyongyang and overthrow Kim Jong Il, but the plot was uncovered. I'm under the impression that more and more people know the system is a lie, but nobody really knows what to do about it.

The big issue is the civilian casualities in South Korea. The NK army will bomb the hell out of Seoul, and likely send weapons against Japan too.

But their standing military would fold incredibly quickly IMO. Lack of morale and technological superiority would pretty much destroy their fighting ability. The only real tool NK has is WMD.

[GIGObuster]

I think we should tell China that, should they need a few million more workers to coat toys with lead paint and dig in their coals mines, we won't object if they absorb all the North Koreans into their labor force.

Uh, China does not like to get immigrants from North Korea. There have been several shooting incidents with suspected human smugglers from North Korea at the Chinese border.

Before, among other reasons, the Chinese invaded North Korea because they did not want to have enemy troops so close to China. The specter of millions of North Koreans going over the border as the result of a war is not something that they will stand still.

Of course it is not 100% sure that China will intervene if the south and the US invades, but as long as China remains even a reluctant ally of North Korea one has to assume that they will most likely intervene with force.

[Boyo Jim]

Hey, I'm just saying we should make China an offer. I'm sure they can figure out whether it's in their best interest. It's a way better option than ANOTHER unilateral invasion by us of NK.

[Magiver]

Seoul gets leveled by massed NK artillery, with huge civilian casualties. Basically, NK has the capital of SK held hostage. We have autonomous anti-tank weapons that can be deployed by bombers. I would imagine they could be adapted to artillery guns.

[Magiver]

We could bomb NK with SK magazines. The reality of life outside their shit hole would hasten the demise of the government.

[Little Nemo]

We're already involved in two wars that we thought would be quick victories. Let's hold off on starting a third.

[Oakminster]

We have autonomous anti-tank weapons that can be deployed by bombers. I would imagine they could be adapted to artillery guns.

Not before Seoul is turned into a smoking crater.

[Der Trihs]

Not before Seoul is turned into a smoking crater.Exactly. The problem isn't destroying the things; it's doing so before they flatten the city. To use an analogy, it's like trying to kill twenty or thirty terrorists, all of whom have cover and body armor, armed with grenade launchers all pointed at some hostages. Sure you can do it, but can you do it before at least one pulls a trigger?

[straight man]

Of course it is not 100% sure that China will intervene if the south and the US invades, but as long as China remains even a reluctant ally of North Korea one has to assume that they will most likely intervene with force.
Very unlikely, really —they don't necessarily like the regime, either. But it would certainly piss them off, as it would lead to a truly massive refugee crisis that they would have to absorb.

Anyway, this whole conversation is made moot by the now-mentioned-several-times-but-I'll-emphasize-it-anyway artillery pointed at Seoul. There is simply no chance of gaining more than is lost in the barrage.

[Monty]

Hey, I'm just saying we should make China an offer. I'm sure they can figure out whether it's in their best interest. It's a way better option than ANOTHER unilateral invasion by us of NK.

Maybe I'm tired or you were. But I really don't recall there ever being a unilateral invasion of North Korea by anyone. There was, though, a unilateral invasion of South Korea some 60 years ago by North Korea.

[Magiver]

Very unlikely, really —they don't necessarily like the regime, either. But it would certainly piss them off, as it would lead to a truly massive refugee crisis that they would have to absorb.

Anyway, this whole conversation is made moot by the now-mentioned-several-times-but-I'll-emphasize-it-anyway artillery pointed at Seoul. There is simply no chance of gaining more than is lost in the barrage.
Not that I'm advocating it but.... Artillery isn't worth much if you don't own the sky.

[Oakminster]

Not that I'm advocating it but.... Artillery isn't worth much if you don't own the sky.

What you're not getting is we do not own that piece of sky. And we are not likely to own it, and be able knock out the artillery, before Seoul is destroyed for all practical intents and purposes. And that isn't even considering unknown nuclear capabilities NK may have.

[Der Trihs]

Not that I'm advocating it but.... Artillery isn't worth much if you don't own the sky.If your only goal is to devastate a huge, soft target like a city it's worth quite a lot. We can't destroy thousands of fortified artillery pieces all in a single moment.

[straight man]

Not that I'm advocating it but.... Artillery isn't worth much if you don't own the sky.
There's just too much of it. 80,000 pieces, IIRC? Mostly dug into the hillsides? Something like that. Anyway, the point is, you can't take enough of them out before there are literally millions of dead South Koreans.

[straight man]

Maybe that was "eighteen" rather than "eighty". Either way, the point is, too much.

[septimus]

Not before Seoul is turned into a smoking crater.

Would some sort of nuclear weapons be able to suppress the artillery sooner? Would that save lives on balance? What would NK do with its nukes? Does U.S. have contingency plans for this?

I hope Dopers with access to U.S. military secrets will fill us in....

[Monty]

If they had access to secret materials and they posted that here, their access would likely not last much longer.

[marshmallow]

Killing millions of foreigners in order to affect social and political changes because we judge their society to be too repressive or backwards is always a moral duty, especially for Americans! Forget the moral stuff, actually. If there's one thing we're actually good at it's adjudicating other's internal conflicts, right?

The solution, as always, is dissolution.

[Grumman]

Would some sort of nuclear weapons be able to suppress the artillery sooner?
Does it matter? It's not an option: attacking North Korea with nuclear weapons without provocation would without question make the Unites States the bad guys.

[Boyo Jim]

Maybe I'm tired or you were. But I really don't recall there ever being a unilateral invasion of North Korea by anyone. ...

You are correct. What I mean was that the US has gone down the path of unilateral invasion (somewhere else) already, and it did not turn out well.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

Hell no we don't need to invade a third country. We're already in two wars, one of which we had no damn business starting in the first place, and both of which need ending as soon as practical. Let China spank its own puppy, unless and until NK invades SK, in which case we have to act.

Not to worry, we have almost 40,000 troops in the region, plenty enough to accomplish the mission. And, lest we forget, we'll be greeted as liberators.

[Squink]

lest we forget, we'll be greeted as liberators.Will there be cake?

[jtgain]

If I understand the OP, we should invade NK because it is a bad government led by an evil man. If that is our criteria, we will be very busy in the future. Why not start 90 miles off of Florida and take care of the Castro regime first?

[Markxxx]

There's probably a moral duty but so what? There's a moral duty for a lot of things. I think we have a moral duty to treat all Americans to a decent place to live, food and basic medical care. Do they get that? No, so before we concern ourselves about Koreans, let's take care of our own people first

The real problem is that no one cares about North Korea. Why do you think Kim Jong Il stays in power.

Because there's nothing to offer. China doesn't want it. South Korea doesn't want it. North Korea is in such bad shape it'd be a huge and I mean HUGE burden on a country trying to take it over.

So why doesn't anyone oppose Kim Jong Il? 'Cause people aren't stupid. Suppose you have a company that is two weeks away from bankruptcy. If someone offered you a job saying "save our company." Would you? Would you leave a job to take another job that is virtually doomed to fail? No, the only person that would take it would be one who has nothing to lose, and in that case he/she wouldn't be very qualified. Therefore he/she would only make it worse.

[Boyo Jim]

Not to worry, we have almost 40,000 troops in the region, plenty enough to accomplish the mission. And, lest we forget, we'll be greeted as liberators.

The biggest problem will be a shortage of rose petals to sprinkle on our troops.

[Paul in Qatar]

All in all it is China's Sphere of Influence, let them do it. But yes. the US and ROK could do it. (Of course this presumes the ROK wants to do it.) I also presume operational surprise.

If we have most of the artillery pits located we could smite them in a single massive strike with heavy bombers. Say 50 aircraft each zapping five targets and repeating sorties every twenty-four hours or so. In a day or two it would be cleared up. Bombers would also break the PDRK's fiberoptic backbone as jamming reduces their C&C. Then of course comes the messy part. But it could be done.

Incidentally, I am reading a most excellent book on the PDRK, Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader. (http://www.amazon.com/Under-Loving-Care-Fatherly-Leader/dp/0312323220/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279465129&sr=8-1) You ought to give it a try, the first close look at the PDRK leadership I have ever seen.

Now ought we to? Only if they attack us again. As I said, I would prefer not to fight for China's benefit.

[septimus]

Would some sort of nuclear weapons be able to suppress the artillery sooner?

Does it matter? It's not an option: attacking North Korea with nuclear weapons without provocation would without question make the Unites States the bad guys.

Launching an on-going artillery attack which could kill literally hundreds of (our allies') civilians every minute would certainly constitute "provocation" of an urgent nature. AFAIK the U.S.A. has never adopted a "no first use" policy.

If they had access to secret materials and they posted that here, their access would likely not last much longer.

Oh... Never thought of that.

[Der Trihs]

If we have most of the artillery pits located we could smite them in a single massive strike with heavy bombers. Say 50 aircraft each zapping five targets and repeating sorties every twenty-four hours or so. In a day or two it would be cleared up.In other words, not nearly fast enough to save Seoul. It doesn't take a "day or two" to fire an artillery piece.

[Magiver]

The biggest problem will be a shortage of rose petals to sprinkle on our troops. The disparity between NK and SK greatly exceeds that of East and West Germany. I think they would appreciate the effort when everything was said and done.

However, the brainwashing that exists and the complete lack of communication with the outside world means the initial fight would be ugly, mostly for them. Their air force consists of pilots with 7 hrs of flying time so anything that went up would go straight back down. Without air support their ground machinery would be wiped out in a matter of hours and days. It would be very similar to what happened in Kuwait. Iraq had the 3rd largest standing army (now a position held by NK) and it was systematically chewed up.

What Iraq didn't have was nuclear weapons so it would be a huge gamble to assume the missiles could be shot down.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

They may have nuclear weapons, but do they know where they are going to go once they launch them?

[Der Trihs]

They may have nuclear weapons, but do they know where they are going to go once they launch them?
They don't need more than a vague idea to do enormous damage. For that matter, against an invasion they can bury one under a likely invasion route, or even under their own capital. I could certainly see the kind of leaders NK has responding to a successful invasion by waiting until the enemy army is well within the capital city and then detonating a suicide nuke there.

[Marley23]

At the risk of sounding like a hippie cliche, war is not the solution to every freaking problem. Not the drug problem in Mexico, not the starvation and militarism in North Korea, not radicalism or anti-Semitism in the Middle East, not AIDS or corruption or lawlessness in Africa. In each of those you would see many deaths and the general situation would likely get worse before it gets better.

I would not be surprised if there is a great deal of validity to the OP's assumptions about the loyalty of the North Korean military and the comments from other posters about the state of their military, and their ability to damage South Korea. All of those things could be overstated in most reports. But none of those are the main deterrant either. The major problem is that North Korea has been fucked up to an enormous extent by 60 years of rule by the Kims. Whenever the dictatorship ends, the country is going to have to be rebuilt from the ground up. It is going to be a monumental effort that will take decades. It's not something that should be undertaken because "we" got huffy one day and decided "enough is enough."

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

They don't need more than a vague idea to do enormous damage. For that matter, against an invasion they can bury one under a likely invasion route, or even under their own capital. I could certainly see the kind of leaders NK has responding to a successful invasion by waiting until the enemy army is well within the capital city and then detonating a suicide nuke there.

Interesting. I didn't think about the possibility of a suicide nuke, which of course isn't something I would put past the NK leadership. I was more getting at the fact that we've witnessed their launch failures to even get some of these delivery systems off the ground, let alone the challenges of accurately aiming them somewhere.

[hansel]

If we have most of the artillery pits located we could smite them in a single massive strike with heavy bombers. Say 50 aircraft each zapping five targets and repeating sorties every twenty-four hours or so.

So, 80,000 artillery pieces in groups of, say 4,, divided by 5, multiplied by 10, equals... 40,000 bombers for a simultaneous strike aiming to knock out NKs artillery/rocket capability, to protect Seoul. That presumes that they're significantly successful (i.e., that the NK artillery isn't sufficiently mobile or dug-in to withstand a strike), and that the delay for any group of 50 planes between first and fifth target isn't sufficient to allow Kim to transmit orders to fire everything at once.

Doesn't sound like a hopeful operation to me, even if it were plausible to launch it in the first place. Nukes won't fly either, because you would need to blanket the area where artillery might be located--you can't just set off one or two, you'd need to glass a zone that's only 20-30 kms from Seoul. I don't think the South Koreans would be happy with a nuclear barrage that close to their most populous city.

[Grumman]

Launching an on-going artillery attack which could kill literally hundreds of (our allies') civilians every minute would certainly constitute "provocation" of an urgent nature.
But the whole point of your idea is to do it before they have the opportunity to provoke us - killing their artillery before they shell Seoul into oblivion.

AFAIK the U.S.A. has never adopted a "no first use" policy.
So? Starting a war and using that war as an excuse to pre-emptively nuke the victim's defences still makes you the bad guy.

[Chronos]

I would expect and hope that we already have missiles and/or artillery of our own in place targeted on all of the artillery we already know about, plus more that can be targeted on the fly to any we don't know about, and that if any of the artillery started firing, that we'd immediately launch all of those missiles. We could probably mitigate the damage to some extent. But even in the best case scenario, each of those artillery pieces is going to get off a few shots, and Seoul's going to take a lot of damage.

[DWMarch]

Is North Korea guaranteed to shell Seoul? Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Think of David and Goliath (with NK playing the role of David). You can smash Goliath in the forehead with a rock and hope to slow him down or you can toss the rock right past him and break a window at his house which might piss him off but won't slow him down one bit. So if I'm a commander of field guns in North Korea and I know my lifespan is measured in minutes to hours I'm going to point and fire my guns at things that shoot back first. Your artillery may vary.

[Magiver]

They don't need more than a vague idea to do enormous damage. For that matter, against an invasion they can bury one under a likely invasion route, or even under their own capital. I could certainly see the kind of leaders NK has responding to a successful invasion by waiting until the enemy army is well within the capital city and then detonating a suicide nuke there. Their leadership is about that crazy too.

The best strategy is to infiltrate the country with SC magazines. Doesn't matter what it's a magazine of. Once the NK people understand just how fucked up their country is the mutiny will come from within.`

[hansel]

Is North Korea guaranteed to shell Seoul?

I would think so, for several reasons.

First, in any conflict between the Koreas, massive damage/casualties to Seoul ties up a lot of South Korean resources--perhaps a disproportionate amount, given Seoul's importance. Tactically it's a sound move.

Second, if you have 80,000 artillery and rocket batteries pre-positioned to bombard Seoul, you know that they'll be a primary target at the beginning of any conflict. They might survive the first 24 hours, depending on a lot of factors, but you can be guaranteed they won't survive the first week, so there's a "use it or lose it" aspect to them. If they're dug in, they can't be easily repositioned either--it's not like you can task them to anything but the destruction of Seoul.

[Aside: anyone have a good idea what proportion of that artillery is mobile artillery vs. dug-in?]

Third, causing massive casualties in Seoul will be a huge blow to the morale of the SKs and the USians, which is another opportunity the NKs wouldn't want to pass up.

Lastly, after the war, when either North Korea is part of South Korea (or the reverse), a free-standing and unharmed Seoul will be directly compared to conditions in the north. Tarnishing that bright jewel has its advantages, and Seoul's integration with the world is about the companies and people, not about the infrastructure. There's no great argument for the NKs for preserving Seoul because there's little they can actually use there after a conflict, assuming they win (which I'm sure the NKs are planning on).

[gonzomax]

The people have been thoroughly propagandized into believing America is always planning a takeover of N. Korea. They are taught we want to kill them for no reason. We are completely demonized and they would run from us like evil space aliens had landed.
The reason they are starving and dirt poor is because of us. They would have riches if we didn't prevent it.

[Little Nemo]

The reason they are starving and dirt poor is because of us. They would have riches if we didn't prevent it.How is that exactly?

[Boyo Jim]

I believe gonzomax is saying what the NK people are told, not what reality is.

[Bryan Ekers]

<deleted>

[Magiver]

Is North Korea guaranteed to shell Seoul? Just because they can doesn't mean they will. Think of David and Goliath (with NK playing the role of David). You can smash Goliath in the forehead with a rock and hope to slow him down or you can toss the rock right past him and break a window at his house which might piss him off but won't slow him down one bit. So if I'm a commander of field guns in North Korea and I know my lifespan is measured in minutes to hours I'm going to point and fire my guns at things that shoot back first. Your artillery may vary.Artillery has limited capability in this scenario. All they can do with it is break things because it would be easy for people to locate beyond their range. In the mean time, they would be hunted/destroyed in what would amount to a bloodbath because NK would immediately lose control the air. It would be a systematic slice and dice of their communications system, radar system, and machines of war. Their best offense is in the numbers of boots that can pour over the border which again, would be a bloodbath without air support. Their artillery is the modern version of the Maginot Line.

[Der Trihs]

Artillery has limited capability in this scenario. All they can do with it is break things because it would be easy for people to locate beyond their range. In the mean time, they would be hunted/destroyed in what would amount to a bloodbath because NK would immediately lose control the air. It would be a systematic slice and dice of their communications system, radar system, and machines of war. Their best offense is in the numbers of boots that can pour over the border which again, would be a bloodbath without air support. Their artillery is the modern version of the Maginot Line.
No, they are a modern version of MAD. You are wildly overestimating how fast people can be made to leave such a huge metropolis. You are also ignoring the likelihood that in such a tense situation, even trying to evacuate would likely to cause them to open fire.

[septimus]

But the whole point of your idea is to do it before they have the opportunity to provoke us - killing their artillery before they shell Seoul into oblivion.

You're putting words in my mouth. Unlike a barrage of nuclear missiles, artillery is a weapon that takes several hours to play out. What I was "proposing" was a nuclear strike after N.K. began an artillery strike but before most of the damage was done.

I can't speculate on NK artillery's rate of fire, etc., nor on the delay of U.S. nuclear bomb delivery, but it seems likely to me, especially since spy satellites would probably detect moves toward attack, that a sufficient response could suppress the artillery while a large majority of rounds are still unfired, even though Presidential OK would wait till the (hypothetical) NK attack began.

[Der Trihs]

I can't speculate on NK artillery's rate of fire, etc., nor on the delay of U.S. nuclear bomb delivery, but it seems likely to me, especially since spy satellites would probably detect moves toward attack, that a sufficient response could suppress the artillery while a large majority of rounds are still unfired, even though Presidential OK would wait till the (hypothetical) NK attack began.I doubt there'd be any visible moves to attack since the artillery is pre-positioned and dug in. And I doubt that stopping the majority of the shells from being fired would be good enough to keep the city from devastation.

[Otara]

"I can't speculate on NK artillery's rate of fire, etc., nor on the delay of U.S. nuclear bomb delivery, but it seems likely to me, especially since spy satellites would probably detect moves toward attack, that a sufficient response could suppress the artillery while a large majority of rounds are still unfired, even though Presidential OK would wait till the (hypothetical) NK attack began."

As said earlier, any nuclear attack achieving this would have the slight issue of happening right next to Seoul. Theres no point saving the city if noone can safely live in it afterwards. Also theres lots of people next to the border who would be hit by said nukes.

Also there is the other slight issue of nerve gas and biological weapons being thought to be part of the NK artillery. Getting 'most' would still probably result in a rather scary death toll, even without nukes or dirty weapons being involved as is now also a possibility.

They must have some response planned, but Id be surprised if it didnt include the assumption of very large death tolls for Seoul regardless of whats done.

Otara

[Dissonance]

Launching an on-going artillery attack which could kill literally hundreds of (our allies') civilians every minute would certainly constitute "provocation" of an urgent nature. AFAIK the U.S.A. has never adopted a "no first use" policy.What you want to have happen: the US nukes North Korean artillery positions, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands in Seoul. What would actually happen: the US pops dozens of 20kt-150kt or so tactical nukes within 20 miles or so of Seoul. The half of Seoul's population that doesn't drop dead from radiation poisoning over the next month doesn't regard us as thier saviours for some odd reason. To add to the fun, before every single gun and multiple rocket launcher is silenced, the North Koreans treat Seoul to phosgene, mustard, and nerve gasses.

[HMS Irruncible]

Their leadership is about that crazy too.

The best strategy is to infiltrate the country with SC magazines. Doesn't matter what it's a magazine of. Once the NK people understand just how fucked up their country is the mutiny will come from within.`
They already get propaganda radio broadcasts over the border and black-market cell phones from China. The message is there. The problem is that the government propaganda overwhelms it. Many North Koreans live in this weird mindstate where they understand how miserable their country is and how much prosperity exists elsewhere, but they never make the connection that their government is one giant fraud.

It's one thing to think that your government is incompetent and maybe a little extortionary. But it's extremely difficult for a person to accept that a government can get (and has gotten) away with pulling off fraud on such a titanic scale, and that they individually and personally helped by swallowing what turns out to be some pretty ludicrous propaganda.

[Stoneburg]

I'm starting to think that maybe Americans need to be involved in a war for real, not just export it to other countries.

Americans went crazy when 9/11 happened and let's face it, that's just one attack (well two if you count Pentagon) with a very limited number of casualties. Not a big deal at all in war-terms. Imagine 9/11 happening in at least a hundred US cities. Or lets say 1% of the population dying. That would be 3 million people. Fairly reasonable for a war. But lets make at least half the population live wihout safe access to electricity, food and clean water.

If we would take 9/11, the Washington sniper and everything else bad that happened for the last decade and multiply it by a hundred. Maybe then the American people would get a reasonable relation to war, what war is, and exactly how much you should be trying to avoid it.

[Martiju]

I'm starting to think that maybe Americans need to be involved in a war for real, not just export it to other countries.

Americans went crazy when 9/11 happened and let's face it, that's just one attack (well two if you count Pentagon) with a very limited number of casualties. Not a big deal at all in war-terms. Imagine 9/11 happening in at least a hundred US cities. Or lets say 1% of the population dying. That would be 3 million people. Fairly reasonable for a war. But lets make at least half the population live wihout safe access to electricity, food and clean water.

If we would take 9/11, the Washington sniper and everything else bad that happened for the last decade and multiply it by a hundred. Maybe then the American people would get a reasonable relation to war, what war is, and exactly how much you should be trying to avoid it.

You're not wrong. The comment on page 1 about the evil propaganda being fed to NK about the US wanting to invade seems somewhat ironic in the context of this thread. It's like there's no real comprehension, despite the evidence of the last 10 years, that invasions, wars and conflicts do little to solve problems, but plenty to create them - yet the overriding philosophy still seems to be 'nuke 'em from orbit'.

[Bryan Ekers]

Having a plan in place to supply emergency aid after NK collapses on its own is probably all the U.S. can do.

[clairobscur]

Apart from bombing Seoul, North-Korea has hinted at her capacity to launch a nuclear strike against Japan (by launching a test missile in the general direction of Japan, I can't remember if it overflew Japan or not, and by stating that they had nuclear weapons supposedly launchable with missiles).


So, North-Korea could hold a second country in hostage.

[clairobscur]

Could the massive number of North-Korean artillery firing together destroy a volcano appearing in the Atlantic and disturbing the Gulf Stream flow?

[Bryan Ekers]

Sure, but then we'd have to summon Godzilla to fix things.

[Mr. Excellent]

Do we actually know what sort of shape the North Korean artillery is in? Or even have a good idea? I ask because it seems to me that the "war with North Korea would destroy Seoul" scenario assumes that North Korea's artillery pieces, and the men operating them, are capable and reliable.

What is the basis for this belief? I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong (or right) - but we know that North Korea's capacity to train its soldiers, manufacture weapons, and repair existing weapons are all impaired by an aging infrastructure and staggering amounts of mismanagement. My understanding is that artillery pieces can't just be placed and abandoned - they must be maintained. And the crews must be trained, which requires the expenditure of (expensive) live ammunition. Has North Korea done these things consistently?

In short - in the event of war, how many of the thousands of artillery pieces targetting Seoul would end up successfully lobbing even a single shell?

[Paul in Qatar]

Could the massive number of North-Korean artillery firing together destroy a volcano appearing in the Atlantic and disturbing the Gulf Stream flow?

But of course, that would be a worst-case scenario.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Their leadership is about that crazy too.

The best strategy is to infiltrate the country with SC magazines. Doesn't matter what it's a magazine of. Once the NK people understand just how fucked up their country is the mutiny will come from within.`

Imperialism by MTV?

[Damuri Ajashi]

I would think so, for several reasons.

First, in any conflict between the Koreas, massive damage/casualties to Seoul ties up a lot of South Korean resources--perhaps a disproportionate amount, given Seoul's importance. Tactically it's a sound move.

Second, if you have 80,000 artillery and rocket batteries pre-positioned to bombard Seoul, you know that they'll be a primary target at the beginning of any conflict. They might survive the first 24 hours, depending on a lot of factors, but you can be guaranteed they won't survive the first week, so there's a "use it or lose it" aspect to them. If they're dug in, they can't be easily repositioned either--it's not like you can task them to anything but the destruction of Seoul.

[Aside: anyone have a good idea what proportion of that artillery is mobile artillery vs. dug-in?]

Third, causing massive casualties in Seoul will be a huge blow to the morale of the SKs and the USians, which is another opportunity the NKs wouldn't want to pass up.

Lastly, after the war, when either North Korea is part of South Korea (or the reverse), a free-standing and unharmed Seoul will be directly compared to conditions in the north. Tarnishing that bright jewel has its advantages, and Seoul's integration with the world is about the companies and people, not about the infrastructure. There's no great argument for the NKs for preserving Seoul because there's little they can actually use there after a conflict, assuming they win (which I'm sure the NKs are planning on).

I agree. Those artillery peices are committed, they can only do one thing. Bomb Seoul. They are all dug in and they can't be redeployed effectively.

Someone mentioned the artillery was use it or lose it, well taht is exactly wheat they are. There is no point in saving them for a rainy day once we start bombing NK.

[Muffin]

Spend a few years saturation bombing NK with food and satellite internet linked laptops.

[Tom Scud]

Do we actually know what sort of shape the North Korean artillery is in? Or even have a good idea? I ask because it seems to me that the "war with North Korea would destroy Seoul" scenario assumes that North Korea's artillery pieces, and the men operating them, are capable and reliable.

What is the basis for this belief? I'm not saying that it's necessarily wrong (or right) - but we know that North Korea's capacity to train its soldiers, manufacture weapons, and repair existing weapons are all impaired by an aging infrastructure and staggering amounts of mismanagement.

The artillery is crucial to NK's security strategy; it's got to be the second-highest priority (after internal security) for the country's leadership. IF the rot has gone high enough up the chain to take out the artillery, you might as well wait until it reaches the top & then cut a deal with whoever organizes the successful coup.

[Oakminster]

Artillery has limited capability in this scenario. All they can do with it is break things because it would be easy for people to locate beyond their range. In the mean time, they would be hunted/destroyed in what would amount to a bloodbath because NK would immediately lose control the air. It would be a systematic slice and dice of their communications system, radar system, and machines of war. Their best offense is in the numbers of boots that can pour over the border which again, would be a bloodbath without air support. Their artillery is the modern version of the Maginot Line.

That's just ridiculously optimistic. You're wildly overestimating short term U.S. air capabilities. We simply do not have the assets in place to do what you are suggesting. Unlike Iraq, NK has an air force that is likely to put up some degree of resistance. Plus, they have the usual AAA and SAM-batteries. It takes time to move airplanes, crews, maintenance, fuel, ammo, etc. within striking range. Time that NK is going to be using blowing the hell out of Seoul. It takes more time to actually seize control of the airspace, because to do that, you have to eliminate/suppress all of their air defenses--planes, AAA, SAMs, radar, etc. NK will still be unloading on Seoul while that is happening. If I remember right, it took at least a week, maybe longer to establish air superiority over Iraq, and their Air Force didn't put up a serious resistance.

On the ground, you've got a logisitical nightmare. Our troops at the DMZ will fight bravely, I'm sure, but they're too few in number to be much more than a speedbump if NK moves South on the ground in a big way. Add to that millions of now homeless and hungry SK civilians trying to get out of the way on the same roads we'd be needing to bring in more troops.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Artillery has limited capability in this scenario. All they can do with it is break things because it would be easy for people to locate beyond their range. In the mean time, they would be hunted/destroyed in what would amount to a bloodbath because NK would immediately lose control the air. It would be a systematic slice and dice of their communications system, radar system, and machines of war. Their best offense is in the numbers of boots that can pour over the border which again, would be a bloodbath without air support. Their artillery is the modern version of the Maginot Line.

I am pretty sure that then NKs can level Seoul before you could get through rush hour traffic, hell knowing Seoul traffic, they could level Seoul before you could get through daytime traffic. If every living soul was trying to leave the city, they cuold take their time and pick their targets (probably bridges and tunnels crossing the Han river stranding people on the north side of the river.

It would be pretty tough to bumrush through the DMZ. The whole place is mined and you would have to run a distance of two and a half miles through a cleared valey toward the most militarized border in the world. There are walls, cleared killing fields, tank traps, oh and did I mention then wall to wall mines?

[Damuri Ajashi]

You're putting words in my mouth. Unlike a barrage of nuclear missiles, artillery is a weapon that takes several hours to play out. What I was "proposing" was a nuclear strike after N.K. began an artillery strike but before most of the damage was done.

I can't speculate on NK artillery's rate of fire, etc., nor on the delay of U.S. nuclear bomb delivery, but it seems likely to me, especially since spy satellites would probably detect moves toward attack, that a sufficient response could suppress the artillery while a large majority of rounds are still unfired, even though Presidential OK would wait till the (hypothetical) NK attack began.

I'm pretty sure all the artillery is in place. Seoul has been living with live ammunition ppionted at it for the last 60 years. Its a minor miracle that there haven't been any accidental shots fired at Seoul in that time.

[Damuri Ajashi]

You're not wrong. The comment on page 1 about the evil propaganda being fed to NK about the US wanting to invade seems somewhat ironic in the context of this thread. It's like there's no real comprehension, despite the evidence of the last 10 years, that invasions, wars and conflicts do little to solve problems, but plenty to create them - yet the overriding philosophy still seems to be 'nuke 'em from orbit'.

When you've got the biggest hammer ever known to man, every problem looks like a nail.

[Otara]

From Wiki:

"Between 1984 and 1992, the army added about 1,000 tanks, over 2,500 APC/IFV, and about 6,000 artillery pieces and rocket launchers."

We're not talking about equipment from the 1950's, and tube artillery and its ammunition can be fairly durable, particularly given we're talking sheltered prepositioned equipment in bunkers trying to hit a city at predetermined ranges rather than a 10m target. Chemical and biological weapons might degrade fairly quickly, on the other hand you dont need many tons of that to be effective.

It could all be a paper tiger like Iraq and a lot of it is probably nearly useless due to age or obsolescence, but Id bet theres more than enough left to make a mess unless you're talking complete deception or the like which is a possibility but not one you want to gamble on given the nuclear tests etc.

Otara

[Lemur866]

It's not like the artillery crews need complicated command and control. Their orders would just be to keep firing until they've used up all their ammo. Each dug-in artillery tube already has a pre-chosen target, and if the guns are innaccurate pieces of crap, they might miss their actual target but they're going to hit something in Seoul, even if it's an empty parking lot.

The North probably has no plans to even attempt to resupply these tubes with more ammo, because they know anything moving in the open will get killed by US/Southern airpower. So these guns will keep firing until they use up their crate of ammo or the crews are dead, or they run away.

But if your average artillery crew gets in a shell every 10 minutes or so, and there are thousands of crews, and at least half of them work and the crews actually obey orders, that still means thousands and thousands of shells hitting Seoul.

And it will be impossible, absolutely impossible, to evacuate Seoul once the shelling starts. The streets will be gridlocked in a matter of minutes. Everyone will have to evactuate on foot.

[Paul in Qatar]

They would most likely shelter in place. Except for Beirut, we have very little practical experience with war in a large urban area. (Yeah, I know, Baghdad, but that is a different kettle of fish.)

I wonder what sort of plans the ROKs have for defense and civil defense of the capital. Anyone know?

===eta===
found this (http://www.seoulcityblog.com/2010/04/16/what-is-the-civil-defense-exercise/)

[Really Not All That Bright]

The disparity between NK and SK greatly exceeds that of East and West Germany. I think they would appreciate the effort when everything was said and done.

However, the brainwashing that exists and the complete lack of communication with the outside world means the initial fight would be ugly, mostly for them. Their air force consists of pilots with 7 hrs of flying time so anything that went up would go straight back down. Without air support their ground machinery would be wiped out in a matter of hours and days. It would be very similar to what happened in Kuwait. Iraq had the 3rd largest standing army (now a position held by NK) and it was systematically chewed up.

What Iraq didn't have was nuclear weapons so it would be a huge gamble to assume the missiles could be shot down.
Iraq had the third-largest standing army and well-trained and experienced pilots and soldiers. It had just fought an eight-year war against the (US-equipped) Iranians, remember.

It wasn't "systematically chewed up", by any measure.

[Paul in Qatar]

Of course the difference is they have had decades to prepare. Although our intelligence is well-developed, we do not know what we do not know. We can presume there will be nasty surprises.

Still, the correlation of forces shows the way to bet.

I presume the plan would be to defang the PDRK of any offensive capacity and then sit back and hope for a coup or civil war.

[Bryan Ekers]

Each dug-in artillery tube already has a pre-chosen target, and if the guns are innaccurate pieces of crap, they might miss their actual target but they're going to hit something in Seoul, even if it's an empty parking lot.

That would be pretty impressive, actually, hitting the one place in Seoul where parking was available.

[Zeriel]

But if your average artillery crew gets in a shell every 10 minutes or so, and there are thousands of crews, and at least half of them work and the crews actually obey orders, that still means thousands and thousands of shells hitting Seoul.

This is a vast underestimation, by the by--even the 1950s-era 152mm D70 guns they probably are still operating had a sustained rate of fire of one round a minute, and a trained crew can fire 5-6 rounds a minute in the initial barrage (before barrel overheating becomes a problem)

Not to mention at least some of the systems available to the NKs are BM-21 rocket artillery pieces, which only need to get off one salvo (40 122mm rockets per launcher, at 2 rockets per second). The updated homebuilt version carries a single reload package as well, so that's 80 122mm rockets (with 20kg explosive, or bio/chem warheads as applicable) in just about two minutes. Air power is NOT going to stop 'em all.

[MrK]

On the ground, you've got a logisitical nightmare. Our troops at the DMZ will fight bravely, I'm sure, but they're too few in number to be much more than a speedbump if NK moves South on the ground in a big way. Add to that millions of now homeless and hungry SK civilians trying to get out of the way on the same roads we'd be needing to bring in more troops.

I was told by a SK soldier currently serving his required military service on the DMZ that they are expected to hold for 5 minutes. Not much of a speedbump.

[Squink]

Seoul has been living with live ammunition ppionted at it for the last 60 years.The internet tells me that Seoul has an area of 606 square kilometers, or 234 square miles.
At 15 X 15 miles, and 10 blocks per mile, thats 22,500 square blocks.
Even the "6,000 artillery pieces" added in the 90's could hit each and every block of the city with just four shots apiece.
That's a pretty credible threat, regardless of American air superiority.

[Zeriel]

NETA: The new Koksan M1978/M1989 170mm system that the NKs operate has been observed under wartime conditions (they sold several to the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war) as having a sustained fire rate of 2 shells every five minutes.

[Zeriel]

Also, and I am just thinking of this now, don't the North Koreans field MiG-29s? That's a credible 4.5-generation fighter that will tear apart Strike Eagles loaded down with bombs.

Then there's the known 750+ ZSU-57-2 close-range air defense systems with the optical tracking backup sight that is known to be able to hit low-level supersonic bombers.

[Muffin]

Status quo: NK people are impoverished and a great many die in famines. NK has no effect on nations other than SK, and its effect on SK is minimal. Eventually the leadership cult dies off and relations normalize.

War: a great many people in both SK and NK die. SK is econimically ruined. The war destabilizes the region and sets back western relations with China.

I think that despite the ongoing frustration, the solution is not a hammer.

[JoelUpchurch]

This article suggests that we have contingency plans to deal with North Korea if they go Apeshit crazy , but I find it highly unlikely that we would actually do so before the shooting starts.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20100715.aspx

That natural human tendency is to hope for a miracle right up to the point when the shells start flying. It is highly unlikely we could take out all of the artillery and the North Koreans do have nukes. It would only take one low yield nuke to cause tens of thousands of casualties.

[Zeriel]

This article suggests that we have contingency plans to deal with North Korea if they go Apeshit crazy , but I find it highly unlikely that we would actually do so before the shooting starts.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20100715.aspx

That natural human tendency is to hope for a miracle right up to the point when the shells start flying. It is highly unlikely we could take out all of the artillery and the North Koreans do have nukes. It would only take one low yield nuke to cause tens of thousands of casualties.

Free-flight rocket delivery of low-yield nukes is one of those "oh shit" scenarios. You'd have to be suicidal to lob a nuke a few dozen kilometers downrange on a 240mm artillery rocket, but arguably the NK artillery line is already an inherently suicidal defensive position.

[Squink]

Free-flight rocket delivery of low-yield nukes is one of those "oh shit" scenarios. You'd have to be suicidal to lob a nuke a few dozen kilometers downrange...

The Davy Crockett projectile was deployed in South Korea between July 1962 and June 1968. The warhead had selective yields up to 0.25 kilotons. The projectile weighed only 34.5 kg (76 lbs). (http://www.nukestrat.com/korea/koreahistory.htm)

[YogSosoth]

SK needs to do in Seoul what happened to Detroit: Drive people out, make the city worthless, and less attractive as a target. Hell, NK could probably shell Detroit and people wouldn't even notice. ;)

[Zeriel]

The Davy Crockett projectile was deployed in South Korea between July 1962 and June 1968. The warhead had selective yields up to 0.25 kilotons. The projectile weighed only 34.5 kg (76 lbs). (http://www.nukestrat.com/korea/koreahistory.htm)

Yeah, the Davy Crockett and it's 1.25mi range may well have been the world's most ridiculous suicide weapon. And we thought people would fire it in wartime conditions. Now imagine how little hesitation someone who's been indoctrinated into the North Korean system would have launching 20 of those from a 240mm rocket launcher that fires them tens of miles downrange.

[Stoneburg]

You're not wrong. The comment on page 1 about the evil propaganda being fed to NK about the US wanting to invade seems somewhat ironic in the context of this thread. It's like there's no real comprehension, despite the evidence of the last 10 years, that invasions, wars and conflicts do little to solve problems, but plenty to create them - yet the overriding philosophy still seems to be 'nuke 'em from orbit'.
If it continues like this, at some point, the people screaming "Death to USA" won't be extremists, or a minority.

[Is_it_safe?]

The people of NK might hate and despise their government. But I'd bet they'll fight against anyone invading their home. You may be familiar with that from a few other foreign adventures

[Cheshire Human]

Of course the difference is they have had decades to prepare. Although our intelligence is well-developed, we do not know what we do not know. We can presume there will be nasty surprises.

Still, the correlation of forces shows the way to bet....

And the correlation of forces says that hundreds of thousands to millions of SK civilians die in the initial artillery fire from NK, since it will take at least a week for the USAF, USN, USMC & SK air assets (with or without nukes), to reduce the arty to ineffectiveness, and Seoul can't be evacuated during that time. Look at the clusterfuck the evacuation of New Orleans was, prior to Katrina, and that was without arty being added into the mix. That was just a hurricane. No large US city prior to that was ever evacuated since Atlanta, during the Civil War in (I believe) 1864. Not surprising it was done badly, except to those who believe the government is "all powerful". No large city in Korea has ever been evacuated. Didn't happen in 1950s, hasn't happened since, ain't gonna happen now. Us US "militarists" (AKA conservatives) are all, always, in favor of war (at least to hear the lefties characterize us), unless we've studied military history, and seen just how ugly it always gets.

[Magiver]

Iraq had the third-largest standing army and well-trained and experienced pilots and soldiers. It had just fought an eight-year war against the (US-equipped) Iranians, remember.

It wasn't "systematically chewed up", by any measure. When NATO forces attacked it was a turkey shoot. It was absolutely chewed up in every sense of the word. The air war started Jan 17th, the ground war started Feb 24th, and the war ended Feb 28th. 10,000 Iraqi troops were killed in the retreat.

The 3rd largest standing army in the world was crushed in a 4 day ground war. There wasn't even an air war confrontation to speak of. North Korea doesn't have the trained pilots that Iraq had. 7 hrs of flight time means their pilots will get the plane off the ground just long enough to become a target. Without air cover it's a function of eliminating anti-aircraft positions and then ground assets are completely exposed.

[BrainGlutton]

The people of NK might hate and despise their government. But I'd bet they'll fight against anyone invading their home. You may be familiar with that from a few other foreign adventures

We can't even be sure they hate their government. They've been raised from infancy to view their leaders as gods, or something near, with no access to alternative views. Maybe that kind of cult-of-personality couldn't really take in Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China, but NK is much smaller and much more culturally homogeneous and much more easily isolated.

[Der Trihs]

North Korea doesn't have the trained pilots that Iraq had. 7 hrs of flight time means their pilots will get the plane off the ground just long enough to become a target. Without air cover it's a function of eliminating anti-aircraft positions and then ground assets are completely exposed."Exposed" in fortified, hardened positions where all they have to do is get off a few shots to fulfill their mission. The bombers couldn't even reach them before they got off quite a few shots, and it would take a long time to get them all. Just how many bombers do you think we have and are willing and able to put in range?

[HMS Irruncible]

Without air cover it's a function of eliminating anti-aircraft positions and then ground assets are completely exposed.
The Iraq war comparison is bogus because the enemy artillery was so far away from anything valuable that it could easily be crushed before it could do any damage. Whatever pieces happened to be hidden, the US just waited for them to start firing, casually triangulated their location, then obliterated them with counterbattery fire.

North Korea is different. There are said to be 6,000 artillery pieces in range and targeted at Seoul. The hidden ones can't be located until they fire. A trained artillery crew can get off something like 5 shots a minute. Do you see the problem here? When the shooting breaks out, a dense urban area is going to soak up something in the neighborhood of 30,000 rounds per minute.

[Bryan Ekers]

I guess what profit to win the pennisula but lose your Seoul?

[Paul in Qatar]

Oh. My. Goodness.

You win.

[Der Trihs]

I guess what profit to win the pennisula but lose your Seoul?
:D

[Zeriel]

North Korea doesn't have the trained pilots that Iraq had.

Dangerous, dangerous assumption. They have literally hundreds of missile-armed (albeit ancient) interceptors with Soviet-doctrine GCI--the first day is gonna be rough. Even if they have low amounts of training, we're still discussing ground-controlled interceptors with AA-11 radar-homing missiles in the triple digits.

Add in the two squadrons of modern MiG-29s (they've got the latest as of 2006 because Russa and Belarus have been selling them airframes and training) and it's not even close to the turkey shoot that Iraq was.

[Damuri Ajashi]

The Iraq war comparison is bogus because the enemy artillery was so far away from anything valuable that it could easily be crushed before it could do any damage. Whatever pieces happened to be hidden, the US just waited for them to start firing, casually triangulated their location, then obliterated them with counterbattery fire.

North Korea is different. There are said to be 6,000 artillery pieces in range and targeted at Seoul. The hidden ones can't be located until they fire. A trained artillery crew can get off something like 5 shots a minute. Do you see the problem here? When the shooting breaks out, a dense urban area is going to soak up something in the neighborhood of 30,000 rounds per minute.


Well the 5 rounds/minute rate can probably only be sustained for a few minutes so its only going to be a few hundred thousand rounds (one for every 20 or 30 living souls in Seoul)

[straight man]

See section D of this link (http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm).

North Korea has eighteen thousand artillery pieces, not eighty.

Um, sorry for the misremembering. My original correction was correct, at least.

[Magiver]

Dangerous, dangerous assumption. They have literally hundreds of missile-armed (albeit ancient) interceptors with Soviet-doctrine GCI--the first day is gonna be rough. Even if they have low amounts of training, we're still discussing ground-controlled interceptors with AA-11 radar-homing missiles in the triple digits.

Add in the two squadrons of modern MiG-29s (they've got the latest as of 2006 because Russa and Belarus have been selling them airframes and training) and it's not even close to the turkey shoot that Iraq was. While I agree with Muffin's assessment of the situation the hard cold fact is that NK would get chewed up in a very short period of time. They don't have the training to fly the aicraft they've got. It's all smoke and mirrors. They would quickly lose control of the skies because of poorly trained 4th generation aircraft pilots against highly trained 5th generation aircraft pilots.

As for artillery, they would experience what Iraq experienced and that is radar controlled return fire that calculates the trajectory. If you can't move your artillery it's gone after the first couple of shots. that doesn't include attacks from the air which is a multi-layer series of delivery systems. Wild weasels destroy radar facilities, drones target and fire on hard assets and feed the coordinates for glide-to-target standoff weapons from bombers. The days of lengthy battle engagements are over.

[Muffin]

So we have Gates and Clinton visiting SK, and commencing major naval exercises in the area, to which NK has countered by executing Kwon Ho Ung, a former cabinet member and chief delegate at the last round of high level talks.

You'd think that a negotiator in a multi-generation war would have some sort of job security.

[Der Trihs]

While I agree with Muffin's assessment of the situation the hard cold fact is that NK would get chewed up in a very short period of time. They don't have the training to fly the aicraft they've got. It's all smoke and mirrors. They would quickly lose control of the skies because of poorly trained 4th generation aircraft pilots against highly trained 5th generation aircraft pilots.

As for artillery, they would experience what Iraq experienced and that is radar controlled return fire that calculates the trajectory. If you can't move your artillery it's gone after the first couple of shots. that doesn't include attacks from the air which is a multi-layer series of delivery systems. Wild weasels destroy radar facilities, drones target and fire on hard assets and feed the coordinates for glide-to-target standoff weapons from bombers. The days of lengthy battle engagements are over.And so what? Even granting your optimistic predictions, Seoul will still be wrecked and huge numbers of civilians dead.

[Stoneburg]

I guess what profit to win the pennisula but lose your Seoul?

POTY

[Ionizer]

I've seen firsthand what an artillery bombardment is like from not too-far away - a 'firepower demo' at Ft Sill for commanders of Allied powers (a type of General's Conference, iirc,mid-80's) and involved three Batteries (iirc, maybe 30 tubes/guns), a few MLRS, couple aircraft (not large bombers, smaller 'fighters') and small assortment of smaller arty-weaponry. OMFingG is too much of an understatement for how quickly a large multi-story reinforced concrete building practically disappeared. And there was really only one 'bombardment', so to speak. I know it was American stuff, but I assume that NK is roughly comparable in what could be expected (to a degree - no claims made) about devastation from the equivalent tubes. The whole 'show' took less than a minute, much less actually. Time stood still awhile that day. I had seen/stood by plenty of tubes firing before, but that day gave me WHOLE new respect for the receiving end of artillery and their 'payloads' when coordinated to FireForEffect.

I'm inclined to think that a number of folks are not really appreciating just how friggin' much literally goes away in a few blinks when massed arty has your address. No appreciation at all possibly. IMHO, a thousand tubes is well beyond serious for any city, but 18000 - holy shi.... I did not realize there were *that* many. Seoul will be toast long before the (possible/probable) follow-up barrages, at least if what I saw (and then multiplied by whatever factor) is anywhere near what NK can do. I just wanna point that out to someone that has never seen/felt massed arty - cannot be explained with words, trust me. Heck, I live around ~32 miles (per Google Earth, fwiw) from an Arty impact area which is the usual one I see used nowadays when I watch from a nearby 'mountain' (Mt Scott, Wichita Mt Wildlife Refuge), and I hear shells as well as feel the pressures sitting here at my computer by a closed window. I had windows broken in my then-home off-base (Lawton/Ft Sill, OK) from impacts miles away. Ground-shaking is likely to tumble buildings (imho, ???), not just 'direct hits', per se. Maybe Seoul has earthquake-ready architecture like Los Angeles and other major metros and won't be an issue (plead ignorance on that bit). No matter as the ground would roll like jelly, or at least feel like it, I bet.

Just to repeat myself, there's no way cities can withstand much arty before they are gone. No way at all. And arty can fire pretty darn fast in the initial batterings - a few thousand or all 18000, not much difference when all that is left is ~dust from first impacts (!). And interspersed with (probable??) chemical rounds?? All betting is off as far as *I* am concerned. And I am thinking of arty only, which gives fear enough to anyone really in the know about arty. Looking at paper/numbers and estimating/debating things is easy, but a person should know firsthand to really *know* what it would be like. Toast without the butter ;)

I am not schooled in any military tactics/planning or such, but can affirm arty effectiveness/quickness. And finality when struck/targeted -> BOOM...buh-bye! Red Legs, King of Battle, if I may say so.....

[Damuri Ajashi]

I've seen firsthand what an artillery bombardment is like from not too-far away - a 'firepower demo' at Ft Sill for commanders of Allied powers (a type of General's Conference, iirc,mid-80's) and involved three Batteries (iirc, maybe 30 tubes/guns), a few MLRS, couple aircraft (not large bombers, smaller 'fighters') and small assortment of smaller arty-weaponry. OMFingG is too much of an understatement for how quickly a large multi-story reinforced concrete building practically disappeared. And there was really only one 'bombardment', so to speak. I know it was American stuff, but I assume that NK is roughly comparable in what could be expected (to a degree - no claims made) about devastation from the equivalent tubes. The whole 'show' took less than a minute, much less actually. Time stood still awhile that day. I had seen/stood by plenty of tubes firing before, but that day gave me WHOLE new respect for the receiving end of artillery and their 'payloads' when coordinated to FireForEffect.

I'm inclined to think that a number of folks are not really appreciating just how friggin' much literally goes away in a few blinks when massed arty has your address. No appreciation at all possibly. IMHO, a thousand tubes is well beyond serious for any city, but 18000 - holy shi.... I did not realize there were *that* many. Seoul will be toast long before the (possible/probable) follow-up barrages, at least if what I saw (and then multiplied by whatever factor) is anywhere near what NK can do. I just wanna point that out to someone that has never seen/felt massed arty - cannot be explained with words, trust me. Heck, I live around ~32 miles (per Google Earth, fwiw) from an Arty impact area which is the usual one I see used nowadays when I watch from a nearby 'mountain' (Mt Scott, Wichita Mt Wildlife Refuge), and I hear shells as well as feel the pressures sitting here at my computer by a closed window. I had windows broken in my then-home off-base (Lawton/Ft Sill, OK) from impacts miles away. Ground-shaking is likely to tumble buildings (imho, ???), not just 'direct hits', per se. Maybe Seoul has earthquake-ready architecture like Los Angeles and other major metros and won't be an issue (plead ignorance on that bit). No matter as the ground would roll like jelly, or at least feel like it, I bet.

Just to repeat myself, there's no way cities can withstand much arty before they are gone. No way at all. And arty can fire pretty darn fast in the initial batterings - a few thousand or all 18000, not much difference when all that is left is ~dust from first impacts (!). And interspersed with (probable??) chemical rounds?? All betting is off as far as *I* am concerned. And I am thinking of arty only, which gives fear enough to anyone really in the know about arty. Looking at paper/numbers and estimating/debating things is easy, but a person should know firsthand to really *know* what it would be like. Toast without the butter ;)

I am not schooled in any military tactics/planning or such, but can affirm arty effectiveness/quickness. And finality when struck/targeted -> BOOM...buh-bye! Red Legs, King of Battle, if I may say so.....

And lets not forget the hundreds if not thousands of SCUD missiles (possibly carrying biological and chemical agents or just a huge frikking bomb.

[HMS Irruncible]

As for artillery, they would experience what Iraq experienced and that is radar controlled return fire that calculates the trajectory. If you can't move your artillery it's gone after the first couple of shots.
Given the figure above of 18,000 artillery pieces, Seoul will get pounded by around 100,000 shells in the duration it takes for radar to acquire the locations, and another 100,000 in the ~60 seconds it takes for the counterbattery volley to hit. And since artillery fire can be spoofed by a decoy, not all the tubes will even get hit in that first volley.

So, in summary... whatever else happens to the NK and its military afterward, count on Seoul being reduced to rubble within the first 2 minutes of the shooting.

[Boyo Jim]

I'm pretty sure they can't calculate 18,000 trajectories at once, either. My guess, it would take hours, while the fire is still incoming.

OTOH, the US and south probably have most locations already pinpointed through surveillance.

[Kobal2]

If we have most of the artillery pits located we could smite them in a single massive strike with heavy bombers. Say 50 aircraft each zapping five targets and repeating sorties every twenty-four hours or so. In a day or two it would be cleared up. Bombers would also break the PDRK's fiberoptic backbone as jamming reduces their C&C. Then of course comes the messy part. But it could be done.

The problem with the day or two time frame having been addressed, let's move on.

The messy part would indeed be quite messy : NK is positively riddled with tunnels. Some wide enough to be tank highways, some barely large enough for men to crawl through. Remember them from Viet-Nam ? Yeah, the GIs loooved clearing those. According to this piece, (http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm) the tunnels also shielded from chemical/biological attacks, so no "smoking them out of their caves".

If you thought fighting against handfuls of insurgents who pop a few mortar rounds out before bolting was no fun, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

I'm pretty sure they can't calculate 18,000 trajectories at once, either. My guess, it would take hours, while the fire is still incoming.

Errr, they've been doing nothing but calculating them for the past 60 years. Even if their maths really suck, I'm pretty sure they have it down pat by now :p.

[Magiver]

Given the figure above of 18,000 artillery pieces, Seoul will get pounded by around 100,000 shells in the duration it takes for radar to acquire the locations, and another 100,000 in the ~60 seconds it takes for the counterbattery volley to hit. And since artillery fire can be spoofed by a decoy, not all the tubes will even get hit in that first volley.

So, in summary... whatever else happens to the NK and its military afterward, count on Seoul being reduced to rubble within the first 2 minutes of the shooting.

Yes, Seoul would take a beating, and then NK would cease as a government. SK is gotta want reconciliation pretty bad to do it.

The best weapon is information.

[Cheshire Human]

"Exposed" in fortified, hardened positions where all they have to do is get off a few shots to fulfill their mission. The bombers couldn't even reach them before they got off quite a few shots, and it would take a long time to get them all. Just how many bombers do you think we have and are willing and able to put in range?

Yes, this. Just how many aircraft, with how many precision weapons do you think are available. NK has much more artillery pieces and positions than the US has aircraft to bomb in one or two or twelve goes.

[Cheshire Human]

While I agree with Muffin's assessment of the situation the hard cold fact is that NK would get chewed up in a very short period of time. They don't have the training to fly the aicraft they've got. It's all smoke and mirrors. They would quickly lose control of the skies because of poorly trained 4th generation aircraft pilots against highly trained 5th generation aircraft pilots.

As for artillery, they would experience what Iraq experienced and that is radar controlled return fire that calculates the trajectory. If you can't move your artillery it's gone after the first couple of shots. that doesn't include attacks from the air which is a multi-layer series of delivery systems. Wild weasels destroy radar facilities, drones target and fire on hard assets and feed the coordinates for glide-to-target standoff weapons from bombers. The days of lengthy battle engagements are over.

And it would take only a week. In the meantime, Seoul gets pounded. Many civilians dead. The fact that US & SK will virtually own the sky within minutes does not alter the fact that US & SK air forces are grossly insufficient for eliminating that arty before it eliminates a huge portion of Seoul's population.

[marshmallow]

I'm starting to think that maybe Americans need to be involved in a war for real, not just export it to other countries.

Looking at previous aggressive nations in the modern age such such as Germany, Japan, and Britain you'd have to kill 4-8% of Americans before they turned into peaceniks. Although maybe those example nations would still wish to conquer the world if they had the capability. So we just have to wait for America to lose the Cold War (it's taking a bit longer than Russia).

[Captain Midnight]

North Korea can never be invaded successfully because of China. This would spark WWIII with two superpowers with nuclear weapons, and runtass North Korea with a few nuclear firecrackers of their own that would fall on South Korea and Japan. Japan and Russia would possibly jump in and before you know it, there are ICBM's being fired at every city on the Earth. That would suck.

I don't think the North Korean army would flee in a conventional war. They have been taught since they were babies that the Americans are evil monsters who wish to destroy them.

The only way that North Korea will cease to exist is internally. The common people of NK do not have the capacity to even begin a revolution. They are closely monitored and the mere mention of the "The Dear Leader" in a negative light means that literally your whole family, including children end up in a gulag and possibly tortured to death. NK people are not allowed to leave their village without permission from the government. The people cannot begin to organize any kind of front against the regime.

The people in power (there are about 600 people who run North Korea altogether) closely monitor themselves to guard against desent. These people do not want to lose what they have. The small minority at the top are living pretty well. This is where sanctions come into play to keep things away from their elite. (like plasma TV's, Japanese pron, Hello Kitty crap etc.)

I don't know if this would work, but to airlift and drop food, rice, and books/newspapers and magazines, medical supplies, anything to show the people about the outside World, papering the landscape in Korea of Kim Jong Il and his opulent lifestyle, while they are hungry, cold and repressed. If nothing else, it would ease and counter the lies of the regime that Americans are killers and that South Koreans are repressed and impoverished (make sure the mags have lots and lots of ads for meat.)

The USA needs to leave Korea. If that were to happen, NK would have no one to blame their problems on. A regime like this requires an enemy, and this could turn on China. What China should do is to invade NK and liberate the people and replace the government with one similar to a Chinese model. They can seal the border with China, have lots of cheap labor and the Chinese could speculate on the real estate and all the other crazy shit the Chinese do.

The two Koreas can then sit down and hammer out a reunification plan, if that is what works for them. They can stipulate that no foreign troops are to be on their soil. If China invades Korea, the USA will defend it and vice versa. (which caused this shit in the first place!) So it would be very important to have a non alligned united Korean military.

[Zeriel]

Yes, Seoul would take a beating

Understatement of the year. Seoul would be completely obliterated under any realistic wartime conditions, within the first hour of bombardment. Eighteen thousand targets, with hardened revetments and decoys, and integrated close and medium-range air defense.

As for counterbattery...I'd welcome an assessment of how many artillery tubes and intercept radars the US/SK forces have for that.

, and then NK would cease as a government. SK is gotta want reconciliation pretty bad to do it.

South Korea would have be to suicidal to do it. Look, there's no question that (barring China getting nervous again) the US and SK could wipe the North out completely and utterly with conventional attacks. The problems are the following: A) the correlation of forces in numbers alone is highly unfavorable to us, especially given our current commitments elsewhere, and B) we have to accept that we are going to lose a LOT (in the millions) of South Korean civilians to artillery bombardment, most especially from mobile tubes and mobile BM-21 batteries. Seoul is going to look worse than Dresden in March 1945.

[Stoneburg]

Looking at previous aggressive nations in the modern age such such as Germany, Japan, and Britain you'd have to kill 4-8% of Americans before they turned into peaceniks. Although maybe those example nations would still wish to conquer the world if they had the capability. So we just have to wait for America to lose the Cold War (it's taking a bit longer than Russia).

I *think* a nations tolerance for casualties is probably lower nowadays. The more democratic a nation becomes the less tolerant, ease of communication etc should also be increasing this. But it is actually an interesting question: How many Americans have to die for Americans to start thinking of war the same way as Europeans do? And what factors influence this number?

[Magiver]

South Korea would have be to suicidal to do it. Look, there's no question that (barring China getting nervous again) the US and SK could wipe the North out completely and utterly with conventional attacks. The problems are the following: A) the correlation of forces in numbers alone is highly unfavorable to us, especially given our current commitments elsewhere, and B) we have to accept that we are going to lose a LOT (in the millions) of South Korean civilians to artillery bombardment, most especially from mobile tubes and mobile BM-21 batteries. Seoul is going to look worse than Dresden in March 1945. Artillery is a very limited weapon. It can't be easily moved without air support. I don't understand where you get "millions" of civilian dead. it's not like they are going to stand on the tops of buildings waving hello. Seole is 20 to 35 miles away from the border so there is a limited number of artillery that can strike the city.

the assumption should be made that US and SK contingencies are focused on the artillery. It's not like the concept of an artillery attack sprung up yesterday. And the scenario is not "are we morally bound to attack NK". The likely scenario is that NK WILL attack at some point as an act of desperation.

[Monty]

Dude, this isn't some television series. Modern artillery--even the stuff that North Korea has--can hit stuff many, many miles away. If North Korea ever does decide to level Seoul, it can level the place easily and quickly.

[Squink]

The likely scenario is that NK WILL attack at some point as an act of desperation.What makes you think that's the likely scenario?

[Magiver]

Dude, this isn't some television series. Modern artillery--even the stuff that North Korea has--can hit stuff many, many miles away. If North Korea ever does decide to level Seoul, it can level the place easily and quickly. A conventional artillery piece is going to have a range of about 20 miles. The longest range US rocket artillery is 57 miles. while NK has a lot of artillery they would have to move most of it to be effective. they would be sitting ducks for anti-tank weapons such as the AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapon. it's a glide-to-target weapon that deploys 24 anti-tank missiles. A B-52 can carry 12 of these.

[Magiver]

What makes you think that's the likely scenario?
The sinking of a SK boat. The recent firing of artillery (http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20100127-194826.html). A SK government that stopped sending aid to NK. A crazy nut-job for a NK leader who has actually managed to isolate his minions and brainwash them.

[Zeriel]

A conventional artillery piece is going to have a range of about 20 miles. The longest range US rocket artillery is 57 miles. while NK has a lot of artillery they would have to move most of it to be effective. they would be sitting ducks for anti-tank weapons such as the AGM-154A Joint Standoff Weapon. it's a glide-to-target weapon that deploys 24 anti-tank missiles. A B-52 can carry 12 of these.

Having known people who worked on the development of the AGM-154A, I'm skeptical of its effectiveness in this scenario given terrain and target size. That having been said, what percentage of North Korea's 18000 artillery pieces do you think are within range of Seoul right now?

[Kobal2]

Artillery is a very limited weapon. It can't be easily moved without air support.

It can in NK. Tunnels, tunnels everywhere, and not a road to bomb !

[Squink]

The sinking of a SK boat. The recent firing of artillery (http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Asia/Story/A1Story20100127-194826.html). A SK government that stopped sending aid to NK. A crazy nut-job for a NK leader who has actually managed to isolate his minions and brainwash them.One at a time:

•Boats in disputed territory aren't major cities in your opponent's territory.
•You gotta test your guns somewhere.
•The two countries are arguing, shit like this has happened for decades
•Crazy and suicidal are not synonymous.

Deterrence has worked for 50 years. There's no credible evidence it's failing now.

[Magiver]

One at a time:

•Boats in disputed territory aren't major cities in your opponent's territory.
•You gotta test your guns somewhere.
•The two countries are arguing, shit like this has happened for decades
•Crazy and suicidal are not synonymous.

Deterrence has worked for 50 years. There's no credible evidence it's failing now. Sinking a boat is not an argument, it's a hostile act.
The new Director of National Intelligence (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10707396) recently discussed this.

[Magiver]

It can in NK. Tunnels, tunnels everywhere, and not a road to bomb ! We don't bomb roads anymore. the weapon I described seeks out it's target after deployment. Modern warfare has evolved to a standoff and deliver method of attack. It requires air superiority which NK lacks.

IMO, NK will fall under it's own weight. Communication with the outside world would hasten the event. If they attempt to invade SK it will resemble Iraq's attack of Kuwait.

[Paul in Qatar]

The thing is the PDRK is losing, and the leadership finally realizes it. Will they lose peacefully? Somehow I doubt it. Every year they get weaker. If they strike this year, they have a better chance than if they strike next year.

OTOH, perhaps Kim Jung Jong Il would be willing to die quietly and slowly rather than going out with a bang. In that case, the danger would be greatest as the new kid tries to consolidate power by showing he has balls.

[Magiver]

The thing is the PDRK is losing, and the leadership finally realizes it. Will they lose peacefully? Somehow I doubt it. Every year they get weaker. If they strike this year, they have a better chance than if they strike next year.

OTOH, perhaps Kim Jung Jong Il would be willing to die quietly and slowly rather than going out with a bang. In that case, the danger would be greatest as the new kid tries to consolidate power by showing he has balls. At some point the Soviet Union realized they had lost control of Poland and East Germany. The dominos fell quickly and without a shot fired.

what it comes down to is how crazy Kim Jong Il is. Considering he once kidnapped someone to make movies for him I would not be surprised if he attacked. Waging war has often been used as a way of staying in power. All you need to do is convince the people that their enemies need to be attacked. He's done a good job vilifying everybody in that respect.

[straight man]

The thing is the PDRK is losing, and the leadership finally realizes it. Will they lose peacefully? Somehow I doubt it. Every year they get weaker. If they strike this year, they have a better chance than if they strike next year.
It's known. It's been known for years. The elites can go on holiday in China, and *everybody* can tap into South Korean television and radio. They know. And they haven't attacked yet. The leadership isn't suicidal —it's not going to happen.

Magiver, the North Koreans have been launching the occasional attack on South Korea for ages. There was the bombing of a South Korean airliner, an attempt to assassinate the South Korean president (prime minister, perhaps? They have both), an attempt to blow up South Korean bigwigs, a gadzillion attempts to tunnel under the DMZ (they were "coal mines", i.e. the walls were painted black), soldiers killed along the DMZ,...

Is destroying a ship in a disputed region really any different?

[Magiver]

It's known. It's been known for years. The elites can go on holiday in China, and *everybody* can tap into South Korean television and radio. They know. And they haven't attacked yet. The leadership isn't suicidal —it's not going to happen.

Magiver, the North Koreans have been launching the occasional attack on South Korea for ages. There was the bombing of a South Korean airliner, an attempt to assassinate the South Korean president (prime minister, perhaps? They have both), an attempt to blow up South Korean bigwigs, a gadzillion attempts to tunnel under the DMZ (they were "coal mines", i.e. the walls were painted black), soldiers killed along the DMZ,...

Is destroying a ship in a disputed region really any different? No, the single act isn't different but a continuous reduction of resources makes war an option to desperate people who are convinced it's SK's fault.

[Paul in Qatar]

It's known. It's been known for years. The elites can go on holiday in China, and *everybody* can tap into South Korean television and radio. They know. And they haven't attacked yet. The leadership isn't suicidal —it's not going to happen.

Are you claiming many people in the PDRK can tap into POK TV and radio? That is simply not true.

TThis story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128795368&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter) says "a few hundred" PDRK artillery pieces can hit the South Korean capital.

[bullrun]

Invading North Korea is a touchy proposition. We could (and probably would) win eventually but they would be a strong oponnent. They are brainwashed. The people are in dire straights and always are; however the military enjoys a better standard of living and are held in great esteem compared to everyone else. Therefore the military of NK would be fighting for a different version (in their minds) of North Korea than the average peasant.
Not to mention...they apparently have nuclear capability. We would basically have to nuke their nuclear sites first before invading or run the chance of being wiped out on the battlefield by nuclear weapons.
We could , of course, warn them that if they used nuclear weapons...., then
we would. However....that does not really deter a maniac. Especially one that sees himself losing and about to fall.
Then there is the China question. I do not believe they would set back and watch us roll into the North. They would 'step-in' in one way or another. Even though they would secretly applaud the fall of the current North Koren idiotic leader....they still want it in their sphere of influence.
Then there is the 'obama' question. He does not have the nerve to invade anyone regardless of the provocations. The question is; "will we be able to keep south Korea free?' The North Koreans will probably invade the South soon enough. The question is what will obama do. The North Koreans are betting he will do nothing...and they are probably right.

[Monty]

And if the US were to employ a nuclear weapon in North Korea, do you think China would not assist--as in respond in kind--their ally somehow?

[Squink]

Then there is the 'obama' question. He does not have the nerve to invade anyone regardless of the provocations.Have you looked into the president's eyes, like W did with Pooty poot, or are you just making baseless accusations while hiding behind the anonymity of the internet here?
Plase clarify, if you have the fortitude to do so.

[Muffin]

Invading North Korea is a touchy proposition. We could (and probably would) win eventually but they would be a strong oponnent.Win what? A Pyrrhic victory is not a win.

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

Americans have been largely unmoved by the death of (by conservative estimates) 100,000+ Iraqi civilians. Who really gives a shit about the South Korean civilians?

[Otara]

The South Koreans.

You'd be basically having to take them on too or at least be losing them as a cooperative force if you invaded NK without them agreeing to it, as any attack on NK would be starting from their country and require preparation there first.

Otara

[Throatwarbler Mangrove]

The South Koreans.

You'd be basically having to take them on too or at least be losing them as a cooperative force if you invaded NK without them agreeing to it, as any attack on NK would be starting from their country and require preparation there first.

Otara

What are they going to do about it? Attack America? Side with the North?

[Muffin]

What are they going to do about it?The South Koreans would die in very large numbers, which would make the whole point of going to war with NK moot.

[Otara]

"What are they going to do about it? Attack America? Side with the North?"

Defend their own territory presumably, as the US would be being a direct aggressor in that situation from their perspective.

It would be a shambles. As pointed out above you'd be nullifying one of the major reasons for doing it in the first place.

Otara

[Kobal2]

It can in NK. Tunnels, tunnels everywhere, and not a road to bomb ! We don't bomb roads anymore. the weapon I described seeks out it's target after deployment. Modern warfare has evolved to a standoff and deliver method of attack.

How are standoff missiles supposed to track and destroy materiel being moved underground ? As for counterbattery fire, it's all very well in the open desert, not all that effective when the firing site is a reinforced bunker buried in a cliffside.

[Magiver]

We don't bomb roads anymore. the weapon I described seeks out it's target after deployment. Modern warfare has evolved to a standoff and deliver method of attack.

How are standoff missiles supposed to track and destroy materiel being moved underground ? As for counterbattery fire, it's all very well in the open desert, not all that effective when the firing site is a reinforced bunker buried in a cliffside.

If it's underground it's not a weapon. If it's in a fixed bunker then it is already a target. North Korea has built the finest 3rd world army in the world. Saddam did the same thing. In the age of stealth aircraft, satellites and GPS weapons North Korea has successfully reinvented the Maginot Line. Much money has been spent on assets that need air support which would cease the moment a war started.

[Kobal2]

If it's underground it's not a weapon. If it's in a fixed bunker then it is already a target. North Korea has built the finest 3rd world army in the world. Saddam did the same thing. In the age of stealth aircraft, satellites and GPS weapons North Korea has successfully reinvented the Maginot Line. Much money has been spent on assets that need air support which would cease the moment a war started.

You don't get it. The guns are stored/moved around underground most of the time - the visible bunkers are empty, and there's so many that hitting them does precisely squat.

Then, when an attack is ordered, guns are moved to the bunkers, let loose a few rounds and when incoming arty/missiles starts hitting the bunker, the guns are moved back out. It's, effectively, the same kind of hit-and-run tactics the US army is powerless against in Iraq, only with division-scale assets. I'm not saying their arty would be an unkillable murder machine, but it's more dangerous than you think.

Not to mention of course that NK is also bristling with SAMs and ack-ack, which can also be redeployed at will through tunnels and put a bit of a dent in that whole "air superiority" thing. Those might be Cold War stuff, but even stealth isn't all that effective against raw saturation fire - a few of those missiles are bound to hit something eventually. And the present day US Army is ill-designed to win any war of attrition. Especially with two other wars on the back burner.

[Lemur866]

And again, it's not like we can't chew through the staticly placed artillery and AAA. Sure we can. But it's not going to be over in a few hours of bombing, it's going to take weeks to degrade their counter-air to the point where our air can operate with impunity.

And a dug in artillery piece aimed at Seoul doesn't need reinforcement. It's got got enough ammo to keep firing until it runs out or gets smashed. Reducing Seoul to rubble isn't just a terror tactic, it's also a military tactic, because Seoul is a transportation hub. Millions of civilians fleeing the shelling will slow down the military response.

And of course, the bulk of the fighting will be done by the South Koreans, the US has significant forces there, but we're dwarfed by the South Koreans. The notion that it will be a mostly American show, with South Koreans as backup and second-line troops is false. We'd be backing up the South Koreans, not the other way around.

[Magiver]

You don't get it. The guns are stored/moved around underground most of the time - the visible bunkers are empty, and there's so many that hitting them does precisely squat.

Then, when an attack is ordered, guns are moved to the bunkers, let loose a few rounds and when incoming arty/missiles starts hitting the bunker, the guns are moved back out. It's, effectively, the same kind of hit-and-run tactics the US army is powerless against in Iraq, only with division-scale assets. I'm not saying their arty would be an unkillable murder machine, but it's more dangerous than you think.

Not to mention of course that NK is also bristling with SAMs and ack-ack, which can also be redeployed at will through tunnels and put a bit of a dent in that whole "air superiority" thing. Those might be Cold War stuff, but even stealth isn't all that effective against raw saturation fire - a few of those missiles are bound to hit something eventually. And the present day US Army is ill-designed to win any war of attrition. Especially with two other wars on the back burner. You don't get it. They've created a fixed location easily destroyed with satellite guided munitions. A bunker/tunnel may have been useful in WWII when bombers were blindly trying to carpet bomb it from above but now a single missile is directed to the center of the opening. They are nothing but pre-fabbed tombs in the making.

The Iraqi army was was once the 3rd largest in the world and it was systematically sliced up in days. First command and control was destroyed then missile radar sites/missiles were destroyed then mobile tanks/artillery were destroyed. when you consider a great many of the artillery sites will have been identified over the years it's a function of pre-planned communication to the munitions used. The more NK digs in, the easier it is to identify the location and destroy it.

The days of dealing with saturation fire are gone. The concept of selectable self guided munitions means weapons and their guidance systems can be combined and launched from a variety of platforms ranging from submarines to high altitude stealth bombers. During the Iraq war, entire Iraqi tank brigades never saw their attackers. The tanks just started blowing up without warning. If they had the luxury of seeing an A-10 on the horizon they could exit the tank but if it was an autonomous weapon released at altitude there was no warning. The function of an A-10 as a tank killer has been supplanted by the newer munitions.

And again, I’m not advocating a war with NK. I think time will bring down the government from within. However, if they every attacked, it would be a very short war measured in days.

[Lemur866]

You're not getting it.

I agree that it's very likely that the North Korean army will be so badly cut up in a few days that they won't be able to command and control their forces, won't be able to reinforce or resupply their forces, and won't be able to advance or retreat without being massacred.

But of course, "fire your artillery piece south until you run out of ammo or are dead" doesn't require a lot of command and control. So we could "win the war". But at the cost of the destruction of huge swaths of South Korea, and hundreds of thousands to millions dead or homeless.

Note that even in the Gulf War, the Iraqis were able to lob scuds into Israel for weeks even with intensive scud-hunting efforts, even with complete air superiority. But of course the scuds didn't do much besides make a few craters in out of the way places. But instead of a couple dozen scuds we're facing tens of thousands of artillery rounds, and instead of a far-away country across the desert, the rounds are aimed at a highly urbanized area where it's pretty much impossible to miss hitting something of value.

[YogSosoth]

You know, I might be a bad person for saying this, but I'm kind of praying for war just to see how this turns out. It's kind of exciting!

[Magiver]

You're not getting it. I understand that Seol would take a pounding in any conflict.

I agree that it's very likely that the North Korean army will be so badly cut up in a few days that they won't be able to command and control their forces, won't be able to reinforce or resupply their forces, and won't be able to advance or retreat without being massacred.

But of course, "fire your artillery piece south until you run out of ammo or are dead" doesn't require a lot of command and control. So we could "win the war". But at the cost of the destruction of huge swaths of South Korea, and hundreds of thousands to millions dead or homeless. They would be dead long before they ran out of ammo. And they couldn't take large swaths out of SK because they have a very limited range. The more money that NK pours into artillery the better. The real danger is in intermediate range missiles. They travel farther and make bigger holes.

Note that even in the Gulf War, the Iraqis were able to lob scuds into Israel for weeks even with intensive scud-hunting efforts, even with complete air superiority. But of course the scuds didn't do much besides make a few craters in out of the way places. But instead of a couple dozen scuds we're facing tens of thousands of artillery rounds, and instead of a far-away country across the desert, the rounds are aimed at a highly urbanized area where it's pretty much impossible to miss hitting something of value. Scuds were launched and then they immediately relocated. There was no ability to continue firing from the same location. This is the ground equivalent of a standoff weapon and is probably the most dangerous asset NK can deploy (except for the obvious nuclear device). The days of conventional artillery warfare are over. Any attempt to establish a line creates a target which can be sorted out with RAV's and satellites in advance of approaching launch platforms. Something like a column of tanks only requires a rough location so an autonomous weapon group can be dropped in the vicinity.

[What Exit?]

While I am very much against the idea of invading and bombing North Korea, if we actually decided on a preemptive strike I image a scenario like this.

We run Navy operations most years close to Korea. We ensure we have 3 carrier fleets in place for this one. We already have air units in S. Korea and we still have at least one airbase in the Japan. Our tech leaves them far behind. This is sufficient air cover to strike and destroy all known targets and to stand ready to blow up anything that takes to the air, rolls towards the DMZ or turns on active satellite.

We have an edge currently that is overwhelming to a small nation like N. Korea. If we went down this silly road, crushing their forces would not be hard. As usual the problem would be after that with trying to fix the wreck of the country we leave behind.

[even sven]

China. All this talk has no bearing on reality and nothing will happen without China's approval. which is exceedingly unlikely. We don't care enough about any Korea to piss off China, and so they are calling the shots on this one.

[BlinkingDuck]

If I understand the OP, we should invade NK because it is a bad government led by an evil man. If that is our criteria, we will be very busy in the future. Why not start 90 miles off of Florida and take care of the Castro regime first?

Hell, we don't even have to do it. We could recruit a bunch of ex-Cubans who wish to liberate their country - train them and send them to Cuba.

Sounds like a plan!

[An Gadaí]

You know, I might be a bad person for saying this, but I'm kind of praying for war just to see how this turns out. It's kind of exciting!

Yeah, you probably are. Try playing videogames or something.

[Punoqllads]

If I understand the OP, we should invade NK because it is a bad government led by an evil man. If that is our criteria, we will be very busy in the future. Why not start 90 miles off of Florida and take care of the Castro regime first?
Hell, we don't even have to do it. We could recruit a bunch of ex-Cubans who wish to liberate their country - train them and send them to Cuba.

Sounds like a plan!Brilliant idea. Let's call it Operation Zapata.

[Paul in Qatar]

If we knew the PDRK was going to attack, smiting them first would offer certain advantages. But from a political point of view the US would probably only do it if the ROK decided to do it. Very much US policy is and ought to be run from the ROK, their country after all.

So hanging a bushel of 'what ifs' together, we could imagine a scenario where the PDRK was about to deal with internal excitement by creating external excitement. They have a history after all.

We would be very lucky if such an event happened alongside a scheduled exercise. Better would should fake a carrier having fake mechanical problems and pretending to head east for home as a replacement heads west. That would give us two air groups on Day One. We can expect complete cooperation from the ROK of course, so add in the entire ROKAF plus some huge amount of USAF based in bare-bones and other bases. In any case, we could hope from massive air power on Day One.

We (the US) have (has) a bobtail infantry division in place, plus POMCUS to bring them up to two maneuver brigade equivalents, as well as an aviation brigade (If memory serves). Also one USMC brigade offshore when the opening bell rings. Keeping it as a 'force in being' would probably be the smart play. The ROKs have their own plans for spinning up reserves, but it would be too much to expect our complete mobilization.

The PDRK is a mystery. Seven million guys under arms, plus a militia and whatnot. But at what level of capacity? Each North Koreans equalling 0.5 of a South Korean? 0.75? It depends on which 'what ifs' are in play.

White moves first, and we smash them with heavy bombers hitting the chemical warfare stockpiles in the north, and we cut the fiber optics. Do not count on any tactical airpower (except the A10s and helicopters) in the first 24 hours. ROK missiles will hit the nastiest artillery and ADA sites with cluster bombs before the PDRK guys can shelter.

Then we hit any problem areas with some really massive airpower and hold our defensive lines until the PDRK collapses.

[BrainGlutton]

IMO, the best conceivable future for Korea is peaceful unification under a settlement that extinguishes the DPRK state, but allows its Communist Party to share power, or at least form an opposition, within the ROK government.

If that were possible, it would be really interesting to see the results.

[Boyo Jim]

If I understand the OP, we should invade NK because it is a bad government led by an evil man. If that is our criteria, we will be very busy in the future. Why not start 90 miles off of Florida and take care of the Castro regime first?

Hell, we don't even have to do it. We could recruit a bunch of ex-Cubans who wish to liberate their country - train them and send them to Cuba.

Sounds like a plan!

I think South Korea should hire seven gunslinger heroes to defend it from the predatory North.

Yes, I've been watching old movie reruns on AMC.