It wouldn’t be a challenge at all. Combined Forces reduce the island to a parking lot in less than a day. A few MOABs, a touch of napalm, laser-guided strikes on anything that even looks like a strongpoint and the Marines helicopter in and set up shop. No civilian pop, so anything that moves that isn’t a Marine is a target. Engineers have an airstrip operational in 48 hours.
South Korea has a pretty decent military, but they pretty much lack any power projection or area denial capabilities that would challenge the United States.
So, in summary, compared to WW2, the US would have much better intelligence on where enemy troops had built bunkers or defenses. This would primarily be due to satellites and very accurate geolocation of any communications.
With their locations identified, bombardment would mostly be from aircraft, as opposed to ships in WW2. B-2s based in the US or in Guam could accurately take out several bunkers in a single run. Tactical aircraft from carriers or big deck amphibs would also be extremely effective. Of those countries, South Korea and Turkey have pretty good air defenses, with Turkey poised to get a really good Russian system in the next few years. However, those SAMs would be not be numerous and could probably be taken out pretty quickly by air or fires from destroyers or cruisers.
The Marines could probably land uncontested since the enemy would have very little in the way of anti-ship capabilities. Air Force Red Horse units could have an enemy airfield back in working condition in hours to a couple days, tops.
So in contrast to WW2 where seizing and controlling a island could take weeks to months, the US military could achieve much faster results against the type of enemy you’re talking about. Like, a couple days to two weeks, depending on how risky you want to be with US lives.
As a USMC grunt who strides the earth and smites all before me all I can say is; airpower and artillery = holy fuck!
If we had to take an island I think it would be;
Isolated, no reinforcements and no resupply
Given the Moses treatment; 40 days and nights of steel rain
Grunts would land and CAS (Close Air Support) would be frothing at the mouth for targets.
Much would depend on how quick an island would need to be taken. But USMC CAS and Artillery…holy fuck I love them almost as much as I love Corpsmen.
USMC prepares to assault the NORK held island. Two carrier groups in support 1000 km off. They promptly get blown up by NORK nukes. Rear island bases are also hit, as are the first bridgeheads on the assault island.The surviving Marines cut off from support and resupply are picked off.
Lil Kim squees with joy. The SecDef is shot. The USMC is disbanded in disgrace. Annnnnnd a Minuteman III out of North Dakota blows up the the island, leading to the question why was an assault even planned.
On a serious note the OPs question is like asking how bayonets will do against machine guns, even though the bayonet men also have far better MGs. In an era of ballistic missiles and nukes, WW2 style island hopping campaigns are downright dangerous since any land or island base can be destroyed in minutes by the enemy. The US no longer needs island strips, carrier based aircraft can do the job and island basesare vulnerable.
I disagree. If you believe a war can be won with stand off weapons alone all you have to do is look.
at recent US history.
I agree that Tarawa would not have to be taken in todays military world. However I interpreted the question as ‘we have to take ‘x’; how do we do it quickly?’ Insert whatever reason you want but the area must be taken…
The OP said Tarawa, expressly. Its like asking how we would do horse cavalry charges today. I did not say that wars can be won by standoff systems alone. Merely that guided missiles with nuclear payloads have made WW2 era strategy and tactics dangerous.
No. Even if you ignore the other countries at war with Japan and also ignore the contribution of American air and naval forces, you’re still left with the reality that the majority of American ground troops in the Pacific theatre were Army not Marines. It’s just a matter of numbers. The Marine Corps is a smaller force and it’s usually going to be outnumbered by the Army.
I think the Japanese suffered their worse land defeat in Burma against the British, Indians and Burmese. Oh, include crocodiles.
Just as a matter of interest, can anyone point me to a successful American military exploit against a well equipped enemy in the last 60 years or so.
Did the US use earthquake bombs like the Tallboy and Grand Slam? They weren’t available for Tarawa, but were for later battles like Iwo Jima.
“Well equipped?” Iraq in 1991. They were not a military peer, of course, but there’s no question that they were well equipped.
Normandy.
Today the Marines would be going in with excellent satellite and aerial recon. Thermobaric (fuel-air) bombs would make life miserable (and short) for defenders counting on caves and tunnels to protect them. Helicopters and aerial gunships would provide close-support, and helicopters could drop troops inland. Provided the Marines had the sea and air superiority to get to this stage, they would grant the defenders’ wish to die gloriously.
1949 called. They’d like their “nukes only and forever” global strategy back.
If this approach was ever really viable, why wasn’t it used in any conflict after 1945?
So, North Korea is going to not use the only weapons it has which can hurt the US armed forces…why? Out of a sense of fairplay? As it is, even without nuclear weapons guided missiles make Tarawa type operations (relying on fixed forward bases) problematic.
…which was 70 years ago. 70 is more than 60.
Indeed, the majority of the ground forces and of the ground fighting done by the US in the PTO was done by the Army.
Helicopter insertion would be a great way to get a lot of Marines killed. There is no inland, Betio Island, Tarawa Atoll is about the size of central park; you don’t land troops by helicopter directly on top of enemy positions because helicopters are extremely vulnerable to ground fire. Aerial gunships are also only used in situations of minimal anti-air risk and even then usually only at night as they too are extremely vulnerable to anti-air weapons; an AC-130 was lost in Desert Storm to an SA-7 when it tried to stay on station after sunrise.
I’ve wondered about a future conflict where nukes are used but only tactically at sea. Would we really respond to the loss of a carrier group by nuking an enemy’s bases?
Thank you. I was going to point out some facts. Not GD territory but facts are important here.
“The total dead or missing were 41,592 for all U.S. Army ground troops in the Pacific and southeast Asia, with another 145,706 wounded. The Marine Corps and attached Navy corpsmen suffered total casualties of 23,160 killed or missing and 67,199 wounded”
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm
Because of the type of battles and the high casualty rates in a short period if time in those battles, the Marines get the bulk of the credit. But there were more Army troops and more Army casualties in the pacific.
He said “…or so.” 
Lumpy - IIRC, current US nuke doctrine says yes. Or at least has the option. Somebody pops a nuke on us, we pave their country.