lol…according to your link (mlees), the NK’s still have T-55’s and T-62’s in their main OOB as MBT’s! Contrast that to the Korean’s K1A1 (essentially an Abrams MBT). The only limiting factor would be if the SK’s run out of ammo before all that old crap is dead.
(It’s even worse in the air…the NK’s still have Mig-17’s, 19’s and 21’s in their OOB)
-XT
Global Security article. It seems use of chemical weapons would be a distinct possibility.
Also, apparently they were likely to have had nukes back in 2005, which I didn’t know, and may have more than 10 weapons. Yikes.
Try it this way:
“According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm “could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs.”” (cite)
Those are bigger than your 122mm but let’s go with the 122mm number.
3.675 * 10000 = 36,750 kg/minute or 36 metric tons/minute
So, about 28 minutes to drop 1 kiloton or 8.4 hours to drop the equivalent of the Hiroshima bomb.
Of course as noted above artillery can be more effective as it can blanket the area more effectively. You need not flatten a building when a few arty shells render it ineffective so it would need to be demolished and re-built.
North Korea is acting completely rationally. They’re been doing this act for decades, and it works for them every time. Escalate tensions, rattle some sabers, then offer to calm back down as long as certain monies are paid or concessions granted…
Get used to this. It’s what we can expect to see from Iran if they ever get the bomb. Brinksmanship as a standard negotiating tactic. And it works, until someone gets a little too greedy, or tempers flare a little too much, or some area commander gets too nervous. It’s going to be a very dangerous world.
There is zero chance that North Korea is actually going to attempt an attack/invasion of South Korea. There’s no way in hell they can do it. They don’t have the resources to maintain the logistical tails needed for a serious mobilization into the south. About the only thing North Korea can do is unleash its artillery barrage - at which point it has no leverage left, and the world will come down on it like nest of angry hornets. I suppose it could try to use its nuclear bomb against someone, but that would be very high risk, and they’d get flattened even harder if they did.
But let’s say they did attack South Korea. What would happen? First, I think South Korea can defend itself. North Korea has the manpower, but South Korea is playing on home turf and vastly outclasses the north in quality of soldiers and weaponry. And it would have U.S. help.
Japan would not get involved, as that would violate its constitution. Japan has expressly forbidden itself from engaging in ground wars in Asia. It would supply weapons, financial assistance, and staging for Americans and others, but Japanese troops would not be involved.
China is a more interesting question. If there’s a war, I think the most likely form it could take would be a pre-emptive invasion of North Korea by China, if it thought NK was about to be stupid and actually attack South Korea. It would do this for the same reason Russia declared war on Japan in the waning days of WWII - It’s an excuse for a land grab. What China doesn’t want is South Korea taking over with American help, and having South Korean and American soldiers on the Chinese border. North Korea is a valuable buffer.
I could see a limited invasion of North Korea by China, followed by a collapse of the NK regime (engineered by China), and the replacement of a regime with one that’s essentially under Chinese control. The Chinese would then be the heroes that ‘saved’ South Korea and cleaned up the North Korean mess, and everyone will look the other way and pretend not to notice that China has a new client state.
Not that I think that scenario is particularly likely either - just more likely than a NK attack on South Korea. And it depends on whether China really wants to inherit the mess that is the North Korean economy. It could be a big drag on China for years.
I am surprised at the number of times that “giving NK to China” has been mentioned here. Doesn’t anyone think if NORTH Korea is annexed by any country, it should be - oh I don’t know - SOUTH Korea??
The eventual re-unification of Korea should be the goal here. I doubt it can be done peacefully until there is a change of NK leadership that is dedicated to peace.
Although in the long term, a reunification of Korea would diminish US Influence, because there would be no reason for our troops to stay there.
Of course the goal should be the reunification of North and South Korea. That doesn’t mean it will happen.
If all goes well, they won’t see them as very very much but very dead.
^^This.
What we want to happen and what is likely to happen are two entirely different things.
The motive given for China to take over NK is that it is the least damaging prospect. If SK and the US start to takeover NK we could well find ourselves in a fight with China…another superpower (and then China may feel it is fine to takeover the whole peninsula once engaged there).
So, best to let China do this. Just the political realities.
As I said many years ago;
The moment the North Koreans start mobilizing to invade, the South Koreans should start…cooking. Food everywhere. Left in the streets, by the side of the roads, in abandoned houses. Signs everywhere welcoming their kinsmen and asking them not to fight.
But even so, even with massive amounts of artillery damage, there will be no denying that the south is very much better off and that the average citizen has possession of and access to so much more than the best off northerner.
Hmmm. Lot of Clancy fan-wank in this thread. I’ll place my bets:
NK invasion is a spectacular failure. Their army is old, brittle, logistically anemic, and once out in the open, a brilliant target for South Korean and American airpower.
Seoul gets hurt, but NOWHERE near as bad as people here seem to think. First off, most of those North Korean tubes have more important targets than city streets-- namely, the South Korean positions to their south that they have to break through. It’s possible the North Koreans could decide to just sit behind the DMZ and lob shells, but that’s not their doctrine, and even that kind of attack opens up the North to devastating retaliatory strikes. My guess is, war starts, the Norks are coming south, and their artillery is going to be busy aiming at more productive targets.
That said, Seoul is a big city, and it’s going to suffer damage. I just don’t see the Norks pounding it to rubble as a strategy, for multiple reasons-- mostly because it’s a wealthy city to sack, and also because North Korean doctrine (like Soviet/Chinese doctrine) says to bypass urban areas where possible. Thus, the operational objective would be to establish a cordon around Seoul and allowing follow-on forces to “reduce” the city while the main force pushes south as fast as they can (to take out airfields, logistics nodes, and eventually, port facilities).
BTW, this isn’t conjecture-- again, this is their doctrine. They could always surprise us, but both sides have been planning this war for longer than most any poster here at the SD has been alive. There are only so many ways for them to crack this nut.
China: I don’t see them getting involved, unless, of course, in the counterattack the ROK and US forces conquer North Korea. From day one, I can imagine the Chinese trying to pressure all parties to end the war quickly-- and in the craziest possible scenario, intervening AGAINST the North Koreans. The Chinese like having the buffer between South Korea and their border-- they will probably find more value in stabbing North Korea in the back than in supporting their attack, if in the end that allows them to keep the South away from their border.
Japan. I don’t see them intervening unless they are attacked by North Korea. That said, I see North Korea attacking Japan on Day One. First, because they’ve always said they would-- perhaps we should take the Norks at their word? Second, because attacking Japan might get the Japanese to intervene militarily, which would create pressure on the South Koreans, Chinese and Russians. I don’t believe for a moment in 2009 that South Korea would reject Japanese aid in the event of war-- WWII memories run deep, but not THAT deep-- but the Chinese (and to a lesser extent, the Russians) would not be happy at all to have Japan flexing its muscles.
For once Japan gets involved in one war, the historical prohibition against using force is over-- making Japan that much more of a threat to China in the long run (and China always thinks in the long run).
BTW, if you want a historical parallel-- this is essentially the same strategy employed by Saddam Hussein during the 1991 war. Israel had nothing to do with the war, but by attacking Israel from the first days of the war, Saddam was gambling that Israel would have to retaliate, and the Coalition would fracture as a result. Thankfully, neither situation resulted, but the North Koreans might think that the second time is the charm.
I also can’t rule out their capability to use a weapon on a missile. Nothing that can hit the U.S. yet, not even Alaska or Hawaii. But certainly South Korea or Japan.
That said, I don’t see Seoul being a target-- big city, small nukes, and again, the Norks would probably want to capture Seoul as intact as possible. At the end of the day, attacking Seoul with a nuclear weapon is just as effective as attacking it conventionally-- i.e., there really is no advantage to it, and the moment the Bomb is used, U.S. nuclear retaliatory strikes are almost certain.
No, for my money, if I’m the Norks I use the Bomb against Japan. Ship, sub, air, missile-- delivery doesn’t matter, just get it onto Japanese soil. Not only will that drag the Japanese into the war-- see aforementioned benefits to that-- but it also probably paralyzes Japan as a result. One, there’s the psychological impact of a largely pacifistic society being hit with nuclear weapons again. Second, there’s the paranoia generated by such an attack-- when will the North Koreans strike again? The Norks might think that by attacking Japan, they could get the Japanese to pressure the U.S. to stop the war-- or even take their own steps to deny the U.S. use of their bases.
Good a strategy as any, as long as we’re talking madmen strategies.
That all said, the IDEAL North Korean strategy is to launch a nuke on a missile into the upper atmosphere above Japan, detonate it, and enjoy the EMP effect. I participated in a RAND wargame about ten years ago that featured this exact same scenario, and every time we ran through the game, the Norks did it every time. It just made too much sense NOT to do it. EMP takes down Japan, the international economy, military forces in South Korea, and the relatively primitive North Koreans are able to keep up the attack. That’s MY nightmare scenario.
Anyway, as far as the U.S. retaliating with nuclear weapons, of course they would. The moment North Korea uses one Bomb, there’s no longer anything preventing them from using two. You have to take the country out at that point.
The scarier scenario to me, however, is that if the North Koreans attacked conventionally, you STILL might have to nuke them. Not because the combined ROK & US forces couldn’t defeat them conventionally, but simply because the Cold War calculus didn’t disappear with the Cold War: anything worth *risking *a nuclear war over is worth fighting one.
There may not be much of a choice here, in the end. NOT defeating North Korea as quickly as possible-- even if that means using nuclear weapons preemptively-- means you leave yourself open to their own nuclear attack. And if North Korea is crazy enough to go to a war they can’t win, then they’re damn well crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.
Lousy deal, but what’s the alternative? Take a nuke hit just so we can feel better about ourselves? I don’t think so.
You have GOT to be kidding me. That is a totally unrealistic scenario. China is currently holding onto simmering territories in Tibet, Xinjiang, and still lusts after Taiwan, but you expect them to annex a major industrial power, too?
Not to speak for Whack-a-Mole, but what I said was that it was a possible scenario, but one that was still highly unlikely. The question is whether China would rather have the problem of managing the installation and maintenance of a friendly regime in North Korea, or whether they’d rather deal with a war between North and South Korea, accompanied no doubt by a major refugee crisis on their border, followed by an occupation of South Korean and American forces in their backyard.
China wouldn’t occupy North Korea. It would destabilize it, and replace the regime with one less crazy and more tied to Beijing. It wouldn’t have a “Tibet” problem, because the North Korean people are so thoroughly weakened and so thoroughly cowed by the maniacal regime they’ve been living under that even Chinese Communist rule would probably seem like a breath of fresh air to them.
But let’s cut to the chase. What’s going on now isn’t an attempt to start a war - it’s an attempt to open a one-on-one dialog with the United States. Bush wouldn’t fall for that bait, and insisted China be a part of any talks with North Korea. That wasn’t to North Korea’s advantage, so now they’re trying again with Obama. We’ll see if he falls for it.
Well… as long as you exclude Kimmy and his boys, who spend their time eating caviar and drinking Hennessy.
Exactly. The NK’s would have to be idiotic beyond belief to try and pick a fight with the South. They would have to know that not only would they lose, but that the likelihood of a full scale revolt would be pretty high once they pulled their army out to attack. No way would they chance that.
Still, what fun is that to discuss?? 
It’s MUCH more interesting to game the scenario and discuss the highly unlikely possibility that there would be a full scale war.
-XT
Forgive me for asking, but where have 10 year prices been going over the last fortnight, I’m dying to know :D:D:D
With North Korea appearing to have nukes - I’m still not convinced - Obama could not justify sending Americans to be possibly vaporised. If the forces in South Korea decide that action is imminent, given the numbers of artillery etc in place, it seems to me that a pre-emptive nuclear strike is just about the only non-diplomatic way to save their lives.
How do you ignore the major city in SK when going to war? Certainly I can see wanting to bypass it with your army. The Soviets threw 2.5 million soldiers at Berlin and it was a miserable battle for them. Berlin (at least then) was a lot smaller than Seoul (although to be fair Seoul is not in a bunker mentality like Berlin was which is a big deal).
Still, the population of Seoul is over 9 million with 23 million in the metro area (which I presume includes Inch’on). That is Big with a capital “B”. How can you ignore the massive industrial capacity of this area as well as the ports and transportation?
Even if NK threw all 700k of its troops at Seoul it’d be a bloody affair and grind the NK army to nothing. Neither do you want to leave all that industry and transportation and population just sitting there in your rear if you by-pass it.
I am no general but I think pummeling Seoul for a day would make a great deal of military sense. It would strike at SK morale. It would create a massive refugee problem for SK to deal with. It would to some degree or another damage important industry and transport. It could at least temporarily disrupt the SK government (if they were caught in the city).
Besides, as has been noted, NK really has no chance at capturing SK on its own and they probably know that. I would see this more as Dear Leader taking whoever he can down in a fit of pique. Throw missiles at Japan, shell Seoul. Toss a nuke or two if you can for good measure. I see nothing to suggest there’d be any restraint on his part if he felt the end was in sight anyway.
Heck, if the “end” was very near for Dear Leader with US/SK troops rolling north maybe even toss a missile or two at China guaranteeing they’d come tearing in in retaliation. China pushing south, US/SK driving north, each claiming they’ll finish it, the other should go home…would be a right mess.
Yup
Fun fact: The majority of the seismographs were actually installed to monitor nuclear testing in the 60s, but ended up confirming plate tectonics instead 
He wouldn’t have to send any… IIRC we have something like 30,000 troops there already.
-XT
Can’t see Japan getting involved on the ground. Just ain’t NO WAY that the Koreans or Chinese are going to tolerate that. Naval support, off-shore air support, possibly.
But I also think they’ll have their hands full with (real or invented by fear) issues with their Korean minority, some of whom are sympathetic to North Korea and/or infiltrated with NK agents. To be sure, I think there would be a lot more paranoid over-reaction and pre-emptive stupidity than actual events on that front.
Certainly the Japanese would be going all-out to ensure that no ships even remotely associated with NK get within miles of their ports. They may not have the missiles to launch a nuke, but even a big clunky “Neaderthal Nuke” would fit on a ship.