Nuclear capabilities aside, how powerful is the North Korean military? I think the West has armed South Korea well enough, but I don’t know the troop strength of the North vs. the South.
If the North attacked the south how far into South Korea would they get before they were beaten back? Could they reach Seoul?
I assume that ultimately South Korea would win a war against North Korea even without backing from the US… or is North Korea better armed and manned than I think they are?
The Seoul suburbs extend all the way to the DMZ, so yes, they could reach Seoul.
They wouldn’t make it too far. While the supply lines would be short, they don’t have much in the way of fuel for their aging tanks and trucks and nearly none for their aircraft. I suppose their soldiers could try marching past Seoul, but I don’t think they’d get too far.
Also, you have to wonder how disconcerting it would be for those soldiers to see just how extravagantly large and prosperous Seoul is, even if they lay waste to chunks of it. It’s one of the 5 largest metro areas in the world and capital of a G20 nation.
The current consensus is that South Korea could defeat North Korea on its own. The tricky bit comes from how much support comes from China and how much damage is inflicted on SK before that. If it was just a matter of defense against North Korea, the US could leave now.
The last I checked, the North Korean army was larger. But their weapons are outdated and their men are undernourished and trained compared to their southern counterparts.
In short the NK military is really big but poorly equipped. They’ve got about 1 million personnel, a lot of Korean war era hardware, and some newer hardware that they’ve developed locally. The biggest threat to South Korea are the thousands of conventional artillery pieces that are right across the border from Seoul. I think the general consensus is that the NK army couldn’t effectively invade SK, but they could almost completely level Seoul before a SK/US invasion or counterattack was successful.
Is this the reason they are so pissed off all the time? I.E. wtf is their problem, always threatening and trying to be bad ass, etc etc.
But certainly the South knows where most of the NK artillery is and has some kind of offensive capability to shut them down once the attack starts. I would be more concerned about 1 million soldiers taking over my country’s capital… of course how long would Pyongyang last once the attack starts.
Perhaps that would be a clue that an attack was coming when NK starts emptying out their cities.
They have a lot of conventional artillery. I believe in military terms, it’s referred to as a ‘shitload’.
The numbers I’ve heard place it on the order of a “mega-shitload.”
The saddest aspect of any such invasion would be the spectacle of helicopter gunships and strafing attacks mowing down NK troops like shooting fish in a barrel. What else are you going to do?
More likely the NK would launch a “softening up” artillery attack, provoking a SK/USA air response to take out the artillery. As mentioned they have a shitload of weapons - the question would be how much shooting they coul do before the guns were taken out? How well are they buried? Do you really want to snd troops in to take them out, given the risk of mines and booby traps?
Keep in mind, a lot of this theatre is for the benefit of NK internal politics. It keeps the troops focussed - can’t think about replacing dear leader in the midst of a crisis. Keep things stirred up so tthe restles factions can’t try to pull a fast one on each other. Deep down, I’m sure they recognize real military action would be a disaster, only likely to happen if the alternative is an internl revolt (there’s a scary thought).
More to worry about is an escalation of the last incident with the island. What if they lob a few hundred shells into Seoul and then shut things down? Will the South invade over that? Will China let them?
The idea that Seoul will be flattened is largely a myth. The bulk of the metro area is outside of artillery range, and the area is quite hilly.
I wonder if NK military leaders are aware of South Korea’s affluence, and have taken that into consideration; that after the sight of stocked supermarkets, decent housing, and more cars than they’ve seen in their lives up to that point, troops will will go AWOL with increasing frequency the deeper they head into SK territory. A WAG: a ground invasion will be limited, with only the most loyal crossing through whatever invasion tunnels that haven’t yet been discovered. Otherwise, it’ll be shelling from sea and north of the DMZ, and maybe air strikes. Most troops NK troops will play a defensive role, mainly as cannon fodder for invading forces from the south.
NK has a tremendous amount of artillery, and they’ve been building fortified and camouflaged emplacements for most of the last century. It’s their single best deterrent, so they’ve put a lot of resources into continually building up their artillery.
Of course, this artillery is also the single biggest threat to the South, so they’ve certainly been working to counter it. Again, I think the consensus is that the artillery could eventually be destroyed by counter-battery fire or ground attack, but in the mean time the North can lob many tens of thousands of artillery shells toward Seoul in a matter of hours.
Not literally but certainly flattened figuratively.
It doesn’t take a complete leveling to significantly affect the city. Several tens of thousands of not necessarily dead but injured, lots of shattered glass everywhere, electricity and clean water in short supply for tens if not hundreds of thousands more, roads/subway unavailable in many places.
Logistical nightmares for months in one of the densest and largest of human cities. Tokyo faced large scale but relatively minor problems from the 2011 tsunami. An artillery barrage followed by invasion would be an order of magnitude worse.
Yep, the problem with giving the entire North Korean army live ammo would be the threat that they would turn it on themselves.
I still do not understand why we do not do a preemptive nuke strike on them. A country with nuclear weapons threatens you with them and you are just supposed to sit back and wait until they make good on the threat?
So far, there have only ever been two nuclear weapons deployed against another country at all.
Nobody sane wants to be the first in 70 years to use one offensively. And nobody sane wants to set a precedent for the pre-emptive use of weapons of mass destruction without broad international consent - especially including fellow nuclear-power China.
Also, nobody sane believes for a minute North Korea has the ability to effectively use a nuclear weapon offensively nor that they will for a number of years. Even more so when conventional weapons can serve just as well.
Yes. Preemptive nuke strikes are out of the question, and rightly so.
I’m not sure you’re quite understanding the problem. North Korea has almost twice as many artillery pieces as the United States. Now, lots of these are crappy old things from the Korean War, but they’re still deadly enough . The area is quite hilly and the North Koreans have been fortifying their artillery positions for half a century. I’m sure the South Koreans know where lots of great places to start bombing are. But there are probably a shitload more that SK doesn’t know about, and they’re well aware of the fact. The DMZ is about 160 miles long, and if we figure that valid artillery positions extend as far back from the DMZ as half their range, we’re talking about a zone 160 miles long and about seven to ten miles deep. That’s an area of 1120 to 1600 square miles of rough, hilly, terrain with fifty years worth of fortification, which is about the size of Rhode Island. If we assume that these artillery pieces can fire one round a minute, which is a ridiculously low estimate, we’re still talking about North Korea being able to put ten thousand artillery shells a minute into South Korean territory.
Saddam had nearly 5000 tanks and some 700K troops during Gulf war I. The Coalition/Allies lost 190 dudes killed by enemy action. You grossly over estimate how powerful that much outdated artillery is during a conventional war. All it would do is give our aircraft live target shooting practice, and run up the ammo bill quite a bit.
Understood, but at what point do you say “The crazy guy just might do it?” and then preempt with a tactile strike (either conventional or nuke).
I just happen to prefer to expound on the nuke option because its so much more dramatic and tells the world you are just as bat shit crazy as any of them. Isn’t that the point of nukes, don’t F with me or I’ll F you up even worse than you ever imagined. Almost happened with Russia. We danced around it recently when we went into Pakistan (that took balls IMHO). Still I think Obama is smart enough to figure out how not to use nukes to handle NK; I just like to speculate on a grand scale. 
So it’s a known fact that South Korea has tactical nukes? Would these be under US control or South Korean control, or joint control?
Plus the fact that, for all practical purposes, those artillery pieces outside of Seoul range don’t matter. Guns outside of Yeoncheon are only going to hit that city, not the capital. Sucks to live there, but as far as exerting political pressure those guns are meaningless.
Isn’t South Korea under our military assistance umbrella per the armistice that ended the original Korean War? And who said that they had to invade the South, they threatened mainland USA.
Anyway, this is getting off the OP and I’m ready to get off work. Don’t feel like nuking anyone anymore for today.