I worry about the damage to the tech industry. South Korea is one of the major suppliers in memory chips and other chips. If those factories are destroyed it’s going to impact tech devices world wide.
I was actively building and selling pc’s 1997-2002. There was an earthquake that shut down a major plant in S Korea or Japan. Can’t recall which country or the year. Memory got hard to find and my costs doubled for almost a year. It was a big pain because upgrading pc’s was my bread and butter side money back then.
Total destruction of S Korea’s plants would really mess things up for years to come.
Seoul is big, and the big manufacturing plants aren’t in the heart of Seoul anyway. Actually, a lot of Samsung’s manufacturing is outsourced to the US, China, and Taiwan. There are other companies, of course, but Samsung is effectively the 800lb gorilla in the room.
It would take a general invasion and deliberate targeting of the electronics industry to have a catastrophic effect. It’s not likely to happen, though any attack at all will naturally have repercussions through the semiconductor world.
The 2011 Bangkok floods did have worldwide consequences on hard drives that are still felt today. But there are few cases where such key components are mostly manufactured in one place.
I’m kind of amused by the talk of “will”. The military capabilities of the ROK are at least a generation ahead of the DPRK. No matter how much “will” an unhealthy 6 year old has, he won’t be able to wrestle down a healthy 18 year old man, even one with little “will”.
if anything you’d assume the south has more will. they are fighting to avoid being ruled by evil, incompetent dictatorial kleptomaniacs while the north fights because they’ve been brainwashed into thinking lies about the world. several writers have wondered what will happen when the northern soldiers, in an invasion, has a mass awakening to how bad they’ve been lied to when they go south.
So the real reason for the NORK Arty is to ensure enough damage to the infrastructure so when ground troops arrive the are not tempted to defect en mass?
Oh, I’m not saying that South Korea wouldn’t win the war. North Korea wouldn’t stand a chance, and it would probably be over in a matter of short weeks, ending with the executions or suicides of the North Korean leaders. My concern is for how much damage the NK artillery does in the first day of war before it could be neutralized.
I agree. I think that they’re just throwing tantrums for attention.
But it worked out so well for the Japanese in WW2!
War isn’t a Hollywood movie where the good guys win because they are good, or believe in god, or are free people, or fighting for their homeland, or have the more pure motivation. Soldiers fighting for evil, incompetent dictatorial kleptomaniacs have carved out the largest empires in history. It certainly didn’t keep Europe from falling to Nazi Germany. It was in the USSR, another evil, incompetent kleptomaniacal dictatorship that Germany found itself stopped and defeated.
Any of these several writers who honestly imagines a future Korean war will be decided by a mass awakening of the soldiers of the Korean People’s Army upon discovering microwaves, toaster ovens and iPods as they advance in the shelled out ruins of Seoul is simply delusional.
I highly doubt that the soldiers would just defect on their own simply because they saw lots of wealth. This kind of process can happen, but it usually takes more time and more advantageous circumstances. If the North Koreans started losing badly and it was clear that defeat was only a matter of time, then you’d be likely to see whole units surrendering. one thing I know about NK military units is that they display lots of discipline; even if it’s just for show it’s implausible to believe they’d just roll over. That said, any NK attack could easily get bogged down in looting, quite possibly directed all the way from the top.
That said, there’s little reason to think they could mount a credible invasion. The DMZ is ludicrously fortified on the southern side as well. North Korea can’t really mount a naval assault, and trying to go through the DMZ is likely to end in massive casualties and no victories.
South Korea lives a much more “western” life style and IMO is much less “hardened” than their combatants to the North. In fact I would liken the PRK today in much the same way as Russia during WWII.
If the two were to go to war, I believe that in anything other than a lopsided massacre in favor of the ROK, their will to fight would break much faster than the PRK which in turn could lead to unfavorable negotiations to end the hostilities for the very reasons you gave… to protect their infrastructure and Western lifestyle.
I just do not think the PRK would care nearly as much. Fighting a war under PRK lies and promises MIGHT be better than prison camps, starvation and a totalitarian communist way of life.
You don’t win a war on “will,” but winning a war does require the support of the populace–especially so in a democracy, but to a great degree in a non-democracy. I don’t think there is any chance NK could “win” a war with SK. But in the event of a protracted slugfest–artillery duels, bombing raids, sporadic incursions across the DMV–it’s possible the South would wear down first. The privations and destruction of war would discommode South Koreans more, precisely because they are better off, and there is a well-meaning though misguided segment of SK that favors softer treatment of NK; these tend to be young people for whom the Korean War was something that happened in their grandfather’s time. Consider that the bulk of the military is made up of young people…it’s not hard to imagine a situation in which SK sues for some kind of peace with honor and NK declares victory.
And I would liken the ROK to Britain or the U.S. - or for that manner, to Germany - during WWII. I didn’t see anything lacking in *their *will, either.
There has not been a war on US soil in well over a century or large scale conscription in a couple generations. If a million man Canadian army somehow appeared at the US border and invaded, American youth wouldn’t ‘wear down’ and give up for a negotiated peace despite generations of peace and contentment. They would expel the invaders and then we’d see massive calls for the invasion and utter devastation of Canada.
You think South Korean youths are any different? Once friends and family are injured or killed, they’re going to get angry. Further, it’s a culture where almost all young men have performed mandatory service in the military.
When things are limited to mostly bluster, people feel sorry for all the poor North Koreans. Once attacks actually happen, attitudes change.
I kinda agree with chargerrich on his “will” point, though he may have overstated it a bit.
Some people upthread were suggesting that the mere sight of of Seoul’s gleaming buildings would make the average PRK soldier defect, but I really doubt that. If anything they may find it all intimidating, and scared people don’t tend to put down their weapons.
Also the south is aware of conditions in the north so there may be a degree of sympathy to those in the north, that is not reciprocated (admittedly though…it probably wouldn’t take too many casualties in the south before that evaporates).
The circumstances are obviously completely different, but one important one is that there is actually a large body of opinion in the South in favor of more lenient treatment of North Korea and that thinks the SK government is to blame for ongoing hostilities. I don’t think it’s impossible that in a stalemate war that enough people would blame their own government for their suffering, or for not winning, or some combination, to make continuing untenable, especially with the attendant economic disruptions.
Whatever you think of the Iraq War, America lost the will to fight that. More to your point, France ought to have beaten off its bitter rival Germany, or at least put up more of a fight, in 1940. Perhaps an even more closely related scenario is the American Civil War, during which a substantial number of Northerners wanted the war over and done with, and one of Lincoln’s generals ran against him for president, even after an invasion of the North. You could argue that had the South done better on the battlefield there would have been MORE pressure for an armistice, not less.
Look, this is all theoretical, but I certainly don’t think my suggestion is “ridiculous on the face of it.”
Beyond the initial barrage there isn’t going to be a “slugfest”. NK does not have the logistical capability to wage war beyond the first volley which admittedly will be painful for SK.
And say what you will for the Republican Guard, it took American tanks rolling into Baghdad to (mostly) end the conflict. And even then, it’s likely lots of them joined insurgent groups and continued to harass American troops after the conquest.
It’s easy to lose “will” when it’s not your own homes and family you’re defending.
Another bad analogy.
Germany had the superior training, military technology, tactics, and strategy in their Ardennes offensive.
France was incapable of beating off Germany and DID put up a big fight. It’s some massive historical revisionism to suggest they didn’t. Even when the initial German push decimated the French ranks, the French lines (including the Maginot Line) held for a while. It was only in the face of utter destruction the French surrendered.
And even after France collapsed, the Maquis were vital allied operatives behind enemy lines.
Even if the formal army and government collapsed, the individual French people never lost their “will” to fight or stopped harassing and obstructing German occupation the entire time.
Yet another bad analogy.
That was also an invasion into ‘foreign’ territory. And the South put up a stiff resistance, despite having inferior numbers and logistics.
When Lee sent his Army into Pennsylvania, there wasn’t much call for a negotiated settlement from Pennsylvanians.
The side defending their home territory rarely loses the “will” to fight, even if they lose the capability to fight.
All YOUR examples (plus Afghanistan, come to think of it) show this.
ETA: Actually, that brings up a question: why are you looking at things so often from the perspective of the invaders? Most of your examples are the invaders losing their will after encountering resistance. Wouldn’t that mean the North Koreans lose their will to fight once they realize the propaganda is false about the effete and ineffectual ROK army?
Iraq shows that a country will lose its taste for war even in a situation where its populace barely suffers. More suffering may stiffen the spine of the people, in Britain during WWII, but that is hardly guaranteed
The French in 1940 were hampered by many things, but had a big army and some good equipment. They certainly could have fought longer and harder. They didn’t. France’s elected leadership more or less gave up. So did most of its generals. Some French joined the Maquis. Many more collaborated.
In 1864, over 48% of Pennsylvanians voted for McClellan. Apparently there was a call for a negotiated settlement.
My first example is not quite the same as what we’re discussing in Korea, but I explained why I brought it up. Examples two and three are about the reaction of an invaded populace which did not rise up and say, we must win this war at any cost, shoulder to shoulder against the invaders!
The South was never going to serious take Northern territory and the Union army was still there. Why would Pennsylvanians need to rise up against the invaders when the army was still sitting there protecting them (and pushing the invaders out, no less, in a major turning point of the war)? If anything, it shows there was sufficient willpower to throw off the invaders.
And that still doesn’t explain the will of the citizens of the Confederacy, who experienced a prolonged war with multiple incursions by foreign troops, yet never lost the will to fight - only the capability to fight. In many ways, the South’s will to fight existed into the modern day - like Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, ‘separate but equal’ schooling, segregation in general, and so on, and many of the fine racists and Confederate flags we see out of the old Confederate states.
France? The army could have fought longer but to no avail. That’s not the same as losing the will to fight an otherwise winnable battle. It’s only a waste of lives at that point. There IS a difference there. Remember the claim was that “will” would overcome technological, tactical, and strategic dominance. All of those things were on the German side against France in WWII. That’s why it’s a bad example. If it were France invading Germany back then, and Germany losing the will to fight despite having all the advantages, you might have a point.
And the Iraq example is still bad. The ones who lost the will to war were the invaders, not the local populace. In your analogy, the North Koreans are actually the Americans and South Korea the Iraqis.
