Exactly. The South Koreans can’t infiltrate NK after decades of trying. No one, except James Bond gets very far into NK without the state knowing about it.
Which brings it back to the point of why a war’s never going to happen. The South has everything to lose. The North, next to nothing. It’s in the South’s interest to string the North’s regime along (while acting outraged at the appropriate moments) until someone or some group of Northerners finally have enough and decided to knock the regime over.
Armed conflict on the Korean peninsula is no good for anyone. Where do you think all the RAM in the computers of everyone who’s reading this came from? Well, it might be good for Detroit, but no good for anyone else.
Probably not doing so well. The scale of differences for Korean reunification vs German reunification for every major consideration (size of populations, economies, etc) are vast. All on the more difficult side for the Koreans. (Korean reunification - Wikipedia)
Minor correction. Small state sandwiched between TWO big states.
The casualty projection I’ve seen other places, though I may have translated a per-day figure to per-hour. For example, (though it doesn’t even mention artillery?) :
(PS: Googling for a casualty estimate just now, I see this SDMB thread high on Google’s results! Is this a prestigious forum or what? )
Won’t argue with the “staggeringly thin” part, but wouldn’t the zero odds of getting away be irrelevant? (Minor hijack: In Godfather Part II (or III) two different top-notch Corleone assassins did clearly suicidal assassinations. Was that realistic?)
N.Korea is nothing whatsoever like the Soviet Union, and comparing it or even the Eastern front in ww2 is completely absurd.
Yes we DO know how the N.Koreans feel, apart from defectors, listening posts and intelligence analysis there have been medical and other civilian missions from western countries who have reported back in detail their experiences there.
What on Earth gave you the idea that we didn’t ?
In both Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanistan the Airforces were incredibly effective in the conventional war phase which is what we are talking about.
Not counter insurgency, not police actions but all out war.
As to Special Forces your comments make just about as much sense as your other opinions.
And NO you don’t remember correctly, during the Cold War N.A.T.O. NEVER EVER planned to make a first strike against the Soviets.
I state this completely and totally unequivocally.
You seem to have got your misinformation from some sort of an alternative reality.
You have made a single factually correct statement in your entire post.
N.Korea is nothing whatsoever like the Soviet Union, and comparing it or even the Eastern front in ww2 is completely absurd.
Yes we DO know how the N.Koreans feel, apart from defectors, listening posts and intelligence analysis there have been medical and other civilian missions from western countries who have reported back in detail their experiences there.
What on Earth gave you the idea that we didn’t ?
In both Gulf Wars and the invasion of Afghanistan the Airforces were incredibly effective in the conventional war phase which is what we are talking about.
Not counter insurgency, not police actions but all out war.
As to Special Forces your comments make just about as much sense as your other opinions.
And NO you don’t remember correctly, during the Cold War N.A.T.O. NEVER EVER planned to make a first strike against the Soviets.
I state this completely and totally unequivocally.
You seem to have got your misinformation from some sort of an alternative reality.
You have’nt made a single factually correct statement in your entire post.
That’s true, forgot about that little detail… Still, it’ll essentially be the US commanding a largely South Korean army.
The math checks out. Could that rate of fire be sustained, though? It seems to me that it would require massive piles of shells sitting right next to each gun (rather dangerous when you’re expecting counter-battery fire). And multiple crews…
Bond didn’t either. Remember, at the beginning of Die Another Day he was quickly spotted and captured and tortured for over a year and got out only through official channels, not escape.
Kim Jong-il finally goes completely batshit crazy and orders an invasion of SK. NK troops attack; heavy artillery opens fire on Seoul and other targets. China, appalled, closes its border and shoots any NK refugees who try to cross. Kim ignores Chinese demands that he stop. Suffering massive civilian casualties, the SK government asks Obama to use tactical nukes to stop the NK bombardment ASAP, rather than wait for US and SK conventional forces to do the job. Obama agrees and “boom” go the nukes. The NK military offensive collapses and Kim is either whisked across the border into China as an exile, or killed by his own military chieftains, or just goes missing forever. The NK population, starving, stretched beyond endurance and very scared, finally rebels. The remaining NK leadership hurriedly surrenders. NK and SK are reunified on SK terms, with the US pledging either to withdraw its forces entirely, or at least not to have any of them in the former NK, to reassure China. China and the United Republic of Korea (or whatever they call it) strengthen their trade ties and China, feeling a bit guilty about supporting the Dear Leader and his zany dad all those years, uses some of its massive cash reserves to help out with rebuilding and reunification. It’s hard, expensive and takes a long time, but everyone ends up more or less happy.
(BTW, if NK ever uses nukes, I would be virtually certain the US would respond in kind, to send the message to the next potential nuclear foe of the US that it should expect the same. Restraint in that situation would be perceived as weakness, IMHO, and would have the effect of encouraging Iran or anyone else to consider using nukes against the US or its allies).
The thought that N.A.T.O. would use Tacs in a first strike made a very useful deterrant against Soviet ideas of expansionism into europe.
In practice no european nation would have allowed Tacs to be used on their territory even if the alternative was to have their country defeated.
As at that time N.A.T.O. was a purely defensive alliance it would have REacted to a WAR pact invasion so that the ground fighting would take part on its own territory.
In practice in a purely conventional war N.A.T.O. would have won but it would be a hard fight, but not as hard as Soviet propogandists and their agents of influence in the West made out.
The U.K. said that in the event of chemical or biological weapons being used on its country it would treat it in the same way as a nuclear attack and respond in kind.
Leaving aside other possible minor quibbles, my real question here would be–does SK want such a reunification, under circumstances of peninsula-wide catastrophe?
I’d think SK might well insist on the border being maintained, to keep the starving North Koreans from completely incapacitating their efforts to rebuild the south.
From all I’ve read, the cultural and national affinity of SK for NK would probably trump any hesitation about the cost or upheaval of unification. If Kim were to fall, I doubt SK would insist on holding NK at arm’s length while the latter fell apart completely.
A slight hijack: how big was Seoul in 1953, and why did the ROK leave the capital there instead of moving it outside of artillery range when they had the chance to do so?
COMMENT TOTALLY UNRELATED TO THE HUMAN OR POLITICAL ASPECTS OR KOREAN REUNIFICATION
I have read that the Korean de-militarized zone (cute euphemism, btw) has become a veritable paradise for wildlife due to the almost total absence of humans living there.
If the Koreas were to be re-united, wouldn’t it be nice to somehow preserve that?
Ah but now you are shifting the goalposts – NATO’s stated policy was to use nuclear weapons first.
You say that no European country would allow this. But … (1) do you have any evidence for this? and (2) Who is to say that what the country wants would be decisive in the minds of American and British commanders?
The question of whether it is rational to use nukes, even if it is rational to threaten their use (which it probably is) is a vexed one … you are just assuming here that the threat was a bluff.
The USA doesn’t go out of its way to build small nukes and ‘bunker-busters’ just for fun.
yeah I was curious about that… according to wiki:
“In 1950, the Korean War broke out and Seoul changed hands between the Chinese-backed North Korean forces and the UN-backed South Korean forces four times, leaving the city largely destroyed at the end of the war. One estimate of the extensive damage states that at least 191,000 buildings, 55,000 houses, and 1,000 factories lay in ruins. In addition, there were a flood of refugees from the North, swelling the city’s population to an estimated 2.5 million persons. More than half of them were homeless.”
Busan was the capital during the Korean war when Seoul was captured by the north but then despite this, they rebuilt Seoul and left it the capital, 30kms from the hostile border?
so now in 2007:
"Relocation of the capital
On August 11, 2004, the South Korean Government announced that the capital city would be located in the Gongju area as of 2007, to ease the population pressure on Seoul and to get the government to a safer distance from North Korea [5]"
)