WI: North Korea did the Boston Marathon bombings

I know this thread might be stupid, but instead of the Tsarnaev brothers, what if North Korean infiltrators masterminded the bombings? Would it be worse than the OTL one? How would the US government respond?

And the day of the bombings also coincides with Kim Il-Sung's birthday.
 
Well, they have shelled islands, killed several American soldiers over the years, held American citizens captive, tried to assainate the South Korean president, etc. and nothing has happend. There might be a suspension of aid and more sanctions and a military exercise but that's it.
 
Well, they have shelled islands, killed several American soldiers over the years, held American citizens captive, tried to assainate the South Korean president, etc. and nothing has happend. There might be a suspension of aid and more sanctions and a military exercise but that's it.

Its a bit different if its on American soil
 
China would definitely back America on this one. Not just because they have issues with North Korea's hissy fits, but because they too have major problems with bombings by Uighur Islamist separatists. At this point, Kimland would surely be fucked, if not by the US, then by China for being a sponsor of terrorism. This is one step too far.
 
I think that there would be some very loud calls for war resounding from the Northeast. This would be the first attack by another nation on US soil since WWII.
 
China would definitely back America on this one. Not just because they have issues with North Korea's hissy fits, but because they too have major problems with bombings by Uighur Islamist separatists. At this point, Kimland would surely be fucked, if not by the US, then by China for being a sponsor of terrorism. This is one step too far.

If it really looked like the US was gonna invade, China would probably preempt them and stage a "humanitarian intervention", if only to preserve their buffer between the US backed South and their own border. The Chinese's nightmare scenario is US bases on the Yalu River.
 
Shouldn't this be in ASB? There's no reason North Korean agents would want to pull a (sloppy) terrorist attack on the United States.
 
If it really looked like the US was gonna invade, China would probably preempt them and stage a "humanitarian intervention", if only to preserve their buffer between the US backed South and their own border. The Chinese's nightmare scenario is US bases on the Yalu River.

Could the US arrange an agreement with China beforehand that this won't happen?

Or if China does intervene, would they give the territory to S.Korea in exchange for American military removal? (the US might agree to this)
 
Could the US arrange an agreement with China beforehand that this won't happen?

Or if China does intervene, would they give the territory to S.Korea in exchange for American military removal? (the US might agree to this)

The current thinking is that the U.S would pull out most troops and agree to not base any troops north of the former inter-Korean border in the event of a successful Korean reunification.
 
One of the three dead in the OTL bombings was a Boston University student from China, Lingzi Lu. If she was still killed if North Korea did the bombings, I think China might do something about it, perhaps breaking trade and diplomacy with North Korea, something like "You're on your own now."

As much as I hate to say it, Lu's death alone would likely NOT trigger any response for the PRC besides harsh words. I recall an instance in the past few years when North Korean border guards on the NK/PRC border killed a few Chinese on the Chinese side of the border. And China is supplying North korea today.
 
Well, it would be an act of war if the US wanted to see it that way. However consider the following.

1) South Korea may be reluctant to agree to the USA kicking off a major war on the Korean peninsula particularly as Seoul is within artillery range of the border. The DPRK has a ridiculous amount of tube and rocket artillery pointed at the South Korean capital. I suspect the RoK would not like having to rebuild most of its modern infrastructure or cope with the tens of thousands of casualties that would result.

2) North Korea has a nuclear weapons program (thank you Dr Khan), how many of them they have and how reliable and deliverable they are is a worrying question. The Japanese may also be reluctant to agree to the US using their bases in Japan for ops against the DPRK as there is a risk Tokyo could be flash fried.

3) Apart from the Norths nuclear program they also have a significant chemical capability, they also have a lot of long range artillery and ballistic missiles which could be (are?) fitted with chemical agent warheads.

4) China may decide to resolve the issue by either engineering a coup in the DPRK (there have been suggestions they have tried this previously, but to be honest the internal politics are so opaque who'd know) which would put the US in quandry, do they attack a country which now has a new regime and backed by China?; Alternatively, the Chinese may just go for broke and eliminate the DPRK themselves, less likely maybe but possible. In the long term this may result in the RoK becoming either non-aligned or actively cooperating with China. Having the outdated DPRK military across the border is one thing, having the PLA sitting there becoming increasingly state of the art is another.

5) The cost of a war against the DPRK in both men and materials would be horrendous. The likely casualty rates just on the US side would be horrific as the DPRK is literally dug in with numerous hardened artillery sites, bunker complexes, underground airbases (like something off thunderbirds) and millions of men under arms or in militia units. The US would literally be fighting for every city, town, village and hamlet. If it went nuclear, the losses would be even worse.

Given the above it is possible the US would settle for some sort of (even more) punitive sanctions or very limited military action such as a Tomahawk strike against a number of NK military installations.
 

sharlin

Banned
Just to point out that most of that massed rockets and tube artillery cannot reach Seoul. It simply can't. They have some 170mm guns that could reach the city proper, and some rocket launchers that again can do it, but these are in the minority and would not be allowed to stand there for days on end going BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM....BOOM.

Yes the suburbs would be damaged but the city itself, no. And the tens of thousands of casualties is assuming they just opened fire now. Right now, no warning, bang, thats it, shells and rockets incoming. This would not happen as it would be noticed that the guns are being prepared, firing positions getting some action etc.

The sea of fire thing about the NK arty vs Seoul is a myth.
 
Better yet: both NK and the Tsarnaev brothers plan a bombing that day. And meet each other.
 
The DPRK have a lot of their artillery pre-deployed in hardened artillery sites or in caves, as such there is no need for them to do much beyond give a Go order and open fire.

According to this article, they can launch an initial salvo of 10,000 rounds and maintain approx 2000-4000 rpm for the long range artillery. Even if the initial launch is only 50% and the firing rate is 1500 rpm that is going to cause significant damage to the city, its infrastructure and its citizens. Of course, US and Korean air/artillery is going to counter battery the DPRK positions as a matter of urgency but it is going to take time to do so.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/m-1985-mrl.htm
 
I really think this is ASB. The North Korean leadership excels at political realism in the foreign affairs department. Getting themselves involved with foreign terrorist attacks is mind-numbingly stupid, and hence extremely out of character.
 
I would think that the US would, but given how the US has been more than willing to ignore actions by North Korea towards its neighbor and Pakistan's support of Al-Quaida, I'd think there may not be that much, sadly.
 
I want to use the thread to ask a different question which puzzled me somewhat: if in principle the US would recognize North Korea in the Chinese sphere without particular problems, and it is true Beijing didn't have a particular liking for the enduring status quo in Pyongyang, why then the latter didn't ever made a move to get rid of the Kim dynasty once and for all to put a government loyal to them but also more presentable to the public opinion?

Besides, I always wondered how the Chinese, which on the Communist principles debated even deeper than the Soviets, were always so keen to accept the existance of a Communist dynasty on their border... I suppose generally it was to not jeopardize the Korean status quo, but there are maybe other issues I don't catch?
 
I would think that the US would, but given how the US has been more than willing to ignore actions by North Korea towards its neighbor and Pakistan's support of Al-Quaida, I'd think there may not be that much, sadly.

North Korea's actions in real-life constitute a glorified game of chicken: they basically throw (contrived) temper tantrums to get what they want. Launching a terrorist attack on US soil is a recipe for a UN resolution, and a Chinese-sponsored coup or invasion. And North Korea knows that, so wouldn't do it.
 
Besides, I always wondered how the Chinese, which on the Communist principles debated even deeper than the Soviets, were always so keen to accept the existance of a Communist dynasty on their border... I suppose generally it was to not jeopardize the Korean status quo, but there are maybe other issues I don't catch?

My guess is that they worry that unnecessary intervention could have unexpected consequences (better the devil you know, especially if it causes jitters among local US allies). Plus China has a less than impressive record in foreign interventions (c.f. Vietnam 1979), and generally takes a dim view of Western military interventionism at the international level - it becomes much harder to argue against something if you're doing it yourself.
 
Top