US Invasion to North Korea

[anw_rev]

Originally Posted by d32123

and even if you somehow evacuate everyone in advance that's going to absolutely wreck the global economy. There's a very good reason why we've never attempted this.

Why? I mean, did South Korea really that importan say, in 1994-1999 era?

[d32123]

Originally Posted by anw_rev

Why? I mean, did South Korea really that importan say, in 1994-1999 era?

Um, yes..........

[anw_rev]

Originally Posted by d32123

Um, yes..........

In what way?
Explanations, please

[Tellos]

you assume NK has all it's artilery in one spot to target one city. It doesint also again not all of it has range. Their nukes are not practical as they have no reliable way to deliver them. remember north korean troops are malnurished and um yeah you'd need more than artillery to level a city. And 20 minutes? Give mea break. I suspect within the first ten minuts of bombing most artilery spots are struck and nay more who poke their heads out get hit fast. Drones can be watching for them firing hell fire missiles at each one.

[anw_rev]

Did the US drones already enter service in 1994?

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by ModernKiwi

Almost certainly incorrect.

Agreed. The Norks can damage Seoul and cause deaths, but they cannot destroy Seoul and inflict megadeaths.

And for the poster who linked a Popular Mechanics article as a way of refuting, PM is little more than the History Channel of magazines.

I'll point out to the OP that any US invasion of the DPRK must involve the RoK. You aren't going to launch, support, and supply such a venture out of Okinawa and/or carrier decks. Such an invasion will have to involve Japan too.

While the OP reminded everyone that this would be post-Soviet, I'll remind the OP that it must most definitely be post-PRC too. The DPRK and those Kookie Kommie Kings the Kims only and still exist because of Red China.

[Tellos]

No but it never said had to be 94. just post soviet union.

[EternalCynic]

Originally Posted by Flubber

While the OP reminded everyone that this would be post-Soviet, I'll remind the OP that it must most definitely be post-PRC too. The DPRK and those Kookie Kommie Kings the Kims only and still exist because of Red China.

A post-Communist government in China still won't tolerate US troops marching up to its border, either. It would probably back a coup to replace the Kims with Deng-like reformists instead. But if the OP's scenario came to pass, the new Chinese government would order a counter-invasion of North Korea to shore up its domestic support and carve a sphere of influence for itself. It would be 1951 again.

[Tellos]

no it'd be nukes cause china fighting the us won't be the same as it was before.

[Whodoyouthinkiam]

Originally Posted by d32123

Unfortunately? An invasion of North Korea would be detrimental to the lives of all Koreans, North and South, as well as the world economy and pretty much everybody.

In the short term, yes, just as the invasion of Germany was detrimental to the lives of all Germans, and took a heavy toll on the world economy, in the short term.
In the long run, though, it was to the benefit of not only Germany itself, but Europe and the world as a whole, as well.

I'm not saying that it'd be easy! The military is about the only thing in that god-forsaken place that actually works....and it's huge. But it could be done....except for the fact that they have nukes and are insane enough to use them. That's why it's ASB-territory

[Flubber]

Originally Posted by EternalCynic

A post-Communist government in China still won't tolerate US troops marching up to its border, either.

Never said they would. I was pointing out that more than just the USSR has to disappear before the US/ROK/UN/Japan/etc. can take down the Kookie Kommie Kings of Northern Starvania.

Of course the right kind of post-PRC China might actually assist in a Nork hunt, just as long as the resulting post-Kim nation remains under Chinese patronage...

[Tellos]

Whodoyouthinkiam how can they use those nukes? missiles are shit and no strategic bomber to even lift it. Also atomic weapons don't fit in warheads on missiles. So how can they use these nukes?

[StevoJH]

Isnt most of the North Korean Artillery park along the border sited in fixed emplacements? How long would it last before the majority of the larger Pieces have been blown up?

What defences do North Korea have to defend against a Saturation Attack by just about the entire US Bomber fleet using stand off missiles?

Remembering that these are based in the US and don't need to be repositioned prior to a strike.

In addition, I'm not sure it would be the best move to launch an attack across the DMZ, how fortified is the NK coastline? Probably easier to clear the North Korean side of the DMZ via an Amphibious assault and then move across the DMZ with engineering units.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Tellos

Whodoyouthinkiam how can they use those nukes? missiles are shit and no strategic bomber to even lift it. Also atomic weapons don't fit in warheads on missiles. So how can they use these nukes?

Missiles and bombers are for taking nukes to enemies who are far away. If the enemy is coming to you instead, you can just put it somewhere where they have to be and wait for them to come into range.

[Whodoyouthinkiam]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

Missiles and bombers are for taking nukes to enemies who are far away. If the enemy is coming to you instead, you can just put it somewhere where they have to be and wait for them to come into range.

This.
I'm not suggesting that NK has the ability to glass Washington DC, or even LA.

Originally Posted by StevoJH

What defences do North Korea have to defend against a Saturation Attack by just about the entire US Bomber fleet using stand off missiles?

Remembering that these are based in the US and don't need to be repositioned prior to a strike.

They probably couldn't do jack about an aireal (typo?) campaign. But you'd need more than that to liberate North Korea. You'd need an invasion, and occupation for years or even decades to come as the place is rebuild and proper institutions established. Few countries on Earth have the ability to do so, and none of those are willing to (for various reasons)

[Tellos]

Whodoyouthinkiam problem with your theroy, their last nuke failed and even if it had not it was not a practical bomb. So we can see it for miles with drones or choppers. Also then we'd jsut shoot it blow it up and no nuke blast. Cause nukes do not go critcal on impact. Welcome to why nuclear weapons are only part of a deterrent package.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by Tellos

So we can see it for miles with drones or choppers. Also then we'd jsut shoot it blow it up and no nuke blast.

You have a touching faith in the ability of the invading forces to spot such a device - perhaps you're imagining it would just be left sitting out in the open. I don't think that's very likely; and if camouflaged bombs were that easy to detect, there probably wouldn't have been so many casualties caused by them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

History-lesson time! Back in the 1950's the British Army had a project to make nuclear land mines, which rejoiced in the name "Blue Peacock". Despite how bizarre the idea was, they thought they could successfully hide a 7.2 tonne nuclear bomb, mounted in the back of a truck, for a week, in areas that would be occupied by Soviet forces.
Let's assume the hypothetical North Korean bomb is roughly the same size - they don't have decades of tests and simulations to help them miniaturise it, so it's probably reasonably chunky. That means the North Koreans have to successfully hide a single truck for long enough that the invaders don't spot it until it's too late. But when you think about it, a truck is really rather small. You can put one in a building, or a patch of trees, or bury it in a cave in a hillside, and it still has a lethal zone a couple of kilometers in radius.
What's worse, there are some places that the invaders absolutely have to go - an invasion that didn't go near Pyongyang, for example, would arguably be missing the point of the operation entirely. Any of the buildings or vehicles in that city could have a nuke in it, and the North Koreans would have a strong incentive to keep it's location a secret.

So I don't think this a possibility that an invasion could just ignore in the fashion you suggest. At the very least, a great deal of effort would have to be devoted to ensuring that the NK nuclear arsenal was all accounted for and rendered harmless.

[MattII]

If this is an unprovoked invasion, quite a bit of that artillery will be likely to disappear overnight courtesy of either the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing or the 49th Fighter Wing (depending on when it happens). Alternatively, the nighthawks hit DPRK airbases, while the artillery is targeted by missiles.

[Riain]

The problem with this artillery, and this is the reason it is given as a real problem, is that it is heavily fortified and stupendously numerous. Guns are sited in underground bunkers and pop out to fire, as such there is no quick fix the way their would be if it was conventionally sited, such as cluster bombs or ATGMs. This artillery will be able to fire persistently until it is knocked out in detail, with bunker buster bombs (GWB mentioned using nukes). And before people say that 'that's what we'll do' keep in mind that hordes of troops will be swarming across the border, popping out of tunnels behind the front lines as well as infiltrators. US and StK forces will be too busy to give their sole attention to the artillery.

They will not be able to drive deep into SthK like in 1950, but they'll make the border region look like the WW1 Western front.

As for an ampbibious assault, best combined with an airborne assault, the US can only land 2 brigades of Marines in one lift and drop a similar number of paras.

[Gunnarnz]

Originally Posted by MattII

If this is an unprovoked invasion, quite a bit of that artillery will be likely to disappear overnight courtesy of either the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing or the 49th Fighter Wing (depending on when it happens). Alternatively, the nighthawks hit DPRK airbases, while the artillery is targeted by missiles.

I agree. Most of the NK artillery can't reach Seoul, and I'd bet the fixed firing points are already registered as targets for air strikes and counterbattery fire. They wouldn't be 100% effective, of course, but anything that survived probably wouldn't last long once it started firing and gave an accurate fix on it's location. So I very much doubt that Seoul would be flattened by NK artillery. Damaged, yes, and if the North uses chemical weapons it could get a bit nastier, but it won't be turned into a poisoned crater by any means.