Best PoD for 2nd Korean War?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Given these three PoDs, which one is most likely to butterfly into a US military intervention, or full scale war, against North Korea in the first decade of the 21st Century?

PoD 1: The 22nd Amendment does not pass; this has absolutely no effect until the 2000 Election rolls around, when Clinton gets elected for a third term -- then the 9/11 Attacks (still) happen...

PoD 2: McCain wins the South Carolina primary, and goes on to win the Presidency in 2000. The attacks still happen, but this time OBL is killed in Tora Bora, with KSM, Zawihiri, and Mullah Omar getting captured or killed not long after...

PoD 3: In the weeks preceding the planned attacks, the plot disintegrates as key figures are caught (by sheer luck), and others are either found in turn, flee, or lay low (for at least several years). The Bush Administration, aside from some drone attacks on suspected AQ Base locations, do little in response...

[varyar]

You mean North Korea, right?

If so, I'd go with number 3 allowing a more intense focus on North Korea's nuclear program, and tensions rising just high enough that an incident such as the sinking of the Cheonan spirals out of control. The DMZ heats up, both sides get ever more bellicose and stubborn, and then North Korea strikes south. A fairly short but messy war is followed by a very very messy post-war situation.

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by varyar

You mean North Korea, right?

Oops , yes, and fixed.

If so, I'd go with number 3 allowing a more intense focus on North Korea's nuclear program, and tensions rising just high enough that an incident such as the sinking of the Cheonan spirals out of control. The DMZ heats up, both sides get ever more bellicose and stubborn, and then North Korea strikes south. A fairly short but messy war is followed by a very very messy post-war situation.

Thanks for the response. When do you see this happening -- 2003? How messy is "messy"? And what's the endgame -- this mean the DMZ zone becomes wider/norther, or does the goal become regime change, or something in between?

[varyar]

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

Thanks for the response. When do you see this happening -- 2003?

That'd be a decent parallel of sorts with OTL's 2003 war.

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

How messy is "messy"? And what's the endgame -- this mean the DMZ zone becomes wider/norther, or does the goal become regime change, or something in between?

I think that once North Korea crosses the border in force, its days are numbered. I doubt you'll find many people willing to stick up for Kim Il-Sung at that point.

The messy parts are 1) North Korea is a starving economic basket case already; after the war and collapse of the government, it's going to be that much worse. Refugees, famine, battle damage, possibly remnants of the North Korean army reduced to banditry, etc. etc.

2) China is, I'm told, not likely to be overly thrilled at suddenly finding a reunified Korea on their border. I don't know how they'd react, but it should be taken into account. Would China be bold enough to launch an invasion - I mean, initiate emergency humanitarian operations ::cough:: - of the North in order to guarantee some influence in the post-war peninsula?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by varyar

2) China is, I'm told, not likely to be overly thrilled at suddenly finding a reunified Korea on their border. I don't know how they'd react, but it should be taken into account. Would China be bold enough to launch an invasion - I mean, initiate emergency humanitarian operations ::cough:: - of the North in order to guarantee some influence in the post-war peninsula?

Well, if the US President* is smart, he won't stop them -- and let someone else handle that mess of an occupation. (Of course, that's if he's smart...)

*whoever he is

[Enigmajones]

No 9/11, Bush goes looking for his Haliburton obligations in another region. Gives South Korea and Japan leeway to flex their respective muscles. An incident erupts over the border, war erupts and you have the Second Korean War and the war that Bush wanted.

[Noravea]

9/11 is much, much more devastating (Nuclear or biological attack for example). US may adopt a no tolerance for rouge nations and go all out on Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea. It'll be devastating, and would probably be the largest war since World War II to ever happen.

[The Ubbergeek]

It was a typo, but turning the table.. how to make SOUTH Korea the agressors for once then?

Not that I equate them moraly or anything.

[Life In Black]

I remember posting a thread asking if a second or renewed Korean War was possible during the height of the Vietnam War, of which South Korea was involved for 8 years. IIRC, South Korea had something like 300,000 personnel that fought in Vietnam from '66-'74. Just an idea.

[John Fredrick Parker]

So it seems the consensus is that PoD 3 is the most likely to lead to war on the peninsula. However, as I think about it, I can't shake the idea that PoD 2 would be more likely -- that President Bush, without a 9/11 to respond to, would try to avoid "nation building", par his campaign promises, while President McCain, high on a "victory" against AQ, may be feeling particularly hawkish...

[The Ubbergeek]

A random frontier event could always escalate if cirscumstances are allowing it..

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by The Ubbergeek

A random frontier event could always escalate if cirscumstances are allowing it..

Naturally; I'm mainly looking to find, of the three ideas I had, which would most likely produce the best circumstances...

[Sumeragi]

When is the earliest year for the PoD?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

When is the earliest year for the PoD?

I'm actually only looking at those PoDs expressly listed in the OP, all of them (effectively) 2000-01... Yeah, title's kind of misleading now that I think about it