WI: Second Korean War in 1994

mlp

making this in light of the recent events in NK- purges, rhetoric, veterans, etc.
WI: North Korea attacked South Korea
WI 2nd Korean War in 1994
Clinton bombs NK in 1994??
Best POD for 2nd Korean War
Korean re-unification after end of Cold War
The Second Korean War 1994
All these threads were previous attempts that fully or partly tried to deal with the agenda at hand: WI Clinton felt the need to bomb NK and actually did?
I'd prefer the POD to be after 1990.
Bonus if it i) does not or ii) minimally involves Chinese intervention.
 
Last edited:

voss749

A successful Korean War ending in 1996 butterflies away Monica. A president who wins the greatest American military victory since WWII and a booming economy is not going to be sued for sexual harassment. It also likely butterflies away the W. presidency.

The question is does the escalation start in 1993 and who is Chairman of the Joint of chiefs of staff???
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
voss749 said:
A successful Korean War ending in 1996 butterflies away Monica. A president who wins the greatest American military victory since WWII and a booming economy is not going to be sued for sexual harassment. It also likely butterflies away the W. presidency.

The question is does the escalation start in 1993 and who is Chairman of the Joint of chiefs of staff???
Click to expand...

Also the greatest American bodycount since Vietnam and a major hit to the economy.Wars are expensive especially wars right next to major shipping lanes with the potential for nuclear escalation when the Chinese get involved.
 

Otis R. Needleman

Banned
We came a LOT closer than you might think to a pre-emptive strike against NK in 1994, against their nuclear facilities. This would have kicked off Round 2 of the Korean War. It would have been a bloody mess, but in the end NK would be history and the Korean Peninsula reunited under Seoul.

However, the "agreed framework" staved off an attack.

Bottom line - any second round will be started by NK. It will be a mess but NK will lose. Dimension of loss could range from a partial occupation of NK, to a split occupation of NK by the Allies/Chinese, to a total collapse and unconditional surrender of NK to the Allies.

Then you get into reunification, which will be a quantum leap more difficult and expensive then German reunification. Potentially massive refugee problems unless China, Russia, Japan and the USA supply huge amounts of aid quickly.

One "best case" scenario...there's a coup in P'yongyang, the Kims are killed, and the new government ratchets down the craziness. Over X number of years NK and SK reconcile with eventual reunification under Seoul.
 

Dunning Kruger

voss749 said:
A successful Korean War ending in 1996 butterflies away Monica. A president who wins the greatest American military victory since WWII and a booming economy is not going to be sued for sexual harassment. It also likely butterflies away the W. presidency.

The question is does the escalation start in 1993 and who is Chairman of the Joint of chiefs of staff???
Click to expand...

War in Korea might butterfly away the booming economy. And Bush Sr. won the greatest AMerican military victory since wwii 3 years prior and got booted out 18 months later.
 

sharlin

Banned
It would still be one sided if a war did break out. I read somewhere (possibly on this site) that the North Korean army is regarded as a huge 1950's/60's era soviet army reinactment group and thats not wrong. The ONLY thing they have going for them is raw numbers. Their equipment is woefully obsolete and dated, imagine a 1992 Iraqi army sans republican guard and with more reliance on AAA with an airforce thats main frontline fighter is the MiG-17.

The whole thing about the Nork's being able to flatten Seoul is pure hogwash, they don't have the weapons to reach the heart of the city and its most important districts, yes they might be able to damage the suburbs but that is with a limited number of weapons.

They have SCUDs but they are all early model versions, basically a road capable V2 with slightly better accuracy.

Once the US/NATO/South Korean got their asses in gear it would be over and then everyone would be looking to see if China stepped into the ring.
 

Paul V McNutt

Banned
I see this as a short and bloody war. In the hours before the US and South Korea win control of the skies, the North shells Seoul. The could put a nuclear warhead on one of those shells. Within a few weeks, the South and the US have conquered the North.
 

sharlin

Banned
Paul V McNutt said:
I see this as a short and bloody war. In the hours before the US and South Korea win control of the skies, the North shells Seoul. The could put a nuclear warhead on one of those shells. Within a few weeks, the South and the US have conquered the North.
Click to expand...

The technical difficulties of creating a nuclear shell are actually pritty darn huge. What we eventually saw of the NK nuclear device they detonated was it was a very big thing, certinally not a weapon but a large and bulky affair. You'd need to be able to make the weapon itself before being able to do it.

As ye said Paul the South/US would win air supremacy within a few hours, but they would not be able to knock out all the artillery positions due to the sheer volume of them and the need to support troops on the ground. I agree on your timeline too, 3 weeks to two months max.
 

ivanotter

I don't think we can divorce this from the Iraqi war in 1991.

If we look at the un-satisfactory ending of that one (Saddam still around, the Shiia uprising killed off, etc), maybe Bush snr would think it is a good idea to have a "real" victory = noccupying the enemy capitol, etc.

Would it impact on troop deplyments to Afghanistan?

The other thing is, there should be a 'trigger' for N. Korea to fall on the South. what could it be?

1) Famine
2) Power struggle
3) ??

If it is power struggle as we see it right now, it could be a total miscalculation to invade the South.

That would leave some others to negotiate themselves out of a real war (which they should know that cannot be won). Who will then be "King of the Heap'?

Ivan
 

sharlin

Banned
MattII said:
Would the Kims be stupid enough to try using dirty-bombs do you think?
Click to expand...

Lacking a means of delivery again is a big problem and a dirty bomb would only affect a fairly small area, unless they somehow got a neutron bomb a dirty device is only of use against Seoul and thats if you can make it in time and deliver it. With the state of NK tech i'd say they'd not be able to mate it to a Scud type weapon so its going to have to be air dropped which means using it on an IL-28

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-28

Against anything remotely modern that thing is woefully vulnerable so the dirty bomb probably would not reach its target.
 
Plumber

Plumber

Easy. Carter doesn't conduct his private diplomacy in June, which Clinton was forced to accept so as to not make the US look foolish. The Agreed Framework happened in October. So it looks like this is going to unite the Koreas, kill a lot of people, and butterfly away the Republican Revolution because Clinton's popularity is going to jump 30 points at least.
 

deathscompanion1

Banned
Plumber said:
Easy. Carter doesn't conduct his private diplomacy in June, which Clinton was forced to accept so as to not make the US look foolish. The Agreed Framework happened in October. So it looks like this is going to unite the Koreas, kill a lot of people, and butterfly away the Republican Revolution because Clinton's popularity is going to jump 30 points at least.
Click to expand...

Unless tens of thousands of Americans and allied soldiers die and the economy takes a major hit.
 

General Tirpitz

North Korea was suffering a famine in the mid-90's which should be taken into account when estimating their capabilities. While the military was prioritized as a part of Songun policy, many soldiers still didn't get enough food and were expected to find ways to feed themselves by their own. During this time state control pretty much ceased to exist in many areas of the country.
 
Plumber

Plumber

deathscompanion1 said:
Unless tens of thousands of Americans and allied soldiers die and the economy takes a major hit.
Click to expand...

No. The rally-around-the-flag effect is a positive, especially since North Korea is going to be the aggressor. There really isn't an equivalent after Pearl Harbor until 9/11 IOTL of an enemy attacking America first. There will literally be no opposition to defending ourselves in a war once we are attacked. It took over a decade for the majority of Americans to stop supporting the Afghan War.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top