AHC: North Korea replaces Iraq

[loneranger]

You know, if North Korea is invaded instead of Iraq, it make take the focus off of terrorism specifically and more onto "bad guys" in a more traditional sense.

Or it could make the US even more paranoid. Expanded Patriot Act, anyone?

 

[Orville_third]

In 2002, NK admitted it had produced nuclear weapons since the 1994 agreement. This upset the US and other UN nations, who sought a solution. North Korea would not give up its nuclear ambitions. Meanwhile, Iraq opened up to UN inspectors, who were making significant inspections. While some elements in the US sought to use force on Iraq, Bush was persuaded by Blair to let inspections occur- and by June, 2003 it was clear that Iraq was disarmed. Meanwhile, North Korea increased their posturing. The Bush administration increased pressure on Beijing to put pressure on North Korea. Unfortunately, Kim Jong-Il expelled the Chinese Ambassador. The PRC sent a message to the United States- if the US invaded Korea, the PRC would assist in the aftermath. The PLA was mobilized and sent to the borders, as the US went to the UN for action. Russia was surprisingly willing to assist and provide troops. The UK and France were willing to send forces, as were Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Japan would provide support. Security Council approval for sanctions was achieved.
The North Koreans launched an artillery barrage, damaging Seoul and other cities in the border area- but soon the aerial bombardment began. Not long after the UN forces swarmed over the border. It took 45 days, and over 2000 US KIA (as well as around 150 UK and France (each), around 100 Canada and Australia (each), around 500 Russian, around 5000 South Korean Military, and 20,000 South Korean Civilian, and about 200 Japanese Civilians. The casualties were far more severe on the North Korean side.

 

[jmc247]

The Communist Party in China believes they benefit from having Stalinist state that is an attention whore I think they are right as it distracts attention away from their own acts which though dictatorial aren't in the same league.

Little Kim would have to really really piss them off to change that calculation.

 

[Airship_pirate1901]

U.S.S. Pueblo

Ah Berumancer you mentioned that for the US to attack North Korea would be for the NK's to attack an American ship. They did attack a US warship in 1975 i believe we did nothing.

 

[TxCoatl1970]

The big problem "W" made when he made his "Axis of Evil" speech is that it made the real villains seem comical and dope-slapping Iraq, the weakest of the bunch and farthest from achieving homemade nuclear weaponry, was that it just made Iran and DPRK push faster to acquire nuclear weaponry.

IMO we missed a major opportunity for a reapprochement with Iran post-9/11.

Iraq was in no position to make any threats after getting pwned in Desert Storm. and the sanctions piled on them afterwards.

So, taking on DPRK. I agree with many upthread posters, you gotta get the PRC aboard with whatever US/ROK action you're going to make.
Without Chinese patronage and diplomatic cover in the UN vetoing any UNSC resolution with any teeth in it against DPRK, North Korea's up @#$%-creek without a paddle.
If they provoke the South Koreans or the Americans once they've gotten Chinese acquiescence to responding in full force to DPRK provocations, God help them and the poor folks in Seoul.

Casualties would be very heavy for the DPRK, but they'd inflict a horrible cost- 250,000 civilians dead and 4X as many wounded if they shelled Seoul any length of time. Lord only knows how many more dead/wounded if the Norks lobbed CW shells at gathering places and bomb shelters.
A small nuke (~30kt) could still kill hundreds of thousands in the right place.

ROK Military casualties would be heavy- maybe 100K dead, 300K-500K really badly wounded during the campaign to bring the DPRK to heel. American and other allied casualties would be pretty grim as well.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

I've always figured if the United States was actually planning on invading N. Korea, the Chinese would just go ahead and invade it first. Or near simultaneously, witht he goal of annexing as much as possible before the Americans got there.

 

[Kooluk Swordsman]

I've always figured if the United States was actually planning on invading N. Korea, the Chinese would just go ahead and invade it first. Or near simultaneously, witht he goal of annexing as much as possible before the Americans got there.

Annexations are sooooo 19th century.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Annexations are sooooo 19th century.

Maybe not in name, but the Chinese would seem to be playing with a deck a few cards short if they just let the U.S. "Liberate" North Korea and hand it to the South or a government of their choice. And actually fighting the U.S. over it doesn't seem a winner either. Taking it for themeselves, and establishing a friendly regieme there would seem to be the smart play. After all, the U.S. could hardly protest the invasion of a nation they are openly planning to invade, and the Chinese would have a faster reaction time (presumably.) Waiting until the U.S. actually crossed the boarder would risk incidents, but could limit casualties significantly.

 

[superjames1992]

well as GWB never won legitematly in 2004 its already not otl

LOLWUT????

Conspiracy theory much?

As to the OP, I don't see much way of it happening short of North Korea going full on insane and invading South Korea. Iraq features very favorable terrain for the modern US military to thrive in and we saw this as the Iraqi government was toppled with great ease. This would not be the case in North Korea, which features very defensible terrain.

Plus, one of the reasons that Bush invaded Iraq, IMO, was to "finish what his daddy started", for better or for worse (in my opinion, for the worse).

 

[Lt.Gen 767]

After all, the U.S. could hardly protest the invasion of a nation they are openly planning to invade

I wouldn't put it past them. If a state doesn't like the actions of another state but they can't do anything thenthey will protest. They need to be on the record opposing it.

the Chinese would have a faster reaction time (presumably.)

Maybe not, the Americans have a large military force in S. Korea prepared to fight the N. Koreans. On the other hand China is allied to N. Korea and would be less prepared to fight a war against them in terms of preplanned tactics and strategies. Even if China does have the bulk of its forces closer to Korea then America.

Apart from those two things I agree with your general theme, China won't be sidelined. If the N. Korean regime does something very stupid (like 9-11) the China might see them as too much of a loose cannon to keep protecting. However I think that even in that situation China will be very opposed to an American invasion. If the worst comes to the worst and China can see no option but forced regime change in Pyongyang they might invade with the Americans.
That would lead to some interesting geopolitics in the late 2000s/early 2010s.

 

[Dan]

Camp David, 1st April 2002, 0900hrs:

"So it's confirmed, these are the criteria on which the decision will be made"
"Yes Mr President"
"OK then, Dick, you can flip the coin. Heads Iraq, Tails North Korea"
"Yessiree Mr President"
Dick Cheyney flips the Quarter in the air, it arcs gracefully before landing on the desk, spinning, rolling and finally coming to rest
"Well, Tails it is Mr President"...

 

[General Tirpitz]

Maybe if the US agreed never to station troops anywhere in Korea ever again?

And economic concessions.

This is basically what Chinese and Americans have been discussing behind closed doors. (There was some stuff on this in cables which Wikileaks published.)

 

[FDW]

There was a TL involving part of this premise a while back, though it had Iraq AND North Korea happening at the same time.

 

[democracy101]

Aside from the fact that North Korea would most likely not provoke the United States into declaring war, and that China would almost certainly intervene in such a scenario, the repercussions in Korea as a whole would be severe.

Assuming that both Koreas will suffer tens/hundreds of thousands of casualties, and that North Korea surrenders soon after Pyongyang is captured, ending the war within a year, it would take at least several decades to rebuild the ruins and attempt to firmly establish a capitalist-oriented economic policy. As a comparison, Germany is still providing economic aid to the east, as it has not fully recovered.

Although China might have a presence within the north for at least several years, the south would still attempt to tackle most of the issues on its own, because it would be wary of a temporary Chinese occupation. During the rebuilding, the global economy as a whole would be significantly affected, but it would be hard to assume to what extent.