Second Korean War in 1990-91

[MacCaulay]

I was reading a novel about a Second Korean War in 2004, and a scene in a North Korean BTR-60 caught my eye. One of the commanders of a battalion mentions that he thinks they should've attacked south either after Vietnam (the late-70s, specifically), or during the buildup to Desert Storm in 1990-91.

That's an interesting thought. No one's come at it from that angle, thinking about it in the early 90s except Larry Bond. So...what would've happened had the North Korean military decided to use Desert Storm as a magnet for Western heavy forces and pushed down the peninsula in...say...December 1990?

 

[Cash]

Here's one version in a slightly later time frame.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=108316

 

[chris N]

It would see the total moblization of the US. For the time being additional US Naval and USAF assets would be concentrated to stem the North Koreans drive to the south. One might have also seen the intervention of Japan into the conflict. The government in China would also not be happy about thia action as would Moscow.

 

[Atomo]

The government in China would also not be happy about thia action as would Moscow.

In the 90's during Desert Storm? Yes I agree.
In the 70's after Vietnam, the Chinese maybe, the Soviets no.
The Soviets would love to see the USA take another hit then (at least the military would).

 

[bobbis14]

Don't expect NK to have any really Chinese backing, they're going rouge on this

 

[Wolfman]

In which case, the NKs are screwed, big time...

 

[TheMann]

The South Koreans weren't in Desert Storm, so the ROK Armed Forces are just as stout as they are at any time, and that's still plenty tough, probably too much for the North Koreans to handle anyways. In addition to that, the US would simply mobilize its National Guard units and send them to the place that they were needed less at, which is probably South Korea.

North Korean artillery would shell the shit out of anything within 25 miles or so from the DMZ - bad news for people in Seoul or Incheon - but from there on the ROK Army would meet any NK forces head on, and the South Koreans probably have better gear. They definitely have the better air force, so they'll have air supremacy in no time. The NK numerical advantage is hard to press in terrain like that of the Korean Peninsula.

 

[Cook]

The American forces used in desert storm were mostly troops redeployed from Europe weren’t they?

Did they reduce their forces in Korea at all?

 

[TheMann]

The American forces used in desert storm were mostly troops redeployed from Europe weren’t they?

Did they reduce their forces in Korea at all?

Europe or America, yes. I do believe that the US forces in Korea were not reduced. I know they weren't reduced in Japan, which means USS Kitty Hawk and her battle group will be around, for starters.

 

[Cook]

December 1990?

Mid winter there isn’t it?
And they don’t have mild winters.

Anyone from a cold country want to comment here, would that help NK by reducing US/SK air power or just reduce NK mobility?

 

[TheMann]

Doesn't make much difference. The Korean Peninsula is very rocky. It's not a good place for armored forces, but a really good one for airmobile forces and units that move fast. Airpower in the area, if anything, is gonna be decided by how well NK SAMs work and how accurately US/SK/Allied aircraft can target things.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Europe isn't bound in the Middle East except for the British. Especially the countries that were leaning towards US in the Iraq-War issue. This would be a great oppertunity: they can fight side by side with the US in a war that is not hopelessly unpopulair.

 

[Cook]

Europe isn't bound in the Middle East except for the British. Especially the countries that were leaning towards US in the Iraq-War issue. This would be a great oppertunity: they can fight side by side with the US in a war that is not hopelessly unpopulair.

Did NATO nations have a defence commitment to South Korea?

And if they do what significant forces could they have deployed? They would not have been able to use US sea lift recourses’; they’d have all been tied up with moving US troops and equipment around. It would make more sense for European countries to deploy more to The Gulf; freeing up American forces still in the continental US to go to Korea.

Also, we are talking about 1990-91, the First Gulf War, was that unpopular in Europe? It had general approval most other places.

 

[strangeland]

In 1991, the U.S. was at or near the height of its relative power, and hadn't yet begun the post-Cold War drawdown. There were still plenty of forces which could have been deployed to Korea, though they would have been mainly reserve and National Guard formations. Also, once the fighting in the Middle East ended, the full might of the U.S. military would have been brought to bear.

Also, w/regards to some of the questions above, no, the U.S. did not withdraw any forces from Korea or Japan during the Desert Storm buildup, though the annual Foal Eagle exercise was cancelled.

 

[gtrof]

Also, w/regards to some of the questions above, no, the U.S. did not withdraw any forces from Korea or Japan during the Desert Storm buildup, though the annual Foal Eagle exercise was cancelled.

How easy would it be though for the US to redirect its power to the Far East? In my TL (thanks for mentioning it above Cash ) the USA is able to reinforce Korea at the cost of stopping the war in Iraq 2003. Plus it took a long time to build up in Saudi during Desert Shield. I'm not confident of the military ability at the time to move heavy forces quickly from the US to South Korea. However the ROKA and US forces in country should be able to stop the DPRK invasion. Driving it back to the DMZ is also possible, but conducting an invasion of the North is probably unlikely.

 

[Joseph K.]

In 1990, the North is at the apex of it's strength, and still had a qualitative advantage over the south. Anything that hinders mobility is going to be bad for them, as their concern is going to be taking the south, not defending against an American attack, because if that happens, then they've already lost. My guess is that they wouldn't manage it, the place is too heavily fortified to move that fast.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

In 1990, North Korea can"t expect help from Cjina or the Soviet Union.

 

[HJ Tulp]

Did NATO nations have a defence commitment to South Korea?

And if they do what significant forces could they have deployed? They would not have been able to use US sea lift recourses’; they’d have all been tied up with moving US troops and equipment around. It would make more sense for European countries to deploy more to The Gulf; freeing up American forces still in the continental US to go to Korea.

Also, we are talking about 1990-91, the First Gulf War, was that unpopular in Europe? It had general approval most other places.

Bah I was thinking of the 2nd (or 3rd) Gulf War. Please excuse my brainfart

 

[jaybird]

Doesn't make much difference. The Korean Peninsula is very rocky. It's not a good place for armored forces, but a really good one for airmobile forces and units that move fast. Airpower in the area, if anything, is gonna be decided by how well NK SAMs work and how accurately US/SK/Allied aircraft can target things.

The rough terrain works in the DPRK's favour, IMO, because of their reliance on AAA. Flying CAS over rough terrain is a recipe for lots of empty bunks in Kunsan and Osan.

 

[Uniform 419]

The rough terrain works in the DPRK's favour, IMO, because of their reliance on AAA. Flying CAS over rough terrain is a recipe for lots of empty bunks in Kunsan and Osan.

Why? Rough Terrain means that Allied Aircraft doing CAS can use ground cover/clutter to mask their approach and reduce the amount of time AAA has to detect, target and fire on them.