US Invasion to North Korea

[lucaswillen05]

I wargamed this one some years ago usinfg the GMT Board Game Crisis Korea. For this scenario I assumed the casus belli was North Korea obtaining a small number of nuclear weapons. The actual number was determined by dice roll. Nuclear use rules were written for both sides and opossible US/world responses determined by dice roll. In the event nobody used the nukes and the war stayed convebntional.

The war opened with a Desert Storm style air camp[aign while the US moved armoured divisions into the theatre. In the initial air attacks the North Korean airforce took to the skies and was mostly shot down in the initial air battles. The rest stayed on the ground for possible later use. The US airforce then went after the North's air defenes targeting the radars to miinimise the effectiveness of the system. Once that was complete the airforxce started going after the North's ground units and supply dumps. A couple of weeks into the war the North lauanched a Khafji sized offensive on the West coast that was swiftly crushed.

Following five weeks of aerial bombardment the full US force including the mechanized divisions massed o the West coast, the Marines (at sea preparing an invasion of the West Coast) the 82nd Airborne division and the 101st Air Mobile Division were in position ready to launch an armoured blitzkrieg to Pyongyang.

The ground invasion began with a massive Mariine laanding supported by the 101s and 82nd to cut off the defenders of the fortified border regions from North Korean armoured reserves which had been heavily bombed by this point. Supported by massive aerial bombing and tactical air support the US with the South Korean army support smashed through the DMZ defences in three days heavy fighting to link u with the Marine and airborne units. The North Koreans moved their armour spoouth to attempt a counter attack or a stand of some sort but these were targetted with massive air attacks as tey attempted to move to the front and the remnans smashed by US armour south of Pyongyang.

US armour and heliborne units now mounted an envelopmment of the North Korean capital prior to storming the city in heavy fighting. With theloss of the capial a surrender check was needed to determine if the North capitulaed. Which turned out to be the result. However there were still many North Korean militia units scattered around the rest of the country along wth regular army units so an insurgency war in the cities and mountains was possible. Chinese intervention was also another possibility.

 

[gaijin]

So basically your scenario depends on the North Koreans doing exactly what the Iraqis did in 1990. What if they decide to not follow your plan??? For example, the US starts building up forces, but before they can bring in enough troops the Nort Koreans attack.

Option two the north Koreans copy the Serbian tactics from thekosovo war. Hide most material in old buildings, forests etc. Build massive amounts of decoys for the air force to bomb, turn of your air defense grid, only sometimes turn it. On to take pots lts when the chance is good. Once the americans in invade, let most of the fighting be done by the local militia. Lure them into the country, so they start building up supplylines in the country. If a chance arrives fall on an American formation, cut it off from supplies and try to overwhelm it. Massive casulties are guaranteed for the Nort Koreans, so that's not gonna stop them.

Main point, don't expect them to play your game. They have lots of people sitting around thinking about this. I am sure they have some nasty little ideas.

 

[BlairWitch749]

what's with this idea that SK would be the only one investing in an opened up NK after a conflict

NK has trillions of dollars in rare earth metals inside their borders; China, Russia and Japan will all want to get in on that

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/08/21/rare-earth-metals-north-koreas-new-trump-card/

 

[gaijin]

Well like anything related to raw material extraction it involves massive amounts and capital and long planning. Don't expect too many investments as long as the place isn't completely stabilized. Basically, you will need to win the war and mos likely the insurgency that follows, before you can start investing.

 

[Whodoyouthinkiam]

Well like anything related to raw material extraction it involves massive amounts and capital and long planning. Don't expect too many investments as long as the place isn't completely stabilized. Basically, you will need to win the war and mos likely the insurgency that follows, before you can start investing.

I'm not certain that there's going to BE an insurgency - at least not on any kind of full-blown Iraq-scale.
Though loyalists to the former regime would be a problem for a while.

I think the problem is the liberation itself, taking down the only thing that works in NK (its military), and managing to get enough occupation forces on the ground, to prevent mass riots, and anarchy.

 

[Unconsensual]

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.

Ugh no? You overstate Chinese influence in NK, considering that NK has done plenty of things to piss off China despite it being it's only friend.

Furthermore the ideologues of the Korean war aren't in power anymore. The current generation of leadership in the PRC are technocratic princes, they care more for money and stability than conflict with the west. Most important of all is that they know that they can't win militarily and aren't willing to risk the domestic upheaval a war with America will bring.

 

[spunkychariot]

The only way I see the US successfully invading and rooting out the autocracy in North Korea is if they had the backing of the UN like they did in the Gulf War when the UN authorized 30+ nations to negate the Iraq's annexation of Kuwait.

If it's more of a unilateral US declaration of war then I see that China and even Russia get into the mix. This could lead to some very disastrous situations since 2 or 3 nuclear powers are going at it. If any military attack is used on North Korea then it's very probable that South Korea will see some action.

And this is why none of the great powers in the world want to invade North Korea even though it's a small country with ineffective leadership and a degrading economy. China has been forced to side with North Korea because of the fear of losing prestige if it abandons the communist nation that it had SACRIFICED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES for in the Korean War. And if you think that prestige is an insignificant factor that could be "ignored because it's just the useless belief that a country is great" then you know NOTHING about how patriotism effects the collective psychology of a nation.

The US is afraid that if the Chinese support the North Koreans when they attack (or even worse Russia and China support the North Koreans) then it could lead to nuclear war or a protracted war like Vietnam (it will be a long time before the US forgets about Vietnam if ever).

The only way I see that the US can win with certainty is if North Korea does something that makes China lose respect for it's ally to the point that it supports a UN authorized invasion. If not, then in a nuclear war everyone loses.

 

[Unconsensual]

And this is why none of the great powers in the world want to invade North Korea even though it's a small country with ineffective leadership and a degrading economy. China has been forced to side with North Korea because of the fear of losing prestige if it abandons the communist nation that it had SACRIFICED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES for in the Korean War. And if you think that prestige is an insignificant factor that could be "ignored because it's just the useless belief that a country is great" then you know NOTHING about how patriotism effects the collective psychology of a nation.

Whoa there, just hold on a second there. If you browse Chinese forums, you often find that the average Chinese man isn't too fond of North Korea, the Kims (our glorious fat leader), or for the fact the Vietnamese and Korean wars. Even the ultra-nationalists, the anti-westerners, and the racial supremacists don't like NK's perceived erratic and disloyal behaviour.

The PRC supports NK, but I doubt they would jeopardize their economic gains to support NK directly.

And as for Russia? NK was the outback 60 years ago, and it hasn't changed since.

 

[Dave Howery]

it's hard to see the US just unilaterally invading during the Clinton era of the 90s, when US/NK relations were at their most dismal, and the NK military hadn't degraded so badly as it is now... Clinton wasn't the type to take such a huge risk. Same goes for Bush 2's term, when the US military was tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq. So, if there is going to be a US invasion of the north, it's going to be in response to a severe NK provocation, such as them invading the south first, or launching big attacks across the border. And there's no way in hell that SK is going to stay out of it...

 

[Blackfox5]

The US would never take action against North Korea except in unison with South Korea. First, any action taken will affect South Korea, and it's important for both countries to be onboard. Destroying the relationship with South Korea because the US never bothered to consider potenital blowback to South Korea (the North Koreans will shell Seoul just for the hell of it) would be dumb. Second, the US will need to use South Korea as a staging base because of its location and size. Using Okinawa or Guam just will not cut it. Third, the North Koreans will have their own playback. They will use attacks on both South Korea and possibly Japan as a means to get those nations to use diplomatic pressure on the US to end the war since they are suffering because of it. Regardless of whether you think such tactics will work, it's going to be something North Korea will try.

 

[Alex1guy]

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.

I should probably withdraw about Seoul being destroyed, but it will take a decent ammount of damage and many South Koreans will be killed. I guess the point I was trying to make is that the North Koreans will attempt to bomb the South Korean capital in the event of an invasion by the West, and that the US attacking North Korea will ALWAYS drag the South Koreans in.

 

[BlondieBC]

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.

The nukes are very practical, the USA does not want to talk about how they will be used, but it is obvious. EMP. Simple fission devices give you about half the maximum EMP burst. Accuracy only needs to be withing 10's of miles of target. You can actually get away with a few hundred.

One straight up over Korea takes out East Asia. Very hard to stop because you have to hit it going up in the first 100 miles. They try to hit Western USA if their longest range missile has advertised range. Lose power west of Great Plains including California. Shoot one towards Middle East - Shut down oil fields. Instant MAD. The probably have enough nukes to assign 2-3 to each task to make up for interception and reliability of missiles.

Okinawa is a lot less useful without a power grid or any electronics of any kind that is not shielded. Hawaii can also be hit.

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

The nukes are very practical, the USA does not want to talk about how they will be used, but it is obvious. EMP. Simple fission devices give you about half the maximum EMP burst. Accuracy only needs to be withing 10's of miles of target. You can actually get away with a few hundred.

One straight up over Korea takes out East Asia. Very hard to stop because you have to hit it going up in the first 100 miles. They try to hit Western USA if their longest range missile has advertised range. Lose power west of Great Plains including California. Shoot one towards Middle East - Shut down oil fields. Instant MAD. The probably have enough nukes to assign 2-3 to each task to make up for interception and reliability of missiles.

Okinawa is a lot less useful without a power grid or any electronics of any kind that is not shielded. Hawaii can also be hit.

Ugh. The norks are not going to launch a super EMP missile from their secret volcano base. Given their track record with missiles, I doubt they'll be launching much of anything. Even then, this scenario completely ignores the possibility of interception. Hitting a small number of targets is relatively easy if you have enough interceptors.

But that is irrelavent, since there really isn't any proof that the DPRK's nuclear devices are even capable of being mounted onto any sort of missile. A trinity type device is a very, very far cry from a missile warhead; let alone a missile warhead that can be detonated at the correct height to produce a good EMP pattern.

 

[ModernKiwi]

That would be nukes lauched with the same missle systems they have yet to have a successful test launch with???

 

[BlondieBC]

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?

Sure they will fit. Simple fission devices. 5KT is fine, more is better.

How do you figure they will not fit? What weight are you assuming the weapons will be? Payload of missile?

For the EMP over east Asia, you could literally use a V-2 from the WW2 era. All you need is to detonate at the right altitude.

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.

Many hours on artillery.

The NK suffered greatly to air interdiction. So they have spent 60 years burying most of the stuff. Each artillery piece will take a precision strike. Often it will be buried inside of a mountain with multiple tracks to the surface. You either have to catch it shooting or destroy up to 3 exits.

It has been a long time since I have looked up the numbers, but 10,000 artillery pieces comes to mind. So at a round every 2 minutes, it will be 5000 rounds per minute. Seoul will be destroyed long before we get most of the NK guns. I don't know if you have every seen a 100 or 200 pound of military grade HE explode, but it is quite destructive.

 

[BlondieBC]

That would be nukes lauched with the same missle systems they have yet to have a successful test launch with???

Many of their test have worked, but some have not. It is why I suggested they use multiple missiles per target. How high a % chance of the USA losing the powergrid and ALL electronics west of the Great Plains is Bush/Obama willing to tolerate?

No water. No power. No sanitation. No California IT industry. No working cars made in last 25 years. Most seriously sick people in hospitals immediately die. Civilian airlines fall from sky. Ports are shut down unless you unload with human muscle power. We likely have to move the population of these areas out until we rebuild the grid, which will take years.

Ugh. The norks are not going to launch a super EMP missile from their secret volcano base. Given their track record with missiles, I doubt they'll be launching much of anything. Even then, this scenario completely ignores the possibility of interception. Hitting a small number of targets is relatively easy if you have enough interceptors.

But that is irrelavent, since there really isn't any proof that the DPRK's nuclear devices are even capable of being mounted onto any sort of missile. A trinity type device is a very, very far cry from a missile warhead; let alone a missile warhead that can be detonated at the correct height to produce a good EMP pattern.

What about the missile do you see as "super"? And do you have any evidence they can't? The bomb is well within the weight ranges of the missiles. They have multiple missiles with about a 1 ton payload.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hwasong-5 -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodong-2

The critical payload is about 50 kg or less, leaving them 950 kg for the rest of the warhead. Also, these warheads don't really reenter the atmosphere, and in the case of the East Asian EMP bomb can explode on the way up.

Now yes, the USA shot is with the missile that has a lot of reliability issues.

 

[ModernKiwi]

North Korea only has a few 170mm artillery systems that are capable of reaching Seoul (for the second time). So unless they've decided to move their artillery park forward (you know, out into the open and south of the border) then they don't have the ability to hit Seoul with thousands (or probably even hundreds) of rounds per hour. The US equivelent system was capable of a sustained ROF of 1 round every two minutes...

 

[Hipsterredneck556]

Sure they will fit. Simple fission devices. 5KT is fine, more is better.

How do you figure they will not fit? What weight are you assuming the weapons will be? Payload of missile?

For the EMP over east Asia, you could literally use a V-2 from the WW2 era. All you need is to detonate at the right altitude.



Many hours on artillery.

The NK suffered greatly to air interdiction. So they have spent 60 years burying most of the stuff. Each artillery piece will take a precision strike. Often it will be buried inside of a mountain with multiple tracks to the surface. You either have to catch it shooting or destroy up to 3 exits.

It has been a long time since I have looked up the numbers, but 10,000 artillery pieces comes to mind. So at a round every 2 minutes, it will be 5000 rounds per minute. Seoul will be destroyed long before we get most of the NK guns. I don't know if you have every seen a 100 or 200 pound of military grade HE explode, but it is quite destructive.

1. Taking a crude "device" and turning into a usable nuclear warhead, and then fusing it to explode at a precise spot takes a lot of technical know-how and skill. The Norks still have "devices", not warheads. You are also ignoring the fact that the DPRK doesn't have a missile that can carry a warhead a significant distance, let alone the USA.

2. The "DPRK can flatten Seoul with artillery" statement has already been debunked in this thread. Alot of their guns don't have the range to do it.

 

[ModernKiwi]

Many of their test have worked, but some have not. It is why I suggested they use multiple missiles per target. How high a % chance of the USA losing the powergrid and ALL electronics west of the Great Plains is Bush/Obama willing to tolerate?

...

Short range system tests have worked. Their multi-stage rocket system that is capable of reaching the US has not. Every test to date has resulted in a break up shortly after launch.

 

[BlondieBC]

1. Taking a crude "device" and turning into a usable nuclear warhead, and then fusing it to explode at a precise spot takes a lot of technical know-how and skill. The Norks still have "devices", not warheads. You are also ignoring the fact that the DPRK doesn't have a missile that can carry a warhead a significant distance, let alone the USA.

2. The "DPRK can flatten Seoul with artillery" statement has already been debunked in this thread. Alot of their guns don't have the range to do it.

One #1, I think you are missing the point. It is not a complicated device. The USA had one in the weight range in the 1940's. T-1. And there is nothing that has to be precise. We are talking a simple fission device explode at about 100 KM altitude. These weapons could have been used in the 1940's if people understood EMP. You can do this low tech all the way with 1950 technology. I linked some missiles early and source. Do you have a source for your information?

One #2, your statement contradicts every analysis I have read. Do you have a source?
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html