US Invasion to North Korea

[Unconsensual]

I dont think China would want a united Korea on its border. Looking at history centuries ago Korea and China were bitter enemies similar to Vietnamese and Chinese.

Now its possible that over time South Koreans and Chinese will develop enough economic and cultural ties, and possible military, that the Chinese will no longer fear or hate Koreans and they might be open to a united Korea on their border and then they would drop their support of NK.

What are you talking about? The Vietnamese are frosty with the PRC but they compromise for Chinese money. The Koreans currently have good relations with the PRC, and even if they were united the power factor would be relatively unchanged.

I'm not sure where your getting the historical enemies or how that has to do with current affairs.

Anyways it's the same deal all over South-East asia: everyone's too busy getting rich to fight.

 

[MUC]

Funny thread over here:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...0-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009)

 

[Redcat]

Remember the cost. This is not some 1000KG warhead hitting Seattle if you are wrong. It will largely mean abandoning the Western USA for years.

I'm sorry, but this is completely ridiculous. EMP is not some sort of electronic bio-plague that lays waste to a region and makes it uninhabitable. It's a flash burst which (most commonly) temporarily disables and sometimes damages integrated circuit systems and power lines. I'm not sure why, but you seem to believe that EMP has some sort of lingering effect that makes it impossible to repair things. This is completely false.

 

[UrbanRedneck]

What are you talking about? The Vietnamese are frosty with the PRC but they compromise for Chinese money. The Koreans currently have good relations with the PRC, and even if they were united the power factor would be relatively unchanged.

I'm not sure where your getting the historical enemies or how that has to do with current affairs.

Anyways it's the same deal all over South-East asia: everyone's too busy getting rich to fight.

Well then it sounds to me like North Korea should be an Asian problem for Asian nations to deal with. If that area wants to move ahead having a crackpot with nukes isnt going to do anyone any good. I cant see why South Korea, China, and Japan cant get together and come up with a plan to eliminate/disarm the north Korean regime and work to integrate the region into the economics of the area.

And sooner the better.

 

[FDW]

Well then it sounds to me like North Korea should be an Asian problem for Asian nations to deal with. If that area wants to move ahead having a crackpot with nukes isnt going to do anyone any good. I cant see why South Korea, China, and Japan cant get together and come up with a plan to eliminate/disarm the north Korean regime and work to integrate the region into the economics of the area.

And sooner the better.

The Problem with Korea, Japan and China is that they don't trust each other that much, a legacy of the tragedies of the 20th century.

 

[arrowiv]

What would happen to US forces in Korea in the event of Korean reunification under Seoul? Would they remain to maintain local stability (not to mention provide jobs for locals, of course)? Would they also be resticted to a certain boundary somewhat south of the Yalu?

 

[spunkychariot]

What would happen to US forces in Korea in the event of Korean reunification under Seoul? Would they remain to maintain local stability (not to mention provide jobs for locals, of course)? Would they also be resticted to a certain boundary somewhat south of the Yalu?

Well after Korean unification, this new Korea is probably going to be managed mostly by the former South Korean Republic. In the short run I think that the US and Koreans will agree that American troops should stay to help stabilize the North. After the reconstruction period, I see a unified Korean Republic like Germany, a strong economic nation with a good military and housing a few American bases if all goes well. But I don't see a US military presence being there like it is now.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

US positions...

I figure the US will not go any closer to the Chinese border, and may even pull out entirely (lessen tensions between China, SK and US) but keep a naval presence, partly as backup since no one else has a "true" blue water navy, and to reassure US comittment (and nuclear umbrella) to the area. Perhaps even pull out of Okinawa...

My preference for taking out NK is China decapitates the leadership, NK/SK join. China gets preferential business rights, US "donates" $50-60 billion in aid for at least 10 years.

Or, my half baked invasion scheme:
US attempts to bribe colonels and generals to defect or do nothing if attacked. Even a few hours would be critical. Only criteria is our spies can get in and out safely; no need to give NK propaganda coups. If they find out we are bribing, so much the better: they purge, reinforcing our story tis better to bribe than die. A great SecState is needed, to shuttle between China, Russia, Japan, and SK.
As much as I prefer a sneak attack, we will have to demand 30 days to turn over any nuclear devices or war. If they don't, fight like Desert Storm I, with aerial assault for a few weeks. Most of the US and Japanese navy have to be stationed nearby to shoot down any missiles. Above all, treat the enemy with respect, ie they can kill you if you let them. As the US appoaches the Yalu, China swarms across the river. No, really. One, to remind the world they are a power. 2, the keep hundred of thousands of refugees out of China. P-town (can't spell it) will be a bear to take, but maybe China can negotiate a peace.
End result is China gets first rights on minerals, US withdraws out of Okinawa and SK to show not trying to crowd China (fleet still stops by Japan), NK tries to set a goal of reunification in 10-25 years. The above countries all promise a total of $100 billion in aid until reunification (like other foreign aid, loan/give money to a country then make that country buy from you!).
Japan has no nuclear threat, so I can't see any differences. SK is tough, and can stand on her own, but may loosely ally with Russia (least chance of domination compared to China/Japan). China I bet would prefer a split Korea, but at least this way they can import cheap, and sell machinery/steel, plus making the US leave the China Sea. US gets the ship NK stole from them a few decades ago. Might even justify cancelling a Ford carrier or two...

 

[Unconsensual]

What would happen to US forces in Korea in the event of Korean reunification under Seoul? Would they remain to maintain local stability (not to mention provide jobs for locals, of course)? Would they also be resticted to a certain boundary somewhat south of the Yalu?

Probably not, South Korea is quite the military power. It can handle it's own, it's just dwarfed by it's neighbors. Mind you there would still probably be a minor garrison in the South like Germany, SK is one of USA's most consistent allies: they sent thousands to Iraq when even it's butt buddy Canada wouldn't. Furthermore it serves SK as well to ally itself with the USA to counterbalance the hegemony of China.

But SK still has to consider it's relation with China, reducing the US garrison and keeping them south of Seoul would reduce tensions. Besides look at the alternative example; Taiwan is considered by the PRC as a legitimate part of it's territory. You'd see an invasion of Taiwan before Korea.

 

[MattII]

In my sci-fi, China invaded NK (more than a century before the start of the story) after it made a few too many stupid moves. Of course, this raised protests, but the PRC quietened them by handing both Hwangahae, Kangwon and Pyongyang off to the RoK free of charge while gifting Rason Province and Hunchun City off to Russian, plus nominally withdrawing from Tibet and Xinjiang (no-one was fooled though).

 

[Brasidas]

OK, so are you conceding they have a rocket able to reach 100 KM altitude and carry a 1000 kg warhead? Straight up is literally fine. I have show you can build a small enough fission device with 1950 technology to fit on the missile. Explode at about 100KM and you have your east Asia EMP that shuts down the powergrid for 1200-1500 km in all directions.

Yes there longer range missiles have not worked well, but how sure are you the next one will not. Remember the cost. This is not some 1000KG warhead hitting Seattle if you are wrong. It will largely mean abandoning the Western USA for years.

More than enough here for a MAD strategy. And IMO, the fact that after NK had a couple of bombs, GWB stopped talking about attacking them shows they had enough MAD to be effective.

What in the hell are you talking about?

Nukes cause damage. They hurt. Secondary effects include EMP.

You can build an EMP weapon without involving nukes much more cheaply than using a nuke for its EMP. If you've got EMP weapons, you can disrupt the economy and the power grid, sure. But its a one-time effect.

Even with a massive blanket of EMPs covering a hell of a lot land, you're only going to kill electronics and data once.

How do you get "abandoning the western USA"?

 

[sharlin]

I've always thought of the NK bombs as being very crude devices, little more advanced than fatman/littleboy. We know that the Norks have detonated one device in an underground test and being able to build a bomb is an achivement in itself. But mating that with missiles is a different thing entirely.

If the Norks do have the bomb in the quantity they say they have, they are probably at best air dropped weapons of moderate yeild, sub megaton range. And even if they did mate say a 25k kiloton bomb to a missile thats not a city killer and realistically, thats all the North Koreans can hit with a SCUD derivative missile. If it does not get shot down, fail on launch etc.

If they are air dropped, good luck trying to drop one on target. The NKPAAF is so woefully obsolete that its planes would have issues getting into South Korean airspace to deliver the devices.

 

[Unconsensual]

One dimension we over looked here is the fact that alot of the NK military is designed to keep people in rather that fight an invasion. The North Koreans of today do know about the outside world, that's why you see the shift in NK propaganda from "we are the best" to "the world's fine but it is still great to be a nationalist".

A lot of NK airbases aren't supplied with sufficient fuel, partially due to shortage and partially due to the fear of pilots defecting.

Chinese businesses working in NK are guarded with extensive security, least "unpatriotic" ideals and material leaks through.

Political officers have spent 50 years instilling loyalty without an actual war, wonder how effective the forces really are.

On a unrelated point I don't think NK's technology can even touch the American forces intentionally. How the hell is a modified T-50 suppose to take out an Abrams? How the hell are MIGs suppose to match a CAG?

 

[Gunnarnz]

If the Norks do have the bomb in the quantity they say they have, they are probably at best air dropped weapons of moderate yeild, sub megaton range. And even if they did mate say a 25k kiloton bomb to a missile thats not a city kille <snip>

In comparison with the 25 Mt warheads the Soviets put on their SS-18s, no - a 25 Kt warhead isn't very dangerous. But a 25 Kt device is still plenty to kill and injure an awful lot of people. Go to the nuke-map site and set a 25 Kt detonation for your nearest city. After looking at the immediate effects (and seeing how many would be killed just by them), then think about how well the city would deal with the casualties and disruption caused by that area suddenly becoming unusable in the short term - the disruption to transport routes, utilities, communications, and so on. Would emergency services be able to contain the fires before they spread to other parts of the city? How would the public react to a mushroom cloud suddenly appearing only a few kilometers away? How are medical services going to cope with the people who survive the blast but are injured?
Once you take that into account, I suspect that most cities would be inconvenienced a great deal by even something so small as a 25 Kt nuke.

So let's not be too casually dismissive of the possibility of a strike like that. Nuclear weapons aren't evil magic that destroy everything in view, like some people seem to think. But the degree of "inflation" that takes place in other peoples minds ("if the yield isn't measured in megatonnes, it doesn't matter") is equally unhelpful.

 

[proffesional]

will happen

If the U.S want to do it we could and we would

 

[sharlin]

And lets not get into training, the gulf between the West/NATO and Nork forces in terms of training must be huge, hell their pilots have next to no air time due to fuel/spares issues and as was pointed out the gulf between their equipment and the wests is for the most part even bigger than Iraqi/Coallition forces in Desert Storm.

 

[democracy101]

There was a similar thread on this topic a while ago, and I'll repost my response here:

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.

Most of the people on this thread argued about logistics, but assuming that North Korea would be occupied within 5-10 years, if not less, it would almost be a nightmare to establish a more stable government and economy. During the conflict, millions of troops would almost certainly be involved on both sides, and the South Korean government has been trying to figure out how to handle a sudden "peaceful" North Korean collapse for years, if not decades.

Is it that hard to understand that I said this a US invasion?

Well, it's been addressed before, but South Korea will eventually end up taking over what is left over of North Korea. Also, the former will be afraid of retaliation along the border soon after the US invasion, so it would be almost impossible for South Korea to not get involved. After all, you're talking about two countries that have essentially implemented mandatory conscription for more than half a century in case of a widescale conflict, causing them to have the highest amount of reserve troops in the world.

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.

Possibly, and South Korea, with potential US backing, would also attempt to push China out in the short term in order to avoid what occurred in 1951-3, so the result could potentially be chaotic if neither agrees to cooperate.

I dont think China would want a united Korea on its border. Looking at history centuries ago Korea and China were bitter enemies similar to Vietnamese and Chinese.

Now its possible that over time South Koreans and Chinese will develop enough economic and cultural ties, and possible military, that the Chinese will no longer fear or hate Koreans and they might be open to a united Korea on their border and then they would drop their support of NK.

Before the Korean War, the last time that there was prolonged conflict between Korea and China was in 676, when Silla expelled Tang forces. The Mongols and Manchus did invade Korea as well, but the attempts occurred before either unified China. Contrary to your statements, Joseon (Korea) paid tribute frequently to the Ming and the Qing (China) for half a millennium, and was considered to be one of the most favored tributary states at the time, if not the most.

Well then it sounds to me like North Korea should be an Asian problem for Asian nations to deal with. If that area wants to move ahead having a crackpot with nukes isnt going to do anyone any good. I cant see why South Korea, China, and Japan cant get together and come up with a plan to eliminate/disarm the north Korean regime and work to integrate the region into the economics of the area.

And sooner the better.

I will not go into detail here, but both China and South Korea still have frosty relations with the Japanese, mostly because of the atrocities committed during WWII. Meanwhile, Korean sentiment towards the Chinese is not too friendly, as China has attempted to incorporate Goguryeo and Balhae into Chinese history, causing concern that China might attempt to incorporate North Korea directly if it collapses.