4 ms·

Regarding your last paragraph, the operation plans for conflict with north korea are sumarized on wikipedia. They essentially predict the north of south korea

by shubb 13y ago

Regarding your last paragraph, the operation plans for conflict with north korea are sumarized on wikipedia. They essentially predict the north of south korea would be overrun, following artillary bombardment around the border / later Seol. Then the remaining south must hold until marines from the mainland US and Japan can arrive, and then there would be a long and costly war to push back into NK (which the US would win, providing public oppinion held). There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. This could help the US, or create wider conflict, depending on how it played out. Iraq and Afganistan were not wars on the same scale as Vietnam or WW2. NK probably would be. We can all hope it doesn't happen.

leoc 13y ago
> There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. I think most people consider that a near-certainty. The Chinese government has made it evident that it doesn't want a US-aligned Korea sharing a large land border with it, and doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees entering China.
pothibo 13y ago
Very interesting, thanks!
avn2109 13y ago
Invading the DPRK seems like a nightmare and I don't support it. But if the NATO powers were going to do it, I suspect they'd employ an overwhelming first strike, probably from the air/missiles, to knock out DPRK artillery, air power, and rail/logistical targets in the first few minutes of the war. Then they scramble enough planes-and-missiles in DPRK airspace to block out the sun, and any live-fire target or Southward troop movement is immediately deluged with firepower. The American military apparatus still subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the notion that air superiority equals dominance; they've also learned the hard way to avoid boots on the ground if at all possible. This would probably be coupled with massive aerial food aid and propaganda drops to suppress the sort of popular insurrection that bedevils the Americans in Iraq. Then they hope the infantry can saunter in and meet the lightest possible resistance. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so things might not shake out that way.
- shubb 13y ago
  I'm just repeating what wikipedia says was in the OPLAN, which would reflect what the pentagon thinks. I think it did plan to respond to movement south with a first strike, as you say. But NK know that too, presuming they read wikipedia. I think in practice fighting a war is different from how we might think. Some people say that the problem the NK army would have would be keeping its troops supplied, given the lack of petrol, trucks, and food in NK, and presumably destruction of the roads there. Along with the end of incoming food aid, leading to widespread starvation there. I agree with you that the US would win eventually. To me, it looks like the cost would be an aweful lot of dead Koreans on both sides though.
- BrandonMarc 13y ago
  While this is interesting, it ignores the "elephant" in the room, and it's a big one. Or should I say dragon? NK is China's client. An attack on NK would not be taken lightly, and might lead China to retaliate, or disrupt the attack, or just not cooperate. China also knows an attack by Japan, or South Korea, or the US / NATO would have a democratic replacement as a goal, and China would be very nervous at democracy being established at its doorstep. Imagine China invading and imposing their communist ideals in Baja California (after imagining Baja California was the corrupt hellhole NK is now, which is frankly hard to do). Would the US tolerate such action, or would the US openly or clandestinely cause trouble?
  - htns 13y ago
    I'm not so sure China is on good terms with North Korea. They would probably prefer to have a land border with the richer Korea. North Korea is something they are stuck with because changing the status quo would disrupt their interests in South Korea.
  - avn2109 13y ago
    That's a really solid point. From the Chinese perspective, a US invasion of DPRK might be analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis or something.

by shubb 13y ago

leoc 13y ago

> There is some evidence that in that sort of situation, China would invade North Korea, taking the northern third of the country. I think most people consider that a near-certainty. The Chinese government has made it evident that it doesn't want a US-aligned Korea sharing a large land border with it, and doesn't want a flood of Korean refugees entering China.

pothibo 13y ago

Very interesting, thanks!

avn2109 13y ago

Invading the DPRK seems like a nightmare and I don't support it. But if the NATO powers were going to do it, I suspect they'd employ an overwhelming first strike, probably from the air/missiles, to knock out DPRK artillery, air power, and rail/logistical targets in the first few minutes of the war. Then they scramble enough planes-and-missiles in DPRK airspace to block out the sun, and any live-fire target or Southward troop movement is immediately deluged with firepower. The American military apparatus still subscribes, rightly or wrongly, to the notion that air superiority equals dominance; they've also learned the hard way to avoid boots on the ground if at all possible. This would probably be coupled with massive aerial food aid and propaganda drops to suppress the sort of popular insurrection that bedevils the Americans in Iraq. Then they hope the infantry can saunter in and meet the lightest possible resistance. Of course, no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, so things might not shake out that way.

shubb 13y ago
I'm just repeating what wikipedia says was in the OPLAN, which would reflect what the pentagon thinks. I think it did plan to respond to movement south with a first strike, as you say. But NK know that too, presuming they read wikipedia. I think in practice fighting a war is different from how we might think. Some people say that the problem the NK army would have would be keeping its troops supplied, given the lack of petrol, trucks, and food in NK, and presumably destruction of the roads there. Along with the end of incoming food aid, leading to widespread starvation there. I agree with you that the US would win eventually. To me, it looks like the cost would be an aweful lot of dead Koreans on both sides though.
BrandonMarc 13y ago
While this is interesting, it ignores the "elephant" in the room, and it's a big one. Or should I say dragon? NK is China's client. An attack on NK would not be taken lightly, and might lead China to retaliate, or disrupt the attack, or just not cooperate. China also knows an attack by Japan, or South Korea, or the US / NATO would have a democratic replacement as a goal, and China would be very nervous at democracy being established at its doorstep. Imagine China invading and imposing their communist ideals in Baja California (after imagining Baja California was the corrupt hellhole NK is now, which is frankly hard to do). Would the US tolerate such action, or would the US openly or clandestinely cause trouble?
- htns 13y ago
  I'm not so sure China is on good terms with North Korea. They would probably prefer to have a land border with the richer Korea. North Korea is something they are stuck with because changing the status quo would disrupt their interests in South Korea.
- avn2109 13y ago
  That's a really solid point. From the Chinese perspective, a US invasion of DPRK might be analogous to the Cuban Missile Crisis or something.