Bluewing, why should we participate to an attack on North Korea while we have nothing to earn and only to loose?

BTW I think that amphibious landing is possible on north Korea with US air power.Now to go further than a beach head would take sometime.

But North Korea would retaliate on Seoul probably.

And it would be a massacre of north korean.North Korea could reply by nuke on US bases on South Korea or Japan or even Japan.itself.

China would be mad and try to help North Korean(probably indirectly) to avoid a pro US regime at its borders.

Quite dangerous to fight an hopeless regime backed in the corner and whom existence satisfy both Beijing and Moscow..

 

 

"The bloody solution of the crisis, the effort for the destruction of the enemy's forces, is the first-born son of war."
- Karl von Clausewitz

 

Nothing less than the complete destruction of NK's ability to wage war would be the objective. It would be bloody since few countries are so militarized. Civilian casualties would be high. Mass bombing would be the first phase of the war. Any time NorK army units tried to move they would be obliterated by airstrikes. This phase would last up to a month and would include trying to eliminate leadership figures, generals and politicians. Without them, the war would quickly end.  The second phase would be an invasion. It would have to go through the DMZ; We would have to assume that Seoul would be completely destroyed, of course; We would have to assume widespread opposition from SK on every level. Any allied troop movements would be hindered going to the front by SK civilians. Any SK gov't that supported this war would would fall immediately.

 

The third phase, the aftermath, would be a real mess. Who would foot the bill?

 

All in all, a political solution is needed here. Militarily, it can't be done. Which is why no one has tried to crack this nut.

I was initially going to play along with this scenario, but French Statege's opening sentence almost completely turned me off.  What is it going to take for you people to realize how much of a danger it is for the whole world for rogue states like North Korea and Iran to possess nuclear weapons?  Is it going to take mushroom clouds going off in Paris or Berlin for you guys to get on board?

 

Anyway, I have to agree with the last post to a point.  The only way we can solve this problem is politically and diplomatically.  A preemptive military action against North Korea would be a bloody mess.  I think that the only thing that could provoke military action on the part of US/UK/ France (ahem) would be if Kim Jong Il threatened to deploy nuclear weapons as a blackmail weapon.  This could take a couple of different forms.  Kim could hint that he may be willing to sell his nuclear weapons to the highest bidders.  The West may feel pressured to pay whatever price he asks, hoping to buy up his stockpile, but there is the risk that he may sell a few on the cheap (still billions) to terrorists for cold, hard cash.  The other scenario is that Kim could threaten a preemptive nuclear strike if they perceive the US or South Korea are planning to attack the North.  Depending upon how seriously the US or South Korea takes that threat, it could effectively freeze many military operations in the region, which could make US/ROK forces less prepared if the North launches an invasion, and could keep US Naval forces at a safe distance. 

 

I firmly believe that the US would be able to fairly quickly establish air superiority, and with the assistance of Rafales from the Charles de Gaulle  as well as Royal Navy/RAF fighters that task would go that much easier.  They could then begin focusing on NK ground targets and infrastructure.  On the ground I would think that the main strategy would be to simply hold off a North Korean ground invasion for as long as possible while the fly boys do their job of tearing the North Korean military apart from the air.  I believe that the US and ROK armies could hold off the NK on their own, but fresh British, French, Australian, or even Japanese troops would be a big help, even if they were held in reserve.  Maybe we can convince the Turks to send us a regiment or two (shout out to Kane). 

 

I have to believe that the Western military planners would be trying to either eliminate the military leadership (namely, Kim) or disrupt the infrastructure in North Korea so badly that the North Korean military leaders take Kim out on their own to end the slaughter.  The Chineses could be instrumental in brokering some sort of cease fire, which is something they may be eager to do because they could very well experience a massive flood of refugees once the war starts, especially if the war goes nuclear. 

 

On that note, the only way I could see the United States using nuclear weapons is if the NKs used them first, and even then our use would very, very selective, and confined to North Korean nuclear targets.  Unfortunately, I would not expect Seoul to survive if even so much as a single nuclear weapon was deployed in the conflict.  Still, the use of nukes would result in the deaths of tens of thousands, and depending upon how well the NK nukes work they could result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands or even a million or more, mostly civilians.  I would not expect the British or French to deploy nukes no matter what happens during the conflict, but I could be wrong.  Maybe some of the French or British posters could set me straight on that one, but I'm betting that they will let us do the dirty work on this one, and if Kim attacked our troops with nukes the American people will demand that we react in kind. 

 

The West would win a war against North Korea, and I believe that North Korea would effectively cease to exist as a state, but the cost of such a war is so high that everyone is working their butts off to avoid it.  The US public is already war weary, but if a war in Korea goes nuclear then we could lose more soldiers in one day than we've lost in four years in Iraq and Afghanistan.  On top of that, the reconstruction costs would be enormous.  Unless China intervenes and "saves" North Korea and agrees to take on the costs of post war reconstruction of the North, the world would be suddenly faced with a unified Korea.  One that would be facing a crushing humanitarian disaster.  The old South Korean economy would be set back decades and the government would be forced to somehow integrate a backwards society of millions into a modern, hi tech Asian society of the South.  Nobody wants to deal with this because we (the US) know that the Koreans will expect us to foot part of the bill. 

 

A war in Korea in winnable, but very much unwanted. 

I think that the assumption that seol will be nuked is a bit overblown.  some questions about NK's nuclear success chance

 

1)--how many functional nukes does NK have...(best estimates)?

2)--what are the likely delivery methods for these warheads...part of this question has to do with how big these weapons are?

3)--how big is the window that NK will likely have to use each of the nuclear delivery methods before the US/UK/French coalition destroys their capability for each type of nuclear attack?

4)--what are the available defenses that either of these 3 countries can deploy against nuclear attack?

5)--what are the successful interception chances of each of these defenses against each likely delivery method?

6)--what is the likelyhood that the regime will effectively commit suicide by using nukes in the first place? (losing the war doesnt mean death for the leadership, they could always escape to china and seek refuge there)

7)--what is the likelyhood that the regime will choose seol over allied bases, ship concentrations, invading armored forces, ect.

You're thinking like a rational person, and that's the problem when trying to guess what a guy like Kim Jong Il would do in the event war breaks out on the Korean peninsula.  For Kim a war would be an all or nothing affair.  He either wins an "all-out" victory (whatever that may be in his twisted little mind) or he ends up dead, and he knows it.  The best he can hope for in any North Korean loss in a war is a long, boring exile in China, and he would still spend the rest of his life hoping that the Chinese won't eventually extradite him to South Korea or Japan. 

 

There are millions of North Koreans willing to risk their lives for Kim Jong Il.  The indoctrination of the North Korean people is well into its third and fourth generations, and for many of those people the specter of the North Korean regime collapsing would be almost apocalyptic.    Sure, there would be some members of the North Korean military and government that aren't willing to die for Kim, and it would be up to them to take Kim out before things got out of hand.  I feel that Kim would go nuclear if he was losing for no other reason than he is insane and would want to go out in a blaze of glory. 

 

I don't know for certain whether or not North Korea actually has functioning nuclear weapons, and I'm not sure that anyone else is either.   If he doesn't, then all of this is a moot point, but the possibility that he does is what's driving the debate.  He certainly wants everyone to assume he does.  Now let's assume for the sake of argument that North Korea has a handful of nukes (a half dozen or so).  The next question would be the types of delivery systems North Korea has at its disposal.  That would of course depend upon the size and sophistication of the device.  A device the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima could be transported in the back of a large truck or in a cargo aircraft.  A bomb of a hundred pounds or less could be transported for a short distance by a single man.  All they would need to do is get the bomb close to the DMZ and detonate it.  The North Koreans would only need to enter the suburbs of Seoul and hold it for a day or so (or less) in order to bring in a nuclear device capable of destroying much of the city and causing a panic.  In a best (worst) case scenario they could fit a relatively small nuclear dumb bomb to a MiG fighter, and by flying nap of the earth penetrate into the South and target military and civilian targets. 

 

That is why the United States is so stingy when it comes to nuclear weapons.  Sure, we could destroy the world many times over with our stockpile, but we are still afraid of a rogue nation owning even a single nuke of even relatively low yield.  It's like the war on terrorism in many respects:  we have to be right every single time, but they only have to be right once.  A single nuclear bomb in the back of a truck in Baghdad or planted in a warehouse in New York could cause immeasureable damage.  We could take out most of North Korea's nuclear stockpile in surgical air strikes, but if a single device is deployed thousands will die and the United States will be blamed. 

I'm with Scuttle on the nuclear weapon issue. The DPRK might have a fizzle bomb or two, but their technology does not impress me.

 

The big disaster is the DPRK itself. You have twenty five million instant refugees once the Second Korean War kicks off.

 

As for Kim Jong Ill? The PRCs will kill their stooge the minute he blows up NW Asia. Despite their bandit nature, and their eventual desire to loot the Western Pacific and East Asia, the last thing the PRCs want NOW is a war with the United States.

 

Herald