Korean situation thread

[Simon_Jester]

Other than putting people's minds at ease, what tangible effect would this even have on the region? NK can't realistically expect to mount an invasion of the south without getting promptly curb-stomped by SK and her regional allies, and if they want to go nuclear then the US can obligingly retaliate in short order.

Have I missed something obvious here?

Well, some of the systems that would be placed in Korea might have range to hit China or (conceivably) Russia, which may make them a bit nervous. I dunno.

One point here is that nuclear-equipped US forces in South Korea would act as a tripwire: attack these troops and they will use nukes in self-defense, committing us to a nuclear war no matter what. That's massively reassuring to allies, who are likely to be a bit suspicious about our commitment to such a war normally.

As I mentioned before in the ABM thread, think about it like this. Suppose the North Koreans have some few long range ballistic missiles that can hit the west coast of the US, at least in principle. Suppose they invade South Korea, and use nuclear weapons to devastate the country. Will the US use its nuclear deterrent on North Korea in retaliation?

You might say "yes, of course." But what if the North Koreans threaten to fire their long range missiles at the US in retaliation for our use of nukes against them? Are we willing to risk losing, say, Honolulu, San Francisco, and Seattle to avenge South Korea? The South Koreans might reasonably wonder.

Placing tactical nukes in the area of operations thus acts to reassure them of our commitment- and also to discourage the North Koreans from trying the strategy I just described, since while that might conceivably the US from hitting them with ICBMs or nuclear bombers, it won't stop the Second Infantry Division from firing nuclear-tipped Tomahawk missiles on their troops to stop the North Koreans from overrunning them.

[adam_grif]

As I mentioned before in the ABM thread, think about it like this. Suppose the North Koreans have some few long range ballistic missiles that can hit the west coast of the US, at least in principle. Suppose they invade South Korea, and use nuclear weapons to devastate the country. Will the US use its nuclear deterrent on North Korea in retaliation?

You might say "yes, of course." But what if the North Koreans threaten to fire their long range missiles at the US in retaliation for our use of nukes against them? Are we willing to risk losing, say, Honolulu, San Francisco, and Seattle to avenge South Korea? The South Koreans might reasonably wonder.

Yes, of course. The United States being willing to do exactly that is why NK will never use their arsenal in the first place. Your argument here could be generalized to "Imagine if North Korea nukes Hawaii, but threatens to nuke five mainland cities if the United States retaliates." You will say "no that's different, they're nuking US soil instead of just a close US ally", but the difference there is irrelevant. So long as the United States is willing to follow through with what you percieve as an "irrational" retaliation, then the initial spark to set it off won't be happening. US citizens and soldiers (USFK etc) are stationed in the south, and a nuclear annihilation of the South means Americans directly attacked with them.

As it stands, Schatts seems to think that the NK nuclear arsenal can't be missile based anyway, and NK has no plausible means of delivering the weapons to the south OR to China, Japan etc because all of the above countries would own the skies in any conflict. This leaves possible nuclear terrorism (slipping a device in on a cargo plane or something), but after the initial detonation there would be zero chance of followups, and NK will not be surviving the night.

[montypython]

The media needs to figure out their fucking priorities

It has.

War between two nations? If it doesn't involve us or our close allies, who gives a shit?

Some European guy having a wedding, a guy's who's most notable archivement is coming out of a royal vagina? STOP THE PRESSES! EVERYONE WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THAT!

It's about fashion and sensationalism, trying to get as many viewers as possible against the competition. Good journalism and news? Won't rise people's emotions (and thus interest) as a good scandal or angry politics (or better yet, angry politicians).

Modern media in a way is more reminiscent of the 1890's than during the Cold War era, I mean news about conflicts around the world would always be significant news to be announced then, although not nowadays.

[AniThyng]

It seems ironic that for all the whinging about the media not paying this enough attention, the thread itself is kind of "only" 3 pages long. Could it be...that there really isn't much happening that needs "up to the minute" attention I mean, yeah, ok, NK shelled an SK village, SK retaliated...now...we wait...and wait..and wait...oh, the foreign minister said something...wait...wait...wait...oh, Obama said something else...wait...wait..wait...WW3, not happening yet...wait...I think we can forgive the media if they spend some of that time to talk about whatever else is happening in the world.

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, of course. The United States being willing to do exactly that is why NK will never use their arsenal in the first place. Your argument here could be generalized to "Imagine if North Korea nukes Hawaii, but threatens to nuke five mainland cities if the United States retaliates." You will say "no that's different, they're nuking US soil instead of just a close US ally", but the difference there is irrelevant. So long as the United States is willing to follow through with what you percieve as an "irrational" retaliation, then the initial spark to set it off won't be happening. US citizens and soldiers (USFK etc) are stationed in the south, and a nuclear annihilation of the South means Americans directly attacked with them.

Remember, I'm talking as much about creating an impression in Korea as I am about the realities.

Even if every American knows in their bones that we'd risk losing Seattle and Los Angeles to avenge Seoul, the South Koreans themselves have a right to ask for some more concrete reassurance of that. And it's in our interests to give the North Koreans a concrete assurance of that, to discourage them from doing something rash.

Tactical nukes in Korea are that assurance, more so than just the presence of American citizens and American troops.

The 'nuclear tripwire' aspect of nuclear-equipped front line military forces is a fairly well known concept in this kind of thinking, from what I know about it.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Even if every American knows in their bones that we'd risk losing Seattle and Los Angeles to avenge Seoul, the South Koreans themselves have a right to ask for some more concrete reassurance of that.

It's easy to say that when you don't live in LA.

[Winston Blake]

You'd think there would be minute-by-minute updates for something like this...I'm not seeing it and I have to say I'm intensely interested to see how this plays out.

There were running updates here for a while, but they've stopped. Still worth a read.

[Broomstick]

Personally, I view the lack of breathless, up-to-the-minute breaking news update as a positive in a volatile situation such as this. I'm not at all eager to see another war break out, much less one that might involve nukes, thank you very much.

[Lusankya]

I feel kinda guilty, because while all this is going on, one of the main issues in my mind is “I hope this doesn't ruin my summer holiday plans." (I really want to visit North Korea this summer, and this is just the type of situation that's likely to lead to extra travel restrictions.)

[J]

US Aircraft Carrier group on the way

Reuters link

U.S. aircraft carrier heads for Korean waters
By Jack Kim and Lee Jae-won

INCHEON, South Korea | Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:56am EST

INCHEON, South Korea (Reuters) - A U.S. aircraft carrier group set off for Korean waters on Wednesday, a day after North Korea rained artillery shells on a South Korean island, in a move likely to enrage Pyongyang and unsettle its ally, China.

South Korea said the bodies of two civilians were found on the island after Tuesday's attack, which is likely to stir up more resentment in the country against its prickly neighbor.

The nuclear-powered USS George Washington, which carries 75 warplanes and has a crew of over 6,000, left a naval base south of Tokyo and would join exercises with South Korea from Sunday to the following Wednesday, U.S. officials in Seoul said.

"This exercise is defensive in nature," U.S. Forces Korea said in a statement. "While planned well before yesterday's unprovoked artillery attack, it demonstrates the strength of the ROK (South Korea)-U.S. alliance and our commitment to regional stability through deterrence."

North Korea said the South was driving the peninsula to the "brink of war" with "reckless military provocation" and by postponing humanitarian aid, the North's official KCNA news agency said. The dispatch did not refer to the planned military drills.

The government in Seoul came under pressure for the military's slow response to the provocation, echoing similar complaints made when a warship was sunk in March in the same area, killing 46 sailors.

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young was grilled by lawmakers who said the government should have taken quicker and stronger retaliatory measures against the North's provocation.

"I am sorry that the government has not carried out ruthless bombing through jet fighters during the North's second round of shelling," said Kim Jang-soo, a lawmaker of ruling Grand National Party and a former defense minister.

Tuesday's attack was the heaviest in the region since the Korean War ended in 1953, and marked the first civilian deaths in an assault since the bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987.

The United States and Japan urged China to do more to rein in North Korea after the reclusive nation fired scores of artillery shells on Tuesday at a South Korean island near the maritime boundary between the two sides.

Beijing will not be pleased by the deployment of the aircraft carrier and will not respond to such pressure, said Xu Guangyu, a retired major-general in the People's Liberation Army who now works for a government-run arms control organization.

"China will not welcome the U.S. aircraft carrier joining the exercises, because that kind of move can escalate tensions and not relieve them," he said.

"Our biggest objective is stability on the Korean peninsula. That interest is not served by abandoning North Korea, and so there's no need to rethink the basics of the relationship."

Beijing has previously said that an earlier plan to send the USS George Washington to U.S.-South Korea joint exercises threatened long-term damage to Sino-U.S. relations.

Tuesday's bombardment nagged at global markets, already unsettled by worries over Ireland's debt problem and looking to invest in less risky assets. But South Korea's markets, after sharp falls, recovered lost ground.

"If you look back at the last five years when we've had scares, they were all seen as buying opportunities. The rule among hedge funds and long-only funds is that you let the market sell off and watch for your entry point to get involved," said Todd Martin, Asia equity strategist with Societe Generale in Hong Kong.

SEOUL CALM

Pyongyang said the firing was in reaction to military drills conducted by South Korea in the area at the time but Seoul said it had not been firing at the North.

Seoul, a city of over 10 million, was bustling as normal on Wednesday, a sunny autumn day, although developments were being closely watched by office workers on TV and in newspapers. Editorials stepped up pressure on President Lee Myung-bak to respond more toughly than he has to past provocations by the North and two small groups held anti-North Korea protests.

President Barack Obama, woken up in the early hours to be told of the artillery strike, said he was outraged and pressed the North to stop its provocative actions.

Although U.S. officials said the joint exercise was scheduled before the attack by North Korea, it was reminiscent of a crisis in 1996 when then President Bill Clinton sent an aircraft carrier group through the Taiwan Strait after Beijing test-fired missiles into the channel between the mainland and Taiwan.

"My house was burned to the ground," said Cho Soon-ae, 47, who was among 170 or so evacuated from Yeonpyeong on Wednesday.

"We've lost everything. I don't even have extra underwear," she said weeping, holding on to her sixth-grade daughter, as she landed at Incheon.

CALM THINGS DOWN

Despite the rhetoric, regional powers made clear they were looking for a diplomatic way to calm things down.

South Korea, its armed forces technically superior though about half the size of the North's one-million-plus army, warned of "massive retaliation" if its neighbor attacked again.

But it was careful to avoid any immediate threat of retaliation which might spark an escalation of fighting across the Cold War's last frontier.

China has long propped up the Pyongyang leadership, worried that a collapse of the North could bring instability to its own borders and also wary of a unified Korea that would be dominated by the United States, the key ally of the South.

Beijing said it had agreed with the United States to try to restart talks among regional powers over North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

A number of analysts suspect that Tuesday's attack may have been an attempt by North Korean leader Kim jong-il to raise his bargaining position ahead of disarmament talks which he has used in the past to win concessions and aid from the outside world, in particular the United States.

[Jim Raynor]

Personally, I view the lack of breathless, up-to-the-minute breaking news update as a positive in a volatile situation such as this. I'm not at all eager to see another war break out, much less one that might involve nukes, thank you very much.

I've been keeping up with the news on this one, but I'm not freaking out just yet. Some guy I saw on the news even made a point about trying not to blow this out of proportion and escalate it. While this was an overt attack, the number of people killed was small and far less than in previous attacks. People didn't make a big deal out of the Cheonan incident, and that was a warship going down with 46 sailors. The number of killed on the North Korean side has not been reported, but I've got to believe that it was more than the 4 killed (2 civilian) on the South Korean side. The South already got their payback, and then some, for this attack.

[someone_else]

More than knowing what is happening minute per minute, i'd like to know why is happening.
Does North korea know that their military sucks? I think they do.
So why do they risk their asses in those provocations (this and the sunk boat, and something else in the past)?

I don't think they are just dumb, so I'm clearly missing something.

[Ace Pace]

More than knowing what is happening minute per minute, i'd like to know why is happening.
Does North korea know that their military sucks? I think they do.
So why do they risk their asses in those provocations (this and the sunk boat, and something else in the past)?

I don't think they are just dumb, so I'm clearly missing something.

Because they can get stuff out of it. Food, electricity, you name it. The world is incapable of stopping North Korean actions without massive damage to South Korea and surrounding countries. There are very few scenarios where escalating the conflict do not lead to the world losing out.

[Netko]

The local South Korean ambassador claims that the North did it because Kim Jong-un was recently promoted/appointed to a high ranking military position to bolster his qualifications for heir apparent and that this shelling was basically a way to give him credibility for resolve and such in his new position, especially in the eyes of the military, as crazy at that sound.

[Gandalf]

The local South Korean ambassador claims that the North did it because Kim Jong-un was recently promoted/appointed to a high ranking military position to bolster his qualifications for heir apparent and that this shelling was basically a way to give him credibility for resolve and such in his new position, especially in the eyes of the military, as crazy at that sound.

I saw that on PBS News Hour yesterday, and an analyst who's name eludes me said the same thing.

Sarah Palin took a break from her book tour Wednesday to call into Glenn Beck's radio show and weigh in on the recent shelling of a South Korean island by the North Korean military. Unfortunately, a verbal slip-up caused her to urge the U.S. to support an unexpected country.

"But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies." Palin said in her analysis, before being corrected by the show's co-host. "Yeah. And we're also bound by prudence to stand with our South Korean allies, yes."

To be fair, the mistake appeared to be a case of a verbal stumble -- not actual confusion about which country she was supposed to support.

Earlier, Palin described the situation, saying, "This is stemming from, I think, a greater problem when we're all sitting around asking 'Oh no, what are we gonna do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is gonna come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea's gonna do."

It's not quite a Bushism, but it'll do. Is she the new W?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The local South Korean ambassador claims that the North did it because Kim Jong-un was recently promoted/appointed to a high ranking military position to bolster his qualifications for heir apparent and that this shelling was basically a way to give him credibility for resolve and such in his new position, especially in the eyes of the military, as crazy at that sound.

They have been up to so many antics over the last few decades. Asians are more or less acquainted to this nonsense, but the rest of the world is far and away from this.

If one were to consider the airliner they blew up, this is nothing.

[Sea Skimmer]

The issue isn’t so much damage or casualties caused, but the fact that the attack was so open and utterly lacking in deniability. North Korea in fact does not deny it, they’ve merely claimed the south fired first. Almost everything else North Korea has done had at least a pretext of deniability or was otherwise covertly accomplished. North Korea very much wants the world to know it did this this time, probably because they realized that previous attacks were just being swept under the rug.

Lots of reasons could be behind this shift in strategy, many of which would be ultimately meaningless to the world. But it could mean North Korea is getting desperate or that the power transition the Kim’s are attempting is not going well. Problems like that could become very dangerous very quickly, such as an attempted coup against kim using ATOMIC BOMBS or similar scenario.

[Chaotic Neutral]

Problems like that could become very dangerous very quickly, such as an attempted coup against kim using ATOMIC BOMBS or similar scenario.

I don't think anyone would shed too many tears if the North Koreans nuked themselves. How much radiation would go into SK and China though?

[Solauren]

You do know that alot of North Koreans have family in South Korea that would love to see them again?

No one would miss the North Korean LEADERSHIP. North Korea itself is full of innocent victims.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't think anyone would shed too many tears if the North Koreans nuked themselves. How much radiation would go into SK and China though?

Probably a lot, because in such an absurd if remotely possible scenario the nuke would almost certainly be ground burst to take out Kim in a bunker or as he rides along in his armored train or rides his armored train into his bunker, thank god North Korea really has that. I can’t see any other real use for it in a coup attempt, and even then it means no body to prove Kim is dead which is a complication, but not an important one if the rest of the coup succeeded.

Some size rivers flow south from north korea into south korea but they are all well away from Pyongyang. The prevailing wind is easterly IIRC and would tend to put fallout over the Sea of Japan and Japan, but winds shift. The ocean all around North Korea is in one constricted basin or another so contamination in the ocean would linger. Still one nuke, no matter how bad wouldn’t be THAT bad as long as long as it’s not a high yield. The fallout would certainly kill a lot of people in North Korea though. The consequences of a full scale nuclear war, say 8 nukes responded too by 20 US nukes could reach the point of displacing 100-200 million people. Much depends on wind speed and direction during and after fact.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what does the scenario look like if, say, the U.S. and South Korea decide to just say "fuck this noise" and hammer the North - not eye-for-eye, head-for-eye. Like saying that tomorrow we just flat-out attack with the single and sole purpose of absolutely annihilating all of the North's artillery batteries, warships and other war materiel, depots and military bases and leadership, whilst giving, say, Russia and China about 25 minutes' notice (ahead of the first bomb, not ahead of the launches) that we have absolutely no intention of acting against them if they don't act against us?

Basically the idea being to put down the North's ability to wage anything resembling an effective war before they realize they finally provoked the Big One into coming. I assume chaos, of course, and the border situation would be bleak since the South wouldn't have been able to mobilize forces to the border beforehand and the best they could really have done was have them ready to roll out around the time the planes were launching.

[That NOS Guy]

Just out of morbid curiosity, what does the scenario look like if, say, the U.S. and South Korea decide to just say "fuck this noise" and hammer the North - not eye-for-eye, head-for-eye. Like saying that tomorrow we just flat-out attack with the single and sole purpose of absolutely annihilating all of the North's artillery batteries, warships and other war materiel, depots and military bases and leadership, whilst giving, say, Russia and China about 25 minutes' notice (ahead of the first bomb, not ahead of the launches) that we have absolutely no intention of acting against them if they don't act against us?

Basically the idea being to put down the North's ability to wage anything resembling an effective war before they realize they finally provoked the Big One into coming. I assume chaos, of course, and the border situation would be bleak since the South wouldn't have been able to mobilize forces to the border beforehand and the best they could really have done was have them ready to roll out around the time the planes were launching.

The only way to do that and not lose Seoul to a rolling barrage of chemical weapons is using nukes first and often, something of a political impossibility. Well, that and the resulting fallout may as well be a Nork barrage.

Plus, why risk it when the DPRK is falling apart anyway? Waiting is in everyone's ultimate best interest.

[Broomstick]

Some size rivers flow south from north korea into south korea but they are all well away from Pyongyang. The prevailing wind is easterly IIRC and would tend to put fallout over the Sea of Japan and Japan, but winds shift.

Winds in the northern hemisphere are normally westerly - and that would indeed tend to drop fallout over Japan. Actually, over the sea, first, so a lot of it won't reach Japan if a bomb falls in North Korea, more fallout reaches Japan if a nuke drops on the south. Though, as pointed out, winds do shift around so what, exactly, would happen would depend on the bomb and the winds at the particular time of detonation.

If the winds just happen to swing east at the wrong time then Beijing could get fallout.. and I have a feeling the Chinese would NOT be happy about that at all...

(Pretty unlikely possibility, though)

[Sea Skimmer]

We’d need more the one day to make an all out attack, remember you talking 12 hours or more just to fly from bases in the US to bases in South Korea and only heavy bombers can do that and fight immediately at the end of it. Heavy bombers in turn take more then 12 hours to ready for a mission. Fighters would need to fly into the theater and then be serviced and ideally get new pilots before launching on a combat mission. If the US only has access to bases in South Korea we’ve also got some serious limits on how many additional fighter type aircraft could be packed onto them. Heavy bombers can operate out of Alaska and Guam of no bases in Japan can be used. 72 hours is a more realistic utter minimal timeframe, and even that leaves little time to pull in more USN assets. We count a lot on the USN showing up to volley off lots and lots of Tomahawks to add weight to an initial assault.

Anyway with North Korea, you’ve got the way I see it three main target sets that need to die in a surprise Yankee imperialist pirate air rape. The first are the key strategic targets in leadership, communications and WMD and missile facilities. The second set which is an integral part of any air war is the suppression of the nations air defenses and air fields. The third are tactical targets, primarily artillery sites which can fire into North Korea as well as key bridges/overpasses which can prevent redeployment of mobile artillery and missile launchers.

The first set is probably in the range of 300-500 aim points (ballpark estimates only!), the second in the 500 range aim points and, easily 2,000 aim points though a fair number of which could be tackled by ROK artillery fire. I’d tack on another 200 to bomb and mine in the North Korean submarine force. So say we need to put a bomb on something in the range of 2,500 spots to really cripple North Korea’s warmaking ability in one blow. Of course thousands more aim points would need to be attacked soon after to ensure the damage is not repaired and expanded to less important targets.

Now you can get 16-24 heavy 2000lb class missiles or bombs on a heavy bomber and 2-4 on a fighter depending on model. That’d mean 125 x 20 weapon B-52 sorties or more realistically (since we only have 77 B-52s in service and not nearly all bombers are ever combat ready at one time) 30 x B1 sorties, 30 B-52 sorties, 10 B-2 sorties with 1,480 weapons and 510 fighter sorties with 2 weapons each. This does not count air to air escorts or jammers or the tanker swarms of course, that will easily double the fighter sorties, just air to ground strike for day 1. In 72 hours of insane frantic effort I think this just might be managed. The Navy might have 200 or so Tomahawks within range, but I'd absorb those into the defense suppression effort and destroying larger leadership targets (like a major office building, one or two bombs won't kill all the nork secret police paper pushers inside). North Korean air defenses are obsolete, even more so then those of Iraq in 1991 but they are very numerous and very well dug in.

Also one cannot forgot that if it has nothing else, North Korea has fuckloads of bunkers and tunnels. Many of them are dug into solid granite which can have a compressive strength four to five times as great as typical concrete used for making bunkers. Many of them are proof against 2,000lb weapons and must be hit with 5,000lb or 30,000lb weapons. Some are immune to any conventional weapon that now exists and could only be damaged by collapsing entrances. Reattacks and surveillance would be necessary to prevent the Norks from clearing out the debris and removing the tunnel contents.

Only the F-15E among fighters can deliver the 5,000lb bomb, and only the B-2 is just now being fitted with 30,000lb bombs though a B-52 has dropped on in trials. The F-15E and B-2 can in each case haul only two of the very heavy bombs (F-15E could haul four 2,000lb bombs, though I’m treating all fighters as 2 weapons only). That means using these weapons very rapidly eat into available forces. What’s more many of these bunkers not only include more then one entry and exit, they have totally unknown purposes. The shear uncertainty created by these hardened facilities and the inability to predict what we’ll really accomplish makes a surprise assault a very dangerous move even if it goes completely as planned. A plan can only be as good as its intelligence. How many minor looking ammo bunkers do you double and triple target to ensure destruction, just in case that one random bunker that gets hit by a single bomb with a dud fuse is the one that holds the nukes?

Also surprise is just unlikely, even on only 24 hours notice. People are going to notice so many US bombers and transports and tankers taking off and North Korea is isolated, not blind to the world. Preparing so many tactical jets on the ground in South Korea would also be noticed.

[Talhe]

I again profess my lack of knowledge on military matters (excluding very specific subjects) and would like to ask another question. Assuming that regime of North Korea were to 'end' (as in, a large elimination of their political/military leadership), what would happen to the people of North Korea? I remember reading a rather depressing article by Robert Kaplan (who I don't agree with on everything) that the massive refugee problem is one reason why a contained North Korea is better then no North Korea.