North Korea: What should America do?

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-01-12 08:20am

As an irrational regime, the North Korean leaders might simply go 'the heck with it' and launch their nukes at Seoul if they find themselves losing the conventional battle, which in light of the above info, is almost a certainty.

And that's the scary part. Nobody doubts that SK can beat NK in a non-nuclear war, but what if NK decides to use its nukes? They'll probably be a puddle of molten glass after that, but the damage would have been done to SK.

How much can we bet on Kim and gang not using the nuclear option? We can't, and that's why the only option left is to continue with the diplomatic talks, string them along(and get stringed along), and pray that their regime collapses before they go to war.

Is it confirmed that NK has nuclear warheads and is in a position to threaten Seoul and Japan with artillery and missiles?

The Nice Guy

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-12 08:58am

The_Nice_Guy wrote:
Is it confirmed that NK has nuclear warheads and is in a position to threaten Seoul and Japan with artillery and missiles?

A couple of hundreds of the NK artillery pieces could theoretically hit Seoul from their emplacements along the DMZ.
But it is not like that the long range artillery would not have others somewhat more urgent tasks in case of an invasion,especially considered
the poor state of the NK air force.
As far as nukes go,it is uncertain.They may not have them now,but they could build some of them if they decided to do so.
Dropping them on Seoul in case of defeat?
Difficult to say.I suspect however that they would not do that, although this is just my personal impression based on their political objectives.
The use of chemical weapons against military targets however would a realistic possibility.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-01-12 09:31am

Let's hope that Kim favors his own personal survival so much that he recognizes that using nukes is essentially suicide.

The Nice Guy

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-12 04:23pm

Vympel,

The problem with just counting guns is it ignores the geopolitical reality of the situation. The very fact that Seoul is in such proximity to the border makes it impossible to defend against conventional attacks. (note, I don't mean NK tanks rolling through the streets of Seoul as some people seem to think)

The SK could not credibly stop the devastation of Seoul should there be a kickoff on the peninsula. There isn't going to be a likely first strike option by the SK. If you put Seoul down another 100 miles, then the conventional threat can be easily dealt with. But the entire point is, you couldn't do that with the geography as it is now. That is why the ORBAT on both sides need to be carefully examined, and why it is deceptive. On paper, it looks great for the SK, but that advantage is negated by geography and the reach of NK artillery. This should be obvious to anyone.

The devastation of Seoul is going to have an enormously bad effect for the regional economy. This overshadows the conventional aspect somewhat, and the SK have just a lot more (economically) to lose even in just a purely conventional conflict. But, that's the primary reason you would keep up with the position of not doing anything more than what you're already doing, which is what I've been saying since the start.

The hope is that NK isn't desparate enough to launch anything militarily any time soon. Because if that fight happens, the gloves come off, NK have no realistic chance of winning a fight, but it can make a victory for the SK hollow.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-12 05:50pm

0.1 wrote: Vympel,
The SK could not credibly stop the devastation of Seoul should there be a kickoff on the peninsula.

The north koreans have roughly 200 240mm rocket launchers and some 170mm guns that can hit Seoul from hardened positions in North Korea( all the others artillery pieces in service have absolutely inadequate ranges).The problem is that these artillery pieces have also a lot of other missions other than bombarding Seoul in case of an attempted invasion.Remember, their air force is crap,so the the long range artillery has to take care of targets normally assigned to the air force.They cannot be used for everything.
Seoul might be damaged,but not certainly razed to ground if that is what you mean.
Also remeber that while they are sheltered,sheltered is a relative term.
They are a top priority target.Sooner or later their caves will become their graves.

0.1 wrote:
The devastation of Seoul is going to have an enormously bad effect for the regional economy.

That is for sure.There is however a small detail.While south Korea would have economical problems from which it would recover,the military defeat would probably spell the death for the north korean regime.
It would have bad consequences for South Korea, but it would be far,far,far worse ones for North Korea.

0.1 wrote:
This overshadows the conventional aspect somewhat, and the SK have just a lot more (economically) to lose even in just a purely conventional conflict.

Obviously the south korean economy will not fare well for a while.
But NK has more to lose from the war than SK.
North Korea is probably too weak to survive the defeat.They are starving already now, I do not want to try to imagine what would happen after a war war.Collapse seems the most likely scenario.
Bottom line, NK has much more to lose than SK.

0.1 wrote:
Because if that fight happens, the gloves come off, NK have no realistic chance of winning a fight, but it can make a victory for the SK hollow.

If war brought to the collapse of the north korean regime,that could open the road to the reunification of the North,and thus the elimination of the north korean threat.I would hardly define it an "hollow" victory.
It could be a definitve victory.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-01-12 10:44pm

0.1 wrote:Vympel,

The problem with just counting guns is it ignores the geopolitical reality of the situation. The very fact that Seoul is in such proximity to the border makes it impossible to defend against conventional attacks. (note, I don't mean NK tanks rolling through the streets of Seoul as some people seem to think)

It may come under bombardment. But it will not be nearly as bad as the number the Russian Army did on Grozny, for example.

The SK could not credibly stop the devastation of Seoul should there be a kickoff on the peninsula. There isn't going to be a likely first strike option by the SK. If you put Seoul down another 100 miles, then the conventional threat can be easily dealt with. But the entire point is, you couldn't do that with the geography as it is now. That is why the ORBAT on both sides need to be carefully examined, and why it is deceptive. On paper, it looks great for the SK, but that advantage is negated by geography and the reach of NK artillery. This should be obvious to anyone.

What geography? Would that be the DMZ and it's minefields? The fortified SK positions manned by superior weaponry? The massive overmatch in airpower when you throw the US in?

The devastation of Seoul is going to have an enormously bad effect for the regional economy. This overshadows the conventional aspect somewhat, and the SK have just a lot more (economically) to lose even in just a purely conventional conflict. But, that's the primary reason you would keep up with the position of not doing anything more than what you're already doing, which is what I've been saying since the start.

Seoul will not be devastated. It will be damaged, but their tubes capable of actually hitting Seoul would be used for other missions (if they're hoping for victory) or can be taken out by airpower. They are stored in hardened bunkers when they're not in use, yes, but that doesn't help the case of NK devastating Seoul.

War is always bad for the economy of the country under invasion, but that can't be helped.

The hope is that NK isn't desparate enough to launch anything militarily any time soon. Because if that fight happens, the gloves come off, NK have no realistic chance of winning a fight, but it can make a victory for the SK hollow.

Well I was just talking about them winning.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-01-13 04:29pm

Vympel,

The geography I was refering to is the fact that Seoul is located close enough to the border for artillery to be effective. The economy of a country would be much worse off though if they manage to hit the communications nerve center and do serious damage, if Seoul was located a hundred miles away, then the overall damage (conventionally) would be far easier to absorb since most of the artillery would now be out of range.

NK's ability to invade SK is quite minimal, the geography dictates against it. As you pointed out, there is one of the largest mine field in the world sitting in between the DMZ, that alone would significantly hamper armored movement on either side. And terrain really would favor defense anyway, so any slugging match would be more along the lines of trench warfare. (not literally of course)

The fact that the NK have no realistic chance of winning is a given, but the point is not so much who can win the fight, but who has more to lose in the end. This gets much more into the psychology of the situation. Put NK into too much of a corner, then they could decide that if they had to go down, they'll take down as much as they can with them. Even in a conventional sense, that'll be bad for SK.

It all depends on the game that the other side is thinking about. If I ran NK and I got put into the box where my regime would go down under any scenario, then I would focus on hitting the other side where it hurts the most. The military part won't matter much since I won't survive anyway, but I'd be happy to poison the well and make sure the winners are just as screwed as the losers.

In that light, assuming that survival is no longer an option and the only objective is to make the other side suffer. Then you would start by blanketing the forward positions and airfields with biological and chemical weapons in the opening round (use MRBMs and short range artillery that are forward deployed). Followed immediately by artillery fire into Seoul, and more bio/chem into other cities. (One unknown is exactly what type and how much bio/chem wpns they have) This allows one solid shot before significant firepower gets brought to bear on the artillery positions, and any MRBM launchers. MRBMs loaded with biological and chemical weapons into Japan would probably be used as well. (Remember, working under the assumption that the NK leadership is dead anyway)

So, while NK may not have the ability to win a conventional war, but it could certainly make it so that the entire peninsula pays for its defeat. The key question for Seoul assuming only a conventional firefight is how quickly counterbattery from SK and airpower can snuff out all of NK artillery. But either way, it's a couple of hundred rockets and a hundred or so shells will do significant damage to the city. And even though it's crazy, in most scenarios, NK would get the first shot. Since it is very unlikely that either the U.S. or anyone else would consider pre-emption given the potential consequences.

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-14 03:12am

The damage that NK can cause to SK with conventional attacks is somewhat limited.
It is not like some artillery bombardments are going to devastate a country.
Some Seul zones might be hit,some communication nodes (roads etc) might be damaged.But it is not like that this is going to be the death for South Korea.The damage that would be caused could be easily repaired.
If the NK was to launch an offensive,the goal would be the reunification of the peninsula,that is their objective,not causing as much as damage as possible per se.They would try to conquer the country,not destroying it.
Only when it became clear that they had lost options such as using WMD against civilian (military ones may be an other story) targets in SK would become a possibility,and even then I would not be so sure that they would do that,considered their mindset (in such a scenario I would be more worried about they using WMD against Japan).
And by when this will happen their striking potential would probably be seriously degraded.
NK has taken a lot of precautions to protect its artillery.
Long range guns and rocket launchers are stored in hardened positions.
They exit only in order to fire and then they go back in the shelters for reloading.Go out,fire,take cover,reload,go out,fire and so on.
However in order to fire they must remain outside for few minutes.
A lot in terms of reconnnaissance assets and intelligence efforts has been invested by the US and SK to exploit that window of vulnerability and it is not like anti bunker weapons do not exist in anyway.Given the total dominance of the air available to SK those long range artillery pieces would start to suffer casualties quite soon.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-01-14 08:29am

Would it be possible for Kim and gang to use the threat of nuclear weapons to blackmail SK into reunification, under their socialist(if we can call it that!) regime? This sidesteps the problem of losing a conventional war.

How would SK respond? The US?

The Nice Guy

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-14 08:42am

I have not understood exactly what you mean.
He cannot simply wake up a morning and say "Hello SK, if you do not surrender to us tomorrow we will nuke you".In such a case the US could threaten to nuke NK in retaliation or more simply lend SK a couple of nukes until they build a few on their own,which would take little time.

The_Nice_Guy · Post by **The_Nice_Guy** » 2003-01-14 09:18am

I have not understood exactly what you mean.
He cannot simply wake up a morning and say "Hello SK, if you do not surrender to us tomorrow we will nuke you".In such a case the US could threaten to nuke NK in retaliation or more simply lend SK a couple of nukes until they build a few on their own,which would take little time.

The key point here is what NK thinks the US might do. If the US does pull out, either of its own volition, or because the SK no longer want US presence, then I think the above scenario is entirely likely.

Like, what's the UN gonna do? Trumpet out some more soundbites?

I think NK has not done the aove yet for two reasons.

1. The Us is still around.
2. They have not gotten delieverable nukes yet.

The Nice Guy

Admiral Piett · Post by **Admiral Piett** » 2003-01-14 02:30pm

South Korea has chemical weapons (nerve gas) and the means to deliver them.
It has also a developed nuclear industry and it had started to develop nuclear weapons back in the 70's.One of the reasons for why the USA did not leave SK as they were planning after the defeat in Vietnam was exactly in order to avoid that South Korea developed its own nuclear arsenal.In exchange for the US mantaining presence SK terminated the program.
But restarting it would be very easy.And that is precisely what would happen if the USA pulled out and NK developed its own arsenal.
So the scenario you are suggesting is impossible.Nuclear deterrence would be ensured in any circumstance.If not by the USA,then by South Korea itself.