General North Korea thread

[The Romulan Republic]

I imagine living next to this shit for more than half a century gives one a certain immunity to it.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm reminded of scientists who did a study about how people living in a river valley felt about the risk of a certain dam breaking upstream of them. If the dam broke a massive flood would wash down the valley. Not surprisingly, people several hundred miles downriver weren't particularly worried. As you got closer and closer to the dam, the level of worry went up and up. A hundred miles away people worried significantly. Fifty miles away, more than that, ten miles away, a great deal...

Then they asked the people who lived very, very close to the dam, that is to say practically in its shadow. Counterintuitively but not surpringly when you think about it, they found that people who lived that close to the dam didn't worry about it breaking at all.

If you live so close to a source of potential danger that you have no meaningful chance of avoiding it and a poor chance of even surviving it, if the danger goes generations without coming, and this becomes a permanent condition of your life... Eventually your psychological makeup just discounts the danger entirely, because it has to return the "set point" of your anxiety level to something you can live with.

[Flagg]

There's also a trait common among our horrible species of failure to truly imagine and accept risk. This is especially the case (and timely) with natural disasters. New Orleans was warned about the levees failing and the city flooding for decades before Katrina and nothing was done. The same was the case with New York and Sandy.

[Sky Captain]

So far North Korea have tested nukes underground and missiles seperately. But if they want to be sure that whole system (missile, targeting stage, reentry vehicle and nuke) works together wouldn't at some point they have to do full test with a live nuke targeting perhaps some remote area in the Pacific ocean. I'm not sure they could afford that politically, but from purely technical point it would make sense. They probably lack the kind of testing facilities USAF and NASA has to test how hardwere survives launch vibrations and space enviroment so doing a live test could be only option make sure the whole system works.

[Simon_Jester]

There's also a trait common among our horrible species of failure to truly imagine and accept risk. This is especially the case (and timely) with natural disasters. New Orleans was warned about the levees failing and the city flooding for decades before Katrina and nothing was done. The same was the case with New York and Sandy.

To be fair, in the South Koreans case, they've done everything realistically possible to prepare against a North Korean attack except evacuate Seoul and relocate the capital. Which would be such a monstrously expensive undertaking that even people who think there's a realistic possibility of the city being leveled by North Korean artillery within the next ten years might flinch at it.

A lot of people in the US during the Cold War honestly believed a thermonuclear war was fairly likely to wipe out civilization within the next decade or two. They didn't all go off into the hinterlands to build bunkers and read up on survivalist literature.

So on the one hand you have the (negative) known tendency to ignore natural disasters.

On the other, you have the (positive) known tendency to get on with day to day life rather than crumbling entirely in the face of an existential threat that might eventually happen at some indefinite future date.

...

And I do think that while the former behavior is negative, the latter behavior is positive. Imagine if a giant comet were discovered, and there was a 50% chance it would hit the Earth in twenty years. Which would be a more constructive pattern of behavior for the average citizen? Freaking the hell out and trying to find a nice deep bunker on the opposite side of the planet from the projected point of impact? Or continuing with our daily lives?

Consider that any chance of successfully diverting the comet would require a concerted effort by the organized resources of the world. If we all worked together we might have a chance of going all Armageddon on its enormous icy ass. If we all panicked and the economy and civilization collapsed, not so much.

[Flagg]

There's also a trait common among our horrible species of failure to truly imagine and accept risk. This is especially the case (and timely) with natural disasters. New Orleans was warned about the levees failing and the city flooding for decades before Katrina and nothing was done. The same was the case with New York and Sandy.

To be fair, in the South Koreans case, they've done everything realistically possible to prepare against a North Korean attack except evacuate Seoul and relocate the capital. Which would be such a monstrously expensive undertaking that even people who think there's a realistic possibility of the city being leveled by North Korean artillery within the next ten years might flinch at it.

A lot of people in the US during the Cold War honestly believed a thermonuclear war was fairly likely to wipe out civilization within the next decade or two. They didn't all go off into the hinterlands to build bunkers and read up on survivalist literature.

So on the one hand you have the (negative) known tendency to ignore natural disasters.

On the other, you have the (positive) known tendency to get on with day to day life rather than crumbling entirely in the face of an existential threat that might eventually happen at some indefinite future date.

...

And I do think that while the former behavior is negative, the latter behavior is positive. Imagine if a giant comet were discovered, and there was a 50% chance it would hit the Earth in twenty years. Which would be a more constructive pattern of behavior for the average citizen? Freaking the hell out and trying to find a nice deep bunker on the opposite side of the planet from the projected point of impact? Or continuing with our daily lives?

Consider that any chance of successfully diverting the comet would require a concerted effort by the organized resources of the world. If we all worked together we might have a chance of going all Armageddon on its enormous icy ass. If we all panicked and the economy and civilization collapsed, not so much.

I was just expanding on the Dam analogy, not saying SK was ignoring the threat. TBH looking back it was probably an unnecessary addition. You can negotiate with even NK to avoid war rather than relocate a city, but you can't negotiate with nature to avoid disaster rather than improve levees/sea walls.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, there's an analogy to the comet scenario.

The South Koreans can hope that by remaining a prosperous open society that is conspicuously behaving as though they don't anticipate a war with North Korea, the North Korean leader(s) will think "obviously, they don't plan to fight or attack us. Why risk a war that will damage us, if they don't have the guts/greed/hostility/whatever to attack us?" Even a very militaristic country is capable of this kind of reasoning, after all.

But suppose they crap their pants, recruit more soldiers, and expend hundreds of billions of dollars to evacuate Seoul. Now they signal to the North Koreans "we are taking steps to protect our people in the event of war, because we expect a war." If the North Koreans aren't specifically planning a war right the hell now, they may wonder "why are the South Koreans expecting a war? We weren't planning a war. What do they know that we don't? Maybe they've made a secret agreement with the Americans to squash us!"

Thus, ironically, when dealing with a paranoid enemy, preparing for war can make war more likely.

And as with the comet scenario, you can make a case that continuing "business as usual" gives you a much better chance of avoiding collective disaster than "panic and do every conceivable thing to prepare against the disaster, every man for himself, the ship is sinking!"

[Gandalf]

(CNN)The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a US-drafted resolution to impose new sanctions on North Korea on Monday --- a move that comes just one week after the rogue nation carried out its sixth and largest nuclear test.

The resolution is designed to accomplish six major goals: cap North Korea's oil imports, ban textile exports, end additional overseas laborer contracts, suppress smuggling efforts, stop joint ventures with other nations and sanction designated North Korean government entities, according to a US official familiar with negotiations.

On Monday, the US circulated a draft resolution that called for a full ban on exports of oil to North Korea and an asset freeze on leader Kim Jong Un, the Worker's Party and the government of North Korea.

But later in the day, the US put forward another draft that removed the full oil embargo, asset freeze, travel ban for Kim and softened the language on foreign workers and other issues.

Russia and China both have veto power as permanent members of the Security Council and had expressed skepticism over the initial sanctions proposal.

The Reuters news agency reported Monday that the sanctions had been softened to appease China and Russia, citing diplomats.

Ahead of the vote, North Korea warned the United States that it would pay a "due price" if harsh sanctions were passed by the Security Council.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry said in a statement published on state media that if the US "does rig up the illegal and unlawful 'resolution,'" it would respond in kind.

"The forthcoming measures to be taken by the DPRK will cause the US the greatest pain and suffering it had ever gone through in its entire history."

This one should do it.

[Flagg]

God knows exports are the lifeblood of the US economy.

[Ralin]

God knows exports are the lifeblood of the US economy.

I think the implication is that the mighty North Korean government will resume punishing us if we fail to provide our regular tribute.

Anyway, much belated response, have been feeling low energy, but to answer a couple things I didn't get to before:

No, they have threatened to BOMB Guam, not merely send a missile "near" it. They've threatened the US with an EMP attack just this week.

You’re conflating two things. They’ve threatened to nuke Guam in the event of a hypothetical war with the evil Yankee air pirates. They’ve also stated their intent to send fire a missile into the vicinity of Guam to prove that they can in fact do the former if need be.

These things are not the same, and the latter isn’t automatic cause for war.

Where the fuck are you getting your information?

North Korea has the fourth largest military in the world. South Korea is ranked number seven. You do not recall correctly. Much of South Korea's military capability as far as weapons and technology are concerned come from its alliance with the United States.

South Korea's economy may be larger, but it's focused on civilian industries. North Korea is all about the military, to the point it's official policy that the army eats first and gets everything first, even if that means the civilians starve.

Okay fair enough had the numbers wrong on that, but the difference isn’t that huge relatively speaking. It’s also worth noting that South Korea has something like twice the population of the DPRK. South Korea has universal conscription, and given that this is a fairly wealthy and developed country raw numbers are only one side of the story at best. More money + better equipment + not having a significant percentage of the military population stunted from malnutrition during their formative years counts for a lot.

My point is that I don’t see any particular reason to think South Korea alone couldn’t hand North Korea their ass if it came to it. Their alliance with America just makes that victory surer, easier and less costly. Those troops we keep stationed there aren’t around to protect them. They’re there as what amounts to hostages to ensure we follow up on the alliance just in case our government gets second thoughts.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ks.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/kn.html

I do. But for the life of me I don't know why. Aside from looking like the ass he is by effectively sounding like Fatty Kim, North Korea isn't exactly worth responding to. I mean we have troops in Afghanistan (and more on the way) as well as plenty of far more important shit to deal with.

Like you said, containment failed, they have thermonuclear weapons, and barring a first strike by them (which I don't believe will happen) we have nothing to really worry about. By responding to what is essentially geopolitical trolling, he's just making it easier for them to play the victim.

Well Flagg, it’s like this. I’m seeing people (and I don’t just mean you or people in this thread) drawing the conclusion that Trump is acting like a crazy person and going out of his way to provoke North Korea. This is understandable, I was buying into some of it myself, but like I said before, what he’s actually saying and doing is ultimately more of the same albeit more bombastic. And it’s worth pointing out that context.

That said, yes it’s fair to say that the president should come up with a new policy to replace the failed containment policy of previous administrations and normally I’d say the president should be criticized for not doing that.

But I mean, this is Trump we’re talking about. Managing expectations is important. And by expectations I mean the idea of him actually doing something positive.

[The Romulan Republic]

The "more bombastic" part is the part we're worried about. In that he's literally acting as a mirror for Fat Kim, throwing almost cartoonish threats of obliteration back and forth.

Even if it doesn't lead to WWIII, its fucking embarrassing for this country, and undermines our international credibility even further than it already has been.

[Ralin]

The "more bombastic" part is the part we're worried about. In that he's literally acting as a mirror for Fat Kim, throwing almost cartoonish threats of obliteration back and forth.

I actually spent years defending Kim's father in as much as I thought he and his government were basically rational and could be mostly trusted to not push things over the line to full scale war.

In fact, I think my exact words ten years or so ago were that "the only way war is going to break out on the Korean peninsula is if the United States was led by a complete and utter retard."

Even if it doesn't lead to WWIII, its fucking embarrassing for this country, and undermines our international credibility even further than it already has been.

That ship sailed in November.

[The Romulan Republic]

The "more bombastic" part is the part we're worried about. In that he's literally acting as a mirror for Fat Kim, throwing almost cartoonish threats of obliteration back and forth.

I actually spent years defending Kim's father in as much as I thought he and his government were basically rational and could be mostly trusted to not push things over the line to full scale war.

Perhaps not intentionally, but when tensions are high, it is potentially possible to blunder into a conflict through a misunderstanding or escalating tit-for-tat.

In fact, I think my exact words ten years or so ago were that "the only way war is going to break out on the Korean peninsula is if the United States was led by a complete and utter retard."

Or a sociopathic narcisist with no foreign policy experience?

That ship sailed in November.

I can't really argue with that, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give the orange shit a pass on every horrible thing he does subsequently.

[Gandalf]

Where the fuck are you getting your information?

North Korea has the fourth largest military in the world. South Korea is ranked number seven. You do not recall correctly. Much of South Korea's military capability as far as weapons and technology are concerned come from its alliance with the United States.

South Korea's economy may be larger, but it's focused on civilian industries. North Korea is all about the military, to the point it's official policy that the army eats first and gets everything first, even if that means the civilians starve.

Okay fair enough had the numbers wrong on that, but the difference isn’t that huge relatively speaking. It’s also worth noting that South Korea has something like twice the population of the DPRK. South Korea has universal conscription, and given that this is a fairly wealthy and developed country raw numbers are only one side of the story at best. More money + better equipment + not having a significant percentage of the military population stunted from malnutrition during their formative years counts for a lot.

My point is that I don’t see any particular reason to think South Korea alone couldn’t hand North Korea their ass if it came to it. Their alliance with America just makes that victory surer, easier and less costly. Those troops we keep stationed there aren’t around to protect them. They’re there as what amounts to hostages to ensure we follow up on the alliance just in case our government gets second thoughts.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/ks.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... os/kn.html

The problem with sheer "look at size of military" arguments like Broomstick's is that it misses little salient details like the following; The ROK drives around in tanks so recent that they entered service in 2013. The DPRK's flagship tank is a reproduction of a Soviet one that entered production in 1971. The Republic of Korea has some of the best defences that money can buy, all geared up for a conventional war with someone one DMZ away.

That's why so much DPRK rhetoric is based around raining fire on things, because the artillery pointed at Seoul and now the missiles represent their only real defence should another US President declare "Axis of Evil" at a time of low polling.

[Ralin]

The problem with sheer "look at size of military" arguments like Broomstick's is that it misses little salient details like the following; The ROK drives around in tanks so recent that they entered service in 2013. The DPRK's flagship tank is a reproduction of a Soviet one that entered production in 1971. The Republic of Korea has some of the best defences that money can buy, all geared up for a conventional war with someone one DMZ away.

That's why so much DPRK rhetoric is based around raining fire on things, because the artillery pointed at Seoul and now the missiles represent their only real defence should another US President declare "Axis of Evil" at a time of low polling.

I've heard people who seemed to know what they were talking about say that a North Korean conquest of the south is not feasible at this point just on the grounds of how much difficulty they'd have getting tanks and artillery through the rubble thanks to the sheer size of Seoul's urban sprawl. Dunno if that's true, but it does get the point across about the problems they'd have with the logistics alone.

Juche philosophy doesn't actually make the country stronger or capable of accomplishing superhuman feats. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are people in the US who believe otherwise on some level.

[Gandalf]

I've heard people who seemed to know what they were talking about say that a North Korean conquest of the south is not feasible at this point just on the grounds of how much difficulty they'd have getting tanks and artillery through the rubble thanks to the sheer size of Seoul's urban sprawl. Dunno if that's true, but it does get the point across about the problems they'd have with the logistics alone.

It certainly makes sense. It's hard to imagine urban combat in a cityscape like Seoul, especially with outdated tanks like the T-55.

The rest of the country would require an extinction level event to be brought down to something that the DPRK could manage.

Juche philosophy doesn't actually make the country stronger or capable of accomplishing superhuman feats. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are people in the US who believe otherwise on some level.

As I understand US news media, Juche makes all of the DPRK into Kimbots who will destroy everything for Dear Leader. They will never tire, and subsist on nothing but adoration of the state. Only glorious American soldiers keep them at bay.

[Simon_Jester]

The valid "look at size of military" argument is the sheer amount of enemy military we'd have to hack through to win an offensive war. It's like "crap, they have HOW many meatshields?" Superior technology only compensates so far.

Sure, with modern weapons you can easily destroy vast numbers of tanks or huge armies if they're dumb enough to mass where you can shoot them easily. But even if they can't push forward into your defenses, actually taking the fight to them presents huge practical obstacles, especially if they all fight with the kind of indoctrinated determination we may have reason to expect. It's not that they're deranged Kimbots, it's that by all appearances, they really do believe that the Americans are evil orcs or something. Changing their minds about that won't happen quickly.

That's why there's a problem. Even if we stop any hypothetical North Korean offensives into the south dead in their tracks, that still raises the question of exactly what to do next. If the North Koreans themselves don't admit defeat, we can't make them do so without counterattacking.

What do you do with a country where there are, say, five million men trained to use rifles, all of them have spent all their lives being taught to think you're a bunch of orcs, and the country actually has rifles for all of them? This isn't necessarily going to be like Iraq, where the bulk of Saddam's army was never really willing to fight the US or another comparable opponent. The guerillas that fought us were mostly independent of the old Iraqi government. Here, it's entirely possible that the North Korean army would just keep fighting and gradually dissolving into guerilla bands.

It's far from impossible to win against an enemy like that, but it takes a lot of willingness to take losses and risks, and it's not a pleasant prospect.

[Ralin]

Once the missiles and such have been accounted for why exactly would there be a need to counterattack in this scenario? Is there some reason South Korea couldn't, oh I dunno, build a big wall with land mines and stuff? Aren't they at least halfway there already?

[Simon_Jester]

One, there's the problem of all that artillery. At a bare minimum, the South Koreans have to push an army far enough forward to dislodge the North Koreans from any position in cannon range of anything they ever plan to rebuild.

Two, there's the problem of, you know, actually knowing you've accounted for all the long range missiles and things. Exactly how would you know you've got them all? Sure, ballistic missiles aren't easy to hide, but they're a long way from impossible to hide.

Three, there's the problem of harassment attacks. Suppose you've pushed the North Korean army forty or fifty kilometers north, far enough that they can no longer set up artillery positions to shell anything that's valuable in and of itself. From the North Koreans' point of view, you now occupy a fifty-kilometer strip of their land. That's a noticeable if small chunk of the country, and the North Koreans aren't going to want to let you have it, and knowing them they will never, ever forgive and forget. These are the same guys who are still using the USS Pueblo as a major national museum devoted to 'proving' that the Americans are scheming evil orcs, after all. Which means they'll be staging little infantry attacks and penny-packet tank raids and whatnot and shelling your troops on that strip of land forever. They can keep this up for a very long time unless their government just plain collapses, and we honestly have no idea how much pounding it would take to bring about the collapse of the North Korean government.

So in a fairly plausible 'bad case scenario,' if the South Koreans just say "okay fine, we won the battles, we're going to hunker down behind a huge belt of land mines forever..." the South Koreans are resigning themselves to a long-term, maybe permanent state of being shelled and rocketed and raided by North Koreans with grudges. The South Koreans can look forward to something like the Israel-Palestine conflict.* Only North Korea is like 100 times more capable of harassing South Korea than Palestine is of harassing Israel, because North Korea has more resources at its disposal. It's going to be an ugly, ongoing experience, unless of course someone actually wins the war in a decisive manner.
______________________

*Completely regardless of who's the good guy or the bad guy or who suffers how much. That is not the point, the point is that Israel has in fact felt the need to spend billions on fortifications and anti-rocket defenses, to make itself unpopular with aggressive military moves, and they still sustain a considerable amount of damage from raiding and terrorism over the years. It's a nasty conflict and the permanent state of stalemate isn't really doing anyone any favors, except for specific political parties that get more control of their society by referring to the threat of violence.

---

Basically, the current status quo works because North Korea has agreed to acknowledge that, on the whole, it isn't at war with anyone. You can talk about how technically the war never 'ended' and only concluded in a cease-fire, but a de facto state of "mostly peace with occasional asinine provocations" exists.

if a war breaks out on the peninsula, restoring the status quo isn't just going to be a matter of moving the armies and drawing a new line of demarcation. The North Koreans will have to admit it's time to stop fighting. And because North Korea is so goddamn weird, we honestly can't say how much it would take to make that happen.

[houser2112]

My point is that I don’t see any particular reason to think South Korea alone couldn’t hand North Korea their ass if it came to it. Their alliance with America just makes that victory surer, easier and less costly. Those troops we keep stationed there aren’t around to protect them. They’re there as what amounts to hostages to ensure we follow up on the alliance just in case our government gets second thoughts.

There isn't much doubt in my mind that RoK could defeat DPRK if the gloves came off. There is a lot of doubt in my mind that RoK would be fighting just DPRK. For much of it's history, DPRK has been backed by China and the Russians (whether it's the Soviet Union's rather overt support, or my impression of what the current government would do).

I actually spent years defending Kim's father in as much as I thought he and his government were basically rational and could be mostly trusted to not push things over the line to full scale war.

I think I know who you're talking about from context, but considering that DPRK has had 3 leaders now with the surname "Kim", perhaps you should use their full names or given names.

[Broomstick]

The problem with sheer "look at size of military" arguments like Broomstick's is that it misses little salient details like the following;

Excuse me. It was Ralin who was make the "size" argument, and with inaccurate information at that. I merely pointed out the error in what he said, I did not discuss whether one side or the other would win. My comment wasn't about the "salient details" it was about correcting one fact: absolute numbers. Don't read more into than that.

[Exonerate]

My point is that I don’t see any particular reason to think South Korea alone couldn’t hand North Korea their ass if it came to it.

You know, I'm not sure this is true if DPRK decides to resort to tactical nukes. I'm guessing their delivery options, NBC gear, etc are limited but I don't have a good idea of how such a war would look like other than very bloody. I still believe they're rational and their pursuit of nuclear weapons is fundamentally defensive in outlook, but just to play devil's advocate, it's not inconceivable to use them as blackmail against a non-nuclear state. For DPRK to start such a war would be breathtakingly risky and reckless, but not irrational if they thought their ICBMs were sufficient to deter the US from joining in.

If war does break out, I can't imagine leaving the DPRK intact enough to reemerge as a problem again years down the road.

[Ralin]

You know, I'm not sure this is true if DPRK decides to resort to tactical nukes. I'm guessing their delivery options, NBC gear, etc are limited but I don't have a good idea of how such a war would look like other than very bloody. I still believe they're rational and their pursuit of nuclear weapons is fundamentally defensive in outlook, but just to play devil's advocate, it's not inconceivable to use them as blackmail against a non-nuclear state. For DPRK to start such a war would be breathtakingly risky and reckless, but not irrational if they thought their ICBMs were sufficient to deter the US from joining in.

If war does break out, I can't imagine leaving the DPRK intact enough to reemerge as a problem again years down the road.

Yeah, this is actually something that I think is legit cause for worry. Rational doesn't always mean smart or good decisions. I agree that their main reason for wanting nuclear weapons + missiles to fire them at other countries with is defensive. How much more they'll decide to go for once that main goal is satisfied is an open question. A perfectly rational Kim Jong-un could decide to threaten to nuke some part of South Korea if all sanctions on the DPRK are not immediately lifted because he thinks that the risk/reward ratio is a good one. He might also think that now would be a great time to declare that the US and the Republic of Korea are going to stop having their annual joint military exercises this year, or else see above. Or demand increased tribute along with the usual food and medical aid. Or demand that all American forces be withdrawn from the peninsula. Or try to put pressure on Japan to do whatever specific thing doesn't immediately spring to mind for me at the moment.

I'm not saying that he will do any of these things, but unlike the last several iterations of "North Korea acts belligerent and threatening, US has to respond somehow" I don't feel confident predicting what's going to happen next. But at this point I doubt he's going to turn out to be North Korea's Deng Xiaoping.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've heard people who seemed to know what they were talking about say that a North Korean conquest of the south is not feasible at this point just on the grounds of how much difficulty they'd have getting tanks and artillery through the rubble thanks to the sheer size of Seoul's urban sprawl. Dunno if that's true, but it does get the point across about the problems they'd have with the logistics alone.

It certainly makes sense. It's hard to imagine urban combat in a cityscape like Seoul, especially with outdated tanks like the T-55.

The rest of the country would require an extinction level event to be brought down to something that the DPRK could manage.

Juche philosophy doesn't actually make the country stronger or capable of accomplishing superhuman feats. Sometimes I get the feeling that there are people in the US who believe otherwise on some level.

As I understand US news media, Juche makes all of the DPRK into Kimbots who will destroy everything for Dear Leader. They will never tire, and subsist on nothing but adoration of the state. Only glorious American soldiers keep them at bay.

I don't get that impression. I mean, it probably depends somewhat on what media you watch (but try telling that to people who treat "US media" as a homogenous evil monolith), but I see lots of stuff about people who fled North Korea, and dissidents and their families locked up and tortured in prison camps.

So its more "the loyalists/troops are fanatical, but their are lots of oppressed people who don't want to serve Kim". Or at least that's the impression I get, even if its not stated as such directly.

You do get assholes/idiots online who will argue that all North Koreans will fight to the death (possibly so they can argue in favour of nuclear genocide without feeling guilty about it). But that's not the impression I get from most of the media.

But then, I usually avoid hard Right media.

[Simon_Jester]

There isn't much doubt in my mind that RoK could defeat DPRK if the gloves came off. There is a lot of doubt in my mind that RoK would be fighting just DPRK. For much of it's history, DPRK has been backed by China and the Russians (whether it's the Soviet Union's rather overt support, or my impression of what the current government would do).

There is very very little reason to think that the Chinese or Russians would want any of the crazy these days, if fighting a war was involved on the Korean peninsula. North Korea was desirable to China and the USSR during the Cold War as a buffer state, because it was ideologically committed to communism and willing to work with either of them.

Now, North Korea is a much worse and more obnoxious neighbor than it was thirty years ago, and the Cold War is over. The need for a buffer state simply is not there, not in the same way.