North Korea

[Darandio]

You're assuming that he'll behave like any rational human being, though. Evidence thus far is to the contrary.

You're scaremongering, nothing more.

Feel feel to return if it did happen and say 'I told you so'. Assuming we are still here of course.

 

[najaB]

Ultimately, POTUS has the final say on many things like missile strikes. He can command a strike whenever he feels like it.

One-off missile strikes? Yup. Action in response to an attack on the USA? Yup. Starting a war with a country that doesn't present an immediate existential threat to the USA? That's a little less clear.

 

[southern442]

One-off missile strikes? Yup. Action in response to an attack on the USA? Yup. Starting a war with a country that doesn't present an immediate existential threat to the USA? That's a little less clear.

As I said before, technically speaking the USA's role in all this is to defend their ally, South Korea. Military action would do the opposite.

 

[ainsworth74]

Is a NK weapons test going to provoke an attack by the US? Extremely doubtful. The ROK certainly has no interest in such a thing and neither does Japan or China for that matter. I also struggle to see an interest for the US in such an action.

Launching a war against NK is significantly different to dropping a bomb on some tunnels in Afghanistan or launching a few dozen cruise missiles against Syria.

For my money there are only three scenarios where we'd be likely to see US/ROK military action against NK:

1) In response to an NK invasion (which is itself extremely unlikely);
2) A preemptive first strike against NK to spoil an NK invasion of ROK; or
3) An invasion of NK to secure NK's nuclear weapons in response to the collapse of the NK regime and a descent into civil war (or at least extreme internal chaos) that may well be precipitated by such an event.

Otherwise I just don't see the scenario in which the application of military force is likely to be the best option or even the second best option!

No doubt that the DPRK could do a lot of damage to Seoul, but it takes surprisingly long and an alarmingly large amount of explosives to 'obliterate' a city of ten million.

Quite and I'm rather certain the the ROK and US military have spent an awfully long time working out how to rapidly degrade the capabilities of NK forces within striking distance of Seoul.

It is also worth remembering that the NK armed forces, predominantly, are equipped with mostly obsolete weaponry that is not going to be suited to a) inflicting the level of damage required to destroy a city of the size of Seoul in the time available and b) surviving particularly long against sustained counter attacks by US/ROK air and land assets.

Don't get me wrong an NK attack on Seoul will lead to thousands of casualties, of course, but 'obliteration'? No way. It may act as a deterrent to the ROK government but if push comes to shove? I doubt it would be sufficient for them or the US to not take action if they are somehow backed into a corner (but see my earlier point about the three likely scenarios).

 

[HSTEd]

Quite and I'm rather certain the the ROK and US military have spent an awfully long time working out how to rapidly degrade the capabilities of NK forces within striking distance of Seoul.

There are thousands of North Korean artillery pieces capable of striking the Soeul metro area - they have had 50 years to prepare for the barrage.

It is also worth remembering that the NK armed forces, predominantly, are equipped with mostly obsolete weaponry that is not going to be suited to a) inflicting the level of damage required to destroy a city of the size of Seoul in the time available and b) surviving particularly long against sustained counter attacks by US/ROK air and land assets.

In this scenario every gun will be prezeroed to a seperate point of interest within the Seoul area - for example a neighbourhood of high value homes, a significant local landmark or such.
Every gun will then be fired as fast as physically possible with no attempt to check registration. The natural wander of the piece will be used to scatter shells over the target area.
It is amazing how fast you can fire a 152mm piece if you don't have to check the laying after each round.

There is also the possibility that shells of sulfur mustard and similar will be mixed in - since they probably have many thousand tonnes of such material according to many estimates.

It doesn't matter how fast you react - you cannot simply magically press an "I win" button and destroy every KPA artillery piece, all of which are in some kind of hardened embrasure by now.
An artillery barrage can be triggered with a few minutes preparation and does damage almost immediately.

Even if the USAF and ROKAF/ROKA destroys eighty percent of the guns in the first hour it doesn't matter - the damage is done.
I would expect thousands of casualties from the first few salvoes alone - after all the bulk of casualties in artillery bombardments [albiet short ones] occur in the first 30 seconds. Before people have an opportunity take cover. Especially since crowded shoping areas will be amongst the priority targets, both to do maximum human damage and also because such things are symbols of the evils of western capitalism.
CAsualties in the hundreds of thousands killed and massive firestorms (once artillery rockets are taken into account) are not beyond possibility.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Am I right in thinking that the armistice between North and South Korea in 1953 has never progressed to a formal peace settlement? In other words technically the situation is that a ceasefire has applied for the last 64 years but the war itself is still "live"?

 

[najaB]

Am I right in thinking that the armistice between North and South Korea in 1953 has never progressed to a formal peace settlement? In other words technically the situation is that a ceasefire has applied for the last 64 years but the war itself is still "live"?

You are correct.

 

[najaB]

CAsualties in the hundreds of thousands killed and massive firestorms (once artillery rockets are taken into account) are not beyond possibility.

All of the above is true, however there is a difference between tens (likely) or hundreds (less likely) of thousands killed and the 'obliteration' of Seoul.

 

[ainsworth74]

There are thousands of North Korean artillery pieces capable of striking the Soeul metro area - they have had 50 years to prepare for the barrage.

Thousands? Really? Even the closest point of the NK board to Seoul is still on the very edge of the range of a 155mm conventional projectile (I find it hard to believe that NK will have much in the way of RAP available to them). So its going to have to be the stuff that's larger than 155mm that's going to be doing the damage and that's basically just their 170mm Koksan guns of which they have hundreds, as far as I'm aware, not thousands. Though there are of course 240mm and 300mm rockets to consider as well of course..

But you have to consider that we're not talking about well trained and led troops nor are we likely to talking about particularly well fed troops who are, therefore, likely to have much in the way of endurance. They ain't going to be humping 170mm shells and 240mm/300mm rockets all that quickly or for all that long. Plus there is the rate of duds that can be expected from the poor quality ammunition that NK has access to. When NK and ROK have exchanged fire, NK gunners have not covered themselves with glory...

Further they may have had fifty years to prepare this barrage. But the ROK and US have had fifty years to prepare their country battery and air response to the attack. No one is talking about a magic 'I win' button, there is no such thing. But NK can have the most perfect plan for destroying Seoul but that doesn't change the fact that the other guys, ROK and the US, get a vote.

Would Seoul suffer significant damage and casualties? Yes, of course. Would it be turned into a 'sea of fire' and suffer firestorms, damage and casualties like a modern day Dresden or Hamburg? No, I can't see it.

 

[Busaholic]

That MOAB dropped on the cave complex in Afghanistan, very close to the Pakistan border, may turn out to have far more significance in the long term than the sabre-rattling in and surrounding North Korea. I have been listening to and reading reports from the Far East which suggest that tensions between the two Koreas were far worse a few years back and that South Korea was surprised in the end that they didn't come under attack. However, we do now have two presidents, of North Korea and of the USA, both brimming with bombast and both sharing far more than ridiculous haircuts, so some petty incident or imagined slight could lead to a firestorm - I do hope I'm wrong.

 

[ainsworth74]

However, we do now have two presidents, of North Korea and of the USA, both brimming with bombast and both sharing far more than ridiculous haircuts, so some petty incident or imagined slight could lead to a firestorm - I do hope I'm wrong.

I can't see Kim Jong-un starting anything with the US or ROK. He's a despicable human being but he's not a fool. He knows that doing that would be just about the fastest way to ending his comfy lifestyle and indeed his life imaginable. Blame the evil Americans and their traitorous South Korean lap dogs for any issues, rattle the sabres and and beat the drums to keep the population under control. But actually act upon that rhetoric? Suicide.

 

[najaB]

I can't see Kim Jong-un starting anything with the US or ROK.

I could, but only as a desperate last move in the event of an internal move against him. We're nowhere near that point currently, if anything he's sleeping more comfortably at night than at any point since he took over.

 

[ainsworth74]

I could, but only as a desperate last move in the event of an internal move against him. We're nowhere near that point currently, if anything he's sleeping more comfortably at night than at any point since he took over.

Yes that's true, I did start typing that out but got distracted so just deleted it and posted what I had

 

[Butts]

I could, but only as a desperate last move in the event of an internal move against him. We're nowhere near that point currently, if anything he's sleeping more comfortably at night than at any point since he took over.

I'm not normally in favour of ex-judicial killings but I think an exception should be made in the case of Jong -Un.

As my thread of a few years ago intimated take him out of the equation and things would be a lot simpler.

 

[najaB]

As my thread of a few years ago intimated take him out of the equation and things would be a lot simpler.

I don't know if North Korean society is ready for life after the Kims yet. Much like Saddam in Iraq, removing the dictator might lead to a worse short-term situation for the majority of the people.

 

[Butts]

I don't know if North Korean society is ready for life after the Kims yet. Much like Saddam in Iraq, removing the dictator might lead to a worse short-term situation for the majority of the people.

Normally I might have agreed with you , but Saddam was positively progressive compared to Jong-Un

 

[najaB]

Normally I might have agreed with you , but Saddam was positively progressive compared to Jong-Un

True. But what will fill the power vacuum if there was a decapitation strike against North Korea? Civil war in a country as militarised as they are could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

 

[ainsworth74]

True. But what will fill the power vacuum if there was a decapitation strike against North Korea? Civil war in a country as militarised as they are could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Quite. Assassinating Jong-un out the blue would perhaps be the worst possible way of resolving the North Korean issue. All you'd achieve is an immediate and bloody power struggle in a heavily militarised nuclear weapon state. Which would quite possibly trigger an ROK/US invasion (or at least partial invasion) to attempt to secure those nuclear weapons lest some damn fool NK general decides to use one against an opponent in the struggle (or sell them to the highest bidder to raise funds).

 

[Busaholic]

Quite. Assassinating Jong-un out the blue would perhaps be the worst possible way of resolving the North Korean issue. All you'd achieve is an immediate and bloody power struggle in a heavily militarised nuclear weapon state. Which would quite possibly trigger an ROK/US invasion (or at least partial invasion) to attempt to secure those nuclear weapons lest some damn fool NK general decides to use one against an opponent in the struggle (or sell them to the highest bidder to raise funds).

If Jong-un was deposed by, or with the knowledge of, China then possibly the situation might improve, but unilaterally by the U.S. would be incredibly reckless with consequences too frightening to contemplate, frankly.

 

[ainsworth74]

If Jong-un was deposed by, or with the knowledge of, China then possibly the situation might improve, but unilaterally by the U.S. would be incredibly reckless with consequences too frightening to contemplate, frankly.

I would also add in that for that to work there would need to be something internal to NK to step into the power vacuum. For me that is the real dangerous part of any suggestion of removing Jong-un from power. What happens internal in North Korea. But yes realistically it would require the approval/involvement of China as well.

 

[Cowley]

I just read on the news that they apparently attempted to launch a missile yesterday afternoon (10:21pm our time) but it immediately exploded.
I imagine heads will be rolling in North Korea tonight. I wonder if the wee chap was there to experience it and the inevitable rapturous applause that he was expecting?

 

[najaB]

I imagine heads will be rolling in North Korea tonight.

Quite literally, I suspect.

 

[Cowley]

Quite literally, I suspect.

It would be a pretty uncomfortable moment wouldn't it?
As you're watching the launch that you've set up go catastrophically wrong in front of your very eyes during a moment when the world is looking on and contemplating the power of your glorious leader. Your throat goes dry as you take an involuntary gulp of air and slowly turn around to see the expressionless Kim Jong-Un staring at you...

 

[Butts]

It would be a pretty uncomfortable moment wouldn't it?
As you're watching the launch that you've set up go catastrophically wrong in front of your very eyes during a moment when the world is looking on and contemplating the power of your glorious leader. Your throat goes dry as you take an involuntary gulp of air and slowly turn around to see the expressionless Kim Jong-Un staring at you...

And no doubt looking for the nearest anti-aircraft gun to strap the hapless individuals to if the rumours are correct

 

[Peter Mugridge]

It would be a pretty uncomfortable moment wouldn't it?
As you're watching the launch that you've set up go catastrophically wrong in front of your very eyes during a moment when the world is looking on and contemplating the power of your glorious leader. Your throat goes dry as you take an involuntary gulp of air and slowly turn around to see the expressionless Kim Jong-Un staring at you...

If he is thinking quickly:

"And that, Dear Leader, is a small scale demonstration of what the people on the receiving end will see..."

 

[Jonny]

True. But what will fill the power vacuum if there was a decapitation strike against North Korea? Civil war in a country as militarised as they are could result in hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Maybe, but Koreans are a pretty homogeneous bunch, in both cultural and demographic terms. It's not as though there are massive religious-sectarian divides that bear no resemblance whatsoever to the official borders, or have a religion that takes sectarian strife to new levels. In fact, there are very few if any muslims in North Korea.

Indeed, North Korea has suffered from a lack of a defined opposition group. Therefore, political decapitation would not pose as much of a risk as it would in other areas. Also, Korea has always been Korea and the political and cultural identity is that of a single country across South and North Korea. It would be likely to be more like German re-unification than post-war Iraq.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, North Korea has suffered from a lack of a defined opposition group. Therefore, political decapitation would not pose as much of a risk as it would in other areas.

As I see it, that makes things worse, not better. North Korea is a society held together (such as it is) by fear and blind obedience to the Kim dynasty. Remove the head and you have a dozen or so generals at the top who won't necessarily agree on who is in charge. With no clear non-Kim line of succession there is every reason to believe that the country would descend into chaos.

 

[Butts]

Do people believe that the USA has the capability to take out North Korea's main defences in a non-nuclear strike as is being bandied about ?

The USA has pandered to various despot's for to long perhaps and Trump is keen to demonstrate the fate of future miscreants.

My favoured option as I mentioned before is to take Kim out personally.

 

[najaB]

Do people believe that the USA has the capability to take out North Korea's main defences in a non-nuclear strike as is being bandied about ?

The USA has pandered to various despot's for to long perhaps and Trump is keen to demonstrate the fate of future miscreants.

Yes, and what do you mean by 'pandered'? What God-given right do they have to effect political change in any country other than their own?

 

[Butts]

Yes, and what do you mean by 'pandered'? What God-given right do they have to effect political change in any country other than their own?

In the case of North Korea putting up with bellicose empty threats from a despot whose removal could make a real difference to the ordinary citizens he claims to represent.

I can see a parallel with the Berlin Wall coming down