North Korea threatens US with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

North Korea are a bit like Boris Johnson, play the stereotype well but aren't actually as inept as many people think them to be. While they don't have air supremacy and would eventually lose heavily to the US if they went on the assault their defence capabilities are pretty impressive (and definitely not as inept as people think) with the ability to rapidly relocate massive battalions of foot soliders and heavy tanks based on an own brand upgraded T72 hull even faced with nuclear war.

I have no idea what their nuclear payload delivery capabilities are actually like, but they have the upper hand in a way here because if they did strike something even triggering a retaliatory nuclear war anyone attacking them on their own turf would get bogged down in a casualty heavy ground war.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
North Korea are a bit like Boris Johnson, play the stereotype well but aren't actually as inept as many people think them to be. While they don't have air supremacy and would eventually lose heavily to the US if they went on the assault their defence capabilities are pretty impressive (and definitely not as inept as people think) with the ability to rapidly relocate massive battalions of foot soliders and heavy tanks based on an own brand upgraded T72 hull even faced with nuclear war.

I have no idea what their nuclear payload delivery capabilities are actually like, but they have the upper hand in a way here because if they did strike something even triggering a retaliatory nuclear war anyone attacking them on their own turf would get bogged down in a casualty heavy ground war.
Click to expand...

They don't have sufficient fuel to mobilise their army, they don't have sufficient food reserves to feed a mobilised army for an extended period or extend long supply lines, and their weaponry is, at best, of soviet era. Upgraded T72 tank hulls (... a 1960s tank) are still no match for modern armour-piercing anti-tank weaponry launched from helicopters or drones.

North Korea's greatest offensive strength is the mass of heavy artillery they have on the border, targeting Seoul and other South Korean assets.





Let me give you a quick rundown of how a US offensive against North Korea would go...

First, the US would seek to obtain air superiority. Given the massive technological differential and the questionable ability of NK to fuel their jets, this would occur very quickly (much more rapidly than, for example, 1991 Iraq). High altitude bombers and drones would be present to take out anti-air installations, while fighter jets cleared out any enemy aircraft.

The North Korean artillery would cause massive damage to the South's infrastructure, in the first hours and days of the war. Removing these batteries (primarily with drones) would be the first major strategic objective of the campaign.

We can presume that a few hundred thousand North Korean troops would swarm over the border. The US would not be able to prevent these troops pushing tens of miles into the South. However, the North's supply lines are unlikely to allow a rapid advancement (particularly for mechanised units), and any advancement will face continued and heavy bombardment from the air (drones, helicopters, B52s etc), without any means to return fire. The organisational structure of the North's army would be decimated, leaving tens of thousands of troops disbanded into small units, waging a guerilla-type offensive against whatever South Korean targets they can find, and raiding for food etc. This would be perhaps the most damaging aspect of an invasion. Large, well organised military offensives are doomed to defeat against such superior weaponry, but small bands of independent fighting units, that can "blend in" to the terrain, are much more difficult. The US and the South would require tens of thousands of troops to fight the remains of the invading force, and this process would take many months.

With air superiority attained the US would focus on "decapitation"; targetting high-ranking generals, party officials, and Mr Kim himself. North Korea is very much a top-down autocracy, and removing leaders would seriously disrupt their coordination.

A full-scale ground invasion would be delayed for as long as possible. The US has little or nothing to gain from a land invasion, and would face massive casualties. The losses would not match those seen in Vietnam or the first Korean war, but they would be significant. The US would focus on retaking lost ground in the South, and reinforcing the border. From here the goal would be to "destroy" the North's leadership, and and encourage revolt by the common people against the party (how successful this would be is anyone's guess). Drops of propaganda leaflets and food etc among civilian populations would be routine from the first few weeks of the operation.

If the "decapitation and revolt" strategy is unsuccessful, and an invasion is required, casualties will be high on both sides. I strongly suspect that the US would seek assistance in "peacekeeping" from China, whose soldiers will be viewed in a completely different light to those of the US, by North korean soldiers and civilians. The US would lose out strategically by allowing China such a strong hand in North Korea, but given the geopolitical situation, and China's growing strength, this may be a necessary compromise. China would not accept a "US puppet" regime in North Korea anyway, so involving them directly in the occupation and administration of the North would seem relatively attractive.





Edit: There is really no doubt that a North Korean invasion would be doomed to a bloody and (relatively) quick defeat. However such an invasion would cause a *massive* economic impact in the entire Asia-pacific region, on which the US relies very heavily. North Korea's entire strategy right now is brinkmanship based on this fact. They are (as they have been for a decade now) using the possibility of this massive disruption to force concessions from the US. Up until around 2008 this was working quite well, but now it is starting to fail. The US is moving further and further away from dealing with North Korea, and (more importantly) China have started to turn their back on the North as well. Without their powerful neighbours to back them up, the North is becoming more and more desperate, hence the recent rise the the volume of the rhetoric.
 
Last edited:
THMRK said:
And on that particular factor...
Click to expand...

Interesting article - thanks :)

I think it was clear to anyone that the North would not be able to kill "millions" with their artillery barrages, but it's very interesting to see some numbers put to the scenario.

In particular, I did not appreciate that so many Chinese citizens were living in Seoul... With potentially a thousand of their own nationals dead, this would remove any doubt as to where China's loyalties would lie in the event of a conflict.
 
not sure why south Korea hasn't invested in an iron curtain similar to the isreali system.
I can see the use pre-preemptively striking wiping out all assets the north has.
 
Abraxaz1 said:
not sure why south Korea hasn't invested in an iron curtain similar to the isreali system.
I can see the use pre-preemptively striking wiping out all assets the north has.
Click to expand...

Anti rocket defence is useless against artillery, NK has lots of artillery capable of striking many SK targets.


Duff-Man said:
Just to be clear... The US did not fly a B2 over North Korean air space. They sent them over South Korean airspace, to drop a dummy bomb on a target in South Korea, as part of the joint South Korean-US training program that happens annually.
Click to expand...

Playing devils advocate here, but the joint US/SK war games are basically "Practice for attacking NK", its not all that surprising that NK take offence to them.


Woden said:
Seeing a B2 and shooting it down (which has never been done) are very different things.
Click to expand...

This, the B2 was pretty much made for taking out countries like NK that would not have the ability to counter it, the B2 could have its target in ashes and be on its way home before NK even knew their airspace had been breached.
 
Last edited:
aln said:
The last time the US invaded NK, they allegedgly crossed the Chinese border and got their ass swiftly kicked out. While I'm more than sure China doesn't want a war with the US, I don't think they'd want to look weak either. I doubt it'd result in WW3 though.
Click to expand...

Nah they never went that far..even though mcArthur wanted to get all up in chinas gril. The chinese came to the aid of the north shortly after the UN forces crossed into 'north korea'.
 
Duff-Man said:
They don't have sufficient fuel to mobilise their army, they don't have sufficient food reserves to feed a mobilised army for an extended period or extend long supply lines, and their weaponry is, at best, of soviet era. Upgraded T72 tank hulls (... a 1960s tank) are still no match for modern armour-piercing anti-tank weaponry launched from helicopters or drones.

North Korea's greatest offensive strength is the mass of heavy artillery they have on the border, targeting Seoul and other South Korean assets.





Let me give you a quick rundown of how a US offensive against North Korea would go...

First, the US would seek to obtain air superiority. Given the massive technological differential and the questionable ability of NK to fuel their jets, this would occur very quickly (much more rapidly than, for example, 1991 Iraq). High altitude bombers and drones would be present to take out anti-air installations, while fighter jets cleared out any enemy aircraft.

The North Korean artillery would cause massive damage to the South's infrastructure, in the first hours and days of the war. Removing these batteries (primarily with drones) would be the first major strategic objective of the campaign.

We can presume that a few hundred thousand North Korean troops would swarm over the border. The US would not be able to prevent these troops pushing tens of miles into the South. However, the North's supply lines are unlikely to allow a rapid advancement (particularly for mechanised units), and any advancement will face continued and heavy bombardment from the air (drones, helicopters, B52s etc), without any means to return fire. The organisational structure of the North's army would be decimated, leaving tens of thousands of troops disbanded into small units, waging a guerilla-type offensive against whatever South Korean targets they can find, and raiding for food etc. This would be perhaps the most damaging aspect of an invasion. Large, well organised military offensives are doomed to defeat against such superior weaponry, but small bands of independent fighting units, that can "blend in" to the terrain, are much more difficult. The US and the South would require tens of thousands of troops to fight the remains of the invading force, and this process would take many months.

With air superiority attained the US would focus on "decapitation"; targetting high-ranking generals, party officials, and Mr Kim himself. North Korea is very much a top-down autocracy, and removing leaders would seriously disrupt their coordination.

A full-scale ground invasion would be delayed for as long as possible. The US has little or nothing to gain from a land invasion, and would face massive casualties. The losses would not match those seen in Vietnam or the first Korean war, but they would be significant. The US would focus on retaking lost ground in the South, and reinforcing the border. From here the goal would be to "destroy" the North's leadership, and and encourage revolt by the common people against the party (how successful this would be is anyone's guess). Drops of propaganda leaflets and food etc among civilian populations would be routine from the first few weeks of the operation.

If the "decapitation and revolt" strategy is unsuccessful, and an invasion is required, casualties will be high on both sides. I strongly suspect that the US would seek assistance in "peacekeeping" from China, whose soldiers will be viewed in a completely different light to those of the US, by North korean soldiers and civilians. The US would lose out strategically by allowing China such a strong hand in North Korea, but given the geopolitical situation, and China's growing strength, this may be a necessary compromise. China would not accept a "US puppet" regime in North Korea anyway, so involving them directly in the occupation and administration of the North would seem relatively attractive.





Edit: There is really no doubt that a North Korean invasion would be doomed to a bloody and (relatively) quick defeat. However such an invasion would cause a *massive* economic impact in the entire Asia-pacific region, on which the US relies very heavily. North Korea's entire strategy right now is brinkmanship based on this fact. They are (as they have been for a decade now) using the possibility of this massive disruption to force concessions from the US. Up until around 2008 this was working quite well, but now it is starting to fail. The US is moving further and further away from dealing with North Korea, and (more importantly) China have started to turn their back on the North as well. Without their powerful neighbours to back them up, the North is becoming more and more desperate, hence the recent rise the the volume of the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Fuel and ability to sustain their army would be a major consideration but don't under-estimate their (own brand) tanks (assuming they can actually run them) they are currently being upgraded with assistance from the same Chinese who recently developed one of the most highly regarded main battle tanks in the world and ancedotal evidence suggest that although they still retain many of the vulnerabilities especially to the rear that are inherent to the T72 the frontal arc is supposedly on par with any top 10 main battle tank in the world and they have significantly upgraded mobility and firepower.

The main show stopper would be how combat effective they actually are in reality and ability to resupply which is highly likely to be extremely poor. But they've been digging in (somewhat literally) since the 1970s so if they do decide to have a pop at someone with a long range strike then air based retaliation is likely going to be somewhat less effective than it could be and a ground attack bloody and costly.

EDIT: Wouldn't be too hastey to write off their supply lines, tho it would falter once they left NK, they've put a lot of effort in the last 2-3 decades in being able to rapidly move large amounts of men and vehicles around the country the main issue as you mentioned would be the resupply as by all accounts they simply don't have the resources to back up a sustained war.
 
Last edited:
Duff-Man said:
Just to be clear... The US did not fly a B2 over North Korean air space. They sent them over South Korean airspace, to drop a dummy bomb on a target in South Korea, as part of the joint South Korean-US training program that happens annually.

I'm not generally one to defend the US... Some of their foreign policies and actions (particularly in the Middle East) are terrible. But North Korea is publicly threatening the US with nuclear annihilation on a daily basis. It's hard to paint them as the aggressor in these circumstances. Until very recently the unofficial US policy has been to simply ignore North Korea wherever possible.
Click to expand...

Im not anti US and im pro south korea..but if you run massive war games right next to a country you are officially still at war with, alongside the biggest superpower on earth, you cant expect that country not to get a little concerned and start a little sabre rattling of their own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom