North Korea

[Amp34]

What does that have to do with anything?

The assertion that US weight of arms would just overwhelm a large force of conventional soldiers.

The reality is it didn't work the first time in Korea and it didn't work in Vietnam. The reality is up against a large force of dedicated soldiers and irregulars the US (and other western nations) has and will struggle without devastating cost to them.

Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been a walk in the park and we were lucky with them that the Iraqi army basically capitulated on day 2. When there are several million military members (even poorly trained) that won't just lay down their arms we are in deep ****.

I'm sure if we really were dedicated to winning at all costs then we/the US would win, but as shown in Vietnam and Iraq the political cost outweighs that in all but the most extreme circumstances, and a war with a country that has no intention/ability to ever threaten your own countries way of life will never be extreme circumstances. As soon as the body bags start coming home the pressure will be well and truly on.

 

[Roar87]

The assertion that US weight of arms would just overwhelm a large force of conventional soldiers.

The reality is it didn't work the first time in Korea and it didn't work in Vietnam. The reality is up against a large force of dedicated soldiers and irregulars the US (and other western nations) has and will struggle without devastating cost to them.

Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been a walk in the park and we were lucky with them that the Iraqi army basically capitulated on day 2. When there are several million military members (even poorly trained) that won't just lay down their arms we are in deep ****.

I'm sure if we really were dedicated to winning at all costs then we/the US would win, but as shown in Vietnam and Iraq the political cost outweighs that in all but the most extreme circumstances, and a war with a country that has no intention/ability to ever threaten your own countries way of life will never be extreme circumstances. As soon as the body bags start coming home the pressure will be well and truly on.

It's different really, we struggle when we're put against guerrilla warfare and people who are civilians one minute, then pick up an AK47 and snipe at you the next. Put us up against an organised army and we steam roll. If you want to cite the Iraq war, go on Wikipedia and look at the losses for each side, we lost 172 soldiers in the Invasion of 2003 compared to estimates of 7,000-45,000. That's nothing but an overwhelming victory.

 

[dowie]

The assertion that US weight of arms would just overwhelm a large force of conventional soldiers.

The reality is it didn't work the first time in Korea and it didn't work in Vietnam. The reality is up against a large force of dedicated soldiers and irregulars the US (and other western nations) has and will struggle without devastating cost to them.

Wars like Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been a walk in the park and we were lucky with them that the Iraqi army basically capitulated on day 2. When there are several million military members (even poorly trained) that won't just lay down their arms we are in deep ****.

I'm sure if we really were dedicated to winning at all costs then we/the US would win, but as shown in Vietnam and Iraq the political cost outweighs that in all but the most extreme circumstances, and a war with a country that has no intention/ability to ever threaten your own countries way of life will never be extreme circumstances. As soon as the body bags start coming home the pressure will be well and truly on.

Vietnam was 50 years ago and didn't start off as an all out conventional war on the part of the US but rather assistance to the southern Vietnamese govt that escalated and turned into a more conventional war in places and a drawn out counter insurgency campaign.

If we look at recent wars then we can indeed look at Iraq - twice! Saddam had one of the largest militaries in the region and was overwhelmed very rapidly. These days there isn't a single country that could stand up to the US for very long in a conventional war. Sure a counter insurgency is a different scenario however it isn't clear that that would be too much of an issue here (China dependent to some extent). It isn't like we're dealing with any Islamic nonsense there and China's current implementation of 'communism' is rather far removed from North Korea.

Frankly if something did kick off down there then we're looking at a large conventional war which would require decisive US action very quickly.

 

[Rroff]

Vietnam was 50 years ago and didn't start off as an all out conventional war on the part of the US but rather assistance to the southern Vietnamese govt that escalated and turned into a more conventional war in places and a drawn out counter insurgency campaign.

If we look at recent wars then we can indeed look at Iraq - twice! Saddam had one of the largest militaries in the region and was overwhelmed very rapidly. These days there isn't a single country that could stand up to the US for very long in a conventional war. Sure a counter insurgency is a different scenario however it isn't clear that that would be too much of an issue here (China dependent to some extent). It isn't like we're dealing with any Islamic nonsense there and China's current implementation of 'communism' is rather far removed from North Korea.

Frankly if something did kick off down there then we're looking at a large conventional war which would require decisive US action very quickly.

In open warfare yes - I think people seriously underestimate the logistics of fighting against a defending NK rather than an offensive one - large parts of the country is tightly packed valleys which they've had many years to put in sunken railroads, bunkers and other dug in fortifications, tunnels linking valleys and expanded mines they use for storage with multiple entrances spread out and so on. While I suspect the US has lots of it mapped out it would still be a long and costly slog clearing it.

 

[Amp34]

It's different really, we struggle when we're put against guerrilla warfare and people who are civilians one minute, then pick up an AK47 and snipe at you the next. Put us up against an organised army and we steam roll. If you want to cite the Iraq war, go on Wikipedia and look at the losses for each side, we lost 172 soldiers in the Invasion of 2003 compared to estimates of 7,000-45,000. That's nothing but an overwhelming victory.

It's even easier when the military just put down their arms and dissolve into the civilian population. Which is what happened in Iraq V2. We didn't steam roll them, most didn't even fight, which is the point. It's doubtful NK would do the same. They probably would actually fight.

Vietnam was 50 years ago and didn't start off as an all out conventional war on the part of the US but rather assistance to the southern Vietnamese govt that escalated and turned into a more conventional war in places and a drawn out counter insurgency campaign.

If we look at recent wars then we can indeed look at Iraq - twice! Saddam had one of the largest militaries in the region and was overwhelmed very rapidly. These days there isn't a single country that could stand up to the US for very long in a conventional war. Sure a counter insurgency is a different scenario however it isn't clear that that would be too much of an issue here (China dependent to some extent). It isn't like we're dealing with any Islamic nonsense there and China's current implementation of 'communism' is rather far removed from North Korea.

Frankly if something did kick off down there then we're looking at a large conventional war which would require decisive US action very quickly.

See above (edit; and also Rroffs post), and include the fact that Iraq was a desert, which is flat and allows large armoured columns with huge ranges of visibility. A big negative for conventional forces with lower tech weapons and a big benefit for well equipped militaries with top of the range tanks, armoured vehicles and planes. Add lots of trees, hills, narrow passes into the mix and things change almost immediately, as was found out in both Korea and Vietnam. It nullifies a lot of the advantages of western militaries as you need to start putting a lot more men on the ground, not protected by thick steel shells. The US had huge firepower in Vietnam for example (heck they were using B52's to carpet bomb huge areas).

NK would "degenerate" into Vietnam style fighting very quickly IMO, and the idea we would just steamroll through as easily as somewhere like Iraq (during the first few weeks) is wishful thinking at best. The US would win, but at huge political and manpower costs and I don't believe there would be the political will required to do so, just like vietnam.

 

[dowie]

Not necessarily - they're hardly well resourced, without sufficient supplies or command and control the North Koreans will be screwed. A lot has changed in capabilities over 50 years - a conventional war would be over relatively quickly. Sure there could be a lot of casualties (especially civilian) on the South Korean side though mostly depending on how much munition gets thrown their way during the initial stages.

 

[Rroff]

Sure there could be a lot of casualties (especially civilian) on the South Korean side though mostly depending on how much munition gets thrown their way during the initial stages.

According to wiki:

Despite the general fuel and ammunition shortages for training, it is estimated that the wartime strategic reserves of food for the army are sufficient to feed the regular troops for 500 days, while fuel and ammunition - amounting to 1.5 million* and 1.7 million tonnes respectively - are sufficient to wage a full-scale war for 100 days.

Also NK has stockpiles of chemical and other weapons/equipment that are banned by international conventions in the rest of the world which would make things a little messy to deal with.

* Which I think is about 10.5million barrels off the top of my head.

 

[terley]

You have to ask yourself how long the people of NK would stay loyal and willing to die for their "great leader" when american planes fly over dropping millions of propaganda leaflets showing how the rest of the world live.

 

[dowie]

According to wiki:



Also NK has stockpiles of chemical and other weapons/equipment that are banned by international conventions in the rest of the world which would make things a little messy to deal with.

* Which I think is about 10.5million barrels off the top of my head.

yup but getting those stockpiles too where they're needed is the issue, the NBC threat is worrying though given how densely populated some of the south is

Frankly the NK Airforce and Navy could be obliterated in 24 hours if needed and any armour wouldn't last long either, I don't think their command and control structures would last very long either even if deep within bunkers etc.. either way they're not going to be able to communicate with their forces. There would be a threat from dedicated regime loyalists but you'd likely (much like Iraq) also see mass defections/surrenders from various formations of NK troops cut off from supplies and/or communications and witnessing the initial 72 hours of massive bombardment.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

You have to ask yourself how long the people of NK would stay loyal and willing to die for their "great leader" when american planes fly over dropping millions of propaganda leaflets showing how the rest of the world live.

I dont think a few leaflets are going to do anything. Some will defect but not because America decides to show how great capitalism is with an eastern version of 'the American dream'. The locals may be cut off from the world compare to us but they know that they have it worse than most anyone else and exactly how bad they have it. Everything from the justice/social system to limits of freedom and malnutrition. It was not so long ago that famine killed from half a million to several million people.

The NK regime keeps power through brutality, limiting knowledge/power/wealth to families who are considered to be of lower loyalty and holding all members of a family responsible for increasing/decreasing standing.

It is a system which is held together by desperation but could just as easily crack under it. A prolonged war will have a good lot of their forces defect/surrender.

 

[Skiddley]

The assertion that US weight of arms would just overwhelm a large force of conventional soldiers.

The reality is it didn't work the first time in Korea and it didn't work in Vietnam. The reality is up against a large force of dedicated soldiers and irregulars the US (and other western nations) has and will struggle without devastating cost to them.

Weren't deaths in the last Korean war overwhelmingly on the side of NK\China?

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Weren't deaths in the last Korean war overwhelmingly on the side of NK\China?

Which resulted in the NK and CHN developing a close bond and is one of the main reasons why the NK regime has managed to survive this far in a quickly developing world. No one really won the war. NK returned to teh status quo, communist expansion stopped, both sides lost many lives and although the US lost less on paper, the amount of money spent was ridiculous. It is something no country will put themselves through today if they were not forced to


For all the talk of outdated arms and air capabilities, they do have a good defence against air and land if outdated. It can be overwhelmed but at a considerable economic cost which is not justified by the current political situation.

 

[StriderX]

China knows that if the US ever does invade, they will waste trillions doing so, so it's still a win condition for China to do nothing, while they sell liabilities during the potential war. In fact a war in North Korea could be the final nail in the bond market for the Dollar.

 

[Amp34]

Weren't deaths in the last Korean war overwhelmingly on the side of NK\China?

Yet lives were/are seen as cheaper on one side than the other, which is the point.

NK (and china to an extent) could sustain large casualties and continue a war (especially if it were a defensive war). The west? The deaths of less than 200 in Iraq (UK soldiers) had a lot of political weight, and 4000 US soldiers also caused major political presence. An invasion of NK, with the terrain it has, is likely to create far more deaths than that.

 

[Roar87]

Yet lives were/are seen as cheaper on one side than the other, which is the point.

NK (and china to an extent) could sustain large casualties and continue a war (especially if it were a defensive war). The west? The deaths of less than 200 in Iraq (UK soldiers) had a lot of political weight, and 4000 US soldiers also caused major political presence. An invasion of NK, with the terrain it has, is likely to create far more deaths than that.

Unless you just knocked out the leadership and infrastructure then offered them surrender terms, you don't have to go in and fight the entire NK army to the last man

 

[Avenged7Fold]

I think it is easier said than done. I am doubtful that the US decision makers find Kim Jong Un enough of a threat to warrant assassination and has little to gain and a lot to risk by clearing a path for an ambitious NK general to succeed. The US want an excuse to keep military presence there but do not want to start a war or risk instability or Civil war within NK.

If the objective of the US was to help the people of NK or dominate NK, i could understand why they may attempt to destroy their leadership but the way i see it, the current situation suits the US just fine.

 

[Destination]

Unless you just knocked out the leadership and infrastructure then offered them surrender terms, you don't have to go in and fight the entire NK army to the last man

Precisely.
Target fat boy and the fat cohorts of laughing smiling notepad wielding big hatted party members, and then leave the county a couple of weeks.
Allow them to promote/elect new big hats, kill them too.
Then wait for surrender.

 

[Rroff]

Unless you just knocked out the leadership and infrastructure then offered them surrender terms, you don't have to go in and fight the entire NK army to the last man

Given how paranoid the upper ranks are of invasion/infiltration I suspect there are mechanisms in place to defend against that and if even a moderate number of civilians/soldiers are as indoctrinated as believed then they'd likely fight on autonomously as effectively as the situation allowed for.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

If NK leadership and infrastructure crumbled, i can see China sweeping in and giving all sorts of aid while offering to govern while NK leadership settles. Any minor civil war born from NK power struggle gets quashed and easier to control Chinese puppets are put in. The overall quality of life in NK hugely improves and by sheer coincidence, NK politicians settle previous border disputes with China following their sudden introduction to the new government...in China's favour no doubt.

This would ruffle American feathers and they will put more military in the area to ensure that the old regime doesn't re-emerge and resign military contracts with SK, extending control over SK military. NK will quickly become highly industrialised while China-America tensions rise as they each call for unification under their the respective Korean regime.

Another big boy power struggle with the slogan 'all for the sake of Korea' as the brand.

 

[Amp34]

Unless you just knocked out the leadership and infrastructure then offered them surrender terms, you don't have to go in and fight the entire NK army to the last man

Simple!

Why didn't they think of that in all the other wars over the last century?!