Live data from Hacker News

Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

realcleardefense.com

21–30 of 124 posts

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#21
post #15

The key thing here is the geography. Seoul is only 20 miles from the border with North Korea. It's within artillery range, and North Korea has the necessary artillery. If there's a war, Seoul gets clobbered in the first minutes. Few countries have their capital that close to a hostile border. Syria does. Look where Damascus is.

> If there's a war, Seoul gets clobbered in the first minutes.

Alternatively, that artillery gets clobbered in the first minutes.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#22
post #13

A bit OT: does anyone have recommendations for textbooks or other resources that teach basic military strategy and tactics? Whenever any military discussion comes up that even touches technical aspects, I feel pretty lost. Similar to how with certain sports, I just can't see the movement patterns or how the plays develop.

I guess everybody's supposed to read Clausewitz and play wargames. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War http://www.consimworld.com/

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#23
post #4

This is a pretty reasoned article. One thing I have never understood: why can't China and the US join forces and militarily overrun DPRK? I know they fought each other in the Korean war, but the world has changed so drastically since then. From what I've read so far, DPRK is a source of dangerous instability for everyone involved. Wouldn't having a more stable regime on the Korean peninsula serve the interests of all…

[deleted]

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#24
post #15

The key thing here is the geography. Seoul is only 20 miles from the border with North Korea. It's within artillery range, and North Korea has the necessary artillery. If there's a war, Seoul gets clobbered in the first minutes. Few countries have their capital that close to a hostile border. Syria does. Look where Damascus is.

The artillery threat is well known so I can only assume that they have some cruise missile/counter-battery forces sighted in to destroy the current installations immediately. That just leaves lighter mobile artillery which can still be destroyed via radar counter-battery, albeit more slowly.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#25
post #6
post #4

This is a pretty reasoned article. One thing I have never understood: why can't China and the US join forces and militarily overrun DPRK? I know they fought each other in the Korean war, but the world has changed so drastically since then. From what I've read so far, DPRK is a source of dangerous instability for everyone involved. Wouldn't having a more stable regime on the Korean peninsula serve the interests of all…

DPRK is a buffer state for China. The United States lost its mind when communism established a foothold in Cuba. Russia did likewise when Ukraine began aligning towards NATO. China would prefer to have a stable regime in DPRK - but it would also prefer to not have US military bases on the other side of the Yalu river. The last time that happened, the two countries went to war. Also, arguably, the DPRK regime is extre…

It's stable right up until it is no longer stable just as much as a boat that has been afloat for 70 years can't sink.

The current leadership does not strike me as 'stable' in any way. But then again, that goes for more world leaders.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#26
local breakthroughs on the major routes towards Seoul—their first operational objective.

Playing devil's advocate: How do we know Seoul is the operational objective? It seems obvious (capital city located near the border) but what if DPRK went for something not so obvious? i.e. "Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected" (classic Sun/Mao approach)

Also, what if Pyongyang tries to draw in a sympathetic third party that would also give the US/ROK pause? China is the obvious choice, but there is also Russia ...

An interesting feature of this war is that since both sides look and speak more or less alike, covert insertion and operation is easier for each side—but especially so for North Korean agents who may move freely within South Korea’s open society.

In the 1990s I remember reading an account of North Korean special forces landing by submarine and trying to infiltrate ... and immediately being tripped up by unfamiliarity with modern technology. One of the captured agents had no idea every farmhouse had a phone, and was therefore surprised that the alarm was raised as soon as they were spotted.

There is still a huge technology divide, not to mention social giveaways relating to accents and other behavior. Sure, they can be trained, but it won't make them impervious to detection.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#27
post #20
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the USSR was the father of North Korea -- and the two had a falling out in the 1980's. North Korea was much closer to China for most of it's history.

Russia is the more friendly country than China according to DPRK's own assessment. Russia has very significant vested economic and political interests in DPRK remaining in place. China and Russia are the two major countries that do not technically participate in sanctions against DPRK (although they may agree on "paper") and which is why DPRK is able to survive at all. It would be hard to think of Russia just sitting…

Yes, modern Russia has economic interest in NK (specifically providing energy in return for hard labor). But pretending Russia is the patron of North Korea is simply disingenuous. USSR/DPRK relations were broken after the USSR/China split, and then again after the USSR dissolved Russia cut all ties to NK.

Do you have a source for USSR providing military equipment to NK? I'm skeptical.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#28
post #15

The key thing here is the geography. Seoul is only 20 miles from the border with North Korea. It's within artillery range, and North Korea has the necessary artillery. If there's a war, Seoul gets clobbered in the first minutes. Few countries have their capital that close to a hostile border. Syria does. Look where Damascus is.

There are also reports that Seoul has actively attempted to purchase the Israeli 'Iron Dome' anti-rocket system. Clearly, this would be ineffective against an all-our artillery attack by NK (which I've read could send >7000 artillery rounds a minute into SK) - but it might be useful to mitigate the effects of mobile artillery once known, non-mobile artillery installations are destroyed.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#29
post #15

The key thing here is the geography. Seoul is only 20 miles from the border with North Korea. It's within artillery range, and North Korea has the necessary artillery. If there's a war, Seoul gets clobbered in the first minutes. Few countries have their capital that close to a hostile border. Syria does. Look where Damascus is.

The artillery threat is well known so I can only assume that they have some cruise missile/counter-battery forces sighted in to destroy the current installations immediately. That just leaves lighter mobile artillery which can still be destroyed via radar counter-battery, albeit more slowly.

Here's a decent analysis of the artillery situation https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/how-north-korea-would-reta...

TL;DR; DPRK can probably get off at least one good barrage, not enough to level Seoul but it would hurt.

Re: Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan

#30
post #4

This is a pretty reasoned article. One thing I have never understood: why can't China and the US join forces and militarily overrun DPRK? I know they fought each other in the Korean war, but the world has changed so drastically since then. From what I've read so far, DPRK is a source of dangerous instability for everyone involved. Wouldn't having a more stable regime on the Korean peninsula serve the interests of all…

After reading the article it seems that DPRK is a relatively tamed threat. If we invade, they will undoubtedly do something extreme, where as right now they just /might/ do something extreme.
Post reply on HN