Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan • Hacker News Board

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

#41

Post by charles-salvia » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #34

charles-salvia wrote: post #14

The assessment predicts: "Tens or hundreds of thousands could become casualties" ... in the event of an all-out DRPK/(US+ROK) conflict. One factor to consider here is what happens if no conflict occurs? In that case, there are ... still likely tens of thousands of civilian deaths happening as the status quo in North Korean labor camps[1]. Allowing the regime to continue to exist also has a major cost in human lives.…

"Allowing the regime to continue to exist" is a backwards way of looking at things that serves to legitimate invasions. The US is a superpower, but that doesn't mean that other nation-states exist because we deign to suffer their existence—that's a very colonialist way of looking at the world. Invading the north (or provoking it with special operations) would be a positive action for which the US would be responsible…

That's a subjective value call. It depends on how many North Koreans are being brutalized/dying right now. We don't have that number, but it's likely that tens of thousands of the hundreds of thousands of political prisoners will die of starvation or execution within a few years. So unspeakable carnage is already the default state, and we already have a situation here that is comparable to Khmer Rouge or Stalinist Russia levels of human-rights violations.

Regardless, the colonial past of Western powers is not relevant here. I am not suggesting a policy of Imperialism. I am just pointing out that North Korea's very existence comes with a serious cost in human life. This might be something we should at least factor in when weighing the heavy costs of destroying the Kim regime.

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

#42

Post by WillyOnWheels » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

pdelbarba wrote: post #2

It's an interesting read if you're into the nuts and bolts of modern warfare. The key assumption is that the DPRK actually has any ambition of attacking the ROK though. They'll scream and carry on until they get their sanctions lifted and, in their minds, come out of the whole thing a nuclear power. Now those running tomorrow's senate briefing on the other hand... Edit: it's also worth noting that they're playing a s…

I don't think DPRK really wants to nuke anyone. They just look at countries in the last 30 years and look at their options:

Libya: Gave up their WMDs, Libya government gone.

Ukraine: Gave up their nukes, Russia invaded (I admit this is a bit contrived)

Iraq: Didn't have nukes, Iraqi government gone.

Pakistan: Has nukes, is incredibly unstable, still there!

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

#43

Post by panglott » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:54 PM UTC

ilamont wrote: post #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…

North Korea has conducted plenty of special operations against its neighbors. I'm most familiar with the kidnapping of Japanese citizens by submarine. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/north-koreas-abducti... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korean_abductions_of_Jap...

I would not plan on North Korean special forces being so witless.

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

#44

Post by lurker456 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:55 PM UTC

panglott wrote: post #17

"The final element in the DPRK plan is an extensive deep battle across the entire South Korean depth using some one hundred thousand special operations forces (SOF). 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. ... As…

I'm not sure that's still true based on the stories of malnutrition in NK, even for their own military. Considering the cultural differences, a few pop quiz questions might be enough as well.

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

#45

Post by omurphy27 » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:56 PM UTC

Animats wrote: 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.

I used to think that North Korea could easily flatten Seoul, but it turns out that this really isn't the case.

The majority of NK's artillery is not long range and can't threaten the densest parts of Seoul; while those that are long range will be immediately targeted and destroyed once they begin firing. Then there are serious questions regarding the quality of NK's equipment and their troops, plus the fact that artillery on its own is not particularly lethal.

Finally, South Korean civilians in the part of Seoul most under threat are prepared for this attack and most every subway station can double as a bomb shelter.

Any NK artillery attack would definitely kill a substantial amount of civilians, but it wouldn't be 100,000s and it wouldn't destroy Seoul. The real wildcard is if NK uses chemical or nuclear weapons which changes everything.

There's a good summary of any potential NK attack on Seoul here: www.dailykos.com/story/2017/4/25/1656090/-North-Korean-artillery-and-the-concept-of-flattening-Seoul-a-breakdown

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

#46

Post by pdelbarba » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:56 PM UTC

WillyOnWheels wrote: post #42

pdelbarba wrote: post #2

It's an interesting read if you're into the nuts and bolts of modern warfare. The key assumption is that the DPRK actually has any ambition of attacking the ROK though. They'll scream and carry on until they get their sanctions lifted and, in their minds, come out of the whole thing a nuclear power. Now those running tomorrow's senate briefing on the other hand... Edit: it's also worth noting that they're playing a s…

I don't think DPRK really wants to nuke anyone. They just look at countries in the last 30 years and look at their options: Libya: Gave up their WMDs, Libya government gone. Ukraine: Gave up their nukes, Russia invaded (I admit this is a bit contrived) Iraq: Didn't have nukes, Iraqi government gone. Pakistan: Has nukes, is incredibly unstable, still there!

That's pretty much my point. Short range nukes = a few countries forced to cooperate. Long range nukes = all countries forced to cooperate.

Edit: interesting comparison with the noted countries BTW.

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

#47

Post by protomyth » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

pdelbarba wrote: post #19

jgable wrote: 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.

Tom Clancy's old books (not the garbage that used his name recently). Start with Red Storm Rising and then go through the Jack Ryan series beginning with The Hunt For Red October . You'll find his political views slightly odd if you're younger, but his military knowledge is unparalleled. Edit: for the HN crowd especially, his detailed descriptions of weapon systems and politics are pretty amazing. You can argue he pr…

His description of everything was, well, detailed, as I remember a credit card scene that had some length to it. Red Storm Rising[1] was effectively co-written with Larry Bond who is the game designer behind Harpoon. He has written his own books with one being Red Phoenix dealing with a Korean conflict.

> You'll find his political views slightly odd if you're younger

not so much with a lot of surveys dealing with conservatives and youth

1) It should be noted that Red Storm Rising occurred before the F-117 was actually revealed so the book has a description of the rumored F-19 in the chapter "The Frisbees of Dreamland" but the tactics were what was written about (kill other sides AWACS). Bill Sweetnam had some alternate views.

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

#48

Post by etheric » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 6:57 PM UTC

I found this article to be an interesting read on what a war with NK might look like http://defconwarningsystem.com/2017/03/25/what-a-korean-war-... Essentially NK would use every weapon they can and China would be the only winner.

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

#49

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: 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…

The transition itself would dramatically increase the dangerous instability which is reason enough to try to put it off. "The horse might learn to talk" and all that.

A lot also hinges on what sort of deal China could work out with SK and the US. Would US forces come all the way to China's borders? Would the US leave the peninsula entirely after the war? Maybe China could be bribed with a lease for a nice naval base on the Sea of Japan? I'd hope that there's been some discussion of all of this ahead of times given how the last Korean War went but who knows.

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

#50

Post by antimatter » Tue, Apr 25, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

0xfeba wrote: post #31

charles-salvia wrote: post #14

The assessment predicts: "Tens or hundreds of thousands could become casualties" ... in the event of an all-out DRPK/(US+ROK) conflict. One factor to consider here is what happens if no conflict occurs? In that case, there are ... still likely tens of thousands of civilian deaths happening as the status quo in North Korean labor camps[1]. Allowing the regime to continue to exist also has a major cost in human lives.…

I think one of the major reasons no one does anything about it, ignoring the buffer China enjoys from the US (via proxy), is the humanitarian crisis from the entire NK population after the war is over. Who is going to help them? China? SK?

> Who is going to help them? China? SK?

Most likely? The US taxpayers.