Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

realcleardefense.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 124 posts

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

#51

Post by aphextron »

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…

>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.

This is a question of international consensus, not US will. Under the definition of sovereignty agreed upon by the international community, DPRK has forfeited its' right to sovereignty by repeated human rights abuses, WMD development, and aggression toward it's neighbors. Essentially, if a state fails to uphold it's responsibility to its' citizens, sovereignty is forfeited. Admittedly this is a hard thing to judge, but a line must be drawn somewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_sovereignty

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

#52

Post by WillyOnWheels »

pdelbarba wrote: post #46
WillyOnWheels wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a Twitter account from a right leaning Westerner(as in he occasionally favors a military solution to NK politics, writes policy papers for a think tank) in Seoul who speaks and reads Korean, reads all of the North Korean press releases, he claims that the NK government is the sanest government around. They want to stay in power. Everything they do, in their mind, furthers this goal. They don't want to be regime-changed! I'll see if I can find his URL again.

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

#53

Post by [deleted] »

pdelbarba wrote: post #46
WillyOnWheels wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#54

Post by gricardo99 »

The bottom-line seems to be there's a huge range of plausible outcomes, from a relatively contained, short war to multiple WMD strikes on cities (Seoul, Tokyo, NYC, etc..) with prolonged fighting for months (years?) to finally defeat all DPRK forces.

And this is why the situation persists. No sane person will risk the consequences of "the war is not going as well as we hoped it would"

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

#55

Post by lettergram »

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?

South Korea already has plans in place for that. I can't find the article at the moment, but they feel super bad for and about North Korea and really want to help if they could

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

#56

Post by tcoppi »

etheric wrote: post #48

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.

This and the OP both discount the small, but very real possibility of conflict escalation with China, completely unintended by both sides. If China enters militarily(big if, given recent statements) on the side of DPRK and the conflict has escalated to using nukes, it will be very hard for it to not spiral out of control into a full-on regional, if not worldwide, war.

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

#57

Post by Meerax »

sytelus wrote: post #9

The article surprisingly leaves out Russia altogether. In essence, Russia is the "father" of DPRK and its hard to think that it would sit around quite when DPRK is losing. Another big factor is that DPRK would have no qualms in attacking civilian population in Seoul using missiles and artillery and in fact that's what they would focus on in order to terrorize and put RPK+US on defensive. A single bomb can do much mor…

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4428384/amp/Putin-se...

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

#58

Post by AcerbicZero »

A reasonable, if somewhat short, overview of the topic, although a bit generous when discussing the air power situation over Korea. Smashing older Russian SAM sites is almost an American pastime at this point, and I have serious doubts the KPAF would put up anything beyond token resistance in the air. The author also skims over the massive leaps in lethality on the modern battlefield. It's difficult to stress this enough, but T-54's and T-62's do not have a long life span under these conditions.

So the DPRK would need to achieve total surprise, fight ~20 miles to Seoul against an opponent who is equipped with mostly modern weapons, and who has planned for this very attack. They also need to do this with no air support, little to no armored support, and limited night fighting capabilities.

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

#59

Post by WillyOnWheels »

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…

> One thing I have never understood: why can't China and the US join forces and militarily overrun DPRK?

I cannot think of a regime changing American military excursion in the last 60 years that resulted in the scenario that America wanted, with the possible exception of Grenada.

That's a good reason to not invade.

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

#60

Post by Animats »

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.

USMC MCDP 1, Warfighting, is a good read.[1] It's a bit philosophical, but far less so than Sun Tzu or Clausewitz.

For small-unit tactics, read the classic The Defense of Duffer's Drift to get a sense of the problem.[2] Then read some of the military how-to manuals.

Armchair generals talk strategy. Real generals talk logistics. Logistics cannot win wars, but it can easily lose them. If the troops at the sharp end run out of fuel, food, or ammo, they're dead. Eisenhower was a logistics guy. Gen. Gus Patronis's "Moving Mountains" describes the logistics for the Gulf War.

Overall American strategy from WWII has been 1) accumulate huge resources 2) hammer. This worked in WWII, failed in Vietnam, worked in the Gulf War, worked in the Iraq invasion, and failed in the aftermath of Iraq and Afghanistan. How to win today's diffused wars is much discussed in the military; there are endless papers in Parameters, the Army War College journal. There's no center to obliterate for victory. No way to force a decision.

Korea is a classic heavy force-on-force situation. If that happens, it will look like WWII, not Afghanistan. Massive casualties and flattened cities.

[1] http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/MCDP%201%20Wa... [2] https://ia801000.us.archive.org/29/items/FMFRP1233TheDefense...

Post reply on HN