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

111–120 of 124 posts

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

#111

Post by deckiedan »

lettergram wrote: post #55
0xfeba wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I spent some time in South Korea working with several churches there - they are in tears over the situation in the North every day praying for them. I'm sure if/when it happens there will be a staggeringly huge amount of money poured in from the churches, and other religious people around the world (on top of everything the governments put in...)

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

#112

Post by ethbro »

jerf wrote: post #83
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.…

"One factor to consider here is what happens if no conflict occurs?" Another angle is the threat North Korea wields is not static. 20 years ago we were worried "What if NK starts shelling Seoul?" Now we're worried "What if NK nukes Seoul or maybe Japan?" We're either at or just a year or two away from "What if NK nukes Hawaii?" with rapid progress towards "What if NK nukes the United States?" Give it another twenty y…

Per my understanding of game theory, games can be run for different amounts of time. Additional rounds just naturally balloon the possibility space. But your logic seems sound for "We play the NK game out over the next 30 years, making a decision every 5 years."

They've made technological progress. They will continue to make technological progress. Therefore, the status quo for 30 years leads to an untenable situation. And the options then are worse than the options now.

Also, NK's political system makes Iran look like Switzerland.

I agree that the Chinese are going to determine in a large way how this plays out. Since the US government seems to publicly be expressing a hard line, the Chinese are going to have to pick a side.

Which is probably what the assassination of Kim's half brother was all about: given that regime replacement with a moderate (who would agree to suspend development in exchange for guarantees of sovereignity) by the Chinese would have been the obvious first option.

My expectation is that the Chinese are going to attempt regime change with the US's tacit agreement. The US, Japan, and China all don't lose if a Chinese proxy is allowed to continue to exist there.

All other options end with a NK-controlled peninsula (unlikely, and unacceptable by China-suspicious regional powers) or a SK-controlled peninsula (unacceptable by China).

Not to mention China could use an outlet for their bloated construction industry. "We will rebuild North Korea for humanitarian reasons!" would obviously play well.

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

#113

Post by YZF »

panglott wrote: post #62
charles-salvia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ru…

I don't want to minimize the North Korean regime, but you're talking about some of the world's largest armies engaged in a total war to the death in an area half the size of California with twice the population. You're talking about rocket artillery bombardment of a city of 30 million people, major tank warfare in population centers, and a serious risk of the use of nuclear weapons. This is warfare at a scale we have…

Wars are very rarely (read as never) fought as total wars to the death. Nobody can predict what exactly would happen if the conflict turns violent. The range of outcomes is huge. The regime may not be able to sustain itself if a war breaks out. There could be mass surrender/defections. Certainly it's hard to see how NK can sustain a war for any length of time given the state of its economy and the resources it has. The worst case scenario is indeed very ugly but IMO not very likely. As crazy as the regime appears to be, self preservation must be one of its objectives.

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

#114

Post by Steko »

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…

> why can't China and the US join forces and militarily overrun DPRK?

All sibling comments talking about things like buffer states are missing the forest for the trees. You don't invade North Korea mostly because they have nuclear weapons.

No sane US administration (sighs) is going to risk over a million dead civilians in Seoul, Osaka or Tokyo and the resulting global recession.

For China, despite all the missiles NK lobs toward Japan, the reality is that Beijing is closer to Pyongyang than Osaka and likely has worse missile defense. A Japan with nuclear ambitions isn't high on China's priority list either.

You can hand wave their shaky missile tech away as a threat to Japan and China but that's a lot of lives to gamble on and there's a real possibility they've smuggled weapons abroad as well (more likely chemical than nuclear but still bad).

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

#115

Post by vkou »

arwhatever wrote: post #110
vkou wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Should some of the stunts they have pulled during that time be considered when defining "stable?"

Well, unlike some other nuclear powers, they managed to restrain themselves from invading a few sovereign nations in the past few decades.

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

#116

Post by tcoppi »

smacktoward wrote: post #72
tcoppi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's important to note as well that Chinese intervention isn't a binary, fully-on or fully-off kind of thing; it's possible to imagine various degrees of intervention. One that seems likely to me in this kind of scenario, for instance, would be for Chinese forces to move in to uphold the integrity of the pre-war border. Allied forces would be free to push the North Koreans out of South Korean territory; but if they t…

I think this is probably how the Chinese intervention, if they choose to intervene, would start, to restore the current DPRK/ROK border after a ROK/US incursion into the North. It seems likely that if that happens, DPRK would escalate with nukes in order to force China's hand into full intervention on their behalf, as USA's current doctrine, to the best of unclass knowledge, is to respond in kind to nuclear aggression. Once that happens all bets are off, unfortunately. I don't see how it ends well for anyone once China decides to get involved, given the current doctrines and state of military technology.

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

#117

Post by tcoppi »

panglott wrote: post #22
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.

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

A more accessible wargame simulator would be the recently released Hearts of Iron IV(http://store.steampowered.com/app/394360/), a very realistic WW2-era military grand strategy game. Playing a game or two and you will quickly realize how shallow basic analysis and games such as Civilization, in terms of warfighting, are.

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

#118

Post by timthelion »

thrden wrote: post #99
timthelion wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is Trump making the decision now, not the international community. I'll also remind you, that the only country in the entire world that has extensively used WMDs is the US. The US has used Nukes (WWII), and is also responsible for the most extensive use of chemical weapons of any county (Vietnam). NK has never used a WMD.

Lots of countries had widespread Chemical weapons usage. Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program Israel used white phosphorous till 2013: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22310544 the Soviet Union was accused of using chemical weapons in afghanistan: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/afghan/report.pdf The UN stated that Cuban units used VX…

My point was, that OP was saying that countries that have and use WMDs are not legitimate. I agree. I don't think most governments are legit. But it seems NK is rather mild when it comes to WMDs. The US has far far more of them than NK and actually uses them.

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

#119

Post by vkou »

ethbro wrote: post #112
jerf wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One factor to consider here is what happens if no conflict occurs?" Another angle is the threat North Korea wields is not static. 20 years ago we were worried "What if NK starts shelling Seoul?" Now we're worried "What if NK nukes Seoul or maybe Japan?" We're either at or just a year or two away from "What if NK nukes Hawaii?" with rapid progress towards "What if NK nukes the United States?" Give it another twenty y…

Per my understanding of game theory, games can be run for different amounts of time. Additional rounds just naturally balloon the possibility space. But your logic seems sound for "We play the NK game out over the next 30 years, making a decision every 5 years." They've made technological progress. They will continue to make technological progress. Therefore, the status quo for 30 years leads to an untenable situatio…

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has made it clear to everyone what guarantees of sovereignty, in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons are worth.

Nothing.

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

#120

Post by vkou »

phil21 wrote: post #100
lettergram wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also look at places like South African. Where the government gave up nukes, transitioned to a different government​, and everything was fine (internationally)

So same outcome, just less violent and voluntarily vs military intervention? I don't think that's the outcome the leadership of NK are looking for.

The end of apartheid was... Not entirely, but mostly orthogonal to South Africa's nuclear ambitions.
Post reply on HN