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

31–40 of 124 posts

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

#31

Post by 0xfeba »

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?

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

#32

Post by protomyth »

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.

This link https://www.usni.org/naval-institute-press/reading-lists has links to the US service branches reading lists - lot of leadership books but also strategy, tactics, and logistics books.

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

#33

Post by cthalupa »

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.

This is a common misconception.

1) Artillery isn't actually that good at 'clobbering' a city. 2) North Korea doesn't have THAT much artillery, and even less of it is working, nor do they have the supply lines to keep them constantly resupplied 3) Seoul has quite a bit in the way of bomb shelters

Seoul has has 10 million people in it, and most experts think that at most 30k or so would die if NK was able to shell them.

That's certainly(!) nothing to scoff at, but it's not really being clobbered. The media likes to portray it as NK being able to completely level Seoul, which just isn't reality.

http://atlanticsentinel.com/2012/06/north-korea-cant-really-... is a pretty good article on this.

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

#34

Post by panglott »

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. North Korea is a bad state, and bad for its people, but the unspeakable carnage that would result from major ground warfare on the Korean peninsula is something else entirely.

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

#35

Post by froindt »

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…

It's not a question of whether either has the military power to overrun DPRK. Both could in a matter of hours a few days. A lot of it is economic.

What happens to the ~24 million DPRK citizens who are very low skilled? Whatever country takes them on is taking on a gigantic uncertainty and costs for literally millions of people. During famines, North Koreans have literally gone to the hillsides to get grasses to eat. Many are malnourished, roadways are poor outside of Pyongyang because they need travel permits to travel within country (so the roads are not used much). To make anything of the country would require huge infrastructure costs. Many of the roadways are also suspected to be rigged with explosives so if/when a land invasion occurs, US and South Korean troops are slowed down significantly.

China doesn't want to do it because the buffer between the "US sock puppet" called South Korea is nice to have. They have had trade going with North Korea for years, and recently have gotten annoyed by the rhetoric and BS spewing from their buffer zone.

With Seoul very near the border, South Korea stands to lose many billions of dollars in assets from artillery once the invasion starts.

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

#36

Post by cthalupa »

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…

NK's nuclear arsenal is very heavily surveilled. They are very unlikely to be able to utilize any of their nuclear armament on SK's population centers.

Russia also wants nothing to do with NK when it comes to military support. Not sure why you think they would support them in the current political climate.

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

#37

Post by otoburb »

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.

It's been talked about numerous times in the Korean parliament, with the most recent concrete steps taken a few years ago to move some government agencies to Sejong[1], 100 miles further south.

As with most forced urban planning efforts, the city is struggling to attract residents who aren't civil servants. The city is expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and due to budget cuts there is (still) no planned high-speed rail[2], although it seems they are at least connected to at least one existing "normal passenger rail" line that takes 90 minutes with trains leaving every 30mins[3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_City

[2] https://www.ft.com/content/ba9646f6-4dc6-11e3-8fa5-00144feab...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejong_City#Transportation

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

#38

Post by AndrewKemendo »

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.…

This almost always goes unsaid so thanks for saying it.

The general conditions of North Korean population is staggeringly bad. Eating grass and bark soup [1], iterant cannibalism [2] etc... When you consider the Prison situation without sounding glib, it's near holocaust levels of horrors [3].

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2010/07/starving-nort...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05...

[3] http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/CoIDPRK/Pages/Reportoft...

Say what you will about international relations, pre-emptive war etc... but if the moral argument for entering WW-II for the purpose of liberating those in the concentration camps is universal then there is certainly a case to be made for North Korean conflict.

It's admittedly 1000x more complex of course.

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

#39

Post by aphextron »

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…

>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?

Such as what? Taking control of Seoul under the element of surprise is the only conceivable endgame for a DPRK invasion. Anything else would end in a protracted fight where US air superiority would absolutely demolish them.

>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.

This sounds like propaganda. North Koreans are not stupid.

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

#40

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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 flip side of your argument is it accepts the Kims' ownership over North Korea's land and population. The concept of legitimacy is fuzzy. There is gray area between defense and colonialist conquest.
Post reply on HN