North Korea Invades the United States

[Crni Vuk]

I doubt that an accident would really start a war here. NK has nothing to gain from an war which they would lose 99% of the time.

I believe it was 2010 when the North Koreans fired at a part of South Korea? The Seoul officials said they are not ready to take any more taunts from their communist enemies. The problem here is not so much in NK but in the US. If a war starts imagine the panic on the South Korean stock market.

yeah well, what I mean is that probably NK would not start an war because one of their soldiers did something wrong.

The US or the South however. particularly the US would win any military engagement. And it would not be first time the US started a war like that.

But I have serious doubts that NK would start it. The moment they declare a "war" on the US is the moment their regime is dead. What ever if we believe the US can pacify or win the nation etc. thats a totally different story. But there is no doubt, that Kim and most of his generals would stop to exist. They got Saddam. They got Bin Laden. It took time. But they did. And I have no doubts the same would happen here, Kim and his group of followers would hide somewhere, they would find them, and either kill them or capture them. So if Kim Jong Un has even only one brain cell, he knows that it would be very bad for HIS life to start a war here. And I think the NK leadership is actually more afraid about their own population then the Americans. That is true for many dictatorships. The many concentration camps they have there for their own population proves that point. The whole nation is an damn prison really. And only a handful of people really actually can have a somewhat comfortable life.

I'm looking up KPA data and it seems that the "impoverished, starved army" is a myth created by western media, not supported by hard data. In fact, there's little actual evidence either way. The KPA being a paper tiger is an assumption by SK and US analysts.

http://www.examiner.com/article/north-vs-south-korea-the-balance-of-military-power

There are two major problems I see:

1. Modern equipment is inherently better than old equipment.

I consider the above statement fallacious. It's an argument from novelty that doesn't consider actual performance. An antiquated AKM is still a viable assault rifle that is going to be a problem for anyone on the receiving end, just like a modern export AK. A 155mm shell fired from an antiquated howitzer is going to be a bad day for anyone, especially if its accompanied by dozens more covering one of its approaches.

Any modern technology can be countered. If disorganized, untrained militas can do that in Afghanistan, consider how much more effective a trained, state-backed army would be in a similar scenario.

2. The KPA is weak because it doesn't have fuel or food to support its operations.

It's an assumption, backed by weak sources. It also doesn't account for non-conventional warfare or sleeper agents in SK (who, by definition, are in deep cover and can't really be assessed). One of the elements of Soviet military doctrine were operations on US soil in case of conflict: Spetsnaz units penetrating the mainland as deep undercover agents and staging attacks on military assets (Suvorov's book on Spetsnaz is an enlightening lecture).

A full military engagement would not look anything different then in the 1950s with North Koreans on the run.

2 armies. US wins. That simple. Not only because its "the" US. Its the most realistic scenario. Because there is the UNO, NATO, Europe etc. many many more. And North Korea is an single state political isolated and if they do not get any support from China they have no chance - militay support, troops, food, amunition, weapons etc. Of course this is only true If nc would do the most stupid thing, of playing their "muscles", thats the point where the US would get any political backing and its over for North Korea. North Korea is the last survivor of the cold war. The NATO (in other words the US ...) has won it. I dont see how either the Russians or China would stand up for their neighbour in the case the North is so stupid to luch an attack for example.

As said. 2 armies clashing together. North Korea looses. Even if the US would lose an fight, lets be hypothetical here, because they totally underestimated the Koreans, going in to a fight with an ratio from 1 US soldier for 10 Koreans. What would happen? They would come back with more. They would bomb the nation in to Oblivion, with their total air supremacy. They would level any defence or stronghold that is bigger then a pig farm. The US would win any way like they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. As said, that is ONLY as far as the military engagements go, where you have the Korean tank force fighting directly the US for example. Well that probably would not even happen, because their tanks would die as soon as they move out from cover thx to the US air force. THis is what happened in Iraq.

US military and NK military. Thats like throwing an 5 year old boy against someone like Tyson and tell him "watch out for your knees though, he has an dangerous left punch!"

When we talk either about Iraq or Afghanistan what we see are insurgents, mercenaries, in some cases the local population, in areas where there is either no or barely any infrastructure, remote locations. The similarities between Afghanistan today and what it was with the Soviets are so clear, that I am sure even the NATO sees them. But they either don't care or they are not capable to do something, not enough troops, no support, they would have to actually build an infrastructure. The control the collation forces have over Afghanistan is in many cases limited to the cities and roads. I have no doubt if tomorrow all troops left, the nation would just fall back to chaos again.

North Korea is not the same. They have at least "some" form of infrastructure. But we have to make a difference here between a war and occupation. What we see in Afghanistan right now is the effect of occupation, not war. This is nothing different then what we know from the Roman, British or any other Empire in history. They win their wars on the field, but they loose the nation.

Thats why I have NO clue what it would be like once the US forces and their allies win over the North Korean military. Would it be like Afghanistan or Iraq? An endless fight against insurgents and elite formations, terroristic attacks, and guerilla warfare? Absolutely possible.

Could it be like in Germany after 1945? Where the population and army was so tired about the war and their own regime at some point that they more or less "welcomed" the american troops at best and at worst simply accepted it? Possible as well.

No one of us can really tell what would happen.

But one thing is more then clear. NK has no chance against the US as far as combat and an typical confrontation goes. This all depends on what the US can tell their population. If an war in NK is necessary. It should be more clear then what we have seen in Iraq for example. If the population has not the feeling that the troops belong there then you just create another Vietnam. But if the US gets attacked, thats a whole different situation, as they suddenly can tell the population "we are defending our self here!". A call to the arms if you want so, as ridiculous as it sounds.

I mean Afghanistan and Iraq are the best examples even. The US won the confrontation in a couple of days, but they now lose the nations.

 

[Sub-Human]

And I think the NK leadership is actually more afraid about their own population then the Americans. That is true for many dictatorships. The many concentration camps they have there for their own population proves that point.

Maybe the NK leadership is afraid of their Korean slaves, but, let's be honest - these slaves have been repressed and starved throughout their whole lives. These slaves are brainwashed that they might even believe (!) in a North Korean victory over the imperialists. They are weak, they are ignorant...

Some of them are most likely more afraid of the Americans than of the police.

Also, the concentration camps are built to exploit free labour. Just like in the Stalinist times - it did not matter if you were an ardent communist or a Western liberalist, you would be sent off to the gulag to do lots and lots of work. North Korea's industry is impoverished, naturally they need some slaves (who do not require housing or bread) to keep up with the energy demands. Also good target practice for the guards.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Maybe the NK leadership is afraid of their Korean slaves, but, let's be honest - these slaves have been repressed and starved throughout their whole lives. These slaves are brainwashed that they might even believe (!) in a North Korean victory over the imperialists. They are weak, they are ignorant...

However there is something interesting with the population. The tendecy for simply following the leadership are quite big, because Koreans always followed the idea of Confucianism, which in some twisted forms works nicely in an dictatorship.

But I dont believe there is really an way to tell how close the population, the ordinary people feel to the leadership.

They might afterall not like it, but simply accept it, feeling the world outside of NK is even worse, where they are the last bastion of communism. A constant treat, can work wonders if used correctly, both the Soviets and US knew this just to well.

 

[Sub-Human]

They might afterall not like it, but simply accept it, feeling the world outside of NK is even worse, where they are the last bastion of communism.

Ye indeed. Just like Orwell's 1984. The poor sods have been brainwashed since Day 1, unless they have South Korean relatives they probably know no better.

 

[Matthews]

Haha, awesome Makta!

 

[Ilosar]

I'm looking up KPA data and it seems that the "impoverished, starved army" is a myth created by western media, not supported by hard data. In fact, there's little actual evidence either way. The KPA being a paper tiger is an assumption by SK and US analysts.

http://www.examiner.com/article/north-vs-south-korea-the-balance-of-military-power

The point is less about how numerous/prepared their military is but more about their supply situation. North Korea has a lot of trouble feeding its population; that much is a given, since they beg for food (in their own way) all the time. Their energy situation is not rosy either, because of all the embargos imposed on them (and would undoubtedly worsen in case of a war, with China and Russia pulling support). Having a numerous, well trained force doesn't matter much if your supply situation is hopeless. The Germans in WW2 are an example of this, to an extent.

There are two major problems I see:

1. Modern equipment is inherently better than old equipment.

I consider the above statement fallacious. It's an argument from novelty that doesn't consider actual performance. An antiquated AKM is still a viable assault rifle that is going to be a problem for anyone on the receiving end, just like a modern export AK. A 155mm shell fired from an antiquated howitzer is going to be a bad day for anyone, especially if its accompanied by dozens more covering one of its approaches.

Any modern technology can be countered. If disorganized, untrained militas can do that in Afghanistan, consider how much more effective a trained, state-backed army would be in a similar scenario.

You are using fallacies yourself. The insurgents/terorists/whateveryouwannacallem are not the same as an army that must maintain discipline and cohesion to function Furthermore, the Afghans and Veitnamese have been using that form of warfare for hundreds of years (not to mention they both received heavy support from other nations, especailly Vietnam); North Korean military doctrine doesn't dictate they should run and hide in the hills, I suspect, if the war of 1951 is any indication. The US will have total mastery of the airspace shortly; that much is a given. It might be dicier at see, but modern missile cruisers beat anything but submarines (which will be a problem. On land it's going to be harder, but modern armor certainly beats the hell out of whatever cold war era tanks NK has.

I'm not saying this is WoW where the US is a fully decked out max level player against which the puny level 1 NK has no chance whatsoever. But they have a crushing advantage, both ressource, economy and military wise, over North Korea. That much is undisputable.

2. The KPA is weak because it doesn't have fuel or food to support its operations.

It's an assumption, backed by weak sources. It also doesn't account for non-conventional warfare or sleeper agents in SK (who, by definition, are in deep cover and can't really be assessed). One of the elements of Soviet military doctrine were operations on US soil in case of conflict: Spetsnaz units penetrating the mainland as deep undercover agents and staging attacks on military assets (Suvorov's book on Spetsnaz is an enlightening lecture).

So? A few special ops don't win a war. A fragile economy, burdened by sanctions, cannot be asked to sustain a prolonged war effort against the world's premier military and economic power. And North Korea very much has a burdened economy; if China and Russia pull support, it has basically no (as in, 0, nada) allies and trading partners, nothing to sustain itself. War is economics at least as much as it is a military affair. Post-war insurgencies are anothing matter entirely, and depend on how brainwashed and downtrodden the population actually is. But a straight up, KPA vs USA conflict? It'l be over in a few months, at most.

Wars have a tendency to break out unexpectedly, sometimes as a result of an incident going out of proportion.

I think that's a myth. The Berlin Wall and its related border incidents, as well as stuff like the Cuban Missile Crisis gave ample excuses for the US and USSR to beat the crap out of each other, but their respective leaders knew it would not benefit them so they simply let it slide. Cimmerian Night's article says it; for the US, war is a calculated affair, with many economic, political, military and diplomatic ramifications. They won't just start sending in the Marines because some chump shot at a South Korean soldier; hell, in 2010 NK sunk a SK ship, killing 50, and nothing really reacted. Both parties know war is not in their respective interests, at all. There's a reason this farce has run for more than fifty years without war.

 

[DarkCorp]

In the event of a NK loss, the US could simply leave and give the SK government responsibility of uniting the country and fixing the North.

The difference between something like Vietnam or Afghanistan is this:

Vietnam: There was a lot of deep seated hatred towards the US because of our policies toward the Viet Minh. It was was more personal than ideological even though both are connected strongly. The Viet Minh asked for American assistance in gaining independence and all they got back was a big fuck you. Then, though unifying elections were supposed to be held, the US and its S. Vietnamese allies refused to go through with them because Ho was a communist (which might not have happened if America backed them).

Afghanistan: We went in originally to punish the Taliban for harboring Osama. However, it turned into introducing a freedom/democracy which was something that the people were not accustomed to or flat out did not want. Both motives were shit and we deserve the flack we get.

North Korea however is very different:

1. No tribal/religious differences that would pose a major impediment to national unity.

2. S. Korean government is capable of handling re-unification effectively unlike Diems S. Vietnam.

3. Northern loyalty is held together by force of arms and propaganda, historically not very strong. We see the same in pretty much Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The populace is tired of the repression and war mongering, they just want to be able to eat and have a say in what happens in with their nation. Insurgency only excacerbates the problem.

 

[Gonzalez]

Now some people are saying the US is trying to provoke a war on purpose. http://rt.com/op-edge/us-wants-new-korean-war-402/

My question is: Do they really need to "provoke" NK to attack SK? They have been invading countries at will for years and never really needed any sort of justification for it, nor to answer to any international organism like the UN for what they've done.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I think we're in trouble when some of us can't tell the difference between articles and editorials. Pretty warped ones at that.

 

[Gonzalez]

I think we're in trouble when some of us can't tell the difference between articles and editorials. Pretty warped ones at that.

If you are referring to my link, could you please point out where in my post did I mentioned it was an article, or some impartial factual thing? It's the opinion of an interviewed person, to wich I referred as "some people are saying *this* *link*".

On the other hand I don't believe his opinions are unfounded. For example, both Lybia and Iraq stopped their weapons programs, and they both got attacked anyway. Wouldn't it be logical for North Korea to not give up on them and even strengthened them in the face of these events?

Not to mention the western countries are imposing significant trade and energy embargoes, and nuclear energy independence would provide a relieve for the energetic problem at least. So why should they stop their nuclear research?

And as for the the joint maneuvers being a provocation, they simply are. It's the same the UK does when they send ships and nuclear subs to the South Pacific, and perform missile launch tests in the Falklands, missiles that can reach argentine mainland. It's called flexing the military muscles and it's aimed at coercing other nations into your will.

So no, I do not think his opinions are that much warped.

EDIT: It's the same formula they used in Iraq: Brand them as an "Axis of Evil" or any other evil sounding name you like, place strong embargoes on them so their economies are destroyed (you know, because they are evil), make their populations starve and offer food in exchange of them disarming themselves, and once they are weak because of their lack of weapons and energetic resources to support their military, attack them while they are helpless.

 

[Makta]

I'm just waiting for the US to send in the drones to take out the "trash" before the civilians take any damage.

But maybe it's just me daydreaming..

 

[TheGM]

Imperialist Dogs and Puppets cannot fathom the defending people's dance of defense of freedom and peace of defending.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOIH16qsRiE[/youtube]

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

If you are referring to my link, could you please point out where in my post did I mentioned it was an article

Sure.

Found this article to be of interest, it discusses several things that were also discussed in this thread, like NK's real cappabilities and the escalations should a confilct start.

For those intrested: http://rt.com/op-edge/north-korea-us-danger-279/[/url]

 

[Gonzalez]

That's a previous link wich you didn't quoted and was on the previous page, not the one right above your post, so how am I supposed to know you were referring to that one.

And it's an article. It tries to describe the situation more than give a personal opinion. As for articles being absolutely impartial and 100% only descriptive then no articles are, the moment you decide to talk about one set of news and not another you are already using connotation, you cannot show everything and you always have to choose, and articles themselves are written by humans so they have inherent connotation.

As for you saying it's an editorial and not an article, and calling ir warped, you are simply dismissing it as propaganda because, I don't know, maybe you don't like what it says?

And as for impartiality, what do you propose I read then? Fox News?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

My question is: Do they really need to "provoke" NK to attack SK? They have been invading countries at will for years and never really needed any sort of justification for it, nor to answer to any international organism like the UN for what they've done.

I see the virus of antiamericanitis has claimed another victim.

For example, both Lybia and Iraq stopped their weapons programs, and they both got attacked anyway. Wouldn't it be logical for North Korea to not give up on them and even strengthened them in the face of these events?

First of all, it's disingenuous to mention Iraq and Libya in the same sentence. Iraq was attacked because the US saw an opportunity to get rid of a hostile and capricious regime; their phantom WMD programme was used as a convenient excuse for the invasion. Politically, it was a costly and unnecessary war. Morally, it was a war that was long overdue - Saddam's regime was utterly reprehensible and should have been swept away as early as 1991.

When it comes to Libya, WMDs were never part of the equation - Gaddafi stopped his programme after what happened to Saddam (one of the few smart foreign policy moves of his career). Libya was attacked because Gaddafi was an inhuman beast who slaughtered thousands of his own people in a matter of weeks. It was a humanitarian intervention, like the ones in Bosnia and Kosovo. It was made possible in part by the incompetence of Gaddafi's foreign policy - of the five world powers that could have vetoed the UN resolution 1973, there was not one willing to stick its neck out to protect him. Even Russia and China left him out to dry, while his supposed "allies" France and UK actually spearheaded the efforts to take down his regime. That's what happens to dictatorships that conduct a capricious and belligerent foreign policy, folks - invade too many of your neighbors, switch between too many geopolitical blocks, and there won't be anyone left to back you when your own population decides to drag your ass out of a sewer pipe and stuff it with lead. It's a lesson that Assads have always been keenly aware of, by the way, which is why they are still able to massacre their people with impunity. It's something Milosevic must have known too, because he was able to start wars left and right for a good decade before America finally mustered enough international consensus to give his genocidal ass a long-overdue whooping.

Going back to North Korea, the line of thinking you are employing here is the one that will surely guarantee the extinction of the regime. These other regimes weren't doomed by a policy of acquiescence, but mercurialness and belligerence - which have incidentally been the sole constants of North Korea's foreign policy as well. As a consequence of this policy, North Korea is coming perilously close to alienating its only ally China, which is likely to eventually conclude that the cost of propping up the Kims has become too high, and that it doesn't need their regime to project its political influence into the Korean peninsula anyway.

Not to mention the western countries are imposing significant trade and energy embargoes, and nuclear energy independence would provide a relieve for the energetic problem at least. So why should they stop their nuclear research?

Oh, I see, so North Korea's nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes rather than weapons production. I guess all those explosions must have been seismic activity caused by Kim Jong Un tripping over his MacBook cord.

And as for the the joint maneuvers being a provocation, they simply are. It's the same the UK does when they send ships and nuclear subs to the South Pacific, and perform missile launch tests in the Falklands, missiles that can reach argentine mainland. It's called flexing the military muscles and it's aimed at coercing other nations into your will.

It's not a provocation, but a warning, directed against a regime that has a habit of belligerent rhetoric, brazen and unprovoked attacks against its neighbors, and unabashed flaunting of the international law. For fuck's sake, North Korea has launched deadly attacks on South Korean soldiers and civilians several times in the last few years alone, and they have also threatened preemptive nuclear strikes against their enemies, a rhetoric unheard in international diplomacy in at least half a century. It is only by the infinite patience and grace of the South Korean and US governments that this odious regime is still allowed to blight the world with its abhorrent existence.

It's the same formula they used in Iraq: Brand them as an "Axis of Evil" or any other evil sounding name you like, place strong embargoes on them so their economies are destroyed (you know, because they are evil), make their populations starve and offer food in exchange of them disarming themselves, and once they are weak because of their lack of weapons and energetic resources to support their military, attack them while they are helpless.

Literally every link in this chain of reasoning is a non sequitur. North Korea brands itself as evil, by attacking other countries without cause, threatening them with nuclear annihilation, and oppressing and starving its own populace. Its economy isn't "destroyed" by the (highly selective) international sanctions, but its catastrophically inefficient planned economic system, which has failed in literally every country that has ever implemented it, and caused suffering and deaths of tens of millions of people around the world. It is this very system that is the cause of North Korea's endemic famines, which claimed as many as four million lives in the '90s, and even now are the reason why in rural parts of the country close to 100% of children are stunted due to malnutrition. Finally, if North Korea is ever subject to international military intervention, it will not be due to weakness of its economy and military (those are already hopelessly weak, and have been for a long time now), but due to its persistent belligerence and failure to adhere to even the most basic tenets of international law. And if that day ever comes, good riddance - the world will be a much, much better place without North Korea.

 

[DammitBoy]

It could totally happen.

Saw 'Olympus has Fallen' this weekend. They predicted the NK attack. We should make a preemptive strike.

 

[Yamu]

"North Korea" is Hollywood for "we wanted Chinese aggressors but this thing has to play in Beijing."

Come to that, maybe we should think about what regime change in North Korea would do to our poor Hollywood schlock artists. It's an increasingly globalized world we live in, and we're running out of easy villains whose populations we don't have to worry about pissing off.

 

[TheGM]

"North Korea" is Hollywood for "we wanted Chinese aggressors but this thing has to play in Beijing."

Come to that, maybe we should think about what regime change in North Korea would do to our poor Hollywood schlock artists. It's an increasingly globalized world we live in, and we're running out of easy villains whose populations we don't have to worry about pissing off.

They will have to make a New Val Verde.

"THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF ORIANTEA"

turns out DPRO might be selling weapons to Durkainistan.

 

[Ilosar]

Literally every link in this chain of reasoning is a non sequitur. North Korea brands itself as evil, by attacking other countries without cause, threatening them with nuclear annihilation, and oppressing and starving its own populace.

I'll let the rest slide, but this is ridiculous. North Korea has not, in fact, attacked any country since the Korean War, unless you count isolated incidents I suppose. So, one rival country attacked. How many countries has the US invaded since 1951? How many leaders deposed by their influence? How many proxy wars? So you're basically saying the US are also branding themselves as evil, yes?

Threats of nuclear annihilation is one way to look at things. They don't even have functioning nukes as of now, and they're part of the countries that want nukes but cannot because they're not part of the exclusive club of people who got them years ago. Not to say gifting them with nukes is a good idea or anything, but what you're claiming is just over the top. Also which country has actually used nukes on civilians, again?

In short, yeah NK is run by true assholes, but that doesn't mean the US is blameless in this affair. It's not ''antiamericanitism'' to show that this is a situation that been nurtured by North Korea, by the US, by South Korea, by China, by a multitudes of factor in fact, and that branding them ''evil', and calling it a day is just dishonest at best and willfully ignorant at worst. Show your moral high ground to someone who cares; this whole thing is about politics and economy, morals have nothing to do with it. The United States certainly profit from being the appointed protectors of South Korea, and the conflict in the region is a convenient way for the militaro-industrial complex to justify its existence. If America really, but really wanted to end this ''evil'', they would have done so a long time ago.

 

[TheGM]

Literally every link in this chain of reasoning is a non sequitur. North Korea brands itself as evil, by attacking other countries without cause, threatening them with nuclear annihilation, and oppressing and starving its own populace.

I'll let the rest slide, but this is ridiculous. North Korea has not, in fact, attacked any country since the Korean War, unless you count isolated incidents I suppose.

Indeed.

If you don't count all the assassinations, bombings, axe murders. kidnappings, artillery strikes, and naval attacks, North Korea has been a pretty good neighbor.