Can North Korea wage a total war against the United States?

[Aquamarine]

North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States. The US war planners recognize this fact. For example, on March 7, 2000, Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, the US commander in Korea at the time, testified at a US congressional hearing that "North Korea is the country most likely to involve the United States in a large-scale war."

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

 

[Locrian]

No, North Korea wouldn't win the war. I'm not so impressed with the information in the link, though I hope the military takes it seriously.

It wasn't that long ago that I remember people gasping about a country the US was about to engage had one of the world's top militaries and couldn't go on enough about how we'd never adapt to the terrain and how we'd never handle their elite troops. What followed was almost effortless.

On the other hand, the question of whether the US would win... well, that seems a much harder question to answer. I don't want anyone to think I've fallen into the trap of thinking there is always exactly one winner.

By the way, thanks for the link, very interesting stuff.

 

[russ_watters]

You mean could or would? Stipulating first that our presence in Iraq dropped under 100,000, certainly, no, N. Korea could not win a war with the US. With US strength equal to just before last-year's war with Iraq, we could take N. Korea in a similar amount of time: less than 1 month. Why? Two reasons:

On paper, their military sounds formidable, in reality, its a paper tiger. Why? Money. They don't have any and you can't buy spare parts for tanks and planes without money. See Iraq: on paper, they were similar in strength to N. Korea in 1991 and that was a short war. Since then, the US has advanced N. Korea and Iraq have not (the recent war showed some of our advances). The article practically brags (who wrote that thing? It reads like a propaganda piece) about obsolete Vietnam-era technology. That technology didn't help Iraq any in 1991 - we flew stealth fighters over Baghdad in the opening moments of the war.

Geography: With Pyongyang so close to the 38th parallel, a war that starts there would require masing a large force just north of it to stop a frontal invasion. In all likelyhood the main thrust would bypass this force and encircle the city, while the air force and Navy/Marine Corps air absolutely decimate the bulk of N Korea's military between Pyongyang and the 38th parallel.

WMD: N. Korea doesn't have nukes and likely won't before we have a good theater ABM defense (THAAD and ABL are coming along nicely and the SM-3 is about ready to deploy). The primary concern would be a chemical weapons shelling of Seoul. In any case, this has nothing to do with who would win, but rather if we fight.

edit:
Morale: Its overstated. With 1% of their population starving to death every year (that's 200,000 people), and rumors that the military is feeling the pinch, I doubt their morale is as good as people say. And that's probably moot anyway: some of the things that the US military did to Iraq's military two years ago would send chills down your spine - entire divisions of tanks disapppeared in seconds. There's nothing like rapid annihilation to reduce morale.

 

[Scientific Method]

The America-Israel nation can distroy any nation in the world, and will, one by one. It's an interesting situation: those nations that embraced the hippie ideology and decided not to create their own nukes/bio/chem. weapons are now weaker than those nations that did create and continue to create these weapons and are very susceptible to invasion and genocide.

 

[Gonzolo]

The primary concern would be a chemical weapons shelling of Seoul.

Yet ASAIK, their own official political concern is to reunite the 2 Koreas, so I hardly see how they could justify using WMD on Seoul, the people they would claim to be liberating.

My concern on this matter is China's involvement, considering their rising economy. Not sure where Russia stands.

 

[Aquamarine]

It does read like a propaganda piece. But is interesting since North Korea is close to collapsing due to starvation, economic ruin and infilitration of capitalistic culture. It is not impossible that the military and communist party might prefer to start a war if they believe that they might quickly conquer South Korea. They might see this chance as preferable to what would happen to them if their regime collapses.

February 1, 2005: ... China is openly criticizing the current North Korean leadership, and this apparently has led to the rumors that there is a power struggle in the North Korean government. China fears a complete collapse in North Korea, and hordes of economic refugees pouring into northern China.

January 25, 2005: North Korea has cut the basic food ration about 29 percent, to nine ounces of cereals (rice or other grains) a day. This is half the amount needed to remain healthy, and is basically a starvation diet, unless people can scrounge up other sources off food. Reports of widespread malnutrition continue to come out of North Korea, and people escaping into China

The thousands of VCDs carrying South Korean television shows (especially soap operas, which show “ordinary people”) entering North Korea were the government’s worst nightmare. Now North Koreans could see, in a very convincing way, that all the propaganda about North Korea being better off than South Korea was, well, a big lie. This is creating growing anger at the government. At the moment, the anger is expressing itself as increased corruption and lack of discipline by police and military personnel, as well as government workers in general.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=korea

 

[russ_watters]

My concern on this matter is China's involvement, considering their rising economy. Not sure where Russia stands.

We've had this discussion before actually, and my position was that I don't think China is a big fan of Il, though they still wouldn't necessarily appreciate US troops across the river from them. Russia has no troops to send and I don't think they'd care anyway.

North Korea has cut the basic food ration about 29 percent, to nine ounces of cereals (rice or other grains) a day.

Yikes, the population is already starving to death, and the rations are being reduced more? The UN really needs to step up to the plate and do something about this.

 

[vanesch]

Yikes, the population is already starving to death, and the rations are being reduced more? The UN really needs to step up to the plate and do something about this.

Why intervene in a situation that is resolving itself ? If they starve to death, they are not a threat to anyone, right ? Let's say that the population got anorexic

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

Yikes, the population is already starving to death, and the rations are being reduced more? The UN really needs to step up to the plate and do something about this.

The UN already went down that road, the Korean war was the UN in the Korean peninsula. Sure it came around by the US badgering the Russian sectary to the UN out of the room so he couldn't veto the vote .

As for the point of WMD it most likely would just galvanize the US into fighting.

Yes we would win open conflict, our military is based on the fact if the enemy can't see you he can't hit you, but you can see him and blow him back into the stone age. Examples JADM's from near Earth orbit, Phoenix missiles from 115 miles away, Tomahawk cruse missiles from 690 mile away, well you get the point.

However China is a point that could change the balance either way, in the Korean war we were about to wipe the north off the face of the map, but China got jumpy about the UN forces closing in on the Yalu river. They came to bat for the North and beat the UN back to the 38th. In a conflict now there is the point that the US can dangle our trade agreements, and also the fact that the Chinese aren't to happy with the north. Therefore with China today i think it could go either way.

 

[franznietzsche]

I just want to add, N Korea now "officially" has nukes.

This drastically changes the balance of power. While russ is right, they would not win in a conventional war, the possession of nuclear arms almost gaurantees their survival. No president (even bush) would try to invade a country with nuclear arms unilaterally. The same goes for Iran. Once they have the weapons, they're safe. Its a race until then.

 

[PerennialII]

The nuke situation does reverse things quite a bit, and other than that, if they're even as close to as fanatical as they're been depicted, this wouldn't be a walk in the park with or without the nuclear capability.

 

[russ_watters]

I just want to add, N Korea now "officially" has nukes.

While they may now "officially" have nukes, I'm still on the fence about whether or not they actually have nukes.

 

[CronoSpark]

Why intervene in a situation that is resolving itself ? If they starve to death, they are not a threat to anyone, right ? Let's say that the population got anorexic

That is a sick sense of humour.

Edit: And as for the nukes in N. Korea, it is still questionable, since if N. Korea has nukes, then every nation should be involved... since a nuke really does damage. Hence... it is to their advantage to have nukes.

 

[franznietzsche]

While they may now "officially" have nukes, I'm still on the fence about whether or not they actually have nukes.

How can you be on the fence? Its not a matter of opinion. THey either do or they don't.

 

[FredGarvin]

North Korea's level of nuke stockpile is very low. I read a statement, that was attriubuted to them, that they had two (2) bombs and fuel to make several more. That being said, their nuke ability has just become target numbers 1 and 2 for some Tomahawks, F117's and B2's. It doesn't take much to disable all production, especially on such a small scale.

I would lay dollars to donuts that right now we are trying to find out the locations of where they manufacture the materials and where the bombs are kept.

 

[russ_watters]

How can you be on the fence? Its not a matter of opinion. THey either do or they don't.

It most certainly is a matter of opinion at this point, because there is no hard evidence that they have nukes. Here are the facts:

Kim Jong Il is a brutal dictator, clinging to power via military force.
Kim Jong Il claims he has nuclear weapons.
North Korea has not exploded a nuclear weapon.

In light of the 1st and 3rd facts, Il's claim that he has a nuclear weapon must be viewed with suspicion. Furthermore, even if he has something that looks like a bomb, without a successful test, it is impossible to know if it would actually function.

 

[Gokul43201]

DPRK has exactly three things going for them (i) Seoul - which is comfortably within artillery range, (ii) Tokyo (iii) the taepodong program.

For these reasons it would take a whole lot of exceptionally good intel a good swig of bravado to engage DPRK in war. Can NK "win" ? Not if the US is (i) ruthless or (ii) has exceptionally good intel.

 

[franznietzsche]

DPRK has exactly three things going for them (i) Seoul - which is comfortably within artillery range, (ii) Tokyo (iii) the taepodong program.

For these reasons it would take a whole lot of exceptionally good intel a good swig of bravado to engage DPRK in war. Can NK "win" ? Not if the US is (i) ruthless or (ii) has exceptionally good intel.

We have too many democrats to be ruthless, and we've seen our intel quality before.

They win.

 

[Aquamarine]

In 1994, advisers to then President Bill Clinton predicted 52,000 U.S. casualties in the first 90 days of combat alone, Don Oberdorfer, a former Washington Post reporter, wrote in his book The Two Koreas.

To put that figure in perspective, 55,000 U.S. military personnel were killed in the 1950-53 Korean War, and about 58,000 in the 1957-75 Vietnam War.

Some estimates went as far as forecasting a million casualties, not to mention economic damages and war-related costs that ran into trillions of dollars.

Now, the casualty estimates are higher, with North Korea's massive firepower moving closer to U.S. and South Korean forces stationed on the border.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/21/nkorea.war/

 

[russ_watters]

Such estimeates of course require assumptions: and such assumptions are virtually always "worst case." For example:

When the U.S. drew up plans for a possible military action against North Korea in 1993 -- again over its suspected nuclear weapons program -- a Pentagon estimate suggested four months of high-intensity combat would be required...

"Four months of high-intensity combat"? That N. Korea could sustain 4 weeks of frantic, terrified retreat would be a big assumption.

 

[franznietzsche]

Such estimeates of course require assumptions: and such assumptions are virtually always "worst case."

For example: "Four months of high-intensity combat"? That N. Korea could sustain 4 weeks of frantic, terrified retreat would be a big assumption.

While i agree that those are probably worst case scenarios, i honestly doubt that north korea would fall that easily.

 

[Lyuokdea]

I don't think NK would be near as easy of a fight as Iraq was in 1991, because the troops there are so much better trained than Iraqs are. We were so successful in Iraq because some 80,000 Iraqi troops surrendered, and probably about that many more chose not to fight beforehand and just went home. North Korea definitely wouldn't win a war against the United States, no country besides possibly China or several major western powers in Europe uniting could actually successfully win a war. However, I think NK could create a much more dangerous situation to US troops than Iraq could, here's why:

The major reason we were able to win so easily in Desert Storm was because we had all the time we wanted to bomb the heck out of Iraq and basically entirely destroy their army before we sent ground troops in. This was because the only country Iraq was threatening was Kuwait, and they were already completely invaded. If we start hostilities with NK, they will invade SK with a ground force, and as SK is not currently under NK occupation, we would be forced to send troops in on the ground to defend SK. I believe that initially US and SK troops may very well be pushed back by the superior numbers of NK troops that would be able to cross the border, unless the US made a strong conserted effort to get enough land troops on the ground to defend SK before NK invaded.

Even if we succeed in defending SK from a land invasion, to do so would require large ground engagements much greater than anything we've faced since Vietnam or possibly the last Korean War. This means large casualties.

The WMD threat will also force us to attack quickly without being able to first slowly riddle the army down. The initial attack probably will just be massive bombing and special forces operations to get to designated weapons locations, so major troop action would probably be unnecessary, however, we won't be able to use missles to take out major AA positions so we may take many fighter casualties because NKs AA systems are much better than Iraqs were.

Overall we would win the war, however, we will take many casualties doing so, whether it will be necessary should NK try to test a WMD or continues to beligerantly attempt to create them, I hope it won't be, but if they do test a WMD I expect us to have much international cooperation and support, unlike in Iraq.

~Lyuokdea

 

[franznietzsche]

but if they do test a WMD I expect us to have much international cooperation and support, unlike in Iraq.

~Lyuokdea

This had not occrued to me before.

Russ, you say you're doubtful of NKs possession of nuclear weapons since they have not tested one.

Consider this:

Testing one is not in their best interests. If they have a working one, it is better to say they do and not test it. If they test it, that will be proof, and remember, no one, including the chinese and the russians wants to let them have working nuclear weapons. If they were to actually test one, China, Russia, and japan would all feel threatened and want the threat eliminated much as we do. If instead they just goad us into acting unilaterally, then they're only dealing with us, not the whole region.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)I believe that initially US and SK troops may very well be pushed back by the superior numbers of NK troops that would be able to cross the border, unless the US (snip)

ROKs? The "White Horse" will be in Pyongyang before CNN knows there's a war on. Kim's "mouth-fighting" because he's fully aware how "long" he'd last if push comes to shove.

 

[Smurf]

I think that's just blind faith ther bystander, NK has a much more formidable force than SK and the USA will be hard pressed to send a decent number of troops unless there is a long build up to hostilities that the white house is just waiting for.

 

[Lyuokdea]

What North Korea needs is uncertainty about whether they have weapons, they don't need to prove they have them, if they were known to have a couple weapons, China and Russia would definitely want the threat eliminated, and China could easily unilaterally destroy NK in a war. If they were known to have Nuclear Weapons, Japan would probably go nuclear, something Japan could probably do in a matter of a couple months if they wanted to, they have both the scientific know-how and nuclear material to do it easily. With international support behind a US or China led coaltion, NK doesn't stand a prayer, and would be unable to use any of their WMD in the war, because that would only lead to the further destruction of their country and the death sentence of anybody remotely connected to the regime when humanitarian trials went on after the war.

I think that's just blind faith ther bystander, NK has a much more formidable force than SK and the USA will be hard pressed to send a decent number of troops unless there is a long build up to hostilities that the white house is just waiting for.

The thing is, NK will inevitably lose in the long run, especially if they took the method you seem to suggest and attacked SK first, you can bet that even if the US was still tied up in Iraq, most of the EU, Austrailia, possibly India, possibly Taiwan would be sending troops over in days. Like I said, because of available local ground forces, NK would easily be able to push back SK and the existing US troops in SK which are at very low levels because of Iraq. However, the combined militaries of all those countries I mentioned, and even the US which still has a lot of available air power, would easily be able to establish air superiority in NK within a week or two, and should then be able to bomb NK into submission within a month or two, while simultaneously making a stand 100 miles south of the border or so wherever the troops could hold off the NK advance, and just waiting to let bombing take its effect and then push back the North Koreans.

I think if North Korea attacks first, and several countries, let's say England, france, spain, Germany and austrailia, all get heavily involved, along with the US, you could expect the NK advance to last 2 weeks and possibly move through half of SK, and then the push back would start after about 2 months, and NK would surrender after 4-5 months.

~Lyuokdea

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think NK would be near as easy of a fight as Iraq was in 1991, because the troops there are so much better trained than Iraqs are.

On what do you base that? Word is, they are now starting to have trouble feeding the troops. If they can't even feed them, I find it hard to believe they can afford bullets and fuel for training.

No, I doubt the NK military is much more than a bunch of guys standing around with guns, a bunch of planes sitting on the tarmac, and a bunch of tanks sitting in bunkers.

The major reason we were able to win so easily in Desert Storm was because we had all the time we wanted to bomb the heck out of Iraq and basically entirely destroy their army before we sent ground troops in.

This is certainly a concern (probably the biggest), but its mitigated by the fact that our bombing efficiency is many times what it was in 1991. It may be possible immolate their artillery before a single shot is fired.

Testing one is not in their best interests. If they have a working one, it is better to say they do and not test it. If they test it, that will be proof, and remember, no one, including the chinese and the russians wants to let them have working nuclear weapons.

Well, you were willing to take them at their word, so why would proof matter one way or another?

A test (demonstration) does the same for them as it did for India and Pakistan: it adds credibility and it shows exactly what they have.

What North Korea needs is uncertainty about whether they have weapons, they don't need to prove they have them, if they were known to have a couple weapons, China and Russia would definitely want the threat eliminated, and China could easily unilaterally destroy NK in a war.

Possibly, but I really think Il is desperate and psychopathic and really does want as much leverage as [he thinks] proving he has nukes will give him. I mean, if credibility didn't matter, why even make the claim at all? No, he wants us to believe he has them - and the best way to make us believe would be to test them.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well, you were willing to take them at their word, so why would proof matter one way or another?

A test (demonstration) does the same for them as it did for India and Pakistan: it adds credibility and it shows exactly what they have.

Possibly, but I really think Il is desperate and psychopathic and really does want as much leverage as [he thinks] proving he has nukes will give him. I mean, if credibility didn't matter, why even make the claim at all? No, he wants us to believe he has them - and the best way to make us believe would be to test them.

Personally russ, i would much rather overestimate than underestimate my enemy.

Is he psychotic and deranged to the point of stupidity? Probably. But the fastest way to lose a war is to make the mistake of assuming you're smarter, better equipped, or better prepared than your enemy. Always assume they are stronger than you actually know them to be.

 

[Grogs]

I think some folks here are taking a very simplistic view of this conflict. If we put the US Forces and the NK forces in an open field and told them to fight, the US would crush the NK forces hands down. The same could be said for the US vs. North Vietnam back in the 60's or the USSR vs. Afghanistan in the 80's.

Unfortunately, the US wouldn't be fighting the NK's on an open field. The Korean peninsula is composed largely of mountains and rice paddies. An attack during the rainy season (when the rice paddies are flooded) would confine US tanks and HMMWV's to a few main north-south roads (Highway 1 and a few others.) Since the NK forces aren't nearly as mechanized as the US/ROK forces in the south, this would be a huge advantage for them.

I think US air superiority would be a given, but if the NK forces were able to take out key targets such as Osan and other airfields, they would be limited to primarily naval forces, greatly reducing the number of targets the US could engage at anyone time. Given that a lot of the North's critical assets like long range artillery are well entrenched in mountain bunkers, it would take quite a long time to really make a dent in their fighting capability.

I certainly don't believe that NK could ever 'win' that war, but I do believe they could make it a bloody slug-fest that would drag on for months.

Russ: I think you've convinced me that NK probably doesn't have a functioning nuke. Subtlety doesn't seem to be one of Il's strong points (the Tae Dong(?) missile launched over Japan for example.) I feel like Franz does on the matter though, that we can't afford to make that assumption when dealing with him.

 

[FredGarvin]

The major reason we were able to win so easily in Desert Storm was because we had all the time we wanted to bomb the heck out of Iraq and basically entirely destroy their army before we sent ground troops in.

Close. We immediately destroyed Iraq's command and control capabilities. The guys in Baghdad had no way of commanding field units who were left in the lurch. Secondly, we immediately gained air superiority. With that then the bombing campaigns wore the field units down. Lastly, it was a better equipped and better trained force that made it look easy. There was still a very large number of Iraqi divisions that didn't give up, especially armored division. The massive amounts of Iraqis that did surrender were shell shocked, starving and mostly conscripts forced to fight.

This was because the only country Iraq was threatening was Kuwait, and they were already completely invaded.

I don't think Israel would share your opinion on that point.

If we start hostilities with NK, they will invade SK with a ground force, and as SK is not currently under NK occupation, we would be forced to send troops in on the ground to defend SK.

We already have a sizeable force in Korea along the 38th parallel and have had since the end of the Korean War.

I believe that initially US and SK troops may very well be pushed back by the superior numbers of NK troops that would be able to cross the border, unless the US made a strong conserted effort to get enough land troops on the ground to defend SK before NK invaded.

Any amassing of troops from their side along the DMZ would be picked up well in advance of their invasion. That area is one of the most highly watched on the planet. Also, Korea is a peninsula. The navy could effectively launch strikes from anywhere around that country.