The Next Korean War Using the military is an option. Here's how it can be done.

http://www.opinionjournal.com ^ | Monday, August 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT | JAMES WOOLSEY AND THOMAS G. MCINERNEY

[BCrago66]

The White House had a shape-of-the-table announcement last week: North Korea would participate in six-sided talks with the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan. This was welcome but it changes nothing fundamental. Kim Jong Il has clearly demonstrated his capacity for falsehood in multilateral as well as bilateral forums. The bigger, and much worse, news is the overall course of events this summer.

[lepton]

Loss of American lives would be great too - what with our deployment right accross the border.

My understanding was that over the last few months we redeployed many of the forces south, out of range of N Koreas artillery, which upset N Korea.

[lepton]

I think because Bush has made a conscious decision to accord lower priority to Korea than the Mideast for the duration of his term.

I don't think it's a matter of lower priority, but rather who is going to handle it. North Korea is under Chinas thumb, if China so chooses. Pressure is being put on China to make North Korea knock it off. China is being put in a position of either saying, "we're not going to make them" (in effect declaring support), or "we can't make them" (in effect giving us rhetorical authority to deal with N Korea ourselves).

[lepton]

and there's no guarantee that we'll hit all their missile sites before they unleash their chemical/biological payloads to Seoul and Tokyo.

We do have the advantage that North Korea is quite narrow - 155 miles. It's almost to the point where masses of scatterable submunitions can have "theater" effect.

I found an article describing my earlier comment about moving troops south...that will take a while.

[risk]

"...it wasn't actually possible to win the war in Korea."

Oops, incomplete thought alert. MacArthur was right about one thing: it wasn't actually possible to win the war on the Asian mainland without nuclear weapons. We could have beaten the Red Chinese in the 1950s with nukes. It would have been our last chance to do that in a long time.

I think MacArthur gave that advice before we entered the Korean war, and in any case, his words were ignored by Truman. Civlian control of the military is essential in a democratic nation, but history may show that MacArthur was right more often than was the State Department or Truman.

As MacArthur said,

The prestige of the Western world hangs in the balance. Oriental millions are watching the outcome. It is plainly apparent that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest. The test is not in Berlin or Vienna, in London, Paris or Washington. It is here and now–it is along the Naktong River in South Korea. We have joined the issue on the battlefield. Actually, we here fight Europe's war with arms, while there it is still confined to words. If we lose the war to Communism in Asia, the fate of Europe will be gravely jeopardized. Win it and Europe will probably be saved from war and stay free. Make the wrong decision her–the fatal decision of inertia–and we will be done. I can almost hear the ticking of the second hand of destiny. We must act now or we will die.

(source: General Douglas MacArthur Writings 1950-1951. Consider that when you think about Vietnam, Iran, Beirut, and 9/11. I think MacArthur predicted the eventual outcome: we were timid in our defense of liberty, tired and full of woe after WWII and the 37,000 men we lost in Korea. We couldn't stomach the task at hand: wiping out the vestigages of the first and most violent attack by communism on western interests.

[chuckles]

Diferent country, different solution. China is the key. we should, and I believe will(are) telling China to take care of their little bastard. China has more to loose than anybody in the region.

What if, S.Korea, Japan, TAIWAN, and others went nuclear in about a weeks worth of American shipments to them. China would be mortified. They wouldn't even have time to bitch. We would say, you had your chance, you blew it. Their economy would tank, and pressure could come from all sides. If China believes they can bluff Dubya into folding, I got some land to sell ya. I think they know by now who they are messin with. They just don't want to jump in too soon, but they will, they almost have to. If I were Dubya, I would be discusing nukes with Taiwan pretty soon. Oh my, nuke talks leaked to the press.....Pshaw! China would come unglued. The've been waiting for years for an opening to be able to get Taiwan back without a war. Definatly not with nukes in Taiwan.

The Dems want Bush to fret over N. Korea because they know it a tougher nut to crack than the middle east dictators. I believe he's doin the right thing. If they get hungry, let China or the UN feed them, been there,done that. They've proved they are liars and we should treat them as such. No treaty unless it is verifiable.

[nathanbedford]

The military planners must contend with:

1. Two (probable) existing atomic bonds affixed to rockets capable of striking all of Korea, Japan and our troops on Okinawa and perhaps Alaska or farther. Other delivery systems cannot be discounted. (The authors suggest that striking the nuclear production facilities will eliminate the bombs, but can this assumption be made given the risks?)

2. Chemical and bio WMDs similiarly mounted.

3. An array of artillery capable of dilivering 500,000 tons of ordinance of our tripwire troops and on Seoul within 24 hours positioned in hardened underground redoubts.(The authors assert that these are vulnerable to stealth strikes. Again, can we rely on this assertion? How vulnerable? What if these guns deliver chemical or bio weapons, would a preemptive stealth strike guarantee they would be knocked out in time?)

4. A huge multi million man army. ( How many casualties would they inflict before they are destroyed?)

5. Hundreds of thousands of fanatical special ops forces committed to near suicide strikes into the south.

The political planners must contend with:

1. All of the above.

2. The unreliability of our allies South Korea and Japan where millions of leftists and just plain scaredy cats will take to the streets in violent protests.

3. Virtually no cooperation from most of the world, angry opposition from most and actual perfidy from some. Virtual unamious opposition at the UN. No help from NATO.

4. A devided nation at home. Resistance to calling up the reserves as recommended by the authors. A virtual political fifth column known as the Democratic Party.

Bush is in a tough spot. If he talks tough the left reacts and uses it as a compaign issue. If he walks softly, as he has, he loses leverage. Not a good situation.

[risk]

I agree, but it's too bad that we have Pakistani nukes heckling us in south asia, and Iran nipping at our heels.

But isn't a relief to know that Iraq is out of the picture while we deal with those problems? Just think about the relief we'll feel when we take out the next threat, be it Syria, Iran, or North Korea. It's too bad that Powell is reluctant to call a spade a spade and include Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the list of Evil Axis members.

[risk]

>>>> A devided nation at home.

This has got to stop. I think the next election will show that the radical left in America (i.e. the DNC) has no footing at the center of American politics. For all we know, Bush's popularity declines have come as a cost to his inconsistent treatment of Israel's terrorist problem and the fact that we didn't roll west to Syria and east to Iran after Iraq fell.

[marron]

history may show that MacArthur was right more often than was the State Department or Truman.

Thats probably because, whatever his defects, MacArthur was not a Stalinist agent.

[marron]

North Korea is in effect a Chinese protectorate. The road to Pyongyang goes through Beijing.

Any peaceful outcome will come about by using whatever leverage we have with China. The leverage we have is limited; trade concessions such as Most Favored Nation status which could be reconsidered or revoked, or the threat to provide nuclear weapons to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

China may attempt to sell its help in Korea in exchange for our betrayal of Taiwan. Or, if war comes to the Korean peninsula, it may sell its acquiescence at the same price; it would be easy for us to deny assistance to Taiwan if we were engaged in heavy combat and no one would ever question the decision.

An invasion of North Korea carries with it several threats.

The first is that neither Japan nor South Korea may be willing to back us.

The second is that Korea's force along the border, just a few miles from Seoul and our own base, may be impossible to defeat quickly enough to avoid massive damage to the city and our garrison. Impossible, that is, without resorting to the use of tactical nukes. Whether we have the will to use nuclear weapons, in a first strike, to clear the battlefield is doubtful, almost unthinkable. Which means we have to be willing to absorb the enormous civilian losses that will result if war breaks out at the edge of Korea's largest city.

The third is that China is unlikely to sit with hands in pockets while we invade its puppet kingdom. Unless we have done our political work very well, we may find ourselves confronted by the Chinese Army, which ups the ante. What is the level of force required to defeat not only the North Koreans but the Chinese as well?

I believe we could do it, if we were serious, but it would not be Iraq. It would be violent beyond belief, and again we would have to consider the use of tactical nukes with all that this would entail.

We could probably buy off the Chinese, but the price is Taiwan.

The force needed to defeat the North quickly would need to be brought in. It could not be brought in without the whole world knowing it, so there will have to be a buildup, which will give both China and the North plenty of opportunity to cause trouble. The likely result will be a preemptive strike by the North before we are ready. Again, if the north with its million man force were to cross the line, we would almost certainly be forced to resort to nuclear weapons or see our garrison overrun and Seoul destroyed.

It can be done, but it will be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, both politically and militarily. China almost certainly owns more US politicians than did Saddam, and that would be a factor in a way that it was not in the Iraq war.

[risk]

>>>> The first is that neither Japan nor South Korea may be willing to back us.

Your analysis is provocative, especially the part where Taiwan becomes a bargaining chip. I think South Korea will fight (the sudden realization had already struck them that this was serious when we talked about leaving or even just "reorganizing our presence"). I also think Japan will fight, too. It may be instructive to consider the possibility that both South Korea and North Korea see Japan as a common enemy. This could throw a monkey wrench into the works, but I don't think so. South Korea will come to its senses the minute Japan joins the fray on its side. North Korea will be "enraged" at the entry of their former nemisis into the conflageration, but we can only hope that it doesn't last very long.

[jackbill]

3. An array of artillery capable of dilivering 500,000 tons of ordinance of our tripwire troops and on Seoul within 24 hours positioned in hardened underground redoubts.(The authors assert that these are vulnerable to stealth strikes. Again, can we rely on this assertion? How vulnerable? What if these guns deliver chemical or bio weapons, would a preemptive stealth strike guarantee they would be knocked out in time?)

Seems to me that the authors underestimate the massive destruction that would take place in Seoul immediately upon us taking any preemptive action. Seoul has about 12 million people. Dropping a half million artillery shells in a day will kill millions of South Koreans.

If Seoul was 100 miles south of the DMZ, rather than 25, a preemptive strike would make a lot more sense.

Sure, we could eventually take out the artillery, but when? And after how many rounds would have been fired?

[RANGERAIRBORNE]

" I also think Japan will fight, too."

Very interesting- exactly what is Japan going to fight WITH???

We (correctly) spent many years "de-militarizing" Japan, and making sure that their military is useful only as a homeland defense force.

And their political culture explicitly rejects foreign wars AND nuclear weapons.

Japan can be a great help as a logistical base (as it was in Korean War I), but I don't expect to see Japanese armies fighting their way up the Korean Peninsula alongside us, the Australians, the Brits, and possibly one or two others.

[risk]

>>>> Very interesting- exactly what is Japan going to fight WITH???

Japan is armed better than one might expect. Its brave "security forces" are probably a bit more on the offensive side than officially required. And they have ABM ships plus a number of fighter-bombers. Don't forget that Japan has been heckled by North Korean spying and kidknappings for the past 30 years or more.

I understand your point: they aren't nuclear and don't have massive fighting divisions. But their help could prove crucial in winning. And I don't think they would be hesitant to join in the hostilities with a ferocity that would surprise even themselves.

[RightWhale]

We were paralyzed by the fear of China

Not exactly. The new regieme in China was there thanks to our aid, specifically our failure to back the Nationalists. In a sense we were allies with China. Truman stopped MacArthur because he didn't want this conflict to spread into China proper. It was very confusing and took another 15 years for China and America to begin talking again.

[rmlew]

Japan has a fairly large airforce
http://www.jda.go.jp/jasdf/refs/shiryo_02e.htm
The F-1 is essentially a Japanese equivalaent to the Franco-Engglish Jaguar. The F-2 is an enlarged F-16, dedicated to attack.
The JNSDF includes 4 Japanese produced Arleigh Burkes (Kongos) and mnay modern diesel-electric submarines.

[The Pheonix]

Re your post #24


yes, MacArthur recommended nukes, but General Mattew Ridgeway advised Truman otherwise.

Ridgeway's arguement was: If the US used nuke. Then that, might then trigger off a nuclear exchange with the USSR. If the USSR did not respond with nuke and kept out, then China would be defeated. yes, but, the US would then need to garrison an occupying army inside China,(and face a guerila war), because if the US won't station a garrison, the USSR would, from just across the Border, and then the USSR would instal a puppet Chinese Govt, consisting of the Pro-USSR faction of The ChiComs

And a combined USSR-China would be too strong for the then US to handle. And scare the shit out of the Europeans

[presidio9]

But the probable cost to Korean civilians would be horrendous. The North has enough artillery pointed at Seoul to level it to the ground in very short order.

As the article points out, any shelling of Seoul would be of very limited duration.

[risk]

>>>> And a combined USSR-China would be too strong for the then US to handle. And scare the shit out of the Europeans

Agreed. Truman wasn't irrational when he pulled MacArthur out of his command. We can also speculate the other way, however: the Chinese were weak without their own nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union would have had to rely on intercontinental strategic bombers to strike American weapons because their missile guidance systems were still crude. We had superb AAA, and we had the will to win a nuclear war (we still do).

I personally think tactical nukes would have shocked the communists and would have given them pause as to what it was really worth in fighting the allies. But the bottom line was that Truman was our commander in chief, and MacArthur was out of line. Who knows, the civilians might have been right.

[The Pheonix]

At that point in time, the US "had no strategic interest in Korea ,at all". And Korea was of no strategic value to the US. So, the American "folks back home" did not support the war, and wondering, what are our boys doing over there? What are they dying for? Where the hell is Korea, anyway??

The other problem was the very high American casulty---38,000 dead in 3 years. An American field reporter wrote,"the flower of American Youth died in Korea", as 1000s of young, 18-19 year-old Marines were ambushed at the Yalu River, followed by never ending fierce hand to hand battles all the way on

Imagine ,the retreat of the US Marines from the Yalu River to the South East of Korea was the Longest Retreat in the Annals of the US Marines