Posted on 05/27/2010 9:23:00 AM PDT by fenderfeeder
(May 27) -- Tensions continue to mount on the Korean peninsula in the wake of an international investigation that concluded a North Korean submarine was responsible for sinking a South Korean navy ship in April, killing 46 sailors. In the latest chess moves, Seoul staged a big anti-submarine drill, which Pyongyang responded to by saying it will no longer honor an agreement meant to avoid accidental naval clashes between the two nations.
As the crisis escalates, an unsettling question comes into focus: What would war on the Korean peninsula look like some 50-odd years after the armistice that brought the Korean War to an end?
A North Korean Attack: Though war would be catastrophic for both countries, South Korea would suffer the most in the first days of a full-scale conflict. Its capital of Seoul lies just 50 miles south of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) -- as big a misnomer as you will find, since the area is one of the most heavily militarized areas on the planet. On this de facto border, North Korea has amassed about 13,000 artillery pieces, rockets, missiles and other ordinance that can reach Seoul in a matter of minutes. Seoul, a city of 1 million, could be flattened; also at risk are the 28,500 American troops stationed in the country. Additionally, North Korea could release its dams and flood much of the South, writes Christopher Hitchens. There's also its 1.2 million-member army to consider. And were North Korea to deploy nuclear and chemical weapons, the devastation would be much much worse.
South Korea's Response: South Korea is far from defenseless, however. It has a standing army of more than 500,000 and nearly 10 times that in trained reservists. It has twice the population of the North and is a First-World economic power with huge industrial capacity, while North Korea is an economic backwater where much of the population is malnourished. In any protracted conflict, these would be huge advantages. What's more, the DMZ is heavily mined, and the border area is hilly (even mountainous along the East Coast) and offers natural defensive positions.
International Actors: Alliances haven't changed much in 50 years. The U.S. backs South Korea, while China supports the North. Neither country would likely remain neutral in a Korean war, but it's unclear how involved they would be -- unless North Korea employed nuclear weapons, which would almost certainly trigger an immediate U.S. response. Since 1978, the U.S. has pledged to protect South Korea from a nuclear threat from the North. "Under the extended nuclear deterrence pledge, the U.S. military would use some of its tactical nuclear weapons, such as B-61 nuclear bombs carried by B-2/52 bombers and F-15E, F-16 and F/A-18 fighters, as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from nuclear-powered submarines, to strike North Korea's nuclear facilities in retaliation for any such attack on the South," military experts told The Korea Times. China will not support North Korean nuclear aggression, though it's unlikely to sit by idly if American and South Korean forces take over the North. Meanwhile, the main U.S. tensions with China will remain over Taiwan, which could exacerbate if Taiwan used the distraction of a Korean conflict to declare independence.
The Aftermath: Were full-scale war to break out, the endgame likely would be the end of North Korea's dictatorship; the U.S. would not settle for a peace that left Kim Jong-il in power. But what would you do with his brainwashed subjects, whose leader has done everything he can to block their access to the modern outside world? Hitchens, again:
"The dirty secret here is that no neighboring power really wants the North Korean population released from its awful misery. Here are millions of stunted and unemployable people, traumatized and deformed by decades of pointless labor on the plantations of a mad despot. The South Koreans do not really want these hopeless cases on the soil of their flourishing consumer society. The Chinese, who have a Korean-speaking province that borders North Korea, are likewise unwilling to suffer the influx of desperate people that is in our future."
This reintegration project would be much more difficult than the one following the reunification of Germany, where Soviet control in the East, however draconian, never approached the cult state that is North Korea. Whatever military challenges war would bring would be dwarfed by these postwar social challenges.
Does NK have an air force? How many and what kind of planes?
Me too. I remember all of the media hype about how tough Saddam Hussein's army would be. They couldn't retreat fast enough, in either Gulf war.
I think destruction of Seoul is a bit overstated, South Korean Air force will sweep north korean out of the skies in a matter of hours, artillery and rockets bombarding the city will not last much longer. “
Seoul is only 50 miles or so south of the border-where artillery is massed than can lob shells further than 50 miles.
I don’t think S Korea will have any time to get those planes into the air. Especially if trouble starts in the middle of the night.
Or Israel/Jews...or 'all of the above...'
I suspect that since we have had 50 years or so to solve the problems, that they have mostly been solved.
One scenario is that 10 seconds after the Ronery One says attack, he gets a bullet through the heart. His generals know the real score and it is not one that is hopeful for the North.
According to estimates, probably around 750 combat aircraft, but the most modern would be the 35+ Mig-29s. Believe it or not, they still fly copies of the Mig-17 and 19! I think that South Korea and the U.S. would gain air superiority probably on the first day with a lot of aces being made.
It is pretty large but most of it is very outdated. They have less then semi-modern fighters Mig 29 rest is Mig 21, Chinese varients of different Migs, some Su 25. Also their flying hours are very low which suggests low skill level of pilots.
I'm not sure what part China will play except it will be well planned and leave us with few options. The administration will be asked to give up an important prize to China in return for China calling off their NK dogs. If Obama and Hillary do not accept, it may lead to war beginning in the far east instead of the middle east but war is on the horizon IMO.
Do they have any fuel for the planes? Any way to make or aquire more?
Hitchens’ comment on the poor people of North Korea is beneath contempt. It’s just another outlet for his arrogance, little different than his evil polemic about religious people. As decent human beings it is incumbent upon us to give aid and succor to the unfortunate victims of the insane viciousness of Kim Jong-il and Christopher Hitchens if we can. They need help, not malthusian condemnation.
Koreans are tough, crazy, SOBs (I mean that as a compliment). Notice how rarely their positions were attacked in Nam or Iraq. I think they will be a little tougher than the Iraqis. IMHO.
Yeah, they were off only 900%................
At its closest point, the northern boundary of Seoul lies 36 km from the DMZ. Of the Norks' tube artillery, only the handful of 180mm S-23s and a somewhat larger number of 130mm M-46s can reach that far and only then with special ammunition the Norks aren't known to have and wouldn't have in quantity even if they did. Even that would require that the guns be lined up right on the demarcation line.
The multiple launch rocket systems available to the North Koreans are similarly short on reach, and much harder to conceal in deployment.
There are hundreds of ballistic missiles but, again, their effectiveness is vastly exaggerated in media accounts. All 650 of them would have about the fire-power of a 100 plane RAF or USAAF raid in World War2, something German cities could and did shake off on a regular basis. Of course, not all the Nork missiles would be expended against Seoul, since this would leave nothing for airfields or ports elsewhere.
By concentrating their entire obsolete air force in one sector, the Norks probably can overwhelm part of the air defense system and do major damage. They could only do this once however, since it would entail the loss of most of their aircraft.
That leaves the Norks with the nuclear option, which is not specific to the Seoul area and, indeed, would probably be targeted elsewhere for strategic and media reasons.
South Korean officials know all this, whether the media do or not. They are indeed weighing the threat against tolerating an ever escalating series of North Korean outrages and extortion attempts. It doesn't balance the way the conventional pundits think, however.
North send barage into South, killing 1500 American troops.
Obama gets on TV and tells Kim he’s really disappointed and asks what we can send to the North so they don’t do it again.....
Like North Vietnam..
1)A few shots fired by each side.
2)An armistace signed in a week.
3)The "CHUMP-IN-CHIEF GIVES THE NORTH BILLIONS IN FOREIGN AID.
(And I suspect Japan went nuke-capable - back in the Seventies when they saw us abandon South Viet Nam. This per retired S-2 types.)
Like Saddam Hussein
Do you have any facts at all that would support that? Did anyone predict the collapse of North Vietnam? Was that our objective?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.