North Korea adopts new war invasion strategy

[Jacob]

Actually, again assuming the nukes don't fly - how easily could SK and the US take out NK assuming we attacked them with the intent of re-unifying the country under the SK government?

A lot of that comes down to what China does in response, I'd imagine.

[Habbaku]

A good question.  How long does it take to go from an independent, totalitarian regime that governs all activities of its citizens' lives to incorporating it into a pre-existing, democratic government?  Has that ever been done before?  We have the example of West Germany for the transition, but that was a complete change and rebuilding of the country from the ground-up, albeit with some of the more benign institutions still in place.  How do you incorporate a country where basic things like running water aren't even assumed?

[Fate]

Actually, again assuming the nukes don't fly - how easily could SK and the US take out NK assuming we attacked them with the intent of re-unifying the country under the SK government?

I believe it would be a slam dunk.

[The Brain]

Let's assume that the nukes do fly.

[Berkut]

Actually, again assuming the nukes don't fly - how easily could SK and the US take out NK assuming we attacked them with the intent of re-unifying the country under the SK government?

A lot of that comes down to what China does in response, I'd imagine.

True. Although this isn't the 50s - the gap between US and Chinese military capabilities is simply...immense.

For example, unlike in KW1, we could pretty much drop every single bridge over the Yalu river and keep them down for good.

Which doesn't mean that I think a Chinese intervention would not be problematic, but I wonder if China *would* intervene again?

The relationship between China and the West politically and economically is also drastically different.

[Berkut]

Let's assume that the nukes do fly.

Then the outcome is less desirable, for pretty much everyone involved.

[Berkut]

A good question.  How long does it take to go from an independent, totalitarian regime that governs all activities of its citizens' lives to incorporating it into a pre-existing, democratic government?  Has that ever been done before? 

Japan, post WW2? Although obviously Japan was a functional society, unlike NK.

[grumbler]

A good question.  How long does it take to go from an independent, totalitarian regime that governs all activities of its citizens' lives to incorporating it into a pre-existing, democratic government?  Has that ever been done before?  We have the example of West Germany for the transition, but that was a complete change and rebuilding of the country from the ground-up, albeit with some of the more benign institutions still in place.  How do you incorporate a country where basic things like running water aren't even assumed?

This is pretty much the same question we were asking about Albania a coupla decades ago.  Turned out that Albanians were a lot more aware of, and ready to join, the world as a whole than pretty much anyone had thought possible.

Dunno if the example is applicable to NK, but the assumption that NK is non-functional on a people level might not be true.

[Ed Anger]

Let's assume that the nukes do fly.

That would be an awesome light show.

[alfred russel]

Actually, again assuming the nukes don't fly - how easily could SK and the US take out NK assuming we attacked them with the intent of re-unifying the country under the SK government?

A lot of that comes down to what China does in response, I'd imagine.

True. Although this isn't the 50s - the gap between US and Chinese military capabilities is simply...immense.

For example, unlike in KW1, we could pretty much drop every single bridge over the Yalu river and keep them down for good.

Which doesn't mean that I think a Chinese intervention would not be problematic, but I wonder if China *would* intervene again?

The relationship between China and the West politically and economically is also drastically different.

I don't have much understanding of military capabilities, but does this work both ways? Could the U.S. support forces in South Korea by sea with modern anti-ship missiles and at least some Chinese air and sea threat? And if not, would Chinese intervention effectively embargo the peninsula? My understanding is that with a few more missiles and a little better technology and coordination, Argentina would have effectively done so against the UK.

Not that this matters, I can't imagine China would intervene on the side of NK if push came to shove. China knows the future isn't with NK.

[MadImmortalMan]

Dunno if the example is applicable to NK, but the assumption that NK is non-functional on a people level might not be true.

A lot may depend on how sincere the following of Juche really is. It might be so shallow it collapses immediately, or it might be so ingrained that some Juche Party post-unification makes Die Linke look like amateurs. That could really bring down the New Korea if it held a sizable enough chunk of support to act as a pivot.


NK has roughly half the population of SK, right?

[dps]

Actually, again assuming the nukes don't fly - how easily could SK and the US take out NK assuming we attacked them with the intent of re-unifying the country under the SK government?

A lot of that comes down to what China does in response, I'd imagine.

True. Although this isn't the 50s - the gap between US and Chinese military capabilities is simply...immense.

For example, unlike in KW1, we could pretty much drop every single bridge over the Yalu river and keep them down for good.

Which doesn't mean that I think a Chinese intervention would not be problematic, but I wonder if China *would* intervene again?

The relationship between China and the West politically and economically is also drastically different.

I don't have much understanding of military capabilities, but does this work both ways? Could the U.S. support forces in South Korea by sea with modern anti-ship missiles and at least some Chinese air and sea threat? And if not, would Chinese intervention effectively embargo the peninsula? My understanding is that with a few more missiles and a little better technology and coordination, Argentina would have effectively done so against the UK.

Not that this matters, I can't imagine China would intervene on the side of NK if push came to shove. China knows the future isn't with NK.

I agree that it's not likely that China would intervene on the side of NK under the present conditions, but as for the military balance, Argentine capabilities were relatively closer to those of the UK during the Falklands War than the capabilities of China are to those of the US today.

Frankly, I think that the Brits got lucky.  Don't get me wrong, had the war gone on, they would have eventually won, but it could have been a lot longer and more costly (both financially and in terms of men and material) than it was.

[Jacob]

True. Although this isn't the 50s - the gap between US and Chinese military capabilities is simply...immense.

For example, unlike in KW1, we could pretty much drop every single bridge over the Yalu river and keep them down for good.

Which doesn't mean that I think a Chinese intervention would not be problematic, but I wonder if China *would* intervene again?

The relationship between China and the West politically and economically is also drastically different.

Yeah, I don't think the Chinese would want to bring their army into North Korea or otherwise fight the US directly.  I don't think they'd think it was worth it, unless a nasty combination of nationalism and "incidents" put them in a position where they had to or face serious trouble at home.

I'd imagine that they'd do some sort of supply of materiel and intel, to make American and RoK losses as high as possible while obstructing peaceful resolutions for as long as possible.  Basically, I figure they'd fight a proxy war with the aim being to hold as many cards when the situation finally settles down.  Because I think the Chinese bottom line in any kind of NK scenario is that they don't want the US having military access to their border with Korea.

On a board game level it would probably be a good time for China to move on Taiwan.  Not sure if it makes sense when looking at it realistically though.

[Jacob]

A good question.  How long does it take to go from an independent, totalitarian regime that governs all activities of its citizens' lives to incorporating it into a pre-existing, democratic government?  Has that ever been done before?  We have the example of West Germany for the transition, but that was a complete change and rebuilding of the country from the ground-up, albeit with some of the more benign institutions still in place.  How do you incorporate a country where basic things like running water aren't even assumed?

Yeah, the post war situation would be pretty intense; especially if NK had managed to inflict heavy civilian SoK casualties beforehand.  I think it's a lot harder to welcome you long lost countrymen and pay for fixing their country when they've just killed a bunch of your friends, family and neighbours.

[Berkut]

Actually, again assuming the nukes don't fly - how easily could SK and the US take out NK assuming we attacked them with the intent of re-unifying the country under the SK government?

A lot of that comes down to what China does in response, I'd imagine.

True. Although this isn't the 50s - the gap between US and Chinese military capabilities is simply...immense.

For example, unlike in KW1, we could pretty much drop every single bridge over the Yalu river and keep them down for good.

Which doesn't mean that I think a Chinese intervention would not be problematic, but I wonder if China *would* intervene again?

The relationship between China and the West politically and economically is also drastically different.

I don't have much understanding of military capabilities, but does this work both ways? Could the U.S. support forces in South Korea by sea with modern anti-ship missiles and at least some Chinese air and sea threat? And if not, would Chinese intervention effectively embargo the peninsula? My understanding is that with a few more missiles and a little better technology and coordination, Argentina would have effectively done so against the UK.

Not that this matters, I can't imagine China would intervene on the side of NK if push came to shove. China knows the future isn't with NK.

That would be an interesting wargame project - could China interdict the US Navy and its support for US Army forces in North Korea?

I am guessing they would have a lot of trouble doing so. They couldn't do it in the first round, and I rather doubt they could do it now. And if it came down to it, and the Chinese seriously attacked US merchant shipping, resulting in an all out naval conflict, the end result is going to be that China has no navy anymore - at all.

I could imagine that if their close ashore capability is as good as some people say that the fighting could be a little bloody for the Americans, but I don't think the result would be in question.