North Korea: 2012-2016

[Ken White]

Brandon:I'm no expert either but I have watched them for years. While four tours there, peace and war may cloud my judgment a bit, I suspect it is more 'We want' ...

Not to mention that we don't know if they popped a nuke; we only know it appears they may have. A few dump truck loads of TNT can give a marginal simulation. We'll see what comes out in the long term.

Plus, there are worse things than Nukes in any event.

Bill: No one in the west understands their reasoning. Some in the west have been watching them for years and while patterns do not provide predictions or assurances, they do provide probabilities. Plus, as I said, they're dotty, they are not nuts; in fact, they're really pretty shrewd...

Wilf:

"..but don't worry. According to the great and the good, "Big Wars" are unlikely. We only have to worry about insurgents and Hybrids. "

Absolutely. They've got it all figured out...

They could do very, very serious damage to the Seoul without leaving thier start line. Try to fight your way into North Korea, may be a bit of a challenge.

No question on the first part; on the second -- depends on which door you use but they're, even in their current debilitated state, no pushover that's certain.

Early days...

[Coldstreamer]

I've got all that...tons and tons of coventional, stacked and ready...

But my point is, are they genuinely likely to launch a first strike if NK mainland has not been targeted. Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening. A hell of a lot of the usual piss and wind...but then again that's what we've had from appeasing them, to a degree. But the problem with appeasement is their tech and proliferation is still getting out. So we still lose.
Fundamentally, I suspect regime survival is all, and they won't invite a Western retaliation. Hence 1st strike unlikely.

But as Ken says...early days. Another thing to pray for.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf - do we really think that thy'd react that strongly to dodgy ships being searched at sea - particularly if kit was found aboard them that was even more politically embarrassing for them. I'm not sure I see it happening.

I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.

[Hacksaw]

The answer to your question is that it depends...

Are the ROKs a first rate Army??? Yes and no... BCT and below they are excellent... Div and above - not nearly as proficient...

Would the US need to committ ground forces??? Maybe, maybe not... If the NK launch all their stuff... air could kill vast majority of heavy equipment (highway of death to the nth power)... and the counterfire fight would eventually attrit indirect fires to the point that ROK forces could certainly restore the international border.... but, if the NK conduct a limited attack and the ROKs/Coaltion want to go north...we better have a whole lot more than the ROK Army and air superiority...

Terrain favors the defender in the extreme on the Peninsula... as I stated earlier in this thread... what kept me up at night wasn't defeating a NK attack... rather it was going North into a defense dug into granite with templated TRPs and fields of fire painted onto the walls....

bad bad bad juju

Slumbering peacefully in Kansas

[Coldstreamer]

I wouldn't assume to predict what a North Korean Leader might do, or what might embarrass him. MacArthur said the Chinese would never intervene in Korea and the CIA said Iraq would never invade Kuwait. The Israelis were absolutely certain Egypt would not attack in 1973.

Fair one. Prediction's always a dangerous sport. But going off past experience, rewarding bullies and lunatics always empowers them (back to Saddam and April Summer's ambiguous messages to him in 1991). Where as good old fashioned bullying, of the sort conspicuously absent in our dealings with..er..Korea and Iran, tends to yield results. Bcause the lines are thus clear. If we reward unreasonable behaviour we incentivise it. And, of course, all the while these nutters are spreading the WMD risk with characters like AQ Khan and the Iranians - because we haven't gripped them early.

[J Wolfsberger]

Based on his past experience, Kim probably believes that he can threaten, bluster, and rattle some sabers, resulting in the west will sign an agreement to give him something, in this case food. He can then renege on whatever he promised to do.

The problem this time around is that we might actually do something - stop and search shipping to and from NK. He desperately needs the foreign currency from arms sales to purchase food. Given his health, some rumors I've read of a rise in influence of the armed forces, he could just be desperate enough this time around to follow through on his threats.

A lot of the behavior we've seen before. What's new, and a bit ominous, is the repudiation of the Armistice, and that he isn't raising the stakes in a transparent effort to get food.

[Hacksaw]

I would defer to Ken's supreior experience (that was delicately put don't you think) wrt psyche and tendencies...

I would defer to Ron's experiences wrt cultural understanding...

I do, however, have some feel for capabilities, terrain, etc regarding the prospects for combat on the frozen chosen...

My greatest apprehension while serving thinking about combat operations in Korea was not the indirect fires (although impressive and certainly capable of wrecking death and destruction) - we have an idea how to systematicly take that down... ROK Arty and our ability to execute counter-fire fight isn't a joke either...

The hordes of NK light infantry and special operaters is also worrisome and would certainly creat a degree of havoc before they were hunted down... or stopped at the local grocery store to fill their bellies...

No what really worried me was that they might figure out how to provoke the South into attacking the North... the tyranny of terrain, UGF/Harts, and non-existent road infrastructure is some scarry business... especially if they haven't already shot their load on an attack...

Agree with Ken... this is almost certainly sabre rattling for the sake of leverage to preclude the implosion someone else mentioned...

In a very perverse way, I miss the hours worked and rigor of live above the no smile line...

Live well and row

[Ken White]

No what really worried me was that they might figure out how to provoke the South into attacking the North... the tyranny of terrain, UGF/Harts, and non-existent road infrastructure is some scarry business... especially if they haven't already shot their load on an attack...

However, on a serious note; yes indeed, to that comment...

Few Americans ever realized that we stayed on that DMZ for 50 plus years not to deter the North from attacking the South -- but rather the reverse.

[jmm99]

No doubt, NK has breached Art. 62's clear language (for rational or irrational reasons):

62. The Articles and Paragraphs of this Armistice Agreement shall remain in effect until expressly superseded either by mutually acceptable amendments and additions or by provision in an appropriate agreement for a peaceful settlement at a political level between both sides.

and some propose (based on news reports of "what should be done") to breach Art. 15 & 16's clear language (for the rational reason of preventing export of nuclear weapons):

15. This Armistice Agreement shall apply to all opposing naval forces, which naval forces shall respect the water contiguous to the Demilitarized Zone and to the land area of Korea under the military control of the opposing side, and shall not engage in blockade of any kind of Korea.

16. This Armistice Agreement shall apply to all opposing air forces, which air forces shall respect the air space over the Demilitarized Zone and over the area of Korea under the military control of the opposing side, and over the waters contiguous to both.

Ultimately, discussion of the Armistice will be trumped by each country's decision, based on its enlightened self-interests, of its need to invoke its rights under UN Article 51:

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain inter- national peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

whether those rights be an "offensive defense", or solely defense of territory as is the current Russian response.

[Icepack6]

. . . .with all this new posturing, all I can envision is Kim-Jong-Il stomping his feet, and holding his breath until his cheeks turn blue. . . . .a la Team America.

Despite all of the needs in the North, the one consistent thing manifested over the years is dear leader wants legitimacy, measured ONLY by bilateral engagement with the US, not a committee of nations or the UN. For all the right reasons, we have rarely engaged KN without the UN, ROK, Russia, Japan and/or China coming along. Stuck in 1953 thinking, NK leadership is big on correlation of forces and wants to play with the big dogs. . . . and force one-on-one engagement with the US, thereby, establishing the legitimacy of the Kim dynasty.

[Coldstreamer]

Mind you I bet real estate's cheap there...lot of beaches...we could be missing a trick for holiday property. Could be the next Croatia...perhaps with more submarine pens...

[Icepack6]

Since KN has retracted from the Armistice, I believe there is an opportunity for moving Red Flag from Nellis to Osan AB, ROK. This would make Russia nervous, as the winds blow westerly from North Korea across Hokkaido Island to points northeast. Watch this space for reports of a large, fire-breathing atomic dinosaur.

[slapout9]

Since KN has retracted from the Armistice, I believe there is an opportunity for moving Red Flag from Nellis to Osan AB, ROK. This would make Russia nervous, as the winds blow westerly from North Korea across Hokkaido Island to points northeast. Watch this space for reports of a large, fire-breathing atomic dinosaur.

You got my vote....if the wittle fellar wants a nuclear weapon we should give him one or two....those neutron ones that only kill people,don't want to hurt any of the little critters roaming around there.

[Uboat509]

My question would be, how much do we really need to worry about this, even if they do decide to attack? I have not been to Korea but I have a number of friends who have and by all accounts the ROK army is a very professional competent force. Add to that the fact that China doesn't want to deal with all the fallout of a war on the peninsula and will not tolerate KN slinging WMDs around. I don't think that they can afford to not become militarily involved. On top of all that add the fact that for all their bluff and bluster the KN army appears to be largely starving conscripts with antiquated equipment and substandard training. While I'm sure that we would provide some air and naval cover, I'm just not convinced that we would need to provide any significant ground forces.

SFC W

[AmericanPride]

I think a major contributing factor to the size of the DPRK's armed forces is the lack of other employment (or busy work) for the population. When the population is conscripted and forced to support the military machine, threats to state stability are minimized -- even if at the expense of internal development or foreign relations. It's a common strategy in many underdeveloped countries (except where the military itself is unreliable, i.e. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia). So I do not think we can accurately conclude that the DPRK wants to "play with the big dogs" on the basis of the size of their armed forces.