The Korean Powder Keg

Scandigrad

Scandigrad

TNPer
Today, North Korea cancelled the cease fire that ended the Korean war 60 years ago, after the start of US-ROK military drills began.

In addition, Kim Jung Un called on DPRK forces to "annihilate the enemy".

While this is in line with the status quo for the DPRK in periods of high tension, the concern is that now the DPRK is under new management, and results may be different.

With tensions rising on the Korean Peninsula, how do you feel these most recent threats from North Korea will play out?

NBC Nightly News Video

Personally, I am under the firm belief that it will be another case of "LOL North Korea!"
 
Can we finally, finally finish this?

Also, ever since the armistice we've known if North Korea was to attack their first major push would be Seoul...but this assessment was made before they had nuclear weapons.

Seoul contains not only the seat of the government and the RoK military, but 45% of South Korea's total population. Can you imagine what would happen if they nuked Seoul? It might very well turn the tide of war in their favor in a matter of hours.
 
A year from now.......

"I remember World War III. All 15 minutes of it. That was when President Obama came on the TV and said, 'thank you very much. Good night. You're on your own'".
 
Blue Wolf II:
Can we finally, finally finish this?

Also, ever since the armistice we've known if North Korea was to attack their first major push would be Seoul...but this assessment was made before they had nuclear weapons.

Seoul contains not only the seat of the government and the RoK military, but 45% of South Korea's total population. Can you imagine what would happen if they nuked Seoul? It might very well turn the tide of war in their favor in a matter of hours.
Click to expand...
I think they'd go for the DMZ, and not Seoul, and here's why: The problem is they don't have a delivery method. But that's not a problem for them, because we've known for some time that they like to tunnel under the DMZ. All they have to do is set a nuclear device (transported by truck) to under a strategic point in the DMZ, and blow a massive hole. With defenses eliminated, they'd face little resistance coming through the Z and be in Seoul in a matter of hours, maybe a day.

Either way, the same effect would be made. I guess the ROK would have a bit more warning with the latter, but not much.
 
While I agree with you that they are probably more likely to use any initial nuclear attack on the DMZ defenses and any units garrisoned there rather than on Seoul, which is a prize they probably want as undamaged as possible, I think you're underestimating North Korea's ability to infiltrate into the South.

The North proved that they could get commando units all the way to Seoul, and even attack the resident of the President, with the area under high alert to boot, during the Blue House Raid. And this is a unit coming directly from North Korea, I'm sure they probably have spies posing as defector In-Country. It is possible for North Korea to deliver a nuclear device via ground even as far as Seoul, but they would need to element of surprise to have a decent chance.

But nukes are not North Korea's only weapon, let's not forget the vast arsenal of Chemical and even Biological weapons they have at their disposal. While DMZ units are well prepared for Chemical attack, its still a very good chance that the North would deploy these weapons anyway if they committed to a full on war. They might even have a good chance of catching some of the units further away from the DMZ completely unprepared.
 
Also, America doesn't attack countries with nukes. The North could use their nuclear capabilities as cover as they conduct an old fashioned ground invasion of the South, and the US likely wouldn't retaliate out of fear of a nuclear war.
 
I don't think it'd be sane to argue that the US has a doctrine of not defending against attacks by nuclear nations.
 
Most would agree that massive thermonuclear retaliation would be insane by the US. It clashes with Western values, and there would be a public uproar. I personally see two possibilities.

The Nuclear Option-

The war would remain limited. Since the US government is uneasy (morally speaking) about the deployment of nuclear weapons, they would not seek further escalation of the war. Since we also know that the DPRK is not capable of a massive nuclear attack on the US, the war would remain limited in scope, and we would probably respond only in kind.

Using your example BW, if the DPRK chooses to glass Seoul, I would bet we would glass Pyongyang in retaliation, or Wonsan in retaliation, and leave it at that. If the DPRK chose to glass the DMZ, we would likely also use thermonuclear weapons on the Z.

Not all nuclear retaliation has to come at 10 megatons. We are perfectly capable of waging a prolonged tactical nuclear war through nuclear tipped tomahawks, artillery shells, tactical nuclear bombs, and nuclear tipped torpedoes.

The Conventional Option

Recognizing that the DPRK does not have the capacity to further wage a nuclear war, we would deploy a massive conventional retaliation. As opposed to leveling a city full of civilians, and possibly endangering South Korea to additional radiation poisoning, we would pull out the stops and throw everything we have into a war against the DPRK.

Both have their pros and cons, but either option is, in my opinion, equally likely. It'd really come down to the shock factor following the deployment of a thermonuclear weapon, who the DPRK chose to strike, and whether the President (who, mind you, is the only one with the authority to launch American nuclear weapons) feels he needs to hold the People of the DPRK responsible, or just the government. It would also come down to how to achieve that goal. International pressure would also be something to consider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top