When everyone talks about the possibility of a US attack on North Korea, the major focus is on North Korea’s fledgling nuclear weapons program, and the possibility of retaliatory nuclear strikes against densely populated cities, causing unimaginable destruction.
Assessments of what could happen in this war, however, note that the danger extends far beyond nuclear weapons, and that even in a nuclear-free war, massive exchanges of conventional fire would result in the deaths of as many as 300,000 people in just the first few days.
It should go without saying that this is the case, as North Korea was working on retaliatory deterrence for decades before having managed to successfully test a nuclear weapon. North Korea has a massive amount of long-range artillery to call out in the event war broke out.
Hundreds of thousands dead in a few days should be sufficient deterrent to preclude a US attack, but even that is likely overly optimistic, since analysts have been virtually unanimous in agreeing that there’d be no way to keep a war with North Korea “limited,” and that a nuclear exchange would be virtually assured.
Secretary Mattis has confirmed publicly:
Asked whether there were any military options the United States could
take with North Korea that would not put Seoul at grave risk, Mattis
said: “Yes there are. But I will not go into details.”
I disagree about the nuclear option. In my opinion, North Korea will not, in the event of a conflict, use nukes first, reserving them for the situation where they have no choice but to use them. Even if they only use them against the US carrier groups near Korea, they can expect the US will retaliate with many more nukes, tactical and strategic, from submarines in the area.
I suspect the US will also not use nukes first until North Korea does.
So the war is likely to be conventional until North Korea is near defeat.
However, the probability that North Korea WILL be defeated is not at all high. It is possible the South Korea and the US will not be able to defeat North Korea without such a high cost in casualties that the US public will recoil from continuing the war and force the government to halt it and resume negotiations. Even if the US electorate can’t do that, the South Korea electorate can.
In addition, if the probability becomes high that North Korea is being defeated conventionally, it is likely the Chinese will step in. The Chinese do not even need to directly engage US/SK forces to stop the war. They can simply deploy hundreds of thousands of troop into North Korea, set up a defensive line and tell the US/SK forces to go no further without risking WWIII. I believe neither SK nor the US nor NK will risk WWIII over NK.
The other point to be made is that the US does not presently HAVE enough troops to send to South Korea’s aid other than one light division and a couple light brigades. So South Korea will be doing the bulk of the ground fighting. This is why, when the casualties become horrific, the South Korean electorate may force a ceasefire.
Finally, what happens if the US/SK defeats NK in conventional war, and then the 100,000-plus North Korea Special Forces organize an insurgency many times larger and more effective than the Iraqi insurgency? Is the US prepared to fight an insurgency requiring hundreds of thousands of US and SK troops for the next decade?
south koreans have no power to force the US to stop the war.
but the US will lose the peninsular as their garrison colony for ever.
What’s really hold the U.S. back insofar as N.K. capabilities go is their ability to hit U.S. bases in Guam and Japan.
South Korean casualties are hardly a deterrent, or even their own soldiers.
Damage to infrastructure and naval vessels may reduce long-term fighting capability and scuttle China containment.
an excellent point.
If Saddam and Gaddafi had North Korea’s capabilities, they would still be around and the middle east would be very stable and millions of lives would be saved.
Say that again when it’s over.
You will realize how stupid what you just said really is.
Or, the taboo on use of nukes is ended, much to the delight of warmongering militarists long hoping to break the ice on limited nuclear war.
Possessing nukes is only one card; what is also needed is geopolitical support and the will to fight. N.K. has them all.
Saddam fell because Russia wasn’t strong enough to back him, and he kept hoping his role as a counterweight to Iran and longstanding Arabist Deep State support would save him. In the end Saddam was fooled into not fighting nearly as hard or smart as he was capable of; classic Sun-Tzu.
Gadaffi fell after he turned Westwards and became a ‘reformed dictator’, not quite spurning Russia but definitely reducing their inclination to support him until it was too late. Gadaffi also made the same mistake of not fighting to the best of his abilities, trusting his newfound Deep State buddies would bail him out. Maybe they did what they could in exchange for giving up the fight at Sirte; his sons still live but Saddam’s do not.
“Even Without Nukes, Korea War Would Kill 300,000 in Days” Yes, 300,000 mostly innocent civilians while politicians who start the war cower in bunkers, drink Champaign and eat caviar all while their countries’ youth are slaughtered.
Who benefits?
If North Korea fails to get off any real strikes beyond the peninsula, financing reconstruction could be extremely profitable to international banksters.
Which is probably why N.K. has openly made clear, and Russia and China have tacitly made clear, a Korean war would not be confined to the peninsula and every effort made to prevent it from becoming profitable to the West.