- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
I think a number of us have known intuitively for years that going to war with North Korea is a nonstarter for reasons of casualties - Seoul is one of the largest cities in the world and would be immediately decimated by artillery fire. Estimated casualties on the South Korean / American side are expected to be 300,000 to 500,000. Today, that's just a mind-boggling number.
War Is Boring - Why There Are No Military Solutions to North Korea
War Is Boring - Why There Are No Military Solutions to North Korea
What would a military strike accomplish?
First and foremost, it is unlikely that any sort of military action could actually eliminate North Korea’s nuclear program.
Since the public debut of their nuclear weapons program in 2006, North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure has become increasingly sophisticated. With the possibility of a preventive attack by the United States, such as the one carried out against Iraq in 2003, looming over their heads; the regime spread out its arsenal, nuclear facilities and launch platforms across the country.
According to Sig Hecker, emeritus director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and senior fellow at Stanford University, “there is no conceivable way the United States could destroy all North Korean nuclear weapons. It is not possible to know where they all are. Even if a few could be located, it would be difficult to destroy them without causing them to detonate and create a mushroom cloud over the Korean peninsula.”
Furthermore, North Korea is estimated to have enough fissile material to produce one nuclear bomb every six to seven weeks, and “it is even less likely that the United States could locate and demolish all of the North’s nuclear materials,” says Hecker.
A question of response
The outcome of any U.S. military action in North Korea hinges upon how the regime would respond once provoked. The possibilities have prevented at least three U.S. administrations from pursuing military options.
...
oday the DPRK ranks 23rd worldwide in terms of conventional military power. Although qualitatively inferior to the militaries of the U.S. and its allies, the North’s vaunted million-man army, along with some 3,500 aging main battle tanks and over 21,000 artillery pieces is incredibly lethal.
Thousands of North Korean artillery guns are pre-targeted at Seoul, a sprawling capital city of some 25 million people. That is about as far away from the DMZ as Baltimore is from Washington D.C.. Shells fired from those batteries can reach Seoul in about 45 seconds.
The casualties and damage produced by an artillery barrage of this size on the world’s fourth largest city would be unimaginable. According to Victor Cha, Director for Asian Affairs in Pres. Bush’s National Security Council, many of those guns are in hardened bunkers that could not be taken out “without using tactical nuclear weapons.”
With Seoul right down the road, that is not a realistic option.
This scenario doesn’t even take into account North Korea’s sizable arsenal of chemical weapons. According to The Telegraph “after decades of investment, the country is believed to be able to make most types of chemical weapons, but focus on sulphur mustard, chlorine, phosgene, sarin and VX. Stockpiles are estimated at 2,500-5,000 tons. Chemical toxins can be fired in a wide range of artillery shells, rockets and missiles.”
Within minutes of a U.S. strike, the North could unleash a devastating retaliatory strike, all without moving a single man. According to Cha, “an arsenal of 600 chemically armed Scud missiles would be fired on all South Korean airports, train stations and marine ports, making it impossible for civilians to escape.”
Furthermore, “The North’s arsenal of medium-range missiles could also be fitted with chemical warheads and launched at Japan, delaying the arrival of U.S. reinforcements.”
Modern war on the Korean peninsula
According to a report on a war game organized by The Atlantic in 2005, “an actual war on the Korean peninsula would almost certainly be the bloodiest America has fought since Vietnam—possibly since World War II.
In recent years Pentagon experts have estimated that the first ninety days of such a conflict might produce 300,000 to 500,000 South Korean and American military casualties, along with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The damage to South Korea alone would rock the global economy.”
That was before North Korea had developed nuclear weapons that could vaporize millions in the blink of an eye.
The U.S. would be forced to commit several combat divisions, aircraft carriers and air wings along with at least 500,000 additional troops in order to stabilize the peninsula in the event that the North Korean regime collapsed.
“As wars go, this would be the most unforgiving battle conditions that can be imagined—an extremely high density of enemy and allied forces—over two million mechanized forces all converging on a total battlespace the equivalent of the distance between Washington, D.C., and Boston,” says Cha.
“Soldiers would be fighting with little defense against DPRK artillery, aerial bombardments, and in an urban warfare environment polluted by 5,000 metric tons of DPRK chemical agents.”
First and foremost, it is unlikely that any sort of military action could actually eliminate North Korea’s nuclear program.
Since the public debut of their nuclear weapons program in 2006, North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure has become increasingly sophisticated. With the possibility of a preventive attack by the United States, such as the one carried out against Iraq in 2003, looming over their heads; the regime spread out its arsenal, nuclear facilities and launch platforms across the country.
According to Sig Hecker, emeritus director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and senior fellow at Stanford University, “there is no conceivable way the United States could destroy all North Korean nuclear weapons. It is not possible to know where they all are. Even if a few could be located, it would be difficult to destroy them without causing them to detonate and create a mushroom cloud over the Korean peninsula.”
Furthermore, North Korea is estimated to have enough fissile material to produce one nuclear bomb every six to seven weeks, and “it is even less likely that the United States could locate and demolish all of the North’s nuclear materials,” says Hecker.
A question of response
The outcome of any U.S. military action in North Korea hinges upon how the regime would respond once provoked. The possibilities have prevented at least three U.S. administrations from pursuing military options.
...
oday the DPRK ranks 23rd worldwide in terms of conventional military power. Although qualitatively inferior to the militaries of the U.S. and its allies, the North’s vaunted million-man army, along with some 3,500 aging main battle tanks and over 21,000 artillery pieces is incredibly lethal.
Thousands of North Korean artillery guns are pre-targeted at Seoul, a sprawling capital city of some 25 million people. That is about as far away from the DMZ as Baltimore is from Washington D.C.. Shells fired from those batteries can reach Seoul in about 45 seconds.
The casualties and damage produced by an artillery barrage of this size on the world’s fourth largest city would be unimaginable. According to Victor Cha, Director for Asian Affairs in Pres. Bush’s National Security Council, many of those guns are in hardened bunkers that could not be taken out “without using tactical nuclear weapons.”
With Seoul right down the road, that is not a realistic option.
This scenario doesn’t even take into account North Korea’s sizable arsenal of chemical weapons. According to The Telegraph “after decades of investment, the country is believed to be able to make most types of chemical weapons, but focus on sulphur mustard, chlorine, phosgene, sarin and VX. Stockpiles are estimated at 2,500-5,000 tons. Chemical toxins can be fired in a wide range of artillery shells, rockets and missiles.”
Within minutes of a U.S. strike, the North could unleash a devastating retaliatory strike, all without moving a single man. According to Cha, “an arsenal of 600 chemically armed Scud missiles would be fired on all South Korean airports, train stations and marine ports, making it impossible for civilians to escape.”
Furthermore, “The North’s arsenal of medium-range missiles could also be fitted with chemical warheads and launched at Japan, delaying the arrival of U.S. reinforcements.”
Modern war on the Korean peninsula
According to a report on a war game organized by The Atlantic in 2005, “an actual war on the Korean peninsula would almost certainly be the bloodiest America has fought since Vietnam—possibly since World War II.
In recent years Pentagon experts have estimated that the first ninety days of such a conflict might produce 300,000 to 500,000 South Korean and American military casualties, along with hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The damage to South Korea alone would rock the global economy.”
That was before North Korea had developed nuclear weapons that could vaporize millions in the blink of an eye.
The U.S. would be forced to commit several combat divisions, aircraft carriers and air wings along with at least 500,000 additional troops in order to stabilize the peninsula in the event that the North Korean regime collapsed.
“As wars go, this would be the most unforgiving battle conditions that can be imagined—an extremely high density of enemy and allied forces—over two million mechanized forces all converging on a total battlespace the equivalent of the distance between Washington, D.C., and Boston,” says Cha.
“Soldiers would be fighting with little defense against DPRK artillery, aerial bombardments, and in an urban warfare environment polluted by 5,000 metric tons of DPRK chemical agents.”
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram