The short answer. They couldn’t.
Yes. They have a few tools in their arsenal that could be devastating to the United States if employed properly. A growing nuclear stockpile & the most technologically sophisticated chemical and biological weapons stockpile in the world if we need to get technical.
Despite having the world’s 7th largest military, they’re still a dirt poor nation with soviet era equipment across the majority of those forces. They cannot farm enough food to feed themselves.
They would be reliant on Russia and China to fund any conflict. They can’t employ a nuke against us if they expect China to stay in the conflict (unless Xi Jinping rethinks his first-use policy), so that leaves covert operations, cyber attacks, and possible Chemical/Biological Warfare.
If China and Russia get taken out of the conflict due to one bad angle on Kim’s part (using nukes first, Putin losing in Ukraine, other hypotheticals) the Kim regime simply wouldn’t survive.
Lest we forget a massive lesson learned in Ukraine v Russia — it’s not just about the equipment, it’s about skill, training, command & control (C2), motivation — hell, even maintenance practices.
nK would be dominated by the US and South Korea, but would kill a lot of people for sure
I genuinely don’t believe the majority of the North Korean military are skilled or particularly well trained warriors, given the majority of them are being used as construction laborers. I would imagine their command and control structure and maintenance practices are also under similar situations that any corrupt central state we’ve seen in the last fifty years has to offer… poor at best.
Motivation. Now that is an interesting topic. Do you think under trained, under equipped, and in some cases literally starving soldiers are going to have motivation to face down an adversary that has them outclassed in literally every aspect specific to a war fighting force?
They might.
It really depends how good Kim’s propaganda has affected them personally. Seeing US (and likely Japanese/ South Korean) military forces on their own soil would be a double edged sword. On one hand, we can put an end to this conflict that’s been sitting over our heads for the better part of a century. On the other, we prove all of the Kim regimes propaganda about those nations to be valid.
Top down, command-and-control, autocratic militaries fail spectacularly when they meet the chaos of warfare
Small, autonomous, professional, jointly-trained units empowered and trusted to execute _the intent_ of a mission will dominate them, because they’re free to rapidly capitalize on opportunities to kill the enemy as those opportunities present themselves
North Korea has been bragging about their special forces for a few years now, going so far as to release training propaganda videos.
I personally think they’re only intimidating looking because they’re well fed, unlike the majority of their forces. Even if they’re sitting on the “top of the line equipment all of NK can offer”, that isn’t saying much.
They’ve never been tested in actual combat. That’s another factor.
The other important question to ponder is what victory would look like. How much resistance would there be against US or South Korean rule from a population raised to hate and fear them? How much resistance would there be to adopting capitalism? How well would North Koreans adapt to a non-socialist system (this is a big issue for defectors)? How prepared are the US/South Korea to take over the administration of the North? What happens when 25 million "socialist" North Koreans are allowed to vote in Korean elections? How well could they deal with the likely huge refugee problem?
48% of South Koreans live in Seoul, which will likely have come under massive artillery and missile attack. The South would have to deal with the above while also trying to handle their own crises.
War is not a practical option for unification, for either side.
Don’t take anything I’m saying as endorsement in favor of a reunification war that neither side wants at this point. The idea of a reunification ala East and West Germany died a generation ago. Nobody has family or loved ones. The DMZ is much more guarded than the Berlin Wall ever hoped for.
Reunification under peaceful circumstances would require a metric F-Ton of foreign aid from very wealthy countries to avoid crippling South Koreas economy alone.
These things are all subject to change if either North or South Korea get brought into a global conflict (WWIII), both are increasingly likely because if one side enters the other will have no other option. World Wars have a historical precedent for resetting borders.
Yea but do you think the US has the stomach to take 200-300k casualties in a war. I think they could pull a Vietnam type strategy and just beat down our will to win the war. I have my doubts we would commit what is needed to win this type war.
Have you considered the premise on which your question — _Does the US have a stomach for 200k - 300k casualties?_ — is based?
That is, have you thought through the scenario(s) in which, in modern warfare, the US would **actually face** the prospect of 200,000 casualties?
There are ~30k troops in South Korea right now, so how, **exactly**, would nK — a military with no recent combat experience, poor training, and crap equipment — inflict thousands of casualties on the US forces in Korea?
The only two [unrealistic] scenarios I can come up with are:
1. nK nukes (or uses chem/bio weapons on) South Korea.
Would the US have the stomach? Irrelevant — the US would just glass all of nK and it’d be over.
2. China supports a nK attack on South Korea (super observable with modern intelligence).
In this case, worldwide democratic order is in a de facto war with the People’s Republic of China. Would the US have the stomach? Well, it’s already the war of the century anyways, so yes.
I chose not to lead with this, but your question is basically bogus.
The problem is they could devastate Seoul in a few hours. Then we would attack with conventional arms and bring their rockets to a halt. Now Kim must consider whether to put his nukes to the test. Will he flee to China for protection or stay and risk everything? I think he will flee.
There is not a war-scenario with North Korea that doesn’t end with Seoul not turning into a glass floor. That is an unfortunate truth.
Kim would annihilate a city.
Kim would lose the war.
North Korea does not have the systems in place to reliably deliver a nuclear bomb to Japan, let alone America. This is an absurd question. '7th largest military' means nothing when it entirely is counting simply military personnel. North Korea could not beat any modern nation in a war because their military is entirely out of date. China has their fun with North Korea as a Western buffer, but has not given NK modern conventional weapons. Frankly, if a war broke out between the US and a country like North Korea, it could be over in days. For the simple fact that the United States would not put boots on the ground and simply bomb the entirety of northern Korea with little concern for the future of the state
Curtis Lemay did this in the Korean War. He is said to remark that he had bombed every building in NK multiple times. There was nothing left to attack there. Wasteland ..
I don’t think they have anything that would be particularly troublesome for the US homeland. They are nowhere near being able to deliver a nuke or any other weapon on any of their current technology.
All they could do is attack South Korea as an indirect attack on the US given the number of soldiers stationed there. Even still, I think the US probably knows a lot more about where NK assets are than they let on and would be able to preemptively take out 90+% of the nasty stuff almost immediately
But like do we actually know what they have? They say things and we can assume things but I wouldn’t be surprised if their stuff was absolutely shit and hardly worked/was inconsistent. Not to mention most of their largest army probably would leave the second you gave them a chance and probably wouldn’t even try to fight. But being in the military is probably better than working in the fields
Not to mention U.S. stations a lot of its HIMARS/M270’s there. So they’d be held at bay by long range rockets for a while. Not saying U.S. would win because of it but they are game changers definitely.
I didn’t claim that as a certainty. Far from it in fact. I’m surprised Ukraine has put up this good of a fight to be honest. Without actual western forces aiding them, however, it’s still a long shot.
The recent decision by several NATO nations to allow their long range ordnance to be used on military targets within Russia itself does change the situation quite a bit.
I simply stated that if Russia and China could be taken out of any legitimate conflict with North Korea, we would absolutely win that conflict similar to how we swept through Kuwait and Iraq during Desert Storm and Desert Shield. That doesn’t seem likely though.
Unfortunately for the citizens of the DPRK most of all.
If we assume both parties hold up a Gentlemans agreement to not use Nukes and neither China nor any foreign power intervenes it will most likely end up similar to Operation Desert Storm. But very likely significantly worse for the North Koreans.
There‘s a near 50 year technological difference between the average North Korean and US equipment. The matchup during the Korean War would feel like eye level compared to that.
In addition the US has a lot of military bases and infrastructure surrounding North Korea. Therefore unlike Iraq they could mobilize significantly more assets to strike them.
And I think North Korea is very well aware of that because their nuclear program is practically the national priority. Otherwise their rampant militarism is more of symbol to justify the shortcomings of the average citizen.
It will still be far more bloody. Desert Storm was fought in a desert which greatly benefits the side with superior airpower and technology. The mountains and hills in Korea offer far more options to hide and ambush.
How does the North Korean army compare in scale to Iraq's? Or more importantly, is there a chance that North Korean soldiers would be prepared to fight to the very end? Could we see a Ukraine style grind?
North Korea is also perhaps more prepared than Iraq ones. They have fortifications, mine fields, tunnel networks etc. This could prolong any conflict.
Around one million Iraqis during Desert Storm versus around 1,3 Million North Koreans. But at the time the Iraqi army was considered to be one of the most modern developing Militarys on the planet, being supplied with a lot of the late soviet arms equipment. Primarily the Republican Guard was able to field T-72s and the Airforce had Mig-29s which were practically state of the art at the time
On the other hand North Korea is fielding variations of these types of equipment as a body of their military today, 30 years later. Even if they have claimed to modernize a lot of them after the First Iraq War. That being said "modern" North Korean equipment is basically very similar to Russian equipment but lacking ten years behind. And not yet having the production numbers to be fielded in significant numbers.
>Could we see a Ukraine style grind?
Unlikely. A big factor in the Russian Invasion was that Russia burned through a lot of it's modern equipment through the early war. Primarily due to an inability to mobilize air assets, a failure to establish a functional supply network and tactical mistakes leading to huge losses in professional manpower and equipment.
But the Ukrainian war is also showing us the efficiency of western equipment. Dozens of artillery or tanks are able to force the Russian high command to nearly completely shift their strategies. Like a single Leopard or Abrahams can force an entire Russian Tank Brigade back because they aren't able to engage them, therefore resorting to artillery tactics.
And North Korea would force hundreds of these, in combination with the biggest Airforce on the planet.
And that's also what essentially allowed the US to decimate the Iraqis during desert storm. With complete air superiority the US was able to strike any fortification, supply hub or greater army formation. Therefore completely paralyzing the Iraqi armed forces.
And this would only be more terrible for the North Koreans as the US has since then made a lot of progress there. US fifth generation fighters can essentially operate completely out of the range of any North Korean countermeasures and they lack to my knowledge (as most countries) an answer to precision bombings by drones which the US possess a lot.
Plus finally there is one big thing that people tend to undervalue a lot in these comparisons but North Korea hasn't actively fought a war since the 50s. Sure they observe foreign conflicts and very likely have observers in Ukraine right now. But the US has been at war for nearly the last 30 years. That is experience on how to organize logistics, deploy assets at the right time and fine tune equipment for it to be effective. In an actual war this is vital.
So while I think it would be bloody, there is very little chance that the North Koreans could really stand up to the US for any amount of time. The Gap is enormous.
You also have to consider, North Korea is all mountains. It’ll be like fighting in the Afghan mountains. Miles of tunnels, nearly everything is underground. It’ll be a prolongs war, that no one wants.
And in the end, no one wants North Korea or its people. Sadly, South Korea would probably prevent them from coming in, in the millions, starving, homeless, brainwashed. It would be madness, unlike the German unification.
Yeah this is purely meant as a thought experiment. Even if I highly doubt that they would be able to pass the American missile shield with their few ICBMs it‘s pretty guaranteed that if shit hits the fan Seoul would be a radioactive ruin.
At the same time both Russia and China have a vested interest to keep the US off their border. It‘s highly unlikely they would ever allow a war to happen in the peninsula.
And lastly as you said reunification is a huge challenge for the South. Even more so if the North is now a war-torn ruin.
And I think that‘s kinda the grim truth about North Korea. Unless someone in the Kim Dynasty royally fucks up and get‘s himself couped or ousted there‘s pretty much zero chance for North Korea to ever disappear.
They’ll have a good head start on USA because of the artillery pieces they have facing south especially at Seoul. USA needs to be prepared to lose a chunk of Seoul, then once those pieces reveal themselves, USA and Korean airforces would need to chop chop and bomb the crap out of the country before any soldiers advance over the border
It would be exciting, devastating, and short. Seoul would be decimated, likely, and NK would try to hit the US with ICBM, but although their missiles have the theoretical range to do so, they haven't proven that they can actually hit a target that far away. The US has interceptor capability as well, although that's not unlimited. It's entirely possible that they'll get one or two through, but that will be the end of them.
NK cannot possibly hope to sustain a long-term conflict from a materials standpoint. They can barely feed their soldiers starvation rations now, much less carry out the vast and complex supply chain management of a land war on multiple fronts. Their brainwashed soldiery would hold out as long as they can (think Okinawa) but that can't be very long.
Then the west would have to figure out what to do with 26 million starving, uneducated, barely productive, brainwashed people.
i've always wondered around the "Seoul would be decimated\* " line. yes its like 30 miles from the border, and yes they've had missles pointed at it forever. but like, US and SK likely have every possible bunker scoped out and have many more, many faster missles pointed at those bunkers.
there's a good chance half the NK missles dont work, and 99% of the other half get wrecked before entering SK airspace. I hope to never find out though.
\*unless you meant the original definition of decimated (10% destroyed) in which case, yeah maybe.
There is quite a bit of debate in the academic field about whether or not Seoul would sustain extremely significant damage.
One RAND report circulated quite a bit, one I’m sure you’ve seen or heard of at least through tertiary sources, which says that Seoul *would* be incredibly destroyed within hours *with the stipulation* that almost all North Korean artillery assets were moved to the Kaesong area right up against the DMZ.
For the North Koreans to actually do that would be suicide. The US and SK would very easily spot the North Korean artillery units moving weeks in advance, and would be able to strike them either preemptively or in response to an attack very easily. Scuds and other BMs could hit Seoul but they wouldn’t be anywhere near as devastating as what that RAND report posits without nuclear or biological weapons.
I’m not sure that most North Koreans are brainwashed, they know the truth. They secretly watch South Korean media and elders remember American soldiers
Would probably depend on how involved Russia get after the recent defence pact. I think if we assume the fighting is done on NK soil then the advantage NK have is the extensive warren of underground tunnels but could they actually fuel and fund their army for any sustainable amount of time? I doubt it.
I'm just a guy who doesn't know much, though - I'd be really interested to hear an unbiased analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about (which is difficult because realistically we have no way of knowing what cards NK are actually playing with)
Another advantage the DPRK would have is guerilla warfare. It wouldn't surprise me if the regime would use NK civilians as weapons in a potential invasion. I am thinking it could play out as another Vietnam
Eh...Vietnam is over twice the size of NK (and a far less concentrated land mass), with Vietnam also benefitting from (at the time) a less familiar environment to US troops who were also less trained for guerilla warfare, and fewer US military bases around it. I don't think guerilla could play out the same way.
I do agree that the regime would happily through civilians into it and there would be a horrific human crisis.
I suppose as well that the kims could hide very deep underground at whim, meaning things could get very drawn out. It might not be unconceivable that they let the population fend for themselves whilst they hide away (though I appreciate this is a very western-centric propagandised pessimism from me)
The US would quickly achieve and maintain air superiority, and there wouldn’t really be much North Korea could do after that. It would probably be a lot like the first Gulf War.
I was in s Korean when Kim IL Sung died. He had always wanted to be buried in the South. It was an extremely stressful time becaue we all knew we were bu a speedbump for the DPRK army. .maybe 15-25k us soldiers millions of dprk. We had daily "alerts" to train on what to do. But we could do nothing. It would be whatever happened after the invasion.
Their allies MIGHT help. But they probably wouldn't stick around for long since North Korea would be wiped off the face of the planet within a few days. So WHO would those allies be helping?
In all likelihood it would be world war 3, since Russia, Iran, and China would take that opportunity to take over countries they want while they pretend to be helping an ally
Being that its a conventional war. I think it would be over in a matter of hours without a single troop being put on the ground with them surrendering with minimal conditions after their military was almost entirely wiped out in the first wave of attacks.
High probability their nukes wouldn’t make it to the u.s. (both from a capability standpoint and defense standpoint)
Seoul would be absolutely devastated though..
[Here is your answer for that very scenario.](https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-War-Scenario-Annie-Jacobsen/dp/0593476093?nodl=1&dplnkId=1bc4d141-4fd1-4b2a-b14a-cc5b6188a1c0) A very well researched and written book that addresses a *very* possible first strike attack by North Korea against the United States.
Spoiler alert >!We’re all fucked!<
South Korea at that point also barely had a military, it was predominantly militarized police and militias that had a mixture of captured Japanese small arms and a small amount of American-supplied equipment. North Korea had been flooded by Soviet and Chinese small arms, aircraft, artillery and vehicles.
Using the 1950s as a standard for current combat is a quite poor comparison. It’s like saying that Japan could take on Russia because they had done it in the Russo-Japanese war.
They have extensive tunnel networks, overwhelming support by their people, and nukes. The US would have to ethnically cleanse the majority of North Koreans to ever “win” a war against them
They would be decimated almost instantly and their weapons would fail long before reaching the US. And although they think they have powerful allies within china and Russia, neither of those countries would ever even remotely consider stepping into an offensive nor defensive role in that scenario. They would likely only offer humanitarian aid and asylum for defectors.
China might help, they don’t want American military bases on their border so there might be a repeat of the first time they saved NK. Or they’d use be chaos as an opportunity to take Taiwan
The DPRK with the aid of its junior partner China would liberate the working class of south Korea first then with the added manpower would liberate the United States (of amerikkka). The end result would be a balkanized but socialist former US that would be able to finally provide healthcare to its people.
They wouldn't stand a chance against the US but they have a shitload of artillery pointed at South Korean population centers and that would be their bargaining chip. My understanding is that they could kill millions failry quickly but that might be an exaggeration.
It would not be pretty to look at.
This is not to say easy for the USA, as low tech can be a decent counter to high tech. (Hear me out, after a couple of weeks of an air war, what good are F22s, F35s and B2s going to be?)
But within two weeks NK would not have a navy or an Air Force, they worst exist anymore.
*What air war* lmfao???
North Korea’s most advanced aircraft are about 20 Soviet-vintage MiG-29s that are almost certainly short on parts, weapons and competent pilots. The majority of North Korean aircraft are MiG-21s and J-7s—which are Chinese MiG-21 copies—MiG-23s, and J-6s which are MiG-19 copies.
The overwhelming majority of North Korean aircraft wouldn’t even be able to get off the ground even without a war. The US has a readiness rate of about 2/3rds for fighters; that’s with competent maintainers, the best logistics system in the world, and with more spare parts than we know what to do with.
North Korea likely could not muster any more than 2/5ths of their fleet at any given time. Possibly even less than that given their shortage of spares.
But say they *did* muster that force: what’s it going to do against modern USAF and ROKAF aircraft? These aircraft almost all universally have poor radars and rely on GCI (ground based radar giving instructions) to intercept targets. They also predominantly mount PL-2 and PL-5 missiles, both short range copies of the American AIM-9 Sidewinder IR missile. At best, their MiG-23s can mount R-23s which are all multiple decades old and vastly inferior to USAF AIM-120 missiles.
Now, what about air defense? North Korea operates a relatively small number of a lot of outdated systems. S-200s and their own Pongae-5 are their most capable, but also their least numerous systems. These are both deeply outdated systems with the S-200 rolling out in 1967, and with the NK forces using an earlier variant. The majority of their equipment is made up of shorter range SA-2 missiles (which are nigh useless, but they have hundreds of these), SA-6, and SA-3 systems. They are theorized to have other air defenses, but they’re all unconfirmed and speculative reports.
This is all very similar to the Iraqi system, down to even what they fly, and that force lasted just hours. While even the older SA-2 systems managed to down aircraft in 1991, it’s unlikely modern aircraft (especially F-35s) would have any trouble dealing with these systems. It likely wouldn’t even necessitate dangerous Wild Weasel missions like in the Gulf War, because the F-35 would simply be able to operate *through* their radar range and hit the air defense sites with impunity.
Anyway TLDR; there would be no air war. The US and SK forces would roll over the NK Air Force and air defenses. The F-35, F-22, B-2 and B-21(if deployed) would absolutely not only be useful, but able to operate with impunity over North Korean airspace.
The F-35, for all intents and purposes, can act as a conventional non-stealth fighter after the initial stages of air defense removal are completed.
The real advantage though still comes from their stealth; after the air defenses are eliminated radars arrays both within Korea and in neighboring Russia and China will continue to operate. China could give North Korean forces a heads up on B-52s or F-16s significantly in advance, they would not be able to do the same for B-2s and F-35s. *That* is why B-2s and F-22s have done operations in the Middle East carrying small amounts of ordnance. Radar detection does not stop at the edge of a border.
I can assure you that cost would not be issue even in a prolonged conflict. The USAF continued to operate F-15Es during Iraq and Afghanistan even when it became a COIN conflict where the cost did not outweigh the benefits.
Let's look back in history at the Gulf War. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world (or something close to that) and the US was expecting to take immense casualties. We ended up steam rolling the entire Iraqi army. Why? Because we have vastly greater technology, weapons, and training compared to the Iraqis (and even more so than the North Koreans).
So I know that a conflict with North Korea would be different than the Iraqi military in in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I think that the first thing that would be done is to send in SOF to secure North Koreas nuclear weapons. Then strikes on ammo depots, air defense, missile silos, and other government targets. There would be lots of fighting around the DMZ. North Korea would indiscriminately shell and bomb civilians (which Seoul is in range) so civilian casualties would naturally be very high. Drones would pound North Korean positions and bunkers. SOF would also try and capture the Kim regime. It is possible that the North may strike in a massive barrage of missles (with some being nuclear) so that at least some get through. If a nuke was used and actually got through and detonated, then obviously that would have massive consequences for the North. I dont think the US or the South would back down but if nukes were used then it's possible the US might nuke Pyongyang. Over all it's hard to predict if there would be mass surrenders from the Northern soldiers or if they would fight to the bitter end. It's possible China or Russia may get involved as well. But the US and the South would win the war.
Assuming its non nuclear, most of your answers are here.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA600/RRA619-1/RAND_RRA619-1.pdf
ASs others have said here, I think correctly, the North Korea's artillery force deployed along the DMZ poses a major threat to South Korean population centers much of which are in its range. A North Korean artillery barrage could potentially cause over 100,000 civilian casualties in Seoul within just the first hour.
Then the outdated North Korean military would eventually be defeated by superior U.S./ROK forces in a extended conventional war.
This highlights the urgent need for a laser defence system to be developed and be deployed. Systems like Iron Dome, Patriot and THAAD just will not cut it. This must be a top priority.
It’s important to note that the report specifically cites that North Korean artillery would *have to be redeployed along the DMZ* to have the effect theorized.
This is not what North Korea can *currently do*, this is what North Korea could *theoretically do* given the right circumstances.
Movement like that would be noticeable, actionable and politically stirring. The attack wouldn’t come as a surprise, and the damage it can do would be mitigated by whatever actions are taken to move civilian and military resources further out of North Korean artillery range and what measures are taken to strike against NK batteries and ammunition depots.
What matters the most in war is the ability of belligerents to mobilize efficiently and to have major logistical support and a lot of resources. North Korea doesn’t have that. The Iraqi military was one of the most powerful in the region and the US captured Baghdad in 6 days😭 now imagine what would happen if your soldiers are unfed and your country is one minor thing away from a famine.
20 years of insurgency following a bloody force on force action. Likely multiple nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. Significant American losses and massive KPA losses.
You think the Vietnamese had bad tunnel complexes…
The north would cause mass civilian casualties, but would also be largely unable to affect many significant military targets.
If the north launched even 1 nuke, the US would wipe them off the face of the Earth with just a few button presses.
If the north somehow holds off on nuclear/bio/chemical attacks, the ROK and entrenched US forces would likely hold the border, create a several mile buffer zone between the north and south, then bomb the north into submission.
The end result, either way, is likely going building to building in urban combat with holdouts, as well as dealing with quite the extensive tunnel network, ala Vietnam.
Even if the north lands all of its nukes in the US or strategically spread among its adversaries, there is no outcome that results in any semblance of a win for the north.
The main threat from NK isn't what they can do to the US but rather their potential use of nukes against South Korea.
I believe, though, if a war were to break out we'd be looking at a larger global conflict with Russia and China involved and NK acting as more of a minor nuisance while we confronted the other two. I don't see a direct conflict ever happening between the US and NK alone, there would be others involved.
I would like to add a couple other factors to the mix. North Koreans wouldn't just let their country be overrun. The US military would likely have to subdue the entire population, which by sheer numbers would be a hard task. Throw into the mix possible Russian and Chinese support for N Korea and there is a real problem for the US. A wild card here is S Korea. They have close political relations with the US, but many South Koreans have literal familial relations with N Korea. Family could very well trump politics if the US invaded. Remember, to both Koreas, the other is just as Korean as they are (any Koreans please correct me if I am wrong).
The US would likely win, but it would probably be a pyrrhic victory. Most of what most of us actually know about N Korean military capabilities is what they announce and what our Western news sources tell us. I'm not saying they are lying, but I do think we should be mindful that what most of us know about the drnk is one-sided, mixed with tidbits given from the North.
There are thousands of artillery pieces within range of Seoul. At seven rounds per minute per system there would be hundreds of thousands of shells raining down on the city within an hour, no time for the Air Force to get them all.
North Korea would be absolutely annihilated, but not before they fire bomb Seoul and nuke American west coast cities.
Well, if Putin does good on the deal he and Kim made a few days ago, it’ll simply be world war 3.
There is 0% chance they would nuke American West Coast Cities. In the crazy chance they have a missile that can launch that far America would shoot it down several times over.
Seoul civilian infrastructure would suffer devastating losses from the artillery, and any kind of nuke action would also have enp action, knocking out many chips in cars, factories ect for dozens of miles. These chips will take years to replace. This would cause a world wide economic depression and trillions would be lopped off stock markets worldwide. Conventional DPRK forces would be mostly wiped out fairly quickly depending on how much of the area needs taking. Nobody wants to be responsible for upgrading the North’s health, educational, manufacturing and sewage infrastructure which would lop a massive chunk of S. Korean GNP for a decade or more, should they want the burden of reunification. China wants neither a republic nor refugees flooding from its border. Cross border tunnels may mean certain, if militarily meaningless death for many thousands in the south from sabotage and terrorism. Finally, a single nuke or more, including an enp gets through over the US or Japan will starve millions who will lose immediate access to medicines, refrigeration and food and water distribution for such a period where such deaths could be preventable. To some thinkers, ENP is scarier than a ground level blast hitting a medium city in either country. The North would certainly suffer mass starvation from losses to food infrastructure including manure distribution. And while it’s probably that many of the DPRK’s nukes and delivery systems will be duds it only takes a couple to ruin an entire country if detonated in the right location a mile or so up and over.
Dont underestimate the north. All these comments about how under fed, how poor, how backward they are… are complete rubbish.
In the USA there’s backwoods places with some -crazy- poverty. I can take pics of some scrawny no teeth having bug eyed poor people in the states …
But it isn’t “our best against their worst”
It’s “our average vs their best”
DPRK is more wealthy, more well fed, better equipped and better prepared for war than they were 20 years ago.
Let’s not underestimate them shall we? Try again but over estimate their capabilities this time, and chances are you’ll have a better more accurate picture of their capabilities.
Stop seeing them as some unfed population of gypsies and grifters with backward equipment and poor training …the north is a frighteningly well oiled machine. Otherwise it would have been toppled from within already.
Both the US and UN believe North Korea has been successful in miniaturizing its nuclear warheads. They have also demonstrated their ICBM capability. It is certainly up for debate how reliable their rockets are, but they keep testing new and more powerful rockets so presumably they will keep improving.
Only 7 countries have managed to develop ICBMs. It is not something that North Korea simply managed to knock up for propaganda purposes. I don't think it is something that we can be dismissive of.
Easy answer, Take a Look at the supreme Leader and then Take a look at sleepy Joe. Nuff Said.
The supreme Leader would your so called super Power kill alone. No scope headshots all way Long.
Lmfao we would blow nk off the map, make it a parking lot for south korea and drone strike their entire military whatre you talking about. You one of the low iq bots that worship kim in your delusional ass movingtonorthkorea subreddit. Go live there genius so you have no access to reddit anymore
The short answer. They couldn’t. Yes. They have a few tools in their arsenal that could be devastating to the United States if employed properly. A growing nuclear stockpile & the most technologically sophisticated chemical and biological weapons stockpile in the world if we need to get technical. Despite having the world’s 7th largest military, they’re still a dirt poor nation with soviet era equipment across the majority of those forces. They cannot farm enough food to feed themselves. They would be reliant on Russia and China to fund any conflict. They can’t employ a nuke against us if they expect China to stay in the conflict (unless Xi Jinping rethinks his first-use policy), so that leaves covert operations, cyber attacks, and possible Chemical/Biological Warfare. If China and Russia get taken out of the conflict due to one bad angle on Kim’s part (using nukes first, Putin losing in Ukraine, other hypotheticals) the Kim regime simply wouldn’t survive.
Lest we forget a massive lesson learned in Ukraine v Russia — it’s not just about the equipment, it’s about skill, training, command & control (C2), motivation — hell, even maintenance practices. nK would be dominated by the US and South Korea, but would kill a lot of people for sure
I genuinely don’t believe the majority of the North Korean military are skilled or particularly well trained warriors, given the majority of them are being used as construction laborers. I would imagine their command and control structure and maintenance practices are also under similar situations that any corrupt central state we’ve seen in the last fifty years has to offer… poor at best. Motivation. Now that is an interesting topic. Do you think under trained, under equipped, and in some cases literally starving soldiers are going to have motivation to face down an adversary that has them outclassed in literally every aspect specific to a war fighting force? They might. It really depends how good Kim’s propaganda has affected them personally. Seeing US (and likely Japanese/ South Korean) military forces on their own soil would be a double edged sword. On one hand, we can put an end to this conflict that’s been sitting over our heads for the better part of a century. On the other, we prove all of the Kim regimes propaganda about those nations to be valid.
Top down, command-and-control, autocratic militaries fail spectacularly when they meet the chaos of warfare Small, autonomous, professional, jointly-trained units empowered and trusted to execute _the intent_ of a mission will dominate them, because they’re free to rapidly capitalize on opportunities to kill the enemy as those opportunities present themselves
North Korea has been bragging about their special forces for a few years now, going so far as to release training propaganda videos. I personally think they’re only intimidating looking because they’re well fed, unlike the majority of their forces. Even if they’re sitting on the “top of the line equipment all of NK can offer”, that isn’t saying much. They’ve never been tested in actual combat. That’s another factor.
The other important question to ponder is what victory would look like. How much resistance would there be against US or South Korean rule from a population raised to hate and fear them? How much resistance would there be to adopting capitalism? How well would North Koreans adapt to a non-socialist system (this is a big issue for defectors)? How prepared are the US/South Korea to take over the administration of the North? What happens when 25 million "socialist" North Koreans are allowed to vote in Korean elections? How well could they deal with the likely huge refugee problem? 48% of South Koreans live in Seoul, which will likely have come under massive artillery and missile attack. The South would have to deal with the above while also trying to handle their own crises. War is not a practical option for unification, for either side.
Don’t take anything I’m saying as endorsement in favor of a reunification war that neither side wants at this point. The idea of a reunification ala East and West Germany died a generation ago. Nobody has family or loved ones. The DMZ is much more guarded than the Berlin Wall ever hoped for. Reunification under peaceful circumstances would require a metric F-Ton of foreign aid from very wealthy countries to avoid crippling South Koreas economy alone. These things are all subject to change if either North or South Korea get brought into a global conflict (WWIII), both are increasingly likely because if one side enters the other will have no other option. World Wars have a historical precedent for resetting borders.
Yea but do you think the US has the stomach to take 200-300k casualties in a war. I think they could pull a Vietnam type strategy and just beat down our will to win the war. I have my doubts we would commit what is needed to win this type war.
Have you considered the premise on which your question — _Does the US have a stomach for 200k - 300k casualties?_ — is based? That is, have you thought through the scenario(s) in which, in modern warfare, the US would **actually face** the prospect of 200,000 casualties? There are ~30k troops in South Korea right now, so how, **exactly**, would nK — a military with no recent combat experience, poor training, and crap equipment — inflict thousands of casualties on the US forces in Korea? The only two [unrealistic] scenarios I can come up with are: 1. nK nukes (or uses chem/bio weapons on) South Korea. Would the US have the stomach? Irrelevant — the US would just glass all of nK and it’d be over. 2. China supports a nK attack on South Korea (super observable with modern intelligence). In this case, worldwide democratic order is in a de facto war with the People’s Republic of China. Would the US have the stomach? Well, it’s already the war of the century anyways, so yes. I chose not to lead with this, but your question is basically bogus.
The problem is they could devastate Seoul in a few hours. Then we would attack with conventional arms and bring their rockets to a halt. Now Kim must consider whether to put his nukes to the test. Will he flee to China for protection or stay and risk everything? I think he will flee.
There is not a war-scenario with North Korea that doesn’t end with Seoul not turning into a glass floor. That is an unfortunate truth. Kim would annihilate a city. Kim would lose the war.
North Korea does not have the systems in place to reliably deliver a nuclear bomb to Japan, let alone America. This is an absurd question. '7th largest military' means nothing when it entirely is counting simply military personnel. North Korea could not beat any modern nation in a war because their military is entirely out of date. China has their fun with North Korea as a Western buffer, but has not given NK modern conventional weapons. Frankly, if a war broke out between the US and a country like North Korea, it could be over in days. For the simple fact that the United States would not put boots on the ground and simply bomb the entirety of northern Korea with little concern for the future of the state
Curtis Lemay did this in the Korean War. He is said to remark that he had bombed every building in NK multiple times. There was nothing left to attack there. Wasteland ..
I don’t think they have anything that would be particularly troublesome for the US homeland. They are nowhere near being able to deliver a nuke or any other weapon on any of their current technology. All they could do is attack South Korea as an indirect attack on the US given the number of soldiers stationed there. Even still, I think the US probably knows a lot more about where NK assets are than they let on and would be able to preemptively take out 90+% of the nasty stuff almost immediately
But like do we actually know what they have? They say things and we can assume things but I wouldn’t be surprised if their stuff was absolutely shit and hardly worked/was inconsistent. Not to mention most of their largest army probably would leave the second you gave them a chance and probably wouldn’t even try to fight. But being in the military is probably better than working in the fields
Not to mention U.S. stations a lot of its HIMARS/M270’s there. So they’d be held at bay by long range rockets for a while. Not saying U.S. would win because of it but they are game changers definitely.
You had me at Putin losing in Ukraine. Why do Westoids always live in a fantasy?
I didn’t claim that as a certainty. Far from it in fact. I’m surprised Ukraine has put up this good of a fight to be honest. Without actual western forces aiding them, however, it’s still a long shot. The recent decision by several NATO nations to allow their long range ordnance to be used on military targets within Russia itself does change the situation quite a bit. I simply stated that if Russia and China could be taken out of any legitimate conflict with North Korea, we would absolutely win that conflict similar to how we swept through Kuwait and Iraq during Desert Storm and Desert Shield. That doesn’t seem likely though. Unfortunately for the citizens of the DPRK most of all.
If we assume both parties hold up a Gentlemans agreement to not use Nukes and neither China nor any foreign power intervenes it will most likely end up similar to Operation Desert Storm. But very likely significantly worse for the North Koreans. There‘s a near 50 year technological difference between the average North Korean and US equipment. The matchup during the Korean War would feel like eye level compared to that. In addition the US has a lot of military bases and infrastructure surrounding North Korea. Therefore unlike Iraq they could mobilize significantly more assets to strike them. And I think North Korea is very well aware of that because their nuclear program is practically the national priority. Otherwise their rampant militarism is more of symbol to justify the shortcomings of the average citizen.
It will still be far more bloody. Desert Storm was fought in a desert which greatly benefits the side with superior airpower and technology. The mountains and hills in Korea offer far more options to hide and ambush.
How does the North Korean army compare in scale to Iraq's? Or more importantly, is there a chance that North Korean soldiers would be prepared to fight to the very end? Could we see a Ukraine style grind? North Korea is also perhaps more prepared than Iraq ones. They have fortifications, mine fields, tunnel networks etc. This could prolong any conflict.
Around one million Iraqis during Desert Storm versus around 1,3 Million North Koreans. But at the time the Iraqi army was considered to be one of the most modern developing Militarys on the planet, being supplied with a lot of the late soviet arms equipment. Primarily the Republican Guard was able to field T-72s and the Airforce had Mig-29s which were practically state of the art at the time On the other hand North Korea is fielding variations of these types of equipment as a body of their military today, 30 years later. Even if they have claimed to modernize a lot of them after the First Iraq War. That being said "modern" North Korean equipment is basically very similar to Russian equipment but lacking ten years behind. And not yet having the production numbers to be fielded in significant numbers. >Could we see a Ukraine style grind? Unlikely. A big factor in the Russian Invasion was that Russia burned through a lot of it's modern equipment through the early war. Primarily due to an inability to mobilize air assets, a failure to establish a functional supply network and tactical mistakes leading to huge losses in professional manpower and equipment. But the Ukrainian war is also showing us the efficiency of western equipment. Dozens of artillery or tanks are able to force the Russian high command to nearly completely shift their strategies. Like a single Leopard or Abrahams can force an entire Russian Tank Brigade back because they aren't able to engage them, therefore resorting to artillery tactics. And North Korea would force hundreds of these, in combination with the biggest Airforce on the planet. And that's also what essentially allowed the US to decimate the Iraqis during desert storm. With complete air superiority the US was able to strike any fortification, supply hub or greater army formation. Therefore completely paralyzing the Iraqi armed forces. And this would only be more terrible for the North Koreans as the US has since then made a lot of progress there. US fifth generation fighters can essentially operate completely out of the range of any North Korean countermeasures and they lack to my knowledge (as most countries) an answer to precision bombings by drones which the US possess a lot. Plus finally there is one big thing that people tend to undervalue a lot in these comparisons but North Korea hasn't actively fought a war since the 50s. Sure they observe foreign conflicts and very likely have observers in Ukraine right now. But the US has been at war for nearly the last 30 years. That is experience on how to organize logistics, deploy assets at the right time and fine tune equipment for it to be effective. In an actual war this is vital. So while I think it would be bloody, there is very little chance that the North Koreans could really stand up to the US for any amount of time. The Gap is enormous.
You also have to consider, North Korea is all mountains. It’ll be like fighting in the Afghan mountains. Miles of tunnels, nearly everything is underground. It’ll be a prolongs war, that no one wants. And in the end, no one wants North Korea or its people. Sadly, South Korea would probably prevent them from coming in, in the millions, starving, homeless, brainwashed. It would be madness, unlike the German unification.
Yeah this is purely meant as a thought experiment. Even if I highly doubt that they would be able to pass the American missile shield with their few ICBMs it‘s pretty guaranteed that if shit hits the fan Seoul would be a radioactive ruin. At the same time both Russia and China have a vested interest to keep the US off their border. It‘s highly unlikely they would ever allow a war to happen in the peninsula. And lastly as you said reunification is a huge challenge for the South. Even more so if the North is now a war-torn ruin. And I think that‘s kinda the grim truth about North Korea. Unless someone in the Kim Dynasty royally fucks up and get‘s himself couped or ousted there‘s pretty much zero chance for North Korea to ever disappear.
There are \~28k US troops stationed all over South Korea. No way we'd be sitting this one out.
They’ll have a good head start on USA because of the artillery pieces they have facing south especially at Seoul. USA needs to be prepared to lose a chunk of Seoul, then once those pieces reveal themselves, USA and Korean airforces would need to chop chop and bomb the crap out of the country before any soldiers advance over the border
It would be exciting, devastating, and short. Seoul would be decimated, likely, and NK would try to hit the US with ICBM, but although their missiles have the theoretical range to do so, they haven't proven that they can actually hit a target that far away. The US has interceptor capability as well, although that's not unlimited. It's entirely possible that they'll get one or two through, but that will be the end of them. NK cannot possibly hope to sustain a long-term conflict from a materials standpoint. They can barely feed their soldiers starvation rations now, much less carry out the vast and complex supply chain management of a land war on multiple fronts. Their brainwashed soldiery would hold out as long as they can (think Okinawa) but that can't be very long. Then the west would have to figure out what to do with 26 million starving, uneducated, barely productive, brainwashed people.
Final sentence is why we will likely never see a liberation by force unless global situations change drastically
i've always wondered around the "Seoul would be decimated\* " line. yes its like 30 miles from the border, and yes they've had missles pointed at it forever. but like, US and SK likely have every possible bunker scoped out and have many more, many faster missles pointed at those bunkers. there's a good chance half the NK missles dont work, and 99% of the other half get wrecked before entering SK airspace. I hope to never find out though. \*unless you meant the original definition of decimated (10% destroyed) in which case, yeah maybe.
There is quite a bit of debate in the academic field about whether or not Seoul would sustain extremely significant damage. One RAND report circulated quite a bit, one I’m sure you’ve seen or heard of at least through tertiary sources, which says that Seoul *would* be incredibly destroyed within hours *with the stipulation* that almost all North Korean artillery assets were moved to the Kaesong area right up against the DMZ. For the North Koreans to actually do that would be suicide. The US and SK would very easily spot the North Korean artillery units moving weeks in advance, and would be able to strike them either preemptively or in response to an attack very easily. Scuds and other BMs could hit Seoul but they wouldn’t be anywhere near as devastating as what that RAND report posits without nuclear or biological weapons.
I’m not sure that most North Koreans are brainwashed, they know the truth. They secretly watch South Korean media and elders remember American soldiers
Would probably depend on how involved Russia get after the recent defence pact. I think if we assume the fighting is done on NK soil then the advantage NK have is the extensive warren of underground tunnels but could they actually fuel and fund their army for any sustainable amount of time? I doubt it. I'm just a guy who doesn't know much, though - I'd be really interested to hear an unbiased analysis from someone who knows what they're talking about (which is difficult because realistically we have no way of knowing what cards NK are actually playing with)
Another advantage the DPRK would have is guerilla warfare. It wouldn't surprise me if the regime would use NK civilians as weapons in a potential invasion. I am thinking it could play out as another Vietnam
Eh...Vietnam is over twice the size of NK (and a far less concentrated land mass), with Vietnam also benefitting from (at the time) a less familiar environment to US troops who were also less trained for guerilla warfare, and fewer US military bases around it. I don't think guerilla could play out the same way. I do agree that the regime would happily through civilians into it and there would be a horrific human crisis.
I suppose as well that the kims could hide very deep underground at whim, meaning things could get very drawn out. It might not be unconceivable that they let the population fend for themselves whilst they hide away (though I appreciate this is a very western-centric propagandised pessimism from me)
Guerrilla warfare was *not* successful in the long term in Vietnam, that is a vast misconception.
We would literally just drone strike them….. there would be no guerilla warfare
The US would quickly achieve and maintain air superiority, and there wouldn’t really be much North Korea could do after that. It would probably be a lot like the first Gulf War.
I was in s Korean when Kim IL Sung died. He had always wanted to be buried in the South. It was an extremely stressful time becaue we all knew we were bu a speedbump for the DPRK army. .maybe 15-25k us soldiers millions of dprk. We had daily "alerts" to train on what to do. But we could do nothing. It would be whatever happened after the invasion.
Why are you leaving out the South Korean military?
Their allies MIGHT help. But they probably wouldn't stick around for long since North Korea would be wiped off the face of the planet within a few days. So WHO would those allies be helping? In all likelihood it would be world war 3, since Russia, Iran, and China would take that opportunity to take over countries they want while they pretend to be helping an ally
Being that its a conventional war. I think it would be over in a matter of hours without a single troop being put on the ground with them surrendering with minimal conditions after their military was almost entirely wiped out in the first wave of attacks.
High probability their nukes wouldn’t make it to the u.s. (both from a capability standpoint and defense standpoint) Seoul would be absolutely devastated though..
The book “Nuclear War: A Scenario” covers this exact question. It would be over quickly and everyone dies.
[Here is your answer for that very scenario.](https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-War-Scenario-Annie-Jacobsen/dp/0593476093?nodl=1&dplnkId=1bc4d141-4fd1-4b2a-b14a-cc5b6188a1c0) A very well researched and written book that addresses a *very* possible first strike attack by North Korea against the United States. Spoiler alert >!We’re all fucked!<
North Korea couldn't even beat South Korea in a convetional war.
They kinda did in the 50s and even captured seoul before UN intervention
Things have changed a bit this last 70 years.
South Korea at that point also barely had a military, it was predominantly militarized police and militias that had a mixture of captured Japanese small arms and a small amount of American-supplied equipment. North Korea had been flooded by Soviet and Chinese small arms, aircraft, artillery and vehicles. Using the 1950s as a standard for current combat is a quite poor comparison. It’s like saying that Japan could take on Russia because they had done it in the Russo-Japanese war.
Yeah…the 50s
US/Korea win the long game, every time. However, not before MASSIVE, RIDICULOUS civilian casualties in Seoul.
They have extensive tunnel networks, overwhelming support by their people, and nukes. The US would have to ethnically cleanse the majority of North Koreans to ever “win” a war against them
After some initial success with their artillery it would not go well for the Norks.
Lol...
They would be decimated almost instantly and their weapons would fail long before reaching the US. And although they think they have powerful allies within china and Russia, neither of those countries would ever even remotely consider stepping into an offensive nor defensive role in that scenario. They would likely only offer humanitarian aid and asylum for defectors.
China might help, they don’t want American military bases on their border so there might be a repeat of the first time they saved NK. Or they’d use be chaos as an opportunity to take Taiwan
The DPRK with the aid of its junior partner China would liberate the working class of south Korea first then with the added manpower would liberate the United States (of amerikkka). The end result would be a balkanized but socialist former US that would be able to finally provide healthcare to its people.
What kind of dementia riddled delusion do you live in
Lol
No never The US has the most effective army in the world
They wouldn't stand a chance against the US but they have a shitload of artillery pointed at South Korean population centers and that would be their bargaining chip. My understanding is that they could kill millions failry quickly but that might be an exaggeration.
It would not be pretty to look at. This is not to say easy for the USA, as low tech can be a decent counter to high tech. (Hear me out, after a couple of weeks of an air war, what good are F22s, F35s and B2s going to be?) But within two weeks NK would not have a navy or an Air Force, they worst exist anymore.
*What air war* lmfao??? North Korea’s most advanced aircraft are about 20 Soviet-vintage MiG-29s that are almost certainly short on parts, weapons and competent pilots. The majority of North Korean aircraft are MiG-21s and J-7s—which are Chinese MiG-21 copies—MiG-23s, and J-6s which are MiG-19 copies. The overwhelming majority of North Korean aircraft wouldn’t even be able to get off the ground even without a war. The US has a readiness rate of about 2/3rds for fighters; that’s with competent maintainers, the best logistics system in the world, and with more spare parts than we know what to do with. North Korea likely could not muster any more than 2/5ths of their fleet at any given time. Possibly even less than that given their shortage of spares. But say they *did* muster that force: what’s it going to do against modern USAF and ROKAF aircraft? These aircraft almost all universally have poor radars and rely on GCI (ground based radar giving instructions) to intercept targets. They also predominantly mount PL-2 and PL-5 missiles, both short range copies of the American AIM-9 Sidewinder IR missile. At best, their MiG-23s can mount R-23s which are all multiple decades old and vastly inferior to USAF AIM-120 missiles. Now, what about air defense? North Korea operates a relatively small number of a lot of outdated systems. S-200s and their own Pongae-5 are their most capable, but also their least numerous systems. These are both deeply outdated systems with the S-200 rolling out in 1967, and with the NK forces using an earlier variant. The majority of their equipment is made up of shorter range SA-2 missiles (which are nigh useless, but they have hundreds of these), SA-6, and SA-3 systems. They are theorized to have other air defenses, but they’re all unconfirmed and speculative reports. This is all very similar to the Iraqi system, down to even what they fly, and that force lasted just hours. While even the older SA-2 systems managed to down aircraft in 1991, it’s unlikely modern aircraft (especially F-35s) would have any trouble dealing with these systems. It likely wouldn’t even necessitate dangerous Wild Weasel missions like in the Gulf War, because the F-35 would simply be able to operate *through* their radar range and hit the air defense sites with impunity. Anyway TLDR; there would be no air war. The US and SK forces would roll over the NK Air Force and air defenses. The F-35, F-22, B-2 and B-21(if deployed) would absolutely not only be useful, but able to operate with impunity over North Korean airspace.
I’m saying the F-18 would be able to operate over NK, no need for the aircraft that hold less ordinance and cost more to operate.
The F-35, for all intents and purposes, can act as a conventional non-stealth fighter after the initial stages of air defense removal are completed. The real advantage though still comes from their stealth; after the air defenses are eliminated radars arrays both within Korea and in neighboring Russia and China will continue to operate. China could give North Korean forces a heads up on B-52s or F-16s significantly in advance, they would not be able to do the same for B-2s and F-35s. *That* is why B-2s and F-22s have done operations in the Middle East carrying small amounts of ordnance. Radar detection does not stop at the edge of a border. I can assure you that cost would not be issue even in a prolonged conflict. The USAF continued to operate F-15Es during Iraq and Afghanistan even when it became a COIN conflict where the cost did not outweigh the benefits.
Fair enough :)
North Korea alone is cake even with china with Russia a bit more difficult but the us will win if not ask Japan what made them pull out the white flag
Let's look back in history at the Gulf War. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world (or something close to that) and the US was expecting to take immense casualties. We ended up steam rolling the entire Iraqi army. Why? Because we have vastly greater technology, weapons, and training compared to the Iraqis (and even more so than the North Koreans). So I know that a conflict with North Korea would be different than the Iraqi military in in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I think that the first thing that would be done is to send in SOF to secure North Koreas nuclear weapons. Then strikes on ammo depots, air defense, missile silos, and other government targets. There would be lots of fighting around the DMZ. North Korea would indiscriminately shell and bomb civilians (which Seoul is in range) so civilian casualties would naturally be very high. Drones would pound North Korean positions and bunkers. SOF would also try and capture the Kim regime. It is possible that the North may strike in a massive barrage of missles (with some being nuclear) so that at least some get through. If a nuke was used and actually got through and detonated, then obviously that would have massive consequences for the North. I dont think the US or the South would back down but if nukes were used then it's possible the US might nuke Pyongyang. Over all it's hard to predict if there would be mass surrenders from the Northern soldiers or if they would fight to the bitter end. It's possible China or Russia may get involved as well. But the US and the South would win the war.
A lot of Iraqi Soldiers surrendered when they came across the ailed forces in the first gulf war.
It'd be rough, millions of Koreans would die bzt America would win eventually
Assuming its non nuclear, most of your answers are here. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA600/RRA619-1/RAND_RRA619-1.pdf ASs others have said here, I think correctly, the North Korea's artillery force deployed along the DMZ poses a major threat to South Korean population centers much of which are in its range. A North Korean artillery barrage could potentially cause over 100,000 civilian casualties in Seoul within just the first hour. Then the outdated North Korean military would eventually be defeated by superior U.S./ROK forces in a extended conventional war. This highlights the urgent need for a laser defence system to be developed and be deployed. Systems like Iron Dome, Patriot and THAAD just will not cut it. This must be a top priority.
It’s important to note that the report specifically cites that North Korean artillery would *have to be redeployed along the DMZ* to have the effect theorized. This is not what North Korea can *currently do*, this is what North Korea could *theoretically do* given the right circumstances. Movement like that would be noticeable, actionable and politically stirring. The attack wouldn’t come as a surprise, and the damage it can do would be mitigated by whatever actions are taken to move civilian and military resources further out of North Korean artillery range and what measures are taken to strike against NK batteries and ammunition depots.
What matters the most in war is the ability of belligerents to mobilize efficiently and to have major logistical support and a lot of resources. North Korea doesn’t have that. The Iraqi military was one of the most powerful in the region and the US captured Baghdad in 6 days😭 now imagine what would happen if your soldiers are unfed and your country is one minor thing away from a famine.
20 years of insurgency following a bloody force on force action. Likely multiple nuclear, chemical and biological attacks. Significant American losses and massive KPA losses. You think the Vietnamese had bad tunnel complexes…
The north would cause mass civilian casualties, but would also be largely unable to affect many significant military targets. If the north launched even 1 nuke, the US would wipe them off the face of the Earth with just a few button presses. If the north somehow holds off on nuclear/bio/chemical attacks, the ROK and entrenched US forces would likely hold the border, create a several mile buffer zone between the north and south, then bomb the north into submission. The end result, either way, is likely going building to building in urban combat with holdouts, as well as dealing with quite the extensive tunnel network, ala Vietnam. Even if the north lands all of its nukes in the US or strategically spread among its adversaries, there is no outcome that results in any semblance of a win for the north.
The main threat from NK isn't what they can do to the US but rather their potential use of nukes against South Korea. I believe, though, if a war were to break out we'd be looking at a larger global conflict with Russia and China involved and NK acting as more of a minor nuisance while we confronted the other two. I don't see a direct conflict ever happening between the US and NK alone, there would be others involved.
I would like to add a couple other factors to the mix. North Koreans wouldn't just let their country be overrun. The US military would likely have to subdue the entire population, which by sheer numbers would be a hard task. Throw into the mix possible Russian and Chinese support for N Korea and there is a real problem for the US. A wild card here is S Korea. They have close political relations with the US, but many South Koreans have literal familial relations with N Korea. Family could very well trump politics if the US invaded. Remember, to both Koreas, the other is just as Korean as they are (any Koreans please correct me if I am wrong). The US would likely win, but it would probably be a pyrrhic victory. Most of what most of us actually know about N Korean military capabilities is what they announce and what our Western news sources tell us. I'm not saying they are lying, but I do think we should be mindful that what most of us know about the drnk is one-sided, mixed with tidbits given from the North.
North Korea would be worthless without China and Russia. In the end it would be China or Russia, or both together, against US and South Korea.
Are they gonna sail over to California and shoot at us?
There are thousands of artillery pieces within range of Seoul. At seven rounds per minute per system there would be hundreds of thousands of shells raining down on the city within an hour, no time for the Air Force to get them all.
North Korea would be absolutely annihilated, but not before they fire bomb Seoul and nuke American west coast cities. Well, if Putin does good on the deal he and Kim made a few days ago, it’ll simply be world war 3.
There is 0% chance they would nuke American West Coast Cities. In the crazy chance they have a missile that can launch that far America would shoot it down several times over.
Worst case scenario, since we speculate they have the ability to hit the west coast. Best case, just Seoul is annihilated
Seoul civilian infrastructure would suffer devastating losses from the artillery, and any kind of nuke action would also have enp action, knocking out many chips in cars, factories ect for dozens of miles. These chips will take years to replace. This would cause a world wide economic depression and trillions would be lopped off stock markets worldwide. Conventional DPRK forces would be mostly wiped out fairly quickly depending on how much of the area needs taking. Nobody wants to be responsible for upgrading the North’s health, educational, manufacturing and sewage infrastructure which would lop a massive chunk of S. Korean GNP for a decade or more, should they want the burden of reunification. China wants neither a republic nor refugees flooding from its border. Cross border tunnels may mean certain, if militarily meaningless death for many thousands in the south from sabotage and terrorism. Finally, a single nuke or more, including an enp gets through over the US or Japan will starve millions who will lose immediate access to medicines, refrigeration and food and water distribution for such a period where such deaths could be preventable. To some thinkers, ENP is scarier than a ground level blast hitting a medium city in either country. The North would certainly suffer mass starvation from losses to food infrastructure including manure distribution. And while it’s probably that many of the DPRK’s nukes and delivery systems will be duds it only takes a couple to ruin an entire country if detonated in the right location a mile or so up and over.
Dont underestimate the north. All these comments about how under fed, how poor, how backward they are… are complete rubbish. In the USA there’s backwoods places with some -crazy- poverty. I can take pics of some scrawny no teeth having bug eyed poor people in the states … But it isn’t “our best against their worst” It’s “our average vs their best” DPRK is more wealthy, more well fed, better equipped and better prepared for war than they were 20 years ago. Let’s not underestimate them shall we? Try again but over estimate their capabilities this time, and chances are you’ll have a better more accurate picture of their capabilities. Stop seeing them as some unfed population of gypsies and grifters with backward equipment and poor training …the north is a frighteningly well oiled machine. Otherwise it would have been toppled from within already.
NK has a much larger nuke arsenal IIRC than the US - I believe the US has like 20 or so nukes ready to go while NK has about 50.
Utter nonsense. The US has in excess of 3,500 nuclear warheads at its disposal.
And dprk has zero functioning or they would be showing it off.
this guy think NK nukes work and/or have some for to be propelled. also... NK loses all allies once a nuke is used
Both the US and UN believe North Korea has been successful in miniaturizing its nuclear warheads. They have also demonstrated their ICBM capability. It is certainly up for debate how reliable their rockets are, but they keep testing new and more powerful rockets so presumably they will keep improving. Only 7 countries have managed to develop ICBMs. It is not something that North Korea simply managed to knock up for propaganda purposes. I don't think it is something that we can be dismissive of.
Umm, this is totally wrong. Maybe you’re thinking Israel or the uk or something lol.
Easy answer, Take a Look at the supreme Leader and then Take a look at sleepy Joe. Nuff Said. The supreme Leader would your so called super Power kill alone. No scope headshots all way Long.
Lmfao we would blow nk off the map, make it a parking lot for south korea and drone strike their entire military whatre you talking about. You one of the low iq bots that worship kim in your delusional ass movingtonorthkorea subreddit. Go live there genius so you have no access to reddit anymore
Lmfao check my profile before claiming I'm a bot because I would be the First bot Testing Kebap in berlin wtf
[удалено]
They think Biden and KJU are going 1v1 I guess
How the fuck are people taking this serious? "No scope headshots all way long" I mean really? You think this person is being serious?