
Thunder Run to Seoul: Assessing North Korea’s War Plan - protomyth
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/04/25/thunder_run_to_seoul_assessing_north_koreas_war_plan_111241.html
======
charles-salvia
The assessment predicts: "Tens or hundreds of thousands could become
casualties" ... in the event of an all-out DRPK/(US+ROK) conflict.

One factor to consider here is what happens if _no conflict_ occurs? In that
case, there are ... _still_ likely tens of thousands of civilian deaths
happening as the status quo in North Korean labor camps[1]. Allowing the
regime to continue to exist also has a major cost in human lives. I'm not
saying war is clearly a superior option - I'm saying this whole situation is
mostly losses.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_North_Korea)

~~~
panglott
"Allowing the regime to continue to exist" is a backwards way of looking at
things that serves to legitimate invasions. The US is a superpower, but that
doesn't mean that other nation-states exist because we deign to suffer their
existence—that's a very colonialist way of looking at the world. Invading the
north (or provoking it with special operations) would be a positive action for
which the US would be responsible. North Korea is a bad state, and bad for its
people, but the unspeakable carnage that would result from major ground
warfare on the Korean peninsula is something else entirely.

~~~
aphextron
>The US is a superpower, but that doesn't mean that other nation-states exist
because we deign to suffer their existence—that's a very colonialist way of
looking at the world.

This is a question of international consensus, not US will. Under the
definition of sovereignty agreed upon by the international community, DPRK has
forfeited its' right to sovereignty by repeated human rights abuses, WMD
development, and aggression toward it's neighbors. Essentially, if a state
fails to uphold it's responsibility to its' citizens, sovereignty is
forfeited. Admittedly this is a hard thing to judge, but a line must be drawn
somewhere.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_sovereignty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_sovereignty)

~~~
timthelion
It is Trump making the decision now, not the international community. I'll
also remind you, that the only country in the entire world that has
extensively used WMDs is the US. The US has used Nukes (WWII), and is also
responsible for the most extensive use of chemical weapons of any county
(Vietnam). NK has never used a WMD.

~~~
thrden
Lots of countries had widespread Chemical weapons usage.

Iraq used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program)

Israel used white phosphorous till 2013: [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
middle-east-22310544](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-22310544)

the Soviet Union was accused of using chemical weapons in afghanistan:
[http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/afghan/report.pdf](http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/afghan/report.pdf)

The UN stated that Cuban units used VX as well as Sarin:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Angola](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Angola)

even the vietnamese used chemical weapons:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_border_raids_in_Tha...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_border_raids_in_Thailand#1985)

None of these examples include the use of chemical weapons in WWII or WWI.
During these wars most major european countries used chemical weapons of some
kind.

these instances don't excuse their usage, But I don't believe much is gained
by pretending the rest of the world is blameless.

~~~
timthelion
My point was, that OP was saying that countries that have and use WMDs are not
legitimate. I agree. I don't think most governments are legit. But it seems NK
is rather mild when it comes to WMDs. The US has far far more of them than NK
and actually uses them.

------
pdelbarba
It's an interesting read if you're into the nuts and bolts of modern warfare.
The key assumption is that the DPRK actually has any ambition of attacking the
ROK though. They'll scream and carry on until they get their sanctions lifted
and, in their minds, come out of the whole thing a nuclear power.

Now those running tomorrow's senate briefing on the other hand...

Edit: it's also worth noting that they're playing a somewhat "smart" long game
here. They won't likely do much until they're confident that they can
_convince the world_ they have ICBM capabilities. At that point, they no
longer have to just menace the ROK or Japan but can realistically extort
anyone they want.

~~~
WillyOnWheels
I don't think DPRK really wants to nuke anyone. They just look at countries in
the last 30 years and look at their options:

Libya: Gave up their WMDs, Libya government gone.

Ukraine: Gave up their nukes, Russia invaded (I admit this is a bit contrived)

Iraq: Didn't have nukes, Iraqi government gone.

Pakistan: Has nukes, is incredibly unstable, still there!

~~~
pdelbarba
That's pretty much my point. Short range nukes = a few countries forced to
cooperate. Long range nukes = all countries forced to cooperate.

Edit: interesting comparison with the noted countries BTW.

~~~
WillyOnWheels
There is a Twitter account from a right leaning Westerner(as in he
occasionally favors a military solution to NK politics, writes policy papers
for a think tank) in Seoul who speaks and reads Korean, reads all of the North
Korean press releases, he claims that the NK government is the sanest
government around. They want to stay in power. Everything they do, in their
mind, furthers this goal. They don't want to be regime-changed! I'll see if I
can find his URL again.

------
ilamont
_local breakthroughs on the major routes towards Seoul—their first operational
objective._

Playing devil's advocate: How do we know Seoul is the operational objective?
It seems obvious (capital city located near the border) but what if DPRK went
for something not so obvious? i.e. "Attack him where he is unprepared, appear
where you are not expected" (classic Sun/Mao approach)

Also, what if Pyongyang tries to draw in a sympathetic third party that would
also give the US/ROK pause? China is the obvious choice, but there is also
Russia ...

 _An interesting feature of this war is that since both sides look and speak
more or less alike, covert insertion and operation is easier for each side—but
especially so for North Korean agents who may move freely within South Korea’s
open society._

In the 1990s I remember reading an account of North Korean special forces
landing by submarine and trying to infiltrate ... and immediately being
tripped up by unfamiliarity with modern technology. One of the captured agents
had no idea every farmhouse had a phone, and was therefore surprised that the
alarm was raised as soon as they were spotted.

There is still a huge technology divide, not to mention social giveaways
relating to accents and other behavior. Sure, they can be trained, but it
won't make them impervious to detection.

~~~
aphextron
>Playing devil's advocate: How do we know Seoul is the operational objective?
It seems obvious (capital city located near the border) but what if DPRK went
for something not so obvious?

Such as what? Taking control of Seoul under the element of surprise is the
only conceivable endgame for a DPRK invasion. Anything else would end in a
protracted fight where US air superiority would absolutely demolish them.

>In the 1990s I remember reading an account of North Korean special forces
landing by submarine and trying to infiltrate ... and immediately being
tripped up by unfamiliarity with modern technology. One of the captured agents
had no idea every farmhouse had a phone, and was therefore surprised that the
alarm was raised as soon as they were spotted.

This sounds like propaganda. North Koreans are not stupid.

~~~
ilamont
It was this incident:

[http://www.newsweek.com/reds-rocks-178000](http://www.newsweek.com/reds-
rocks-178000)

Other accounts did mention the agent was surprised that farmers would have a
telephone.

He also did not or could not hide his North Korean accent, as the article
states.

------
WillyOnWheels
This reporter, who grew up in Korea but doesn't read Korean, and was given
honorary citizenship by a city in South Korea, writes that ordinary South
Korean citizens think the military threat of North Korea is really a North
Korea versus United States thing, and not really a conflict between North
Korea and South Korea.

South Koreans are more focused on what sort of government will be in power
after elections on May 9th, after the craziness of the most recent government.

[https://www.thenation.com/article/in-south-korea-war-
hysteri...](https://www.thenation.com/article/in-south-korea-war-hysteria-is-
seen-as-an-american-problem/)

------
Animats
The key thing here is the geography. Seoul is only 20 miles from the border
with North Korea. It's within artillery range, and North Korea has the
necessary artillery. If there's a war, Seoul gets clobbered in the first
minutes.

Few countries have their capital that close to a hostile border. Syria does.
Look where Damascus is.

~~~
Theodores
I think the key thing is history. The UK developed the nuclear bomb with no
help from the USA. As a consequence the UK was not part of the Marshall Plan
and as well as enduring a 'rebuild from nothing' there was also the phenomenal
cost of Windscale and all of the rest of the infrastructure, a cost borne
without the industrial base the USA had - ruins vs. vast and intact. The
Manhattan Project was a similar cost to the moon landings. Sadly the UK
invested in their own version of the former rather than the latter. But nobody
else had the bomb apart from the USA and the USSR so having the bomb was the
UK's ticket to being a world power rather than entirely under the sphere of
influence of one superpower or the other, directly or by proxy.

The Kim family stepped in for Japanese Emperor as far as being divine father
figure for the nation, at one level the 'world power' rationale is the same as
what the UK had to play post WW2. Much like it has been in other parts of the
world the enemy is the USA and it is quite clear that the goal of the North
Korean programme is to be able to get some missile with some nuclear weapon at
least as far as a big city in the continental USA.

I am no defender of the crazy kid, however, there is some serious stuff behind
the attitude of North Korea. They do not want their culture to be
Americanized, they do not want advertising and they do not want to be yet
another consumer society. A whole smorgasbord of Western beliefs are just not
wanted by them. There is also the matter of unification. Their idea is to have
a federation, one country with two states, governed by their respective
leaders and with the one seat for the federation at the UN. That is what they
want and without any outside interference. So those nuclear weapons are
pointing outside of the Korean peninsula and that would be the situation of a
Korea united on the North's terms - 'without outside interference'. A unified
Korea with weapons of the nuclear flavour would keep all the neighbours at bay
on the MAD basis so a unified, federated Korea (which sounds reasonable to
some in the South) is just not going to happen.

Seoul is not going to get annihilated by the North. Ignore the Kims for a
moment and look at what the Koreans could achieve. A united Korea would be
second on the stage after the USA in terms of GDP+population+trade+influence
and if you add the nukes then they are totally deserving of taking the UK seat
or anyone else's except the Americans in the security council. That might
sound far fetched, but I believe that this is an obvious prize in Korea and
destroying Seoul goes against that.

~~~
tcoppi
The UK received quite a lot of Marshall Plan money. Nearly $3.2b of it, in
fact.

~~~
dflock
Yes, but blew most of it trying - and failing - to prop up the pound as the
world's reserve currency.

------
AcerbicZero
A reasonable, if somewhat short, overview of the topic, although a bit
generous when discussing the air power situation over Korea. Smashing older
Russian SAM sites is almost an American pastime at this point, and I have
serious doubts the KPAF would put up anything beyond token resistance in the
air. The author also skims over the massive leaps in lethality on the modern
battlefield. It's difficult to stress this enough, but T-54's and T-62's do
not have a long life span under these conditions.

So the DPRK would need to achieve total surprise, fight ~20 miles to Seoul
against an opponent who is equipped with mostly modern weapons, and who has
planned for this very attack. They also need to do this with no air support,
little to no armored support, and limited night fighting capabilities.

~~~
dmix
Indeed, all of those tanks will be pretty useless against an array of modern
anti tank, see javelins
[https://youtu.be/wrhybKEzb-0](https://youtu.be/wrhybKEzb-0)

The primary concern is the use of artillery and multi barrel rocket launchers
devastating any ROK ground forces. Russia demonstrated their long distance
lethality in Ukraine.

I'm also curious at the quality of DPRKs SAMs. The new S400 ones definitely
pose a problem even for modern American planes. I've heard even the 90s model
S300 could still be a serious concern.

I remember hearing the War Nerd talk about a couple of war hawks who wrote a
series of articles about intervention in Syria totally glossing over the real
threat they pose. And these guys apparently had a lot of influence in
Washington among the establishment neocons and Clinton types. These SAMs are
apparently very underrated. We just assume America has the best tech but real
world combat is quite different.

~~~
petre
Serbian S-125s were pretty effective against F117s during the war in
Yugoslavia. They targeted the planes using long range radar.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown)

~~~
AcerbicZero
We may have different definitions for the word "effective".

I'm not disparaging what Colonel Dani was able to accomplish using outdated
equipment, but it's important to note how little the Yugoslavian air defense
was able to achieve as a whole.

------
pm90
This is a pretty reasoned article. One thing I have never understood: why
can't China and the US join forces and militarily overrun DPRK? I know they
fought each other in the Korean war, but the world has changed so drastically
since then. From what I've read so far, DPRK is a source of dangerous
instability for everyone involved. Wouldn't having a more stable regime on the
Korean peninsula serve the interests of all neighboring countries?

~~~
vkou
DPRK is a buffer state for China.

The United States lost its mind when communism established a foothold in Cuba.
Russia did likewise when Ukraine began aligning towards NATO.

China would prefer to have a stable regime in DPRK - but it would also prefer
to not have US military bases on the other side of the Yalu river. The last
time that happened, the two countries went to war.

Also, arguably, the DPRK regime is extremely 'stable'. The same royal family
has ruled it for what, seven decades, now?

~~~
arwhatever
Should some of the stunts they have pulled during that time be considered when
defining "stable?"

~~~
vkou
Well, unlike some other nuclear powers, they managed to restrain themselves
from invading a few sovereign nations in the past few decades.

------
tcoppi
This leaves out some issues such as likely targeting of Japan by DPRK, but
otherwise a clear-headed analysis of the dark and sobering reality there.

------
tiatia
North Korea, like the Sow jet Union, has fought a war that the US can not
imagine. They fought a war in which they lost 10% of the population. If the US
would lose 32 Million in a war maybe the US would lose the taste for war too.

Not going to judge their outdated equipment. But they will fight. This a not
Arabic troops from tribal societies who will run as soon as they are given the
chance. In fact, North Korea CAN NOT lose this war. They have not lost the
last one, they won't lose the next. North Korea is too important for both,
China and Russia as a buffer country. Both countries have moved a lot of
troops recently near North Korea. If there is a conflict we may seem a regime
change (supported but Russia and China). What we are not gong to see is a US
occupied united Korea.

One risk with Trumps pressure is they it works two ways. North Korea could
reasonably assume that they will loose most equipment if the US attacks. So
why not attack first? Use it or lose it. The safest place for a rocket or
artillery shell is still in the air....

~~~
dba7dba
North Korea DID lose the war in 1950, in a way. After Incheon Landing, the
North Korean army never really recovered. The majority of fighting power for
north side was from Chinese army.

The reason UN Forces got pushed back and couldn't advance was because of the
human wave attacks from Chinese army.

~~~
tiatia
Well, so it did definitely NOT lose. The same reason why it won't lose the
next war. A Chinese/Russian brokered Regime change is still a possibility. But
Kim is not an idiot. He had his brother killed just to eliminate one of the
options for a regime change.

------
panglott
"The final element in the DPRK plan is an extensive deep battle across the
entire South Korean depth using some one hundred thousand special operations
forces (SOF). An interesting feature of this war is that since both sides look
and speak more or less alike, covert insertion and operation is easier for
each side—but especially so for North Korean agents who may move freely within
South Korea’s open society. ... As with artillery strikes, fighting by SOF on
objectives in Seoul will be aimed at heightening panic and demoralizing
political leadership, and will be exploited by DPRK information warfare
agencies to give the impression that the front has already reached the ROK
capital."

This is an interesting point: every major terrorist attack of the Twitter age
sees wild rumors flying. An actual DPRK invasion combined with cyberwarfare
could yield a campaign of information warfare like nothing we've seen before.

~~~
lurker456
I'm not sure that's still true based on the stories of malnutrition in NK,
even for their own military. Considering the cultural differences, a few pop
quiz questions might be enough as well.

------
etheric
I found this article to be an interesting read on what a war with NK might
look like [http://defconwarningsystem.com/2017/03/25/what-a-korean-
war-...](http://defconwarningsystem.com/2017/03/25/what-a-korean-war-could-
look-like/) Essentially NK would use every weapon they can and China would be
the only winner.

~~~
tcoppi
This and the OP both discount the small, but very real possibility of conflict
escalation with China, completely unintended by both sides. If China enters
militarily(big if, given recent statements) on the side of DPRK and the
conflict has escalated to using nukes, it will be very hard for it to not
spiral out of control into a full-on regional, if not worldwide, war.

~~~
smacktoward
It's important to note as well that Chinese intervention isn't a binary,
fully-on or fully-off kind of thing; it's possible to imagine various degrees
of intervention.

One that seems likely to me in this kind of scenario, for instance, would be
for Chinese forces to move in to uphold the integrity of the pre-war border.
Allied forces would be free to push the North Koreans out of South Korean
territory; but if they tried to push beyond that towards Korean reunification
or some kind of territorial gain at the North's expense, they'd have to fight
Chinese troops to do it. This would let the Chinese get involved but still
pose as a neutral arbitrator rather than a direct combatant or contributor to
escalation, since their nominal goal would be resumption of the _status quo
ante bellum._

~~~
tcoppi
I think this is probably how the Chinese intervention, if they choose to
intervene, would start, to restore the current DPRK/ROK border after a ROK/US
incursion into the North. It seems likely that if that happens, DPRK would
escalate with nukes in order to force China's hand into full intervention on
their behalf, as USA's current doctrine, to the best of unclass knowledge, is
to respond in kind to nuclear aggression. Once that happens all bets are off,
unfortunately. I don't see how it ends well for anyone once China decides to
get involved, given the current doctrines and state of military technology.

------
gricardo99
The bottom-line seems to be there's a huge range of plausible outcomes, from a
relatively contained, short war to multiple WMD strikes on cities (Seoul,
Tokyo, NYC, etc..) with prolonged fighting for months (years?) to finally
defeat all DPRK forces.

And this is why the situation persists. No sane person will risk the
consequences of "the war is not going as well as we hoped it would"

------
panglott
Clearly North Korea's strategy here is deterrence of an invasion rather than
an invasion. Looks like deterrence is effective.

------
jgable
A bit OT: does anyone have recommendations for textbooks or other resources
that teach basic military strategy and tactics? Whenever any military
discussion comes up that even touches technical aspects, I feel pretty lost.
Similar to how with certain sports, I just can't see the movement patterns or
how the plays develop.

~~~
panglott
I guess everybody's supposed to read Clausewitz and play wargames.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_War)
[http://www.consimworld.com/](http://www.consimworld.com/)

~~~
tcoppi
A more accessible wargame simulator would be the recently released Hearts of
Iron
IV([http://store.steampowered.com/app/394360/](http://store.steampowered.com/app/394360/)),
a very realistic WW2-era military grand strategy game. Playing a game or two
and you will quickly realize how shallow basic analysis and games such as
Civilization, in terms of warfighting, are.

------
sytelus
The article surprisingly leaves out Russia altogether. In essence, Russia is
the "father" of DPRK and its hard to think that it would sit around quite when
DPRK is losing.

Another big factor is that DPRK would have no qualms in attacking civilian
population in Seoul using missiles and artillery and in fact that's what they
would focus on in order to terrorize and put RPK+US on defensive. A single
bomb can do much more damage in Seoul then in Pyongyang. Air supremacy is
irrelevant more or less as the distances are small and war on ground would be
much more deciding factor. They can probably use chemical weapon warheads as
well. All these things RPK+US won't be at liberty to do to DPRK but even if
they could the DPRK would care less about its civilian population perishing
en-mass.

Finally, atomic threat is very real one for RPK. If everything is going in the
ditch, they can try to transport one single warhead in to a city using even
ground vehicles (if missiles aren't working yet). On the other hand, using
nukes on DPRK by US would have almost no impact on its leaders mindset.

~~~
ng12
Well the USSR was the father of North Korea -- and the two had a falling out
in the 1980's. North Korea was much closer to China for most of it's history.

~~~
sytelus
Russia is the more friendly country than China according to DPRK's own
assessment. Russia has very significant vested economic and political
interests in DPRK remaining in place. China and Russia are the two major
countries that do not technically participate in sanctions against DPRK
(although they may agree on "paper") and which is why DPRK is able to survive
at all. It would be hard to think of Russia just sitting quite when US is
taking over one of the major sized country with tons of natural resources
right on its border.

See [http://thediplomat.com/2017/02/russias-love-affair-with-
nort...](http://thediplomat.com/2017/02/russias-love-affair-with-north-korea/)

~~~
ng12
Yes, modern Russia has economic interest in NK (specifically providing energy
in return for hard labor). But pretending Russia is the patron of North Korea
is simply disingenuous. USSR/DPRK relations were broken after the USSR/China
split, and then again after the USSR dissolved Russia cut all ties to NK.

Do you have a source for USSR providing military equipment to NK? I'm
skeptical.

