"Why invading North Korea would be insane" Topic

"The North Korean regime is the closet thing to Nazi Germany still in existence. Toppling it would free an enslaved people. There is perhaps no government on Earth that more deserves to be cast into the dustbin of history.

Yet few military experts have pitched the idea of invading the Hermit Kingdom. That is because opening such a Pandora's box would unleash hell on East Asia. Desperate for survival, Pyongyang would have every incentive to use all its nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction, threatening the lives of millions of innocent people.

So while I tip my hat to Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry for making the case for invasion in The Week, in what amounted to an impassioned plea to rid our planet once and for all of this evil cancer, a dispassionate review of the facts demonstrates why very few have endorsed such an idea. Here is why an invasion would be a great cause for regret:…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

So the author, Pascal-Emmanual Gobry, a Frenchman, wants the USA to invade the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)…

I would like to state that the author is an idiot. While he (admirably) wants to free hundreds of thousands of people held in DPRK's concentration camps, he's willing to kill millions to do so. Typical for an intellectual to let others do the dying.

He starts by thinking that the USA would be able to take-out all of the DPRK's 12,000-20,000 artillery pcs. in a single airstrike. He doesn't seem to realize that the DPRK has half of its military pre-positioned and hidden inside mountains along the DMZ, ready to respond to any attacks. Any preparations for an assault into the north would send so many signals that the North would be able to launch their own spoiling attacks and devastate the ROK as well as assets of the USA, Japan and anyone else on their "list". War in the Korean peninsula would spread and affect the entirety of Asia and kill millions as well as destroy regional economies for decades. This is just a conventional war, we aren't even factoring nukes into the equation.

Then there is China. China WILL intervene in No. Korea. China will ALWAYS intervene in Korea. China has done so in every conflict in Korea since written history. They have their own interests to protect and having US forces next to their border would be intolerable (look at it this way, would the USA intervene if China invaded Mexico?)

Anyone interested in the realities of this incredibly complex situation can start by googling OPLAN 5027 and OPLAN 5029. These are the USA and ROK's military plans for responding to war with the DPRK as well as how to deal with a regime collapse.

A Chinese intervention is much more likely to be a co-invasion than a war against the US. They're right tired of the DPRK and once it no longer has value (because it is in a shooting war it will lose is definitely past value).

Either preemptively invading to install a less offensive North Korean ruler to stave off war, or carving out a buffer area are more likely than throwing its hats in with the DPRK.

In terms of the artillery it's of variable quality, and a lot of it is in firing positions designed to engage certain targets that might, or might not still exist (at least some of them are targeted on US bases that have since been dismantled). Additionally while a lot of the DPRK is on the border, most of their "heavy" forces are up by Pyongyang. They're not as ready or prepared to go as it may appear at face value.

It's still a terrible idea to invade though. It's an expensive, bloody war that might need to be fought someday, but today it's simply not reasonable to invest the human or material cost without the need to invade.

A Chinese intervention is much more likely to be a co-invasion than a war against the US. They're right tired of the DPRK and once it no longer has value (because it is in a shooting war it will lose is definitely past value).

Sources, please?

It's still a terrible idea to invade though. It's an expensive, bloody war that might need to be fought someday, but today it's simply not reasonable to invest the human or material cost without the need to invade.

I agree, it would be better if the Norks, attacked South. And be significantly attited by the ROKs, US, etc. … Then let the ROKs go North, finish the job and unify the countries. I don't think the PRC will mind too much. As panzer noted, they may come in on the side of the ROKs. And eventually if the North Koreans don't fold in on themselves, the PRC may just get tired of silliness and stupidity the Norks have been displaying for decades …

Get his own generals to do it. Then make deals.

Sources, please?

Sure!

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

These all send the message that China is not going throw away a few thousand of its people, alienate one of the markets it relies on to be solvent, all to protect a country they genuinely don't like.

Setting up a buffer zone, or working out some sort of agreement (US forces are not allowed north of such and such a place, or after China seizes Pyongyang the US and China work out a deal in which the US and China both leave Korea) is much more likely than the sort of stupid choice to back a country that does nothing for them at this point, and they honestly would as my articles would show, likely prefer a Seoul run Korea that they can do more business with, than the tumor state they have right now.

Sounds about right to me … There just ain't enough profit, any way you slice it, for the PRC to go to war for the Norks …

You do realize that the "Interview" was allowed to be downloaded in China. There it was called "The Assassination of Kim Jong Un." To let it be down loaded on the state controlled internet and then retitled it like they did tells you what the Chinese government really thinks. The Chinese actually thought it was funny too on top of that.

The problem with the US invading DPRK is that China doesn't want a US ally on their border. Let's be honest here, it's not like the US liked having a Soviet ally only separated by 90 miles of open ocean, and the US would have rightly flipped out if Mexico was a Soviet ally back in the day.

The next problem is that the Koreans don't want to be either a Chinese or a Japanese client state. 2000 years of bad blood there, and the early 1900s was NOT the worst of it.

The Koreans also want a strong ally to guarantee that they do not become a Chinese or Japanese client state in the future.

So, any allied nation needs to be not the US (to keep China happy), and not Japan or China (to keep Korea happy). What nation on earth is militarily powerful enough to stand there?

I think it's unhelpful to view the Chinese through the perspective of the Cold War.

They are certainly not on our side, but they're closer to a competitor than an enemy. And if they're presented with a situation that it is so intolerable to the US/ROK that an invasion becomes an option, it is not something that China will well be able to stop.

It'd take naked DPRK aggression, or a total abject DPRK collapse to get an actual invasion going on from the South. Either of those scenarios are pretty outside of the Chinese ability to stop, or their willingness to underwrite.

Seems more reasonable that at most opposition oriented, China invades and reestablishes the DPRK under a less independent leader before a US/ROK invasion gets off the ground.

On the other hand, China and the ROK have pretty good relations and are trading partners. It would be almost as reasonable that China lets the ROK have a free hand in the DPRK in exchange for continued Chinese business influence in the North, and perhaps zero US ground troops north of the DMZ.

It's really not that much of a stretch. Korean war was a long time ago, and the DPRK have been the albatross around China's neck for almost as long.

I agree that China isn't going to dash into any war just to help out the DPRK, however, China's long-term objectives and sensibilities are nowhere near that of the West. Yes, China is sick of pulling DPRK's little nuts out of the fire, and in protecting them, however, they serve a usefulness in keeping the USA and the West off-balanced.

Once again, I'll use this example, would the USA ever in any situation allow China to invade Mexico? It doesn't matter what parallel the Chicoms will promise to stay south of… What would that do for American prestige? How would it affect relations with Central America, South America? What would the ramifications be now that China has a direct sea access to Europe, etc. etc.

It ain't that easy.

But the DPRK is not Mexico. Mexico nominally shuts up when we tell them to, and isn't threatening to invade/nuke China's Best Friends For Life in central America or something.

If you read any of my links there's already been Chinese overtures to the US indicating that they are open to reunification under Seoul's leadership, not some sort of weirdo joint thing, out and out ROK absorbs DPRK.

It makes zero sense they'd be okay with it happening peacefully, but not okay after the DPRK started a war or utterly collapsed. If anything both of those are well served by letting the ROK handle it and staying clear and avoiding the muss and fuss of conflict.

Not to mention, ROK has good relations with China. It's not like they're having NATO move next door something.

In terms of prestige, think just having the DPRK hanging around their neck does more damage than having the ROK next door.

Further if you really believe China is looking to keep the US and west off balance, trying to make the DPRK a functional country will more than keep us off balance and tied down in just Korea for decades. It's hard to understate how broken that place is, and how much of an obligation to fix it we'd incur.

If anything that burden is the DPRK's best defense. No one wants to foot the bill to invade it.

Another option that is not too farfetched is nK collapsing of its own inertia and corruption. If that happens there are many unknowns that the entire region and allied powers will have to deal with. the north is economically fragile and less than stable in its leadership.

This could be an interesting wargame scenario for modern wargamers.

Them Chinamen are inscrutable folk … They changed their "ways" a bit as noted from back in the cold war. And no one save for Un and his cabal, would think the world would be better off, with North Korea going away. And becoming part of the ROK as a unified nation …

"This could be an interesting wargame scenario for modern wargamers…"

Totally agree!

Amicalement
Armand

What China would or would not do vis-a-vis a hypothetical invasion of North Korea should not be debated without also considering her geopolitical aims in the region. What would a unified Korea mean for China? Would it inhibit her goals of becoming a regional power and her territorial ambitions in the south and east China seas? Would the US foothold in East Asia be further strengthened at China's expense?

I think it's premature to think that China would do nothing or even welcome a North Korea invasion.

Another option that is not too farfetched is nK collapsing of its own inertia and corruption. If that happens there are many unknowns that the entire region and allied powers will have to deal with. the north is economically fragile and less than stable in its leadership.

It's the most likely rationale for ROK/USFK north of the DMZ at least.

Would the US foothold in East Asia be further strengthened at China's expense?

I think it's premature to think that China would do nothing or even welcome a North Korea invasion

The US foothold in Korea is already greatly reduced, they're deactivating the last ground combat unit stationed there, and replacing it with a rotational unit. Stands to reason that without a clear mission or threat that there wouldn't be an expansion of US forces in Korea at least.

In terms of inactivity or welcoming the fall of the DPRK, most of the situations that have US troops rolling through Pyongyang are well beyond the point of China being able to prevent some sort of conflict. The most reasonable and rational choice is that it uses its influence to ensure post war unified Korea is a friend, or at the least not a threat vs risking blood and treasure for a country with next to no value (and especially little value once it's in anarchy).

What China would or would not do vis-a-vis a hypothetical invasion of North Korea should not be debated without also considering her geopolitical aims in the region.

Exactly.

What would a unified Korea mean for China? Would it inhibit her goals of becoming a regional power and her territorial ambitions in the south and east China seas? Would the US foothold in East Asia be further strengthened at China's expense?

And that is the $64 USDbn question.

As I mentioned, China doesn't want a US ally on their border. And the Koreans don't want to be a Chinese or Japanese client state.

Good links, panzersaurkrautwerfer. I've read the wikileaks ones before. I've been hoping the perspective of the Chinese leadership has been shifting, but I'm not doubtful if that frustration translates into "happy if the Americans roll north" like some folks are trying to spin it.

The most reasonable and rational choice is that it uses its influence to ensure post war unified Korea is a friend, or at the least not a threat

Certainly my hope.