What If: US invaded North Korea instead of Iraq

phoenixdefender

South Korea would definitely not approve since this is the era of the Sunshine Policy; Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun were both advocates of overtures to the North. Even if a conservative president took power I doubt they would approve of an invasion for the fact that, as stated before, it would be extremely destructive to the South even if reunification is achieved. Even a peaceful reunification would cause massive economic pain for the South. It's just mutually-assured destruction. Obviously, if the North struck first, then South Korea would approve, but there's not much reason for the North to attack during the peak of Inter-Korean relations.

I don't see any scenario where the US could attack the North independent of South Korea and not invite anti-American resentment for A. inviting war and destruction to their shores without any kind of approval, and B. sticking them with the costs of reconstruction of not only regions along the DMZ (including Seoul) but also that of the North when only relatively recently they had just recovered from an economic crisis.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
@Joku_ has disappeared from the thread, hit and run style.



Advertising/threatening an invasion and regime change campaign in the early 2000s to take away its existing (Chemical) WMD and preempt its soon to be developed (Nuclear) WMD runs into all the cost factors, need for big preparations, and opposition not only by China, but also by allies like South Korea that everyone has been talking about.

Let's get off the invasion thing, too soon to talk about it. Separate things into phases.

But how does North Korea react to an air campaign that is focused on preempting its nuclear program, with conventional missile and air attacks on all its reactors, missile production facilities, and supporting sites?

Such an air and missile campaign works best and most effectively using assets based on the peninsula and coming in from the outside, but could be done with assets projected from outside South Korean soil.

South Korean permission/blessing is dearly desired, but would be either reluctant, or just not happen. And diplomatic consequences of proceeding against Seoul's wishes would be ugly. But physically, the South Koreans have no way to interfere with US assets attacking from off peninsula. They can only exercise a veto on US forces on peninsula doing something if the command listens to them, or ROK troops storm American runways or missile bases.

You've got to assume some North Korean retaliation of a lethal sort. But are they guaranteed, or even more likely than not, to retaliate, by throwing the whole kitchen sink attacking South Korea and everything in it? The kitchen sink approach would involve blasting off all their artillery to Seoul, using chemical weapons, Blasting off their long-range artillery/missiles to targets in further South Korea and Japan they can hit, possibly with chemicals (not with anything nuclear yet), and invading south with all their infantry and sending all their aircraft and ships south for a final death ride.

They could kill a lot of people and make a lot of destruction doing this, the problem is they would expend their escalation options and remove their regime protection forces and leave Americans, but even South Koreans, however pissed at Americans they could be, with no option but to defend and counterattack.

The North Koreans might instead do a more limited retaliation focused on US bases with their artillery and SOF, and some demonstrative, but not all-out or chemical, terror bombardment of Seoul's business and industrial districts, and not expose most of their forces to mobile combat and its risks.

In the meantime, their nuclear and missile programs could be set back.
 

CaptainCalvert

raharris1973 said:
@Joku_ has disappeared from the thread, hit and run style.



Advertising/threatening an invasion and regime change campaign in the early 2000s to take away its existing (Chemical) WMD and preempt its soon to be developed (Nuclear) WMD runs into all the cost factors, need for big preparations, and opposition not only by China, but also by allies like South Korea that everyone has been talking about.

Let's get off the invasion thing, too soon to talk about it. Separate things into phases.

But how does North Korea react to an air campaign that is focused on preempting its nuclear program, with conventional missile and air attacks on all its reactors, missile production facilities, and supporting sites?

Such an air and missile campaign works best and most effectively using assets based on the peninsula and coming in from the outside, but could be done with assets projected from outside South Korean soil.

South Korean permission/blessing is dearly desired, but would be either reluctant, or just not happen. And diplomatic consequences of proceeding against Seoul's wishes would be ugly. But physically, the South Koreans have no way to interfere with US assets attacking from off peninsula. They can only exercise a veto on US forces on peninsula doing something if the command listens to them, or ROK troops storm American runways or missile bases.

You've got to assume some North Korean retaliation of a lethal sort. But are they guaranteed, or even more likely than not, to retaliate, by throwing the whole kitchen sink attacking South Korea and everything in it? The kitchen sink approach would involve blasting off all their artillery to Seoul, using chemical weapons, Blasting off their long-range artillery/missiles to targets in further South Korea and Japan they can hit, possibly with chemicals (not with anything nuclear yet), and invading south with all their infantry and sending all their aircraft and ships south for a final death ride.

They could kill a lot of people and make a lot of destruction doing this, the problem is they would expend their escalation options and remove their regime protection forces and leave Americans, but even South Koreans, however pissed at Americans they could be, with no option but to defend and counterattack.

The North Koreans might instead do a more limited retaliation focused on US bases with their artillery and SOF, and some demonstrative, but not all-out or chemical, terror bombardment of Seoul's business and industrial districts, and not expose most of their forces to mobile combat and its risks.

In the meantime, their nuclear and missile programs could be set back.
Click to expand...
I thought that North Korea only developed long range missile technology capable of reaching Japan (and possibly up to Hawai'i) quite recently.
 
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

There's a thread here that started in 2008 wherein the U.S. is involved in a Second Korean War in 2003 just as it invaded in Iraq. It becomes a two-front war at this point and the American public is divided on having to fight a two-front war.

Northern Storm: Second Korean War 2003 TL

My first TL enjoy! Coming out of the 1994 Korean War thread. Second Korean War Timeline January 29, 2002- President George W. Bush during his State of the Union address announces North Korea as being part of an Axis of Evil with Iraq and Iran. He cites these nations as working to...
www.alternatehistory.com

And some related threads:

AHC: North Korea replaces Iraq

So, basically I was wondering if it is at all possible for the United States to have invaded North Korea in 2003, instead of Iraq. Bonus points if 9/11 still happens, they still invade Afghanistan, and GWB wins 2004. Is this a viable scenario? What would need to be done to make it possible? And...
www.alternatehistory.com

US Invasion to North Korea

Can the US launch a Operation Iraqi Freedom-like military invasion to North Korea? Maybe to prevent Kim from acquiring nuclear weapons? The POD must be post-Soviet. Thanks in advance!
www.alternatehistory.com

AHC Make the US invade North Korea in place of Iraq in 2003

What kind of PODs or changes would have to take place to make it so the Bush Administration decides to invade North Korea rather than Iraq in the year 2003?
www.alternatehistory.com

If I remember, North Korea's nukes were almost finished in 2003. North Korea would have functioning devices between 2004-2005. Pyongyang officially admitted it has WMDs in 2005. The October 2006 test was purely for international relations.
www.nytimes.com

North Korea Says It Has Nuclear Weapons and Rejects Talks (Published 2005)

www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy, 1985-2022 | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org www.armscontrol.org
 

Joku_

raharris1973 said:
@Joku_ has disappeared from the thread, hit and run style.



Advertising/threatening an invasion and regime change campaign in the early 2000s to take away its existing (Chemical) WMD and preempt its soon to be developed (Nuclear) WMD runs into all the cost factors, need for big preparations, and opposition not only by China, but also by allies like South Korea that everyone has been talking about.

Let's get off the invasion thing, too soon to talk about it. Separate things into phases.

But how does North Korea react to an air campaign that is focused on preempting its nuclear program, with conventional missile and air attacks on all its reactors, missile production facilities, and supporting sites?

Such an air and missile campaign works best and most effectively using assets based on the peninsula and coming in from the outside, but could be done with assets projected from outside South Korean soil.

South Korean permission/blessing is dearly desired, but would be either reluctant, or just not happen. And diplomatic consequences of proceeding against Seoul's wishes would be ugly. But physically, the South Koreans have no way to interfere with US assets attacking from off peninsula. They can only exercise a veto on US forces on peninsula doing something if the command listens to them, or ROK troops storm American runways or missile bases.

You've got to assume some North Korean retaliation of a lethal sort. But are they guaranteed, or even more likely than not, to retaliate, by throwing the whole kitchen sink attacking South Korea and everything in it? The kitchen sink approach would involve blasting off all their artillery to Seoul, using chemical weapons, Blasting off their long-range artillery/missiles to targets in further South Korea and Japan they can hit, possibly with chemicals (not with anything nuclear yet), and invading south with all their infantry and sending all their aircraft and ships south for a final death ride.

They could kill a lot of people and make a lot of destruction doing this, the problem is they would expend their escalation options and remove their regime protection forces and leave Americans, but even South Koreans, however pissed at Americans they could be, with no option but to defend and counterattack.

The North Koreans might instead do a more limited retaliation focused on US bases with their artillery and SOF, and some demonstrative, but not all-out or chemical, terror bombardment of Seoul's business and industrial districts, and not expose most of their forces to mobile combat and its risks.

In the meantime, their nuclear and missile programs could be set back.
Click to expand...

Good point, if South Korea doesn't let US stage invasion, all US could do would be to conduct airstrikes. Then the Norks would have to decide whether to retaliate against South Korea, and practically force them to join US with an actual invasion...

I thought that this thread was going to be dead if SK wouldn't let US conduct an invasion.
 

jlckansas

All of the NK nuclear assets and development labs, manufacturing areas, and delivery means are underneath Mountains. Mountains like are in the Rocky Mountains, you are not going to have a conventional strike causing any problems to them. If you think so , you have played too many video games/watched too many movies. The areas around them are Flak traps extreme with both gun and missiles set up in bunkers and caves that are near impregnable except with a direct hit while the doors are open.
 

Melochromac

If NK uses WMDs to do a 9/11, that would probably be enough for the US to go to war. Not sure if China will be able to mediate to keep NK independent under such a circumstance.
 
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

jlckansas said:
All of the NK nuclear assets and development labs, manufacturing areas, and delivery means are underneath Mountains. Mountains like are in the Rocky Mountains, you are not going to have a conventional strike causing any problems to them. If you think so , you have played too many video games/watched too many movies. The areas around them are Flak traps extreme with both gun and missiles set up in bunkers and caves that are near impregnable except with a direct hit while the doors are open.
Click to expand...
What about JDAMs and Bunker busters? The U.S. did deploy those to Afghanistan during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001. Those were meant to penetrate what was known to be a deep cave-tunnel complex. I'm sure the USAF has other penetration bombs in their arsenal.
Melochromac said:
If NK uses WMDs to do a 9/11, that would probably be enough for the US to go to war. Not sure if China will be able to mediate to keep NK independent under such a circumstance.
Click to expand...
China could try to mediate but once the U.S. shows it's fury, the Chinese could not stop the Americans from overthrowing the Kim dynasty.
 
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

Monk78 said:
How effective and extensive are the NK defenses along the DMZ ? Do we have any estimates and opinions?
Click to expand...
Information is really sketchy. I did manage to find achieved articles from 2003 that has some mentions of the ORBAT of North Korean military at the DMZ as of 2003:
www.nytimes.com

Shots fired across DMZ by 2 Koreas (Published 2003)

www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 

steamboy

Monk78 said:
How effective and extensive are the NK defenses along the DMZ ? Do we have any estimates and opinions?
Click to expand...

By modern standards, laughably poor. They had (and still have) large numbers of SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5 missiles all of which are hoplessly out of date, easily jammed and designed to intercept bombers rather than low level fighters or missiles. They also have some SA-6 launchers and an absolute asston of AA Guns.

And whilst great streams of tracers look great on video, against modern jets, a manually sighted AA gun or at best one with radar from the 50's and 60's is going to be no use and you would only hit things if you was VERY lucky.

The NKPAAF is also woefully obsolete, with a handful of MiG-29's with the main strength being MiG-21, 19, 17 and even 15's.

Also assuming that this is some big western coalition, we saw how people who used the Soviet war book for how to fight fared against Western forces in the 90's Gulf War, the North Koreans do the same thing, they follow the soviet playbook.

It wouldn't be a battle, it would be a brutally one sided horse whipping.
 

Drazhar

Melochromac said:
If NK uses WMDs to do a 9/11, that would probably be enough for the US to go to war. Not sure if China will be able to mediate to keep NK independent under such a circumstance.
Click to expand...
I pretty much think this is the only way the US invades North Korea at that time in that way. And even here depending on what you're actually talking about in terms of casualties I think there's a decent chance that unlike with the rack that didn't really have any foreign major backers, in this case I think the Chinese basically forced the North Koreans to go "it was done without the knowledge of the regime here are some people we are going to handover" or flat out regime changes North Korea themselves. I think it is notable to remember that after 9/11 even Vladimir Putin was publicly very supportive of the Americans, and I genuinely think that the Chinese would have fallen over themselves backwards to avoid a war with America at that point.
raharris1973 said:
My comments was about designating Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as "Axis of Evil" nations all at the same time in the 2002 State of the Union after 9/11 when significant planning for near to mid-term military action only against Iraq (after another year's worth of diplomatic pressure and build-up) was planned.
Click to expand...
I agree with this as an assessment, and I think the axis of evil comments were in fact a genuine reflection of George W Bush and the neoconservatives administrations genuine belief that nations could be easily subdivided into good and evil. Having said that in terms of what it was meant to do (message and prepare the American public for a war against IRAC, I don't think it genuinely changed much in terms of foreign policy on the North Korean front.
(Notably I think that the Iraq war probably did change a lot on the North Korean front because it indicated the North Korean regime that the only way they would be safe is if they actually had nuclear weapons. I think in many ways the decision to invade Iraq probably cost American foreign policy not just in the Middle East but in a wide range of other spheres as well)
Joku_ said:
Good point, if South Korea doesn't let US stage invasion, all US could do would be to conduct airstrikes. Then the Norks would have to decide whether to retaliate against South Korea, and practically force them to join US with an actual invasion...
Click to expand...
it might be difficult to establish what the North Koreans would do in this case because obviously knowledge of the regime's decision-making processes are difficult to establish even today. Airstrikes not operated from South Korea are going to be considerably more limited in scope, and I suspect would probably be less successful than Desert Storm. (Which was conducted from relatively nearby and friendly airspace as opposed to flying out of bases and aircraft carriers presumably in and around the seas of Japan. I still think the American military is probably able to make it work. But I don't know how successful it would be.

oddly enough I actually question whether or not it might be easier for the American military in this situation without South Korean support to try for an amphibious landing, so as to even if they can utilise the same degree of airpower can start putting organic artillery, and armoured divisions. Of course supply of them will be hugely difficult as well and I don't have much knowledge about the coastal defences of North Korea.
I think that probably the only way for it to be viable and sustained without South Korean support.
Gillan1220 said:
What about JDAMs and Bunker busters? The U.S. did deploy those to Afghanistan during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001. Those were meant to penetrate what was known to be a deep cave-tunnel complex. I'm sure the USAF has other penetration bombs in their arsenal.

China could try to mediate but once the U.S. shows it's fury, the Chinese could not stop the Americans from overthrowing the Kim dynasty.
Click to expand...
how well did the deep penetration work? And to what extent do we even know the depth of North Korean mountain bunkers et cetera? It might prove more difficult especially considering that it'll probably mean fighting into contested airspace before getting within strike range. (Unless were talking about nuclear strikes which I presume were not escalating to)


I disagree with Chinese being unable to stop the Americans from overthrowing the Kim dynasties.the Chinese government is a nuclear power and if they say that any incursion into North Korean territory counts as an act of war against them they probably could stop it. (I don't think they would do this but I think they absolutely could and they could certainly make it extraordinarily difficult and painful for the American government to do this.
if the American government seriously indicates that it is willing to go to war with the North Koreans and do a full-scale invasion, not just a brief tempo raising exercise actually an invasion which was what was The questions seem to be suggesting.
I think that in that case the Chinese government flat-out does it themselves, with a quick removal of the Kim dynasty, and the introduction of another one or a loyal/stupid enough family member to operate as a puppet. So as to prevent the Americans having all that force presented so closely against the Chinese border.
 

Zireael

I agree with previous posters that you have two big stumbling blocks: number one is China, which is unlikely to sit idly by if their (nominal) ally is attacked. and number two is South Korea, which is unlikely to risk itself being attacked (which is 99.999% certain to be NK's first move upon being hit by anything = assume it's SK and hit at Seoul with everything they have)
 

Infinite-Monkeys

As others have said for NK to be tarted by the USA they have to be willing to risk a war with the PRC and ideally the PRC has to see the USA is angry enough to call there bluff they don’t act on it. I think that needs an attack on the us homeland.

The one thing that does make it easier is unlike iraw there is a government in waiting to take over NK the south Korean government.

So how about this

NK has always been keen on making a quick buck by illegal means, and often have fairly senior leaders who aren’t the most competent around international norms, a contact of bin laden manages to get access to some nasty chemical weapons (think more the stuff they have used in assassinations then something you would use to wipe out cities) in return for precious dollars from an NK general. He deploys them alongside 9/11 (so spreading in to the packing crowds making things much worse).

The USA goes in to Afghanistan first (the link to al Qaeda is clearer) but fairly quicky also trace back the chemical weapons to NK. The us is furious and has much more UN backing then the war in iraq and of course actual evidence of WMD's (they where used in alt 9/11!) so the PRC see's there is no stopping them and instead joins the coalition to keep some control over the situation

The war is very brief with large chunks of the nk armed forces defecting in the north (generals already in China's pocket). There is a lot of damage to seoul/sk border in general but the actual combat is very one sided. The us lead forces get as far as Pyongyang have Kim Jong Il and anyone remotely linked tio the general that sold the weapons happened to them wrapped in a bow (dead or alive) but by semi mutual agreement plus facts on the ground most of the land north of them is de facto held by China

the end result being a unified but federal Korea with the northern provinces demilitarised to keep China happy. The peacekeeping force is pretty much entirely SK with a small collation advisory group (including PRC and USA reps) in Pyongyang plus some specialists where they are needed, with the us largely picking up the bill for the required growth of the SK army, an international fund is set up to rebuild the north (all of the coalition giving aid but the usa the lion share) with a bunch of Chinese companies as some of the main contractors alongside the usa (both keeping China happy economically and helping guarantee they keep influence in the north).

So an awkward comprise the usa and PRC accept as better then a war after NK crosses the line where intervention is inevitable
 

steamboy

Zireael said:
I agree with previous posters that you have two big stumbling blocks: number one is China, which is unlikely to sit idly by if their (nominal) ally is attacked. and number two is South Korea, which is unlikely to risk itself being attacked (which is 99.999% certain to be NK's first move upon being hit by anything = assume it's SK and hit at Seoul with everything they have)
Click to expand...

At the time, they can't really 'wipe Seoul off the map' because most of their guns lack the range, and can at best hit the suburbs, and the missiles they had, SCUD types are not exactly accurate weapons.
 

jlckansas

Gillan1220 said:
What about JDAMs and Bunker busters? The U.S. did deploy those to Afghanistan during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001. Those were meant to penetrate what was known to be a deep cave-tunnel complex. I'm sure the USAF has other penetration bombs in their arsenal.

China could try to mediate but once the U.S. shows it's fury, the Chinese could not stop the Americans from overthrowing the Kim dynasty.
Click to expand...
These are not "we can drop a bomb down an airshaft and boom all it blows up" or fly one in the mouth of a cave. Look up Cheyenne Mountain, Norad Command, that is the level of these places. Not just the Nuclear sites but all the other parts are buried underground in tunnel systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top