You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
What would ground combat in North Korea look like?
2017-04-01
[MWI.USMA.EDU] Warfighting in North Korea would be hard; much harder if US-South Korean alliance forces set assumptions on a foundation of sand. Here are five fatal challenges that planners ought to keep in mind when establishing their own plans and loadbearing assumptions for successful combat in Korea.

1. Digital and computer networks will function without interruption in combat.

Counterpoint: Everything is networked and susceptible to attack from a country with a demonstrated cyber capability. In the cyber world, the offense has the advantage.

2. Ground forces will complete required non-combatant evacuation operations rapidly and without major issue.

Counterpoint: While Marines typically handle non-combatant evacuation operations (NEO), in Korea, that task falls to US Army ground forces. Logically, this mission would occur early in a conflict and those ground forces utilized for the NEO mission would be subject to contingencies well beyond their own control--from massive civilian casualties to spontaneous riots to mistaken headcounts--that might tie up these forces and prohibit them from participation in follow-on combat missions for a considerable amount of time.

3. Movement, maneuver, and supply routes will be fluid.

Counterpoint: North Korea has a mountainous, Afghanistan-like geography and road network. Even if US-South Korean forces cut the North Korean military down significantly, their bypassed and remnant forces will still represent a more numerous, much better-trained, much better-armed version of the Taliban (and considering their ideological orientation and upbringing, while some may surrender, the bulk will probably fight, and fight hard). They will exploit advantageous terrain to conduct lethal harassment ambushes. Simply assuming this problem away is tactically problematic; narrow roads and choke points dictate that whoever is on the road will have to fight from the road--a poor proposition.

4. There will be sufficient time and assets to deal with the weapons of mass destruction problem.


Counterpoint: Putting together two facts makes for a tough conclusion. The US Army’s military mission in North Korea includes responsibility for weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and it has long been publicly known that North Korea has underground facilities numbering in the tens of thousands. And so the innocent children’s game, "hide and seek"--in North Korea becomes a scary, subterranean, "where’s the WMD" nightmare. It’s not hard to anticipate this will mean an exponential increase in energy expended and time required for this mission, no matter what resources are available on day one, to get after these likely underground-stored weapons.

5. We are prepared to engage with guards and managers at North Korean WMD facilities.

Counterpoint: It stands to reason that, if the United States is responsible for the WMD mission, then at least some effort will go to engaging with the North Koreans at these facilities. The first handshake, the result of that last 50-meter walk on the approach, will be crucial. Everything taught to those guards and managers, over the entire course of their lives, will have been that Americans are evil and put on earth to destroy North Koreans. It doesn’t help that our fully armed, geared-up final approach will confirm this narrative. This will be the highest-stakes engagement of any military leader’s career. How are we going to change those North Korean individuals’ narratives and get them to accept ours? Not to mention the bulk of these engagements will likely have to be performed by relatively junior officers (lieutenant colonels and majors; maybe even captains and lieutenants) that will mostly have just arrived in theater.

The truth is, no matter where or when, "war is an option of difficulties." But today, in North Korea, the ground combat option is particularly vexed by geography, physics, and the ability of propaganda to dominate the (North Korean) mind. That said, it may be the only option available--and so a clear understanding of the challenges ahead is indispensable.
Posted by:Herb McCoy7309

#14  NORK Special Purpose Units will be deployed as far forward as possible prior to the initiation of hostilities - overseas if possible. That is another complexity to deal with
Posted by: Blossom Hupager6063   2017-04-01 21:37  

#13  Does the North Korean leadership trust the regular troops enough to give them bullets for their guns? I seem to recall that's an issue.
Posted by: trailing wife   2017-04-01 21:10  

#12  There is no reason to fight Nork ground troops. They can't be sustained or maneuvered. Leave them where they are. Simultaneously, use counter-fire assets to destroy their ranged fires and SOF to clean out high value installations. The first couple of days will be very bad. Probably hundreds of thousands of Sork civilian casualties. Then the Norks will run out of food, ammo, water, nukes and ambition.

At that point leading the charge into Norkland with food trucks would pretty much end the conflict.
Posted by: rammer   2017-04-01 19:28  

#11  A ground engagement is what the NORKS desire. Avoid giving your adversary what he desires. See comment #5.
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-04-01 16:08  

#10  CrazyFool---I saw the same documentary. The end was creepy. It will take several generations to fix this once the NORK dictatorship is gone.

Ground pounding stuff up there will be a meat grinder. We are talking decapitation of the regime and some serious kinetics on missile and nuclear sites. This will be war at its worst.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2017-04-01 15:54  

#9  A dictatorship that starves and enslaves the populace won't hesitate to use them as human shields
Posted by: Frank G   2017-04-01 10:48  

#8  The population mostly won't be fanatical as say the Japanese were during WWII

I don't know about that. They have been brainwashed for generations that we are the enemy and the Kims are the saviors.
Saw a documentary of an eye doctor who went to Pyongyang to treat people who had eye problems - in some cases restoring eyesight. I think it was a National Geo. documentary. Keep in mind, only the party faithful and higher-up are allowed to live there.
At the end the people and their relatives thanked, not the foreigner, but Kim, or a picture of him - some even appear to pray to him. It was very creepy.
One might think they would appreciate it after they figure out that they have been lied to all these years - but many, if not most, simply will not accept it.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2017-04-01 10:15  

#7  Planners will have to assume the Samson option. North Korea will strike out to take out as many allies as possible. Expect missile strikes for the South and Japan with both nuclear, dirty warheads and chemical weapons. Protection of allies will be critical.

Also the leadership will be as hard to find after the fighting as the Iraqi leadership was. Some will flee to China and others will be in a hole somewhere leading what is left of the resistance.

Expect a humanitarian crisis like never before seen. The population mostly won't be fanatical as say the Japanese were during WWII, but they will be hungry and desperate. Supply lines will be rapidly overwhelmed with the demand for their care as the simple act of feeding them will keep them from going gorilla.
Posted by: DarthVader   2017-04-01 10:02  

#6  Of course this all supposes that the Norks do everything right and won't have any significant execution failures either (or political failures - like senior officials concerned about their own hides looking to work a deal rather than fight).
Posted by: Procopius2k   2017-04-01 09:56  

#5  You kill the snake by cutting off it's head. Pyongyang must disappear. The complicit Chinese should be given but one warning.
Posted by: Besoeker   2017-04-01 08:45  

#4  6. Do not allow your Hubris to engage.
Wireless networks in mountainous regions, won't and all land access from south to north is mountainous. Assume passes are also tunneled and mined. PT and humping daypacks on roadruns will NOT provide the leg and back strength generations of hillclimbing have developed.
Posted by: Skidmark   2017-04-01 08:41  

#3  What would be left of Seoul 24 hours after the festivities begin?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2017-04-01 06:15  

#2  "No war plan survives contact with the enemy."
Posted by: AlmostAnonymous5839   2017-04-01 04:33  

#1  I don't think ground operations in Nork are a good idea, and I'll be surprised if they happen.

All that's needed is too smash stuff above ground, bridges in particular and wait for logistics breakdown and starvation to do it's work. The Nork's only options are to invade the south or go nuclear against the south. I doubt an invasion would get very far against prepared defenders, and I'd assume any delivery capability would be destroyed asap.
Posted by: phil_b   2017-04-01 04:22  

00:00