New North Korean War Plan: Grab Seoul, Negotiate
Via the Joongang Ilbo, North Korea’s on-the-shelf invasion oplan no longer calls for invading all of South Korea, but in recognition of stronger U.S. and South Korean military capabilities, now calls for quickly occupying Seoul and then negotiating favorable terms.
With the new plan, the North would concentrate its early fire on Seoul and neighboring areas, where most of South Korea’s social and economic infrastructure is located.
“North Korea would try to occupy Seoul early,” the source said. “And from there, it could either try to go farther south, or try to negotiate [for a cease-fire] from an advantageous position.
I’m sure Selig Harrison would call this progress.
A military expert who requested anonymity said the North took cues from the Gulf War in 1991 and Iraq War in 2003. Iraqi forces had armored vehicles similar to the North’s, but they were destroyed by the U.S. military’s precision strike weapons. North Korea, in other words, has concluded that if its mechanized units engaged in old-fashioned combat without extra help, they would be no match for the more sophisticated U.S. weapons systems.
As part of the change, North Korea has bolstered its frontline mechanized corps with extra mechanized divisions, the military source said. Also, the frontline corps have each received an extra light infantry division, and light infantry battalions on the front have been expanded to regiments.
There may also be a recognition here of North Korea’s logistical limitations — that is, its general inability to sustain an invasion with long, exposed supply lines.
I certainly don’t claim to be a military expert, but I’ve studied enough history to know how other armies have beaten back similar attacks from Kursk, to the Seelow Heights, to An Loc, to Grozny, even when badly outnumbered by their attackers. History shows that these blitzkrieg tactics bog down quickly when thrown into restricted terrain with well-prepared defenses held by a well-trained, well-armed opponent. That’s particularly true when the defender holds air supremacy. Thus, even the reduced expectations seem unrealistic. North Korea could probably do severe damage to Seoul on Day One, but by Day Two, most of its longer-range artillery capable of hitting Seoul would be silenced, and allied air power would be seeking out North Korea’s more numerous, shorter-range tactical artillery sites and its more elusive and dangerous short-range ballistic missile launchers.
It’s one thing to damage a city, another thing to take it. If this report is accurate, the North Korean strategy still depends on the use of mechanized and motorized conventional forces, which would have to cover 40 miles of highly obstructed terrain with no air cover and under assault from American and South Korean air power. North Korea has few heavily armored main battle tanks, and even these stood up poorly to such light infantry weapons as the RPG-7 in Afghanistan and Chechnya. The majority of North Korea’s tanks are lighter amphibious models designed for the easy fording of rivers, but with such light armor protection that even .50 caliber machine guns would grind them up.
Again, assuming that this report is accurate, it suggests that South Korea ought to accelerate long-delayed plans to upgrade its helicopter gunships, the most efficient way to destroy vehicles in crowded urban areas. It also suggests that the ROK should invest in a large number of inexpensive anti-tank weapons for its infantry and plenty of close-quarter training in their use.
With all that said, even if the new report is a case of a new hypervigilance, that’s certainly a healthier attitude than the dreamy complacency that has dominated South Korea recently. I take for granted that a North Korean invasion could be stopped before it reached Seoul, but whether it would be — and with a minimum of casualties — depends on how well the ROK army trains and equips itself.
I think the analysis becomes a little more complicated when WMD comes into play. A few hundred tons of mustard/sarin placed strategically around Seoul could (let alone a low grade nuke) certainly be a game changer. Would the ROK trade large pockets of Seoul for a DPRK withdrawal, even with the guarantee that Pyongyang would be obliterated? That’s a pyrrhic victory if I ever saw one.
Negotiation does not really mean a new ceasefire line lower down the peninsula. It means contractual capitulation — One UnFree Korea.
But I have my doubts about the Ilbo report — because the DPRK still has 15 divisions, yes, divisions, of Special Forces, and a mere advance on Seoul wouldn’t use them to any effect. So the main artillery and tank units may roll and then hold in place — but the Navy and Special Forces sure won’t.
And I don’t agree with Jack that we’d use mustard or nerve weapons, first. Even then, we’d likely be outclassed. The Sovs invented a binary, immediately lethal, persistent, nerve gas, Novichok, that is so fine that it penetrates every known NATO defense. It is designed for tactical rocket delivery. It’s more likely that the DPRK has it than we have a counter.
In the highly unlikely scenario in which the DPRK manages to seize Seoul in a war in which the Chinese for whatever reason does not get involved (because I have reasonable doubts that the Chinese would get involved in a war in which the DPRK is clearly the aggressor), my feeling is that we needn’t necessarily take this as a strategic disaster. After all, what we fear most in a war with Pyongyang is that the DPRK will level Seoul with artillery and missiles. But if the DPRK parks their best armored divisions in Seoul, wouldn’t that negate the ROK’s one great weakness? Couldn’t we respond by seizing the rest of the peninsula while simultaenously beseiging Seoul?
Understandably, my notion may not take into consideration the logistic disruption, which would occur with the fall of Seoul. But then again, the premise is so ridiculous that I think I may be forgiven my musing.
^_^;
Let us assume that Kim successfully captures Seoul. The myriad of F-16’s, U-2’s, A-10’s and intelligence personnel that constantly watch the North, are all asleep. All of the US and ROK soldiers on the DMZ are asleep as well for this thought experiment. DPRK makes it all the way to the southern outskirts of Seoul, capturing it, completely, unimpeded. Will the US negotiate with them? Judging from the history of the US, I think it is safe to say that if the North wants a war, they will get it. We may stall, but eventually we will engage them. When that happens, we will almost instantely have air superiority, defeat their communications with the exception of certain radio capabilities for forward units (which Compass Call will deal with accordingly), wipe out all artillery units within striking distance, attain Naval superiority as soon as the Navy shows up, and destroy the majority of their engaging armor and infantry units. Step 2 for the United States would then depend on the current President’s agenda: destroy Kim’s regime once and for all while engaged in war, or let them limp back to the North to be once again shut off to the world. I will let you discern the most likely outcome for yourself. Kim knows that an act of war that large against South Korea by his regime would be the beginning of his demise. If the US is still trying to achieve the unattainable goal in the desert, then the only worry we should be faced with is Russia or China trying to take a stab at us while we are so spread out. China might, but Russia probably won’t. Either way, either country, it would be a hard war for them, so I deem that unlikely unless things drastically change.
I for one think that the North Korean can do it. Less than an hour drive from Seoul, I don’t care if God is defending Seoul, that’s not a lot of terrain to cover for a huge army.
Magaline, you’re assuming that the norK’s would have a five lane highway into Seoul, unobstructed, without any tank traps along the way or any aircraft patrolling the skies and picking off armored vehicles as they role down the narrow corridors leading into Seoul.
It’s a HELL of a LOT of territory to cover for an ill-equipped, ill-fed and ill-prepared Army that probably isn’t all that worked up for a fight in the first place.
Interesting article about China’s expansionist use of the North Korean port of Rajin:
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/april/china-and-the-lost-pearls/article_print
Seoul itself has never been a defensible place evacuated multiple times by UN generals out of military necessity during the Korean War. During that War, UN commander were also fighting an enemy compared to North Korea today even more ill-equipped, ill-supplied, and ill-trained. Any Allied commander who wants to hold Seoul at all cost is playing with fire.
The difference is that the ROK Military (and US Military) are much more prepared and entrenched than they were during the Korean war and the norK military hasn’t really changed all that much since the Korean war other than their ability to deploy chem/bio weapons and *perhaps* a nuke or dirty bomb. The problem is, if they want to occupy Seoul and use any of those options, they too will have to defend Seoul in the middle of the crud they just deployed… it won’t work.
The question isn’t about how defendable Seoul is, nor is it about how quickly NK could get there. The fact of the matter is that the entirety of the deployed US troops in South Korea are on constant standby and in perpetual vigilance on the North, not just the DMZ. I don’t want to insult anyones intelligence, but try to discern the amount of information the military has learned about NK by constant monitoring over the past 57 years. Do you really think they have many secrets? Troop movements, shipments, capabilities, shortfalls, habits, tactics have all been observed, and proof lies in open media, that anyone has access to. Google the ship Kang Nam, you will see what I mean. North Korea simply CANNOT attack South Korea and make it all the way to Seoul without encountering very strong resistance. A Mig-29 may be capable, but our F-16’s are even more capable, and our pilots are exponentially better prepared. Mechanized units are probably the easiest targets we will have as opposistion. A-10 and Apache pilots train for that almost exclusively, and their birds are designed for those targets specifically. The United States is: better prepered, more informed, has more capable personnel, better equipment, and most importantly has better intelligence.
Quantity has a quality all its own. There is no reasonable way to stop the NorKs from seizing Seoul: they have more tanks, planes, landing craft, rocket artillery, tube artillery and Special Forces than the US, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan combined, worldwide. Their soldiers, sailors, fliers, planes, tanks are markedly inferior, but so what — one of the main maxims of warfare is to mass your forces, and North Korea has the mass. They also have a determination and ruthlessness now that we only develop after two years of combat.
That is the reason why Pres Obama (read, the Pentagon) explicitly exempted the DPRK from our new nuclear non-retaliation policy.
They have poison gas/nerve gas, and we have every reason to expect them to use it. We have no reasonable response to such weapons except the belief that civilized nations will not use them. They could be used, for instance, to coat our air base outside Seoul, destroying our first response — and then to create a wall south of Seoul to prevent retaliation by land warfare. Only the infantry can hold ground — and if the infantry is dead or in Mars suits, then there is no infantry.
Mad Dog North Korea is a real and realistic threat. Our entire policy at present consists of bribing the mad dog’s handler, China, to keep it on a short leash. Our hope is that China, some day soon, will grow tired of a mad mangy mutt and will want to get a better one, perhaps with a military rather than a Juche dog collar. But don’t disregard the threat from a debilitated DPRK because you don’t want to believe that old guns can kill. A million black powder muskets could probably still defeat 10,000 M-16s.
Technically, North is capable of capturing Seoul.
Becouse:
1. North has already placed most of its forces at the border, so there will be no large moves that could indicate invasion. At best US/ROK forces would get information an hour prior to attack.
2. Invasion tunnels under DMZ. North has many tunnels under first defensive line in DMZ. First of several US/ROK defensive lines would fall easly, having to face enemies in front, back, and artillery shelling.
3. Bio/Chem weapons.
4. Possibility of nuclear strike.
5. Oversized special forces, that would flood into South Korea as soon as DMZ defences are down, causing problems, hindering logistics, ambushing troops on the way to frontline.
6. Determination. North Korean troops have morale based on fear, much like soviet troops in World War 2. So dont even expect any units to surrender. Also desertion wont be as common as it was during both wars in Iraq.
7. Widespread terror of civilian population. They might, for example use South Koreans as living shields, forcing them to march with infantry or armour to protect themself from bombing.
8. Weakening of US/ROK ties. As more and more Americans will die during conflict, a huge opposition to war will arise in the US. Time works for North Korea in this game, so the longer war drags on, the less US will be willing to particitape in it.
DaChoppa:
The moment any conflict is initiated, Pyongyang becomes a sink hole.
NK SOF are basically dismounted MECH Infantry whose tanks have rusted beyond repair. ROK counter-SOF can handle them. NK’s INTEL capabilities are questionable at best and after the first few air sorties against their communications infrastructure, they will not be able to talk to their SOF at all. There will be desertions. Count on it.
Concede that NK can take Seoul – temporarily. But Pyongyang will be bombed into oblivion and eventually taken by UNC ground forces. The DPRK cannot sustain a fight longer than about 30 days based on their petroleum capabilities.
The UNC will have immediate air and maritime superiority. Unless the PRC enters on the DPRK’s side as in the Korean War, North Korea will fall to the UNC and uncountable refugees will seek asylum in the ROK.
The scary thing for me is that cults (which is what NK is) often opt to end in flames (SEE: David Koresh, Branch Davidians in Waco or Jim Jones in Guyana) rather than shame. In other words, NK could opt to launch a pre-emptive strike on Seoul knowing that they cannot win but can inflict great harm on their souther relatives. Such is the nature of evil. My confidence is that Almighty God is the ultimate decider.