NK has to balance on the knife edge between being threatening enough to get concessions but not so much other countries give up and ignore them (or level them).
KJU doesn’t seem to know how to walk that line, and didn’t have enough time to learn it from his father.
I’d say ‘we’re getting close to the end’ but no one who has ever made that prediction has been right. It’s too unique (especially with Trump now) to be able to get a good guess.
Sadly, for the sake of the world, we need to let KJU go unpunished.
Let him live out his days in a cushy mansion in China so that he doesn't start lobbing nukes everywhere.
I believe that to be the sanest course of action.
If KJU tried to "go rogue" (especially if it meant betraying his own country) he'd be dead within a heartbeat. Accidents happen.
I'm just thinking that if I was a remotely rational dictator in his position, that's what I'd do right before 'showing them' and sending off a nuke or two that would probably/possibly lead to the obliteration of my own people.
If the DPRK doesn't achieve victory within 72 hours then yes of course they will be flattened, but nonetheless a DPRK victory is within the realm of possibility. Seoul may be reduced to a smoking heap, 20M dead and 10M having emigrated, and it will be a Pyrrhic victory, but it could be a victory nonetheless.
It would cause mass casualties but by no means would the metropolis be 'obliterated'. There certainly wouldn't be 20 million dead unless everyone within the Greater Seoul area rushed north and threw themselves into the beaten-zone.
Assuming, of course, that the artillery troops follow their orders to fire.
Even assuming that there isn't a concentrated effort to destroy these emplacements quickly, it seems the amount of damage they could cause would be fairly limited by operational constraints[1]
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-north-korea-...
As soon as they open fire, the counter-battery game begins. You can be sure the allies have photographed and analyzed every strip of dirt along the DMZ, looking for prepared positions so they can anticipate where the guns are and where they'd move to after a salvo. They'd be tracking the rounds as they come in and plotting where it originated from. 72 hours is a good estimate for how long that artillery battle would last; same estimate I've seen elsewhere.
But the concern of casualties are not necessarily from shells impacting, but the panic and disruption in order that comes from it. NK can cause enormous hardship just by flinging a few shells. They can hide many of their batteries and string out the battle by revealing pieces on day 3, 4, etc,. Even if they get destroyed, and even if they only get a few shells off, you'll have a news report saying shells are still falling on Seoul, and it will be a tremendous morale hit.
But the window is closing on how well the NK artillery will continue to be a credible threat, hence the rush for nuclear weapons.
The only real issue we would have to worry about is NK using a nuke on Seoul or Tokyo. That is the major issue and it is why NK will never give up on their weapons. It is the only effect threat they have.
The US planners have sorted out the conventional war issues a long time ago. It is figuring out how to be 100% sure to remove the Nukes from the equation that has stopped us from just stepping on Kim like a roach and he knows that. That is the reason for the Nukes.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
The surgical dismantling of the air defenses around Baghdad in the 1st gulf war was a complete and udder-shock to the Russians. It was the 3rd largest and sophistcated in the world. We removed it in 48 hours for almost no loss. That was with 1980 tech where you needed someone to hold the lasers on target.
We could have ended the 2nd Iraq war and Afganistain in a few months if the military was under the same rules of engagement as WW2. However the destruction and civilian death would be appalling. If there is a war started by NK it is very likely the military would not have the constrains placed on it like Iraq or Afganistain. It would most likely look like WW2. Think Dresden.
The job of the military is to kill people and break things. When they are told to win without the limits we place on them now it would be terrifying.
PS. I know people will ask. Let’s say you are in a city and there are baddies in a building shooting at you. Right now because of constrains to civilian damage, you get the fun job of attacking the location to clear them out with your squad. It sucks and someone on your team is likely to get wounded. If the limits are removed, you call in a fire mission, building is removed from planet, move on to next one. That is what a war with NK would look like. Are we evil for doing this? I am not sure. I believe that fighting this way will end a conflict much quicker over all and in the long term be better for all those involved.
They can win as in they can get control of Seoul in the first 72hours. But then they are left with two choices: Backdown, or burn the city.
They can act fast because they have a geographical advantage. But that's about it. They win for 72hours and lose forever.
That said, nobody wants a land war in Asia (one of the Classic Blunders) so it would take a lot of stupidity to get there.
The US with Trump at the helm seems perfectly happy to play the evil villain for him, throwing out telegenic threats of nuclear annihilation.
If Libya and Iraq prove anything it's not having a nuke program that's actually the greater risk, coz they'll just accuse you having one anyway...
>So he may just force a war
There's no point in doing that.