[bbb]

2. Hot war breaks out (precipitated by the DPRK or the South or the US), the North loses fairly quickly, there are catastrophic civilian casualties in the South and the North and perhaps elsewhere (e.g. the North launches a nuke or chemical weapons or what-have-you against Japan or the US, just 'cause it can), American military losses are comparatively minor in comparison to everything else. Ultimately, the industrial base and economy of the Korean peninsula is in shambles and is all the worse for having to deal with bringing the North into the 20th (let alone 21st) century, despite lots of foreign aid it's still a shitty situation for a lot of people for a long, long time.

Not so fast. The North has millions of trained, ready soldiers and nukes, and a single-minded determination to fight to the end. A full-blown war would cost millions of lives on all sides, and a win for us is not certain at all. It could easily end with a bloody stalemate and new truce after they've conquered most of the south and we lose the will to send >100,000 US soldiers to die. Just look at how it went the first time. The army of North Korea is quite formidable.

[weavejester]

The DPRK has a large standing army, but its armaments are 50 years out of date, and its food supplies are limited at best.

If the South tried to invade the North, the DPRK army could probably wage an effective guerilla war. But if you're invading another country, you don't have that advantage.

The first Iraq war demonstrated that in conventional military confrontations, obsolete tanks and aircraft have little chance against their more modern counterparts. The DPRK would also have to cross the most heavily fortified DMZ in the world, and somehow maintain a supply chain with enemy forces controlling the air and sea. It wouldn't really work.

[Keyframe]

The first Iraq war demonstrated that in conventional military confrontations, obsolete tanks and aircraft have little chance against their more modern counterparts.

Iraq invasion also showed that to be true. However, war is not won until ground troops get a hold of control over conquered area - which is something US troops never were able to do (not counting japan after WWII - which is not the same as modern conflicts).

[weavejester]

Yes, and that's why I said that on their own turf, the DPNK might be able to wage a successful guerilla war. My disagreement was with the idea DPNK had a realistic chance of invading the South.

That said, I'm also not entirely convinced a guerilla war would be successful, either. The foundation of DPNK propaganda is Korean nationalism, and a good guerilla war needs an enemy that can be demonised. It would be tricky for the DPNK to try and paint the South as inhuman after harping on about unification for so long.

The last Korean war was backed by opposing superpowers, but North Korea doesn't have anyone backing it up this time. China is sympathetic because it doesn't like the idea of NK refugees flooding over its border, but it's not going to help out if a conflict begins.