January 07, 2003
North Korea is Overrated.
There is a lot of talk about how North Korea poses a threat to South Korea, and about how powerful the DPRK military is in relation to the South Korean army. While the Democratic People's Republic of Korea(DPRK--commies) has a WMD capability, and Seoul is within range of medium range missiles, in a head to head conventional conflict, the Republic of Korea(ROK--good guys) could wipe the floor with their northern neighbors, without any US help whatsoever. Taking a look at the matchup between the two nations point by point shows that the DPRK advantage in numbers is easily lost by their aging equipment and poor training.
Air Force
The DPRK air force has about 550 fighter aircraft. Forty of these aircraft are Mig-29 Fulcrums, 45 are Mig-23 Floggers, 150 Mig-21 Fishbeds, and nearly half of the combat strength of the DPRK air force consists of Mig-17s and Mi-19s, with a smattering of Su-25s and Su-7s. So basically, of the 550 fighter aircraft the DPRK posesses, only 40 are truly modern, another 45 are getting on in years, and 150 are obsolete but capable. The rest are essentially junk, and would have difficulty intercepting a B-52, let alone an F-16.
As far as training is concerned, the DPRK likewise must have a serious problem training these pilots. The fuel shortages that are affecting the rest of the country have to be affecting the air force as well. That means less hours in the cockpit. Less hours in the cockpit means lower quality pilots means more dead DPRK pilots in combat and accidents.
Now compare this with the ROK air force. The ROK have 468 fighter aircraft. They have 160 F-16s(roughly equivalent to the Mig-29 in capability), 130 F-4s(marginally superior to the Mig-23), and 195 F-5s(marginally superior to the Mig 21). So, if there is a major air action, the DPRK air force is going to lead a short and violent life--and that is without any assistance from the USAF or USN.
Army
The situation on the ground is different than that in the air. There is a lot more parity between the DPRK and ROK on the ground. The DPRK has much more artillery than the ROK(about twice to three times the number), and even though much of it is obsolete, if it can throw a shell a few miles with the accuracy of a WWII weapon, that is good enough to disrupt operations and make life hell for the grunts and any soft targets out there. They might be vulnerable to counterbattery fire from more modern/accurate ROK weapons, as well as ROK airpower, but there are enough of them, in enough prepared positions to make the first weeks of war rather bloody, especially in Seoul itself.
As far as armor is concerned, the situation is much like that of the respective air forces. The DPRK has more, but the quality isn't that good. Their best tanks are the Type 59(Chinese) and the T-62(Russian). There are about 200 Type 59s in service, and 1800 T-62s. The rest of the Tank force consist of T-55s(you saw them as burning wrecks during Gulf War I), PT-76s(an amphibious tank with a 76mm gun and thin armor), and T-34s, which are a WWII design. In other words, half of the DPRK tank force is of obsolescent design, and the other half are little more than targets on a modern battlefield.
The ROK army is much better equipped than their northern neighbors. First of all, half of their armored force uses the K1/K1A1 tank, which is roughly similar in capabilities to the M1. The other half of their armored forces consist of the M-47/M-48 Patton tanks, which are about as effective as the T-62. They also have a smattering of T-80s from the Russians as well.(About as effective as an early M1 or an M60A3, but that is a WAG on my part).
Again, training is probably an issue for the DPRK. Proper training of all those mechanized forces is a fuel and spare parts intensive activity. Given how thirsty a main battle tank is for fuel, and the weakness of the DPRK economy in general, I can't believe that the bulk of the DPRK army does the sort of training necessary to have an effective force. The resources just aren't there.
The one advantage the DPRK has over the ROK is that the DPRK is forward deployed, and always on alert. That means that it is possible for the Kim Jong Il to get his army moving on short notice. However, to counterbalance that, I think it is doubtful that they could achieve anything better than tactical surprise. The South Koreans are just too ready for just that eventuality, and the defensive belt along the DMZ is so crammed with mines and emplacements that I find it doubtful that the North Koreans could advance quickly enough to prevent a calling up of reserves in the south. The longer the campaign went, the worse off North Korea would be. Their aircraft would be methodically shot down in the air or destroyed on the ground, their advantage in artillery would hit by air raids, and their armored columns cut to ribbons. Then, inevitably, the tide would shift, and the North Koreans would be forced into retreat.
So basically, I guess is what I am saying is that South Korea could stand on its own two feet if it wanted to. The big question is can the South Koreans withstand the initial onslaught? I think they can. I don't think we should withdraw our forces, but if a conventional conflict came to the Korean penninsula, I don't think we'd be in as bad shape as people have been led to believe. The problem is that if the communists attacked, there would be a lot of civilian casualties in Seoul.
For more info, go here.
I would read a little more about the Conflict in the fifties, if I was little ole you.
Posted by: Steve Plonk on January 9, 2003 11:16 AMThe difference is that it isn't the fifties anymore. In 1950, the South Koreans were little more than an armed police force. Today they have a real army and air force and can hold their own in combat far better than back then. They have 40 times NK's economic base, 9 times the merchant tonnage, and even outspend the North Koreans 2-1 on defense expenditures.
If the Chinese intervened on North Korea's behalf, that would obviously change things. But I don't think the Chinese would want to do that. All the gains they have made in opening up to the west disappear overnight, and that would include Hong Kong as well.
I'm agnostic on the point of pulling troops out of Korea. On the one hand, those troops we have along the DMZ are what keep Kim Jong Il from getting any ideas. On the other hand, when politicians run and win on an anti-American platform, when American soldiers are beaten and denied service in restaurants in the very country that benefits from the presence of those troops, then there should be consequences to such actions. That is how we are treating Germany. Perhaps that is how we should treat South Korea as well.
Posted by: John Bono on January 9, 2003 11:51 AMSome thoughts:
Sure, if push came to shove, the RoK would probably win in the end.
In the political calculus, the RoK has a whole lot to lose in a war, while the DPRK has little to lose (execpt that Kim Jong Il might have to look for a real job).
Last time around, Korea proved to be a difficult place for the US to weild its military superiority. Broken terrain, poor roads, and such made it difficult to supply and communicate with forward units. Opposing forces had very low logistical requirements, which made it harder to interdict their supply lines. The US also largely lacked a 24 hour all weather air force, at least for bombing things other than grid co-ordinates.
Now, there have been a lot of changes in the past half century, but FM radios still need a line of sight from the sender to the reciever, the terrain in Korea is still the a bunch of torturous hills, and the RoK Air Force lacks an all weather day and night capability.
Also, the comparison between Germany and Korea neglects the vast changes in the Soviet Union/Russia compared to the lack of changes in the DPRK.
Posted by: etc. on January 9, 2003 01:43 PMSure, it's the "otts", as I call 'em. I call the shots as I see 'em. Korea has atomic weapons. We need to think before we act. I have no doubt we would win the final victory.
But why stick our noses in, unless we are willing to be shot at? Some of us have been through this movie before.
Posted by: Steve Plonk on January 13, 2003 01:05 PMAnd that's the problem. I'm really agnostic on the whole idea of committing American troops to defending South Korea. On the one hand, their presence on the penninsula probably does prevent a war that could engulf Japan and China in a major war. On the other, too many Koreans are awefully damn short-sighted as to precisely *why* the DPRK hasn't crossed the DMZ in 50 years, and treat American soldiers like garbage.
As to DPRK's nukes, the problem is that "Dear Leader" Kim makes the Soviet Union look positively rational. The DPRK is the 21st century version of the Khmer Rouge, and they are only a few years away from being able to hit the West Coast with a nuke.
That is why we should have destroyed the North Korean's nuclear facilities back in 1994. Now we are in a situation where there is just no good answer to what is going on. At best, all we can do is play for time, and hope the North Korean people choose the Ceaucescu option. But I don't have much faith in even that occurring. Cold War lite, with another 30 years of MAD.
Posted by: John Bono on January 13, 2003 01:51 PMI have to say that I agree with Mr. Bono. After studying the North Korean military closely, it's no longer clear that they pose the kind of threat that they might have posed in the 1950s and 1960s.
When discussing the DPRK forces, everyone should take into account some additional political and societal factors that will affect their overall performance in a high intensity conflict.
First, they have virtually no support from China or the former Soviet Union when it comes to their military affairs or territorial ambitions. I mean this in relation to past support they have received.
Second, the DPRK has been locked in a pattern of rapid decline for over a decade. This decline is not only in the military. It really encompasses every aspect of civilian life as well. As a result, the morale and motivation of the military and the civilian population would be minimal in the case of a conflict. While we might experience a large number of initial civillian casualties, I think the DPRK's overall performance would be closer to that of the Republican Guard in Iraq.
