War With North Korea Look Like

Picture of War With North Korea Look Like

October 9, 2017 With tensions running high, what would a military confrontation with Kim Jong Un's North Korea actually involve? Here's everything you need to know: Is a limited war possible?Probably not. Trump administration officials recently said they were working on four or five military options that would not involve the total destruction of North Korea. One such option might be an air or drone "decapitation" strike to take out Kim himself.

But assassinating the Hermit Kingdom's paranoid dictator would be extremely difficult; to avoid just such a strike, he reportedly has 30 residences, each with its own underground bunker, takes elaborate precautions to hide his location, and moves around only at night. All other military scenarios would lead to a catastrophic number of casualties, according to war games staged by the Pentagon and various think tanks.

Kim has one of the world's largest artillery arsenals, and would likely respond to any attack by unleashing a blistering retaliatory assault on Seoul's 10 million people, killing up to 100,000 residents in a day. The region could then spiral into an all-out, months-long war costing $1 trillion in damage and a million lives, according to one Pentagon estimate. It "would probably be the worst kind of fighting in most people's lifetimes," Defense Secretary James Mattis has said.

How would a hot war begin?If either Kim or the Trump administration misread each other's belligerent rhetoric or aggressive actions as a signal of an imminent attack, it could trigger the other to launch a pre-emptive strike. But many of North Korea's nuclear devices are hidden in the mountains or buried deep underground, and it would take the U.S. four or five days to destroy even Kim's conventional artillery, according to the Nautilus Institute, a think tank.

The megalomaniacal tyrant would likely go into "use or lose" mode and try to inflict as much damage on his enemies as possible while he still had weapons. Even if he didn't launch some of his 20 or so nuclear warheads, Kim would still have some 8,000 conventional rocket launchers and artillery cannons dug into the mountains on his side of the demilitarized zone (DMZ). They include 240-mm and 300-mm rocket launchers that can reach Seoul, located just 25 miles from the border.

Some of these shells could be loaded with nerve gas or other chemical weapons, and if they "start plopping down in the middle of the city," says Joseph Bermudez, an analyst for the U.S.-Korea Institute, "there would be panic like you would not believe." What then?As Seoul's residents raced to the city's 3,300 bomb shelters, the full might of the U.S.–South Korean war machine would spring into action.

The U.S.–South Korean command would direct dozens of jets and Tomahawk missiles into the North to destroy military bases and Pyongyang's major command-and-control infrastructure — though military experts say it would take at least four days to achieve this objective. If the U.S. also wanted regime change, a ground war would then begin. Former National Security Council staffer Victor Cha believes the Pentagon would deploy combat divisions of up to 120,000 troops to supplement the 28,500 U.

S. soldiers already in South Korea, as well as South Korea's 650,000 active-duty troops. But those combined forces would still be outnumbered by Kim's million-man army, and the ensuing battle conditions would be "unforgiving," says Cha — "over 2 million mechanized forces, all converging on a total battle space the equivalent of the distance between Washington, D.C., and Boston." What else could Kim do?Some 100,000 highly trained special-operations troops could infiltrate the South via underground tunnels, mini submarines, and biplanes to wreak havoc, detonating dirty bombs, assassinating government officials, and sabotaging water plants.

If he began to fear for his regime's survival, Kim could start aiming his medium- to long-range missiles at Japan, the U.S. territory of Guam, and even the continental U.S. itself. His last resort would be to go nuclear, knowing it would prompt the immediate destruction of his own country in a devastating U.S. nuclear counterattack. Whatever happens, Pyongyang would ultimately lose — but not without first causing mass destruction and death.

And after the fighting ended?If Kim's regime collapsed, a vast wave of North Korea's 25 million poverty-stricken and malnourished people would try to flee the country for food and safety. Some might head south, but many would cross into neighboring China. This is the scenario that Beijing most dreads, and China might send its military to create a 50-mile-wide buffer zone to hold desperate North Korean citizens.

The United Nations' Blue Helmet peacekeeping forces would likely intervene to restore some stability, amid general panic and anarchy. "It could be the mother of all humanitarian relief operations," says former Army Special Forces Col. David Maxwell. Meanwhile, U.S. forces would race to gain control over the regime's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and try to prevent another dictatorial regime from rising.

A 2013 Rand Corp. study warned that U.S. troops crossing into the North might trigger a military confrontation with China. "If we intervene and the Chinese run into our people and if we run into their people, what are we going to do?" asks study author Bruce Bennett. "All of that needs to be really thought about seriously." South Korea's 'decapitation' unitSouth Korea recently unveiled its own "nuclear" weapon against its dreaded neighbor: an elite "decapitation unit" whose aim is to infiltrate the North and take down Kim.

In 1971, a similar kill squad was tasked with slitting the throat of Kim Il Sung, Jong Un's grandfather. Formed of thugs and street criminals, the bandit group rebelled over how it was treated, got into a firefight with South Korea's own soldiers, and was disbanded. The new decapitation unit is more professional, but faces long odds against success. First, Kim's assassins would have to make it into Pyongyang without detection, and then track down North Korea's elusive leader.

Finally, they'd have to overcome Kim's elite guards. All in all, says Leonid Petrov, a Korea expert from the Australian National University, "Kim is more likely to die of an overdose of expensive Cognac or cheese [than] from a South Korean bullet."

See Also: Screen Printing Classes Nyc

The first reason of latest computer screen savers is entertainment and from time to time even, protection. Nevertheless, they had been initially made to avert phosphor burn-in on plasma laptop displays also as CRT devices. Display screen savers served to prevent these unfavorable effects by immediately altering the pictures when the computer was not being used.

Allow me to notify you of a mind improving system I had stumbled upon right after loading an incredibly huge range of illustrations or photos into My Pictures file, which was automatically hooked, most likely like your pc established up, to my screen saver program. Soon after sitting down and viewing it one day, I pointed out how it spurred on my mind and elevated my spatial reasoning ahead of creating periods. It really served and i was amazed.

Robert Kelly is an American living in South Korea. As is well known to the more than 25 million viewers who've watched the hilarious video of his children bursting into his BBC interview, the Korea expert has a young family. While Kelly is sceptical that tensions over North Korea's nuclear program will lead to war, he and his wife regularly discuss what they will do if there is an attack by the North on Busan, where Kelly teaches at the city's university.

Play Video Don't Play Up Next Trump's health and cognitive ability tested Play Video Don't Play Video duration 01:39 More World News Videos Previous slide Next slide Missile risk to Australia low: ADF North Korea's new long-range missiles pose "very little risk" to Darwin or Cairns according to the Australian Defence Force. "With a young family I take it seriously and my wife and I talk about it whenever these things pop up – what to do, where to go, what to pack," he said.

Busan in the south would be in range of the North's ballistic missiles, including nukes. The THAAD shield system might stop some of them but not all. Tensions are running high on the Korean peninsula. Photo: AP There is no such protective shield to defend the capital Seoul against the rain of artillery and rockets that could be fired by the North from the demilitarised zone. In greater Seoul, which the North has threatened to turn into "a sea of fire" if it were ever attacked, there are an estimated 100,000 Americans living among the population of 25 million people.

The Trump factor If Donald Trump lost patience with the North's recalcitrance over its nuclear program and decided to launch a pre-emptive strike against the regime of Kim Jong-un, he would have to consider whether he wanted to see images of hundreds, maybe thousands of dead Americans on CNN on top of the tens of thousands of dead South Koreans. He could evacuate Americans en masse but that would signal an intention and the North would then probably launch pre-emptively anyway.

You will now receive updates from Breaking News Alert Breaking News Alert Get the latest news and updates emailed straight to your inbox. This is just part of the devilish difficulty that military planners face as they try to keep "all options on the table" as the Trump administration insists it is doing. Nobody is surprised by this language – diplomatic pressure is hardly persuasive without the ultimate threat of force to back it up.

The problem as Bruce Bennett, a Korea expert from the RAND Corporation, points out is that "there are no good military options". Photo gallery North Korea Crisis It would be a war unlike any seen in generations, indeed perhaps ever if it were to go nuclear, which is entirely possible since many of the top experts believe the North already has the ability to fit a miniaturised fission device onto a medium-range missile.

On paper, North Korea's military is the fourth-largest in the world, and US Defence Secretary James Mattis has said that "if this goes to a military solution, it's going to be tragic on an unbelievable scale". If it came to that, Australia would likely be involved. Under the 1953 armistice, Australia would as a signatory be expected to support South Korea if it was invaded by the North, some experts say.

Indeed the United Nations force based in Japan to support South Korea is currently commanded by an RAAF officer. A spokesman for Defence Minister Marise Payne would not comment on "hypotheticals about what Australia might do in the event of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula". But he said the Armistice agreement was "not a mutual defence agreement". Australian Strategic Policy Institute head Peter Jennings said that because of the US alliance and Australia's close economic relationship with South Korea, "we've got a big stake in the fight whether we like it or not".

For now, the ball is in the court of the US and its allies in the sense that the North is cheerfully moving ahead with its nuclear and missile testing, shifting the balance day by day and making the calculus more difficult for the international community. So what are the near-term options for the US, South Korea and their allies, such as Japan? One that is most often suggested is some kind of surgical strike to take out the North's nuclear and missile facilities as well as its other most-threatening military assets.

The problem with this is that it could not be done quickly or cleanly. Many of the nuclear sites and artillery and rocket batteries are dug into mountainsides and either hardened against attack or hidden. It would take days, probably weeks, and involve hundreds of strike aircraft and missiles such as Tomahawks fired from US ships in the Sea of Japan. Meanwhile the North would hit back with everything it had.

"People think we can fly in there or shoot some cruise missiles from the Sea of Japan and cleanly take them out," Kelly said. "It's not going to be like that. You're going to have to bomb the hell out of North Korea. That's not a surgical strike, that's a war. The notorious "Mother of All Bombs" that was dropped on the Taliban recently, Kelly says, was actually a signal to North Korea – a view shared by many experts.

That's the kind of firepower you'd be talking about, he says. Euan Graham, who once served as Britain's charge d'affaires in Pyongyang and now heads the Lowy Institute's international security program, has travelled through the area and makes the same observation about the North's batteries of artillery along the demilitarised zone that are aimed at Seoul just 40 kilometres away. "You see a little tunnel open at the base of a hill.

That would be extremely difficult to close down. You'd need precision strikes otherwise they could just keep going in and out and resupplying theoretically until they ran out of ammunition." The ability to rain artillery down on the South's capital is really Kim Jong-un's trump card. A 2012 Nautilus Institute report found that the North could fire 4000 rounds of artillery an hour, which could kill 64,000 people on the first day, mostly in the first three hours.

They would also likely target US military bases in South Korea and Japan. The US and its allies could also consider a limited punitive strike against the Kim regime, a way of telling it to stop its nuclear program or it can expect more of the same – something like what Trump did to the Syrian regime after its use of chemical weapons. But can a hermit dictatorship see the difference between a limited and an all-out strike? The Kim dynasty has always been regarded as rational and occupied first and foremost with its own survival, though the current dictator is more reckless and provocative than his father or grandfather.

But the regime is paranoid, experts agree. "An autocratic dictatorship like that is not socialised to trust or believe any kind of reassurances," said Daniel Pinkston, formerly with the International Crisis Group in Seoul and now at Troy University. "They're not going to believe we're committed to a limited operation … They're as likely to see it as the first stage of regime change and respond accordingly.

We'd need to be prepared to use more force in return so I don't see how you can credibly commit to a limited strike." The complex mechanism of deterrence and pre-emption between the North and South is a hair-trigger affair. Pulling the trigger first Late last year after seeing a string of nuclear tests by the North, Seoul unveiled a three-pillar policy to counter the threat. It consists of a "kill chain" system to carry out a pre-emptive strike against the nuclear facilities if the South is faced with an imminent threat, an air defence system to shoot down missiles and finally the "Korea massive punishment and retaliation plan" – whose name rather speaks for itself.

Bennett says this pulls both sides towards a tendency for "pre-emption of pre-emption" – jumping before the other side does. The North meanwhile has an inbuilt incentive to escalate because its strengths are its heavy artillery and missiles, ultimately its nukes, whereas its conventional land forces are a case of quantity rather than quality and its air force is antiquated. The South meanwhile has the US 8th Army's 2nd Infantry Division made up of American and Korean troops – including US special operations forces – backed up quickly by Marines from Okinawa.

The Lowy's Graham says that some kind of repeat of the 1950s Korean War is unlikely. A report last year from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies similarly said that the peninsula's mountainous terrain combined with marshland and rice fields would force heavily armoured forces to use a handful of predictable routes. That said, the North does have a large number of special forces troops and is thought to have dug tunnels under the DMZ through which troops could pour.

"The North would want to insert special forces deep into the South to wreak havoc and create problems, taking down the power grid or critical infrastructure … so that they might be able to create fear and undermine confidence in society," Pinkston said. But overall, experts agree, the North's land forces would struggle. And in fact it is the weakness in the conventional domain that creates the risk the regime would go from nought to 100 rapidly and use its comparative strengths in rockets and missiles, including nukes.

"What makes North Korea dangerous is its very weakness," said Graham. "It has no strategic depth, its conventional forces are no match for the [South Koreans] let alone the US and so there is the force of logic of escalation." This makes any idea of containment extremely difficult even if conflict starts from a simple miscalculation or accident. As Bennett put it: "You have a very low degree of crisis stability.

" And Pinkston added that "time is compressed because of the geographic proximity". In other words, with Seoul just 40 kilometres from the DMZ and Pyongyang about 135 kilometres from the zone, nobody has much time to think about how to respond in a crisis. There is a common thinking among experts who spoke to Fairfax Media that Pyongyang might subscribe to the old Cold War thinking of "use it or lose it" regarding its nuclear weapons.

Kim would know they are his enemies' prime target. "We have to assume that fairly early they are going to use them," Bennett said. The North also has large stockpiles of chemical and probably biological weapons. China's red line Where it gets "really interesting", Bennett continued, is in China's response. It is disconcertingly unclear because despite US efforts to sound Beijing out, the Chinese leadership has been reluctant to reveal where its own red lines are.

China needs North Korea as a buffer so that it doesn't have US or pro-American forces from South Korea on its own border. Therefore, Graham explains, a land occupation by the US north of the 38th parallel is generally seen as China's red line but then how far north is unclear. Pinkston says, "I can't see China sitting back and doing nothing". While the US and China would work hard to avoid some miscalculation between them, the thought of Chinese and US troops facing off even with a buffer between them would prickle nerves in the region.

The other real problem is that the options are getting worse rather than better for the US and its allies as the North nears its goal of being able to deliver nuclear warheads across great distances including to the continental US. The real question becomes how badly does the US want to stop North Korea from developing an intercontinental nuclear weapon that could could hit Los Angeles? Would the North use that new power to deter the US while it bullied the South or even tried to take it over? Opinions vary wildly on this.

Kelly, who says he's no dove on North Korea, believes the nukes are more for defence and says there is no way the basket-case north could try and take over the south. Graham by contrast has a bleaker view of the North's intent, saying Kim might use his new power to coerce the South and drive the US out altogether. Which position is right determines whether it might be better to act sooner rather than later whatever the consequences.

US senator Lindsey Graham for instance – an influential voice on security matters in Washington – is an advocate of acting sooner rather than later. If not, the US might despite all its rhetoric just have to live with a nuclear Korea. "The Pentagon's been thinking about this for years," Kelly said, in explaining why the US should abandon talk of military action. "There are people way smarter than me who've thought all of this through to 50 steps.

They know it all ends badly."

Wilma Lawrence

If you’re prepared to personalize your desktop or monitor saver, or are prepared on a regular basis than the usual photo wallpaper, a awesome screen saver is perfect for you.