my understanding that though no offical surrender took place both countries remain offically at war, the US 2nd divison based in korea is battle hardened with recent tours in afgad, much of the north korean equipment is old but they do out number the south at 5 to 1, the question is should this kick off would we see the same issue happen again as did in the early period of the last war! how quickly can the UN countries provide the military support! and would china support north korea again as they did before!!
North korea v South Korea and UN
- Thread starter bonehead
- Start date
Yes the two countries are still technically at war. Regardless of the fact that NK outnumbers SK 5 to 1, the South is much more advanced. However if push came to shove I would expect the North to simply nuke the South.
I think the over-riding concern for China in all this, is if NK collapses the amount of refugees that would stream across it's border would be for it untenable. Furthermore if China were seen to lose out on all this, it would be seen as a victory for the South and the USA (in terms of foreign relations).
Another point to consider is that the North can barely feed and take care of its people in peace time and along with this fuel shortages within the country would help the mobilisation of armed forces on the ground. I read somewhere that NATO pilots have 150 hours under their belts in flying time, per year? I don't know if it's per year, I would assume it is, and the NK air force have 7 hours flying time.
Finally just to conclude, the media say that or at least give the impression that the troops in NK are loyal to the leader, but in battle how hard will they fight? I guess there will be a sizeable number who will just surrender.
I think the over-riding concern for China in all this, is if NK collapses the amount of refugees that would stream across it's border would be for it untenable. Furthermore if China were seen to lose out on all this, it would be seen as a victory for the South and the USA (in terms of foreign relations).
Another point to consider is that the North can barely feed and take care of its people in peace time and along with this fuel shortages within the country would help the mobilisation of armed forces on the ground. I read somewhere that NATO pilots have 150 hours under their belts in flying time, per year? I don't know if it's per year, I would assume it is, and the NK air force have 7 hours flying time.
Finally just to conclude, the media say that or at least give the impression that the troops in NK are loyal to the leader, but in battle how hard will they fight? I guess there will be a sizeable number who will just surrender.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
I seriously doubt Pyonyang has a deliverable (and survivable) nuclear capability. Detonating a bomb is one thing, having one which is small enough and rugged enough to actually be used as a weapon? Priceless.
Not to mention eventiually they'd border a prosperous, powerfull, united Korea which also happens to be a close American allie. Not a great outcome.
I dont think the North can seriously sustain high intencity mechanised warfare for more than a week.
if the war were to kick off now. there is no way Australia would be nuked north Korea lacks that capability...
from the nuclear devices that the north has detonated, none of them have been militarily usable(other than strapping them to a large truck and driving to the target) or all that successful either.
and i believe the north is incapable of conducting lightning war resulting in the capture of the entire peninsular on any time scale at this time...
Last edited:
I dont know if the north would realy consider massive mechanized assaults the territory realy isnt for it its not europe . However the south is more suited to it due to their infrastructure,
but i think infiltration tactics would be used by the north followed by defense in depth if they went on the defensive .(although i read a report saying it would be mechanized spearheads by the north however i the north wont fight like that they would lose if they did)
the key variables are
who would have the will to fight
what equipment does the north actually have and at what level
how effective is the norths supply line and underground facilities ( realy big variable here )
international involvement
the terrain
but remember regardless of who you are you DONT actually know who would win
i dont know who would win ive put my opinion down but it could swing either way
people will have different opinions . The south Korean armed forces actually dont think they could defeat the north on their own and the north dont think they could defeat the south ( according to the defectors)
and finally there wont be a war because there never will be its just naughty north korea getting a slap on the wrist.
(also a unification of north and south at the present could well collapse the economies of both due to the disparity between both states )
but i think infiltration tactics would be used by the north followed by defense in depth if they went on the defensive .(although i read a report saying it would be mechanized spearheads by the north however i the north wont fight like that they would lose if they did)
the key variables are
who would have the will to fight
what equipment does the north actually have and at what level
how effective is the norths supply line and underground facilities ( realy big variable here )
international involvement
the terrain
but remember regardless of who you are you DONT actually know who would win
i dont know who would win ive put my opinion down but it could swing either way
people will have different opinions . The south Korean armed forces actually dont think they could defeat the north on their own and the north dont think they could defeat the south ( according to the defectors)
and finally there wont be a war because there never will be its just naughty north korea getting a slap on the wrist.
(also a unification of north and south at the present could well collapse the economies of both due to the disparity between both states )
1. The North does not outnumber the South 5 to 1. It has about twice as many men in its standing army, but when both sides call out their reserves, the numbers equalise. The south has twice the population of the north. The ratio of equipment (tanks, artillery, etc.) is far less, e.g. tanks, where the ratio is 1.5:1 (but the south has much higher quality), artillery (2:1), & submarines (2:1 - but the south's are greatly superior). In some areas, the south has superior numbers, & it has superior quality in almost all areas.
All good points. South Korea is, of course, nothing to do with NATO, but its pilots fly as many hours as the NATO norm: I've seen 180 hours per year quoted. North Korea can't fly its aircraft enough for its pilots to get many hours in the air. Most of the aircraft are very old (most are older than their pilots), & airframe hours must be limited to keep them usable. Fuel shortages are probably also a factor.
Most of the North's reserves & militia are immobile, lacking transport to move either themselves or the supplies they'd need. The North doesn't have much civilian transport which can be requisitioned, except for railways, which are extremely easy to interdict from the air.
I believe that North Korea would never use nuclear weapons if it had the capability to deliver them. The consequences would be devastating. The North would cease to exist after a swift response from allied countries.
Furthermore, the Blitzkrieg tactic only works for highly developed countries with great logistics. Let me ask you something. If North Korea implements the Blitzkrieg tactic, and they move 10 miles inland, how are they going to resupply their troops? South Korean and allied planes would bomb the supply routes to cut them off and choke off the attack.
Let just say, for the sake of argument, that North Korea decides to attack the South with your so called Blitzkrieg invasion. First of all, U.S. spy satellites and thermo imaging would notice the large build up of equipment, and troops at the border. The U.S. and South Korea would then build up a larger defense around the border in the case of an attack. When using the Blitzkrieg tactic, you need wide open spaces with little to no obstacles to slow the advance. This worked well for the Germans in WWII and the U.S. in Iraq. At the border, not only do you have rough terrain and mountains, but rivers, trees, and a field of land mines and defense measures to slow any advance down. Sure, the North can use roads that connect the two countries, but that would put your troops, equipment, and supplies in a pinch…….an easy target for an airstrike.
I really don’t think that North Korea has the equipment, or the technology to implement a Blitzkrieg tactic at all.
I want to be clear here. I don’t know any special people with “Top Secret” info……..I’m just using logic and my humble opinion.
Cheers!
first of the north does not use blitzkrieg it cant if it it does the north will fail if there was ever a war it would be ...
INFILTRATION and DEFENCE IN DEPTH tactics
Does anyone have any information about the underground infrastructure because i think that's what the north has been developing (see incursion tunnels) and if they do have them and its well camouflaged they could quite easily move troops in an underground system to get them to the front or beyond .
INFILTRATION and DEFENCE IN DEPTH tactics
Does anyone have any information about the underground infrastructure because i think that's what the north has been developing (see incursion tunnels) and if they do have them and its well camouflaged they could quite easily move troops in an underground system to get them to the front or beyond .
If that’s true, and we might have an idea about them here on this forum, wouldn’t the U.S., and North Korea also know about them and use ground penetrating radar to locate them just like they do on the U.S./ Mexico border? Also, how many troops could you effectively move through these tunnels and equipment?
Please keep in mind that I know that many illegal immigrants enter the U.S. with these tunnels, however, the U.S. military is not keeping tabs on them, but U.S. Immigration/ Border Customs, which is lacking man power and funding.
Please forgive me Toby, but are we talking about tunnels under the DMZ to the North's side, or tunnels that go under North Korea to the DMZ?
Sorry!!
Cheers
Technology “IS” everything!!! I would take a machine gun over sword any day in a fight!
Saying technology is not everything, is like saying a P-51 Mustang has a good chance at winning against an F-22 in an air to air battle.
What proven tactics does North Korea have? If your best answer is that they will bombard the South with missiles and artillery to win, then you have another thing coming.
North Korea has no chance defeating an advance military in cyber warfare. South Korea, and the U.S. is way to advanced in technology and has systems in place to counter any sort of an attack. Plus North Korea can’t even barley put a satellite into space let alone jam them.
Thermo imaging would be used to locate any mass build up of troops, tanks, ect, in a specific area. Al-Qaeda hides in cave in the mountain sides in which they can’t be detected. That’s why they hide in their little caves like cowards, because they know that “TECHNOLOGY” will find them and kill them!!
If you think assassinating a leader would bring troop moral down, then what do you think would happen if someone assassinated Kim?
Cheers
to bk101 , both im sure they must have a underground infrastructure how much of it we can detect i dont know ,however its interesting to know the latest tunnel was only found after a defector told the south about it. (but that was 20 years ago technology have improved alot since ) however i believe they may have other tunnels or be planning other tunnels and an underground infrastructure in the north. We know they have an underground infrastructure (see a guide to north korea ) we just dont know what extent or how well fortified.
to cof
i dont think the north has superior tactics they lack the ability for complex maneuvers
im going to explain a couple of military doctrines the last one is my weakness to any DA's please edit my post if ive got it wrong.
BLITZKRIEG
relies on force concentration (lots of tanks and mechanized /motorized supporting units)
uses spearheads or focal points)
also a key factor is air superiority and close air support
also requires good communications to move units about in good cohesion
also requires good supply system to maintain and good terrain for rapid mobility
INFILTRATION
relies on light infantry assaults infiltrating and encircling strong points
then heavier units finish of the strong points ( in north koreas case the elite or armoured units)
uses alot of artillery support
DEFENCE IN DEPTH
uses an elastic frontline with a large amount of reserves
when the frontline is penetrated the enemy are allowed to penetrate to an extent before the reserves drive the enemy back (useful when you have a large amount of forces)
NETWORK ENABLED CAPABILITY (practically the same as network centric warfare)
the british version of
uses use of c4istar to make sure that you have enough forces in the right place but not to much forces in british terms just enough just in time ( army says never gets their in time
)
basically highly advanced network centric maneuver warfare and co ordination between all branches with an increased awereness of the battlespace
also technology isnt everything
like i said the will to fight and military culture are the most important issues
from what ive gathered the south has a poor military culture and a reliance on the united states.
the north has either low moral according to robert kaplan or fanatical moral due the indoctrination .
however the technological gap may be to great.
to cof
i dont think the north has superior tactics they lack the ability for complex maneuvers
im going to explain a couple of military doctrines the last one is my weakness to any DA's please edit my post if ive got it wrong.
BLITZKRIEG
relies on force concentration (lots of tanks and mechanized /motorized supporting units)
uses spearheads or focal points)
also a key factor is air superiority and close air support
also requires good communications to move units about in good cohesion
also requires good supply system to maintain and good terrain for rapid mobility
INFILTRATION
relies on light infantry assaults infiltrating and encircling strong points
then heavier units finish of the strong points ( in north koreas case the elite or armoured units)
uses alot of artillery support
DEFENCE IN DEPTH
uses an elastic frontline with a large amount of reserves
when the frontline is penetrated the enemy are allowed to penetrate to an extent before the reserves drive the enemy back (useful when you have a large amount of forces)
NETWORK ENABLED CAPABILITY (practically the same as network centric warfare)
the british version of
uses use of c4istar to make sure that you have enough forces in the right place but not to much forces in british terms just enough just in time ( army says never gets their in time
) basically highly advanced network centric maneuver warfare and co ordination between all branches with an increased awereness of the battlespace
also technology isnt everything
like i said the will to fight and military culture are the most important issues
from what ive gathered the south has a poor military culture and a reliance on the united states.
the north has either low moral according to robert kaplan or fanatical moral due the indoctrination .
however the technological gap may be to great.
Guys, seriously, you need to do some reading.
Just a few points - Technology is certainly not everything. There have been plenty of instances of well trained pilots in 'inferior' aircraft shooting down much flasher equipment. I can probably predict that a P51 could out turn an F-22 - if the F22 pilot was stupid enough to get into a turning 'dogfight' and the F22 was in a very low energy state there is no reason why the P51 couldn't make a F22 kill.
Guys, the truth is that training, technology, how the sytems are used all play a significant part in the air battle (or sea or land). You cannot make a blanket statement that just because a nation has a particular piece of equipment, that is more advanced that it will prevail over another.
It has been said the the NorKor pilots get as little as 7 hours per year in the air in their aircraft - in any western airforce that would not be sufficient to maintain even the basic skills such as take-offs, landings and level flight. How do you think they are going to go against the SouKor pilots that average 150 hours per year?
How the hell do you attack an enemy using defence in depth as your chief tactic? Please do some research on terminology before using throw away lines.
The type of war in Afghanistan is very simple to win. The US and coalition forces just need to seal the borders and kill everybody in the country. Now, obviously that's patently ridiculous and will never happen. Despite the fact that they are fighting an enemy with nothing more technologically advanced that an IED and the humble Kalashnikov and RPG, does not mean that victory should be simple. This type of counter insurgency warfare is actually the most difficult to win as there is no established front line and your enemy dresses like and integrates with the local population through fear and the threat of retribution. In Vietnam, basic counter insurgency tactics were far more effective than when the North decided they would engage the US forces in open conventional warfare such as during the TET offensive. Then the US were able to use their superior equipment and control of the air to comprehensively defeat the North Vietnamese actions. Arguably the US could have won the war from that point but the tide of public opinion had changed.
As to the taleban 'hacking' a video feed from a UAV - the video was not encrypted at all and was being broadcast down to the ground unencrypted. As to the UAV being 'hacked' they did not control the UAV and could not change a damned thing - all they could do is get an idea of what the video on the UAV was looking at. Hardly 'hacked', and as the vulnerability has been identified and a fix implemented, the taleban can no longer do that.
"from what ive gathered the south has a poor military culture and a reliance on the united states."
Really? Then they are deluding themselves. With the end of the cold war, the US has dropped the requirement to be able to fight two conventional wars as was the policy in the 60's, 70's and 80's. As the US is currently very engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, where do you think they will be able to get sufficient troops to be the backbone of any attack/defence in Korea? I believe the US has what a division stationed there? Obviously there are forces in the region that could be added but any long term campaign could not be sustained as well as AFG?Iraq. That isn't a huge capability compare to the numbers presently in the opposing Korean armies.
The Souh Koreans as far as I'm aware do not have a 'poor military culture', (please post some proof that a credible assessment has found this)they are a modern, well equipped well trained defence force. Rememer, this is their homeland we are talking about I would say any defence to a northern attack would be very tenacious.
Chief, yes, there are tunnels that would allow troops to get past the border, these could be countered by simply pulling your forces and civillians back a few km's. I'm guessing here but the tunnels would not be longer than say 5km, anybody forward of this new defensive line is enemy. Simple. The much vaunted tunnels are therefore negated.
The South will gain Air superiority relatively quickly over the north. Interdiction can then occur to the Norths supply lines and reserves. The North would not be resupplied militarily by China, particularly if they initiated the assault. The North lacks the industrial capacity to replace losses whereas the south definately does not and would be resupplied by the US. The North would probably attempt to use sheer weight of numbers which would mean that the conflict would be extremely bloody (mainly for the north). In the end we have a regime that has an army,navy and airforce composed of mainly obselete or obselescent equipment, operated by soldier/sailors and airmen that would not get the same advanced simulator training, or even probably the ability to train with the systems they are equipped with (even such things as track km for armoured vehicles is very expensive). I can only forsee the South 'winning' any battle although it would very much be a phyrric victory.
Just a few points - Technology is certainly not everything. There have been plenty of instances of well trained pilots in 'inferior' aircraft shooting down much flasher equipment. I can probably predict that a P51 could out turn an F-22 - if the F22 pilot was stupid enough to get into a turning 'dogfight' and the F22 was in a very low energy state there is no reason why the P51 couldn't make a F22 kill.
Guys, the truth is that training, technology, how the sytems are used all play a significant part in the air battle (or sea or land). You cannot make a blanket statement that just because a nation has a particular piece of equipment, that is more advanced that it will prevail over another.
It has been said the the NorKor pilots get as little as 7 hours per year in the air in their aircraft - in any western airforce that would not be sufficient to maintain even the basic skills such as take-offs, landings and level flight. How do you think they are going to go against the SouKor pilots that average 150 hours per year?
How the hell do you attack an enemy using defence in depth as your chief tactic? Please do some research on terminology before using throw away lines.
The type of war in Afghanistan is very simple to win. The US and coalition forces just need to seal the borders and kill everybody in the country. Now, obviously that's patently ridiculous and will never happen. Despite the fact that they are fighting an enemy with nothing more technologically advanced that an IED and the humble Kalashnikov and RPG, does not mean that victory should be simple. This type of counter insurgency warfare is actually the most difficult to win as there is no established front line and your enemy dresses like and integrates with the local population through fear and the threat of retribution. In Vietnam, basic counter insurgency tactics were far more effective than when the North decided they would engage the US forces in open conventional warfare such as during the TET offensive. Then the US were able to use their superior equipment and control of the air to comprehensively defeat the North Vietnamese actions. Arguably the US could have won the war from that point but the tide of public opinion had changed.
As to the taleban 'hacking' a video feed from a UAV - the video was not encrypted at all and was being broadcast down to the ground unencrypted. As to the UAV being 'hacked' they did not control the UAV and could not change a damned thing - all they could do is get an idea of what the video on the UAV was looking at. Hardly 'hacked', and as the vulnerability has been identified and a fix implemented, the taleban can no longer do that.
"from what ive gathered the south has a poor military culture and a reliance on the united states."
Really? Then they are deluding themselves. With the end of the cold war, the US has dropped the requirement to be able to fight two conventional wars as was the policy in the 60's, 70's and 80's. As the US is currently very engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, where do you think they will be able to get sufficient troops to be the backbone of any attack/defence in Korea? I believe the US has what a division stationed there? Obviously there are forces in the region that could be added but any long term campaign could not be sustained as well as AFG?Iraq. That isn't a huge capability compare to the numbers presently in the opposing Korean armies.
The Souh Koreans as far as I'm aware do not have a 'poor military culture', (please post some proof that a credible assessment has found this)they are a modern, well equipped well trained defence force. Rememer, this is their homeland we are talking about I would say any defence to a northern attack would be very tenacious.
Chief, yes, there are tunnels that would allow troops to get past the border, these could be countered by simply pulling your forces and civillians back a few km's. I'm guessing here but the tunnels would not be longer than say 5km, anybody forward of this new defensive line is enemy. Simple. The much vaunted tunnels are therefore negated.
The South will gain Air superiority relatively quickly over the north. Interdiction can then occur to the Norths supply lines and reserves. The North would not be resupplied militarily by China, particularly if they initiated the assault. The North lacks the industrial capacity to replace losses whereas the south definately does not and would be resupplied by the US. The North would probably attempt to use sheer weight of numbers which would mean that the conflict would be extremely bloody (mainly for the north). In the end we have a regime that has an army,navy and airforce composed of mainly obselete or obselescent equipment, operated by soldier/sailors and airmen that would not get the same advanced simulator training, or even probably the ability to train with the systems they are equipped with (even such things as track km for armoured vehicles is very expensive). I can only forsee the South 'winning' any battle although it would very much be a phyrric victory.
jesus christ i never said they would attack using defence in depth.
DEFENCE in depth would be if the south attacked the north or if the north got bogged down in attrition warfare and had to go on the defencive
Like i said they would attack using infiltration tactics because that's all the north could pull of.
Its obvious i have researched my "throw away lines" read my definitions and if you have anymore questions feel free to comment on my wall and i will explain them.( my explanation of network centric warfare is based along the british version of .. its a similar doctrine but i know that doctrine more than the american version)
and i got my opinion that the south had a poor military culture and is reliant on america
because there high command don't believe they can defeat the north on their own hence there military build up under this government
A south korean on this forum was telling us about how moral is low
draft dodging is a problem is the south and according to ( abit of a rubish source) reuters
life is harsh and pay is miniscule (but this might be an exaggeration) so people cant get real careers because there busy in the armed forces this must damage moral. (although i think you can defer for educational reasons)
Although apparently it is seen as a sacred duty by some
DEFENCE in depth would be if the south attacked the north or if the north got bogged down in attrition warfare and had to go on the defencive
Like i said they would attack using infiltration tactics because that's all the north could pull of.
Its obvious i have researched my "throw away lines" read my definitions and if you have anymore questions feel free to comment on my wall and i will explain them.( my explanation of network centric warfare is based along the british version of .. its a similar doctrine but i know that doctrine more than the american version)
and i got my opinion that the south had a poor military culture and is reliant on america
because there high command don't believe they can defeat the north on their own hence there military build up under this government
A south korean on this forum was telling us about how moral is low
draft dodging is a problem is the south and according to ( abit of a rubish source) reuters
life is harsh and pay is miniscule (but this might be an exaggeration) so people cant get real careers because there busy in the armed forces this must damage moral. (although i think you can defer for educational reasons)
Although apparently it is seen as a sacred duty by some
Big claim pal. Proof? I just googled for the past 20 minutes trying to find any evidence that the US was about to go to war with NorKor in 1994, and got nothing. Arguably the US military is and was the most powerful force on the planet. A force that was designed to defeat the Warpac armies could not win a war against NorKor? As I said - big claim, where's the proof?
No, please post a link.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stop dodging requests for sources! Please, you claimed that in 1994 the US was about to go to war with NK and they ran simulations. It is in your hands to enlighten us. I too couldn't find anything that supports your claim. Until you provide some sources that proof your claim you're nothing but an annoyance.
BTW, the US military would be a bad one if they hadn't plans for all eventualities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Nobody is talking about a bloody defeat of SK and the US in this document.
Not that it won't be bloody but there is little evidence for the North's ability to quickly conquer the Korean peninsula without the US being able to reinforce the ROK troops.
Not that it won't be bloody but there is little evidence for the North's ability to quickly conquer the Korean peninsula without the US being able to reinforce the ROK troops.
I was stationed in the ROK in 90-91 during the 1st Gulf War. Kim Il Sung had threatened to invade the south if the coalition forces went into Kuwait to evict the Iraqis. Given that a significant portion of US air and ground power was busy at the time, it was a concerning threat. I was sitting a concrete bunker in the DMZ less than 500m from the military demarcation line when the air war kicked off. Needless to say - it was a long night. In a few days it became clear that North wasn't going to make good their threats (much to everyone's relief). A couple of months later I was talking with our Company Fire Support Officer about how screwed we would have been if the North had chosen that moment to invade, and he told me that the US plan was to counter any invasion in the Western Corridor with a tactical nuclear strike against NK forces (as they backed up behind the Imjin River) from the alert 155m battery at firebase 4 Papa 3. Which would have really sucked since if the NK hadn't managed to kill all of us north of river yet, we would had some serious nuke blue on blue. But hey - you pays your money, you takes your chances!
Anyways - If the NK did manage to somehow build a deliverable nuclear device, and actually use it on the south, I suspect the US would have little option but to nuke something in NK - if not a few somethings. Since no-one wants that, least of all NK, I doubt they will ever use their nuclear capability - it's useful to them as a threat to hold over the heads of the ROK or Japan, but not as an actual weapon, since it's would almost certainly bring about their destruction.
The big "if" is would the use of chemical weapons on the ROK elicit the same response? The current US administration has changed the US policy on first use of nukes. Previously the US made no distinction between chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - gas us, we nuke you.
Now I don't think that chemical weapons are an automatic nuke trigger.
Adrian
Anyways - If the NK did manage to somehow build a deliverable nuclear device, and actually use it on the south, I suspect the US would have little option but to nuke something in NK - if not a few somethings. Since no-one wants that, least of all NK, I doubt they will ever use their nuclear capability - it's useful to them as a threat to hold over the heads of the ROK or Japan, but not as an actual weapon, since it's would almost certainly bring about their destruction.
The big "if" is would the use of chemical weapons on the ROK elicit the same response? The current US administration has changed the US policy on first use of nukes. Previously the US made no distinction between chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - gas us, we nuke you.
Now I don't think that chemical weapons are an automatic nuke trigger.
Adrian
Ananda
The Bunker Group
South Koreans can Hold on on their own
Why all this fuzz about what US can do, will do, or won't do in case Kim Jong Il suddenly decided to go south ? Frankly speaking even without the existing US forces in the ground, South Korea can and have much higher probability to win this war anyway on their own.
Why all this fuzz about what US can do, will do, or won't do in case Kim Jong Il suddenly decided to go south ? Frankly speaking even without the existing US forces in the ground, South Korea can and have much higher probability to win this war anyway on their own.
That may be the case - but the scenario I was outlining in post was the US using tactical nuclear weapons against North Korean Troop concentrations in the open. Because of the Korean peninsula's geography, there are two "invasion corridors" that run North - South through the mountains. The "Western Corridor" runs along the west coast from Panmunjom, across the Imjin River to Seoul. The Western Corridor is heavily mined and bisected by numerous anti-tank walls, ditches, and "rock drops". These obstacles, along with the Imjin river (which at the time had 1 very narrow bridge across it) formed a significant barrier which the North Korean Army would have to negotiate. The plan in '91 as I understand it, was as the North Korean forces backed up behind these obstacles, tactical nukes combined with conventional air power would be used to shatter the immobile North Korean troop concentrations.
The US W48 155mm Tactical Nuclear Weapon had a yield of 72 tons of TNT, so it was pretty small as nukes go, but I can imagine that having 6 of them drop on your units trying to bridge a major river would be ugly. Especially since since you're also getting hammered by conventional artillery, and air strikes at the same time.
According to the nuclear information project: US Nuclear Weapons in Korea there were ~100 nukes in South Korea when they were finally withdrawn in Dec 1991.
There were still M110 8" SP Howitziers in Korea in 1991, so it's not unreasonable to assume some of the nukes were 8" W33 (which remained in service until 1992). These had a yield of between .5 - 40 KT depending on the version, which would have been much nastier than the .072 KT W48.
Adrian