Vagabond, I don't doubt that the US could win a war against NK, but it will be far from an easy nut to crack.
If as in your scenario the US attacks to destroy the NK military, then that would require taking over the whole country as their facilites and military formations are scattered right throughout the country. Their most critical facilties are in the deep north of the country, requiring a march of several hundred km's or more.
Not to mention any US buildup would take time, giving the NK more time to prepare for a defensive war.

The longer the US supply lines the more vulnerable they will be to attack, add that with an advance on a narrow front ( they aren't capable of any more ), then there flanks can easily be attacked. Also as I have already said NK countryside is far different than the billiard table flat terrain of the desert where america has fought her recent wars.

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Originally posted by rogue1
As for villages, what do you think the Americans are going to do, completely ignore the raod system and bring their supllies in cross country ?

So now every small village in North Korea lies along a strategically vital highway? Get real my friend.

Umm , no but every NK road, highway etc will have villages dotted along them and cities. What do you think they just have roads with no population centers on it ? Kinda negates the building of roads doesn't it.

The worst case scenario predictive models and OPLANs equating to a conflict on the Korean peninsula project 100,000 to 400,000 casualties if you count North Korean, U.S., Japanese, and South Korean forces. Far more if China gets into the mix, of course.

While it is unlikely the worst case scenario would become a reality, the prospects are high that any way war on the Korean peninsula would be, at best, very bloody on at least one if not all sides.

It would be neither the protracted conflict some envision, nor the lightning fast surgical charge to Pyongyang as seen in the early days of the second Persian Gulf War when Baghdad was (thought to be) taken in a matter of days.

It would be a chaotic explosion of desperation on the part of North Korea, and a determined march by U.S. and allied forces leaving mass casualties (for all concerned) in it's wake.

A new Korean war would be a tragedy, and one that can still be avoided. When the dust settled, provided China was not a major or direct factor, North Korea would likely cease to exist. However, I pray it does not come to that. The standoff is still salvageable, and people should not be so quick to rush headlong into what would almost certainly be a brutal, if (relatively) brief, war.

Originally posted by rogue1
Not to mention any US buildup would take time, giving the NK more time to prepare for a defensive war.

You can only prepare so much when you're in Korea's shoes. At a certain point, they've done all they can do and all that's left is to await the inevitable.

The longer the US supply lines the more vulnerable they will be to attack, add that with an advance on a narrow front ( they aren't capable of any more ), then there flanks can easily be attacked.

We own the air and the sea. We neither have to get into the North by land alone nor do we need to supply by land alone. Furthermore the constricted nature of the battle space allows us to secure vital routes of transportation with relatively good economy of force.

Any settlements along the road do not need to be occupied as in Iraq. They can simply be destroyed.

Also as I have already said NK countryside is far different than the billiard table flat terrain of the desert where america has fought her recent wars.

The constraints of terrain do limit possible approaches but given tactical and technical superiority they are not an absolute barrier. If the North Koreans are by any means isolated from their fire support in any traversible area whatsoever we have a golden opportunity to concentrate force there and achieve a breakthrough which can be used to access their rear area and take yet more of their vital support from them. That's only on the ground.

Add in the fact that we have the ability to open up any section of their coastline that we wish and place US Marines within striking distance of any facility in North Korea virtually at will, with the support of our airborne, and the North Koreans are indeed in a precarious position.

All that is necessary to win such a war resoundingly is not to repeat the mistakes of Vietnam and Iraq. Go in heavy, be aggressive, pinpoint those aspects of enemy force structure which are most vital to their capabilities, then get the hell out without trying to occupy or achieve a total anhilation.

History has shown from time to time, especially in modern wars between tough-talking regional powers with Soviet style militaries and modern western forces, that things are not always what they seem. When the Commandant of the Marine Corps looked at the original battle plan for Desert Storm he said, "My God, it'll be another Tarawa." The plan was modified a bit and we ran right over the Iraqis.

A tough nut to crack is not necessarily slow to crack, it merely requires an optimum approach. I completely agree with you that if follow "Rumsfeld Doctine" also known as taking as little as 1/3 as many troops as are needed, going hey-diddle-diddle, right up the middle, trying to fight a kinder gentler war, occupying non-strategic locations, and making minimal effort towards force protection, then we are indeed looking at another Tarawa. If we fight smart, we will crush them. Casualties will probably still be high but progress could be quite swift. Modern armies don't measure their campaigns in the field in seasons or years anymore. They mesure them in weeks. The first side to make a mistake usually loses. The first side to do something truly brilliant usually wins. Let's not forget that the entire Yom Kippur War was was not fought on a billiard table. The Israelis outpositioned the Syrians and forced them out of the Golan Heights without much of a fight.