Here's an old post I made on the subject,
That's one major difference of NK with most other "US-liberated" countries, that most analysts agree upon: there's no "pro-U.S." faction to speak of, and most people would rather blindly fight and die for their Dear Leader rather than face an uncertain destiny at the hand of a foreign agent. The North Korean people are not a rag-tag bunch of Gonzalez and Pedros that will just jump on the "winner's" bandwagon at the first gunshot, they operate with an entire different mindset.
Kontra Kommando said:
and support pro-U.S. factions there
Yeah, there are occasional defectors, but there's also a strong/blind party-centric support (or rather, an entire cosmotheory) revolving around the entire Juche personality cult and philosophy.
Good luck crippling a bunch of WW2-era technology trucks and tanks with some fancy EMP alone. And EMP won't stop a million regular troops from pulling the triggers on their very mechanical and very EMP-hardened AK-47s.
When that doesn't work, and a regime as belligerent as NK's continues to throw its military weight around, how about EMPing their tactical hotspots, crippling their weaponry without harming the bricks-and-mortar of the country or its people?
All military analyses about NK's attack dogma mention "all-out attacks" and human wave tactics, where the lowly Infantry is the "Queen of the Battlefield" like it was in WW II.
If anything, massive uses of EMP weaponry would cause greater collateral damage to the US "allies" (South Koreans) who rely on higher-tech weaponry. NK soldiers would just as cheerfully kill 10 US Marines for a bowl of rice with EMPs or without EMPs.
If the action indeed gets "hot", IMO there will be no nuking but just limited conventional warfare between NK and SK alone. The US will find some excuse not to intervene (at least not single sidedly, not even with conventional hit & run air raids), and wait for a UN resolution of some sort. After all, there's no oil to be gathered this time.
As hard as the tensions were in the Bipolar world of the Cold War, that tension had some advantages for the working class people, in particular in terms of worker's rights: almost all Western govt's, especially in Europe, were VERY eager to concede worker rights, social welfare, etc. so that the "worker paradises" of the Eastern Block wouldn't appear too appealing/preferable.
Several people said:
Once the Wall came down however, the world has turned very quickly into an -apparently- unpolarized neoliberalist "fair game" arena, which is undergoing a festering crisis as we speak. There is definitively an enemy here, but nobody knows where to find him, which also makes it hard to keep the masses down. Blaming it all on an abstract concept such as "neoliberalism" sounds too vague and unsatisfactory. From time to time, vague enemies such as "terrorists" or "undemocratic regimes" are indicated, but it seems they are not convincing enough in distracting people from much more real problems. Most people will care more about their unpaid bills than about a possible nuclear exchange in some place they've never been, and never will.
Last edited by Maes on Apr 6 2013 at 13:45