The Collapse of North Korea: Military Missions and Requirements

Abstract

In North Korea, the upcoming leadership transition in the Kim Jong-il regime will be a precarious time for the Kim family's hold on power. A collapse of the North Korean government could have several dangerous implications for East Asia, including “loose nukes,” a humanitarian disaster, a regional refugee crisis, and potential escalation to war between China and the United States. To respond to a collapse and these problems, neighboring countries may perform several military missions to stabilize North Korea. These include the location and securing of North Korean weapons of mass destruction, stability operations, border control, conventional disarmament, and combat/deterrence operations. Assuming that collapse occurs in a relatively benign manner, military missions to stabilize North Korea could require 260,000 to 400,000 troops. If collapse occurs after a war on the peninsula, or if it sparks civil war in North Korea, the number of missions—and their requirements—would grow. Because of the size and complexity of these missions, and because of the perils associated with mismanaging them, advance and combined planning is essential. Combined planning should include those actors (e.g., China, South Korea, and the United States) that could otherwise take destabilizing action to protect their own interests.

A cultural neuroscience perspective on North Korean strategic culture

“…), prodemocratic literature, international news stories, and new technologies, it is possible to slowly liberalize the country from below, open up the closed group mentality of the population, and challenge the cultural and ethnic chauvinism promoted by the regime. While complete regime collapse is an unlikely scenario, one with an entire set of additional problems attached, 240 the United States and its allies can encourage bottom-up cultural and societal shifts in North Korean society that weaken the regime’s influence and authority to the point that it has no choice but to negotiate with the outside world on arms control. That is, in order to effectively address internal instability, the regime would need to find solutions to external pressures.…”

U.S. Military Capabilities and Forces for a Dangerous World: Rethinking the U.S. Approach to Force Planning

“…41 Bennett and Lind, 2011. 42 Bennett and Lind, 2011. It should be noted that the rules of thumb by which these numbers were calculated are less than precise.…”