What would happen if we (conventionally) bombed NK?

[AN63093]

Don't we already have a pinned thread going on this?  Anyway, as I discussed in that thread (go there for my much longer analysis of the situation):

If a war breaks out, then it's over for the regime, it's just a matter of how long and how many casualties.  There's no doubt that the casualties would be significant, quite a bit more than the US Armed Forces is used to seeing since at least Vietnam, or even the prior Korean War.  But the US would certainly prevail.  I can't remember the source precisely, but while NK has a large number of forces, artillery pieces, and so on, a big problem for them is logistics; talking about supply, food, fuel, ammo, etc.  Their logistics capability is very unsophisticated compared to either the US or South Korea, and I recall reading that current estimates place NK's ability to sustain full operations for a shockingly low period of time.  I can't remember the exact amount, but it was like days or something like that.  NK just simply can't sustain total war for more than a short period before it basically has to revert to guerrilla tactics.

[AN63093]

Because, as the theory goes, it would not be able to be contained once it started, and would lead to a cycle of attack and counter-attack that, when further exacerbated by miscalculation, would eventually lead to an all-out war.

There was a great article in the Atlantic about this a little while ago, "How to Deal With North Korea" that discusses all the military options, including the limited strike route.  It's a long-read, so you'll have to set aside some time for it, but it's well worth it (incidentally, the Atlantic is one of the few sources out there that doesn't seem as prone to sensationalism and partisan tomfoolery, which is why I like it).

The section on limited strikes are discussed in part 2, "Turning the screws."  The article also discusses a "decapitation" strike against Kim, and what the consequences of that would be.

[AN63093]

I still wonder if China would ally themselves with North Korea.
Just like the first Korean War, the Chinese may not join with NK at first, but as war escalates and they ponder this outcome and that outcome, they may decide to defend NK.
If that happens, then China and the US nuke each other (both losers), and Russia wins.

I do think China would probably get involved in some fashion, but I think the risk of an actual nuclear exchange between the US/China is pretty low.

Beet and I have a back-and-forth going on this in the NK mega thread; I'll cut/paste the relevant portions so you don't have to suffer reading my long posts.

I think the risk of a greater strategic nuclear exchange with China is quite low in all scenarios, and comments suggesting such are a little over dramatic.  I don't think the conditions are quite right for sparking a great powder keg in the WW1 sense.. I've already typed long enough in this thread, so I won't go on that tangent, but suffice to say, the conditions are vastly different.  More likely, I think, is that China would get involved on the side of the US, so they could control as much of the North as possible and guarantee a seat at the table when hostilities die down, preferably with an eye towards installing a new client state in the North under Chinese control.  Sort of similar then, to the end of WW2 when the US and USSR were kinda/sorta allies, but not really, and we both had competing interests in how to divide up Germany.

on your point about Chinese escalation, I did read your reasoning, but I just don't find it that realistic.  You are right that China is not a perfect analogue of the USSR in WW2- that was a bit of a rough analogy, admittedly.  But I think it would also be incorrect to state China's involvement would be similar to that of the Korean War as well.  Consider that the US and China have a completely different relationship now than they did in the 50s, not to mention economic ties, trade, corporate entanglements, diplomatic relations, etc.

Yes, our respective armed forces would have fundamentally opposite interests.  That is true, but then again, so did the US/USSR in WW2, and that's why I brought that up as an example.  The war hadn't even ended yet by the time it had started to become clear that we were not going to agree on much when it came to how Germany was going to look going forward, and yet there was no confrontation over it (notwithstanding, of course, Patton's famous suggestion to the contrary, which by the way, he was not alone in his opinions at the time).

Of course, there is always the risk of an accident, you are right about that, but I think in the case of US/China, cooler heads would prevail.  We aren't friends, true, but we aren't enemies either.  We are kinda/sorta friends that tolerate each other because we have to, is maybe the best way to say it.  I think if there is a nuclear weapon used in Korea, the most likely scenario is that it is from Kim himself, perhaps as a retaliatory strike upon Seoul if he is attacked, or maybe as a 'last gasp' of his regime if he's about to lose the crown.