Talk:Korea (1983: Doomsday)

Does anyone know what happened to Korea post-1983?

General_tiu
 * It was briefly mentioned a while ago, basically all that was agreed on was that it escaped doomsday impact free, and that likely the north or the south invaded the other and there is likely a unified Korea at this point. What wasn't decided was who invaded who, what the outcome of that war was, who is in control, etc. I personally would think it likely that with US forces stationed there, and the sorry state of North Korea, fallout from china blowing into the north, etc. the south would emerge victorious. If this is the outcome, this would leave Korea as a major power in Asia, a world tech leader, and the major manufacturing power of the world with Japan going isolationist(Samsung, LG, Hyundai, Daewoo).--Oerwinde 10:14, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait Korea would be impact free? I must have missed this discussion, what would be the reasons for them both being missed? There are a lot of American forces in South Korea, seems odd that they wouldn't be targets. Mitro 17:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a long discussion. I think its on archive page 7. Basically, someone pointed out that Korea didn't have any nuked points on the map. This was back before the map was deemed unreliable. Someone brought up that with everything else falling apart, one of the two sides would have invaded the other and Korea would likely be unified at this point. As Neither North nor South Korea have nukes, and both are pretty much concerned only with each other, the likelyhood of either being nuked didn't seem high to me. Once the idea of a unified Korean state in an impact free zone was established, Ben piped in on how it was a good idea. Then it was archived. Not a real discussion I suppose. I don't think its unrealistic that the Koreas escape impact free, for the reasons above, but a unification war would likely be long and bloody.Oerwinde 03:56, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

especially as china is described as falling completely apart--- I would think that the fall of North Korea would happen not so much from a US/south Korean invasion as from a Chinese invasion. it also says in the siberia article that one goal of the bombing of China was to maintain soviet control in the area--- with that kind of a mentality, the one US hold on that part of the continent would recieve some sort of treatment. could a community surivive---yes. will it be a Tiawan sheltered island that rebuilds "impact free". there is going to be some blood and loss of infrastucture and some hard political descisions.

Ok, previous discussion was more like the beginning of a discussion, here is what was in the archive:

Oerwinde 21:03, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

Initial Discussion
Here's something to start the ball rolling. Korea. Jnjaycpa 03:51, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now see I would think one or both of the Koreas would be targets. It goes back to the discussion on . As Fx said, both the US and USSR would likely target each others client states/allies. South Korea falls into this category easily. Now North Korea is a little questionable, especially since they were nuetral in the whole Sino-Soviet split, but it is hard for me to imagine that no one pointed a nuke at Pyongyang in the 1980s. Mitro 03:59, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought--- we keep on speaking of the ICBM's as "nukes". however, one ICBM in 1983 would have held a dozen or more warheads. I don't know the area limit on the delivery of a single missle, but their deffinately is one, which means strikes will have happened in clusters. the USSR hits mulitple targets on both sides of south korea, so unless strikes are much more limited than we think (and I couldn't find any estimations on the spread of the weapons for any time period), it would only take one or two war heads that would otherwise be sent to china or japan. The US also sent ICBM's to the area to knock out the russian naval stations in the area. however, though this is historical, I don't know that the idea is built into the time line right now My opinion is that Seol is deffinately hit, no question, possibly another strike with a military objective. I think Pyongyang would be hit, if only over the sore point that seol was hit, but if someone wants to give a good reason why no one hits what would be come the largest surviving city north of mexico city, probably by double, then fine. Also, as war is started, the troops won't "seize the chance", they will "fight the war".



and is this new korea page is this a "I'm starting this project" or "start putting stuff in please"? Desert viking 05:47, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so I did up a quick map showing possible nuclear targets in South Korea. Seoul, being the capital and the headquarters of the US army and navy in S.Korea will be a likely hit. Pyeongtaek has the US air force HQ in Korea, Gunsan the other major air force base. And the southern target is the US navy base in Chinhae(Jinhae). I doubt Pyongyang would get nuked as retaliation for Seoul, as A)N. Korea is aligned with China, not the USSR, B)By the time Seoul was hit the US likely already launched. And by the time word got back and a retalitory strike was ordered, the people ordering the strike would be dead.

So lets say N. Korea takes the opportunity to invade S.Korea. We would have a severely weakened N.Korea due to economic sanctions etc. With a population that is ruled by fear. Invading a severely weakened but much more advanced south. With pretty much all of the US forces in Korea taken out, as well as the chaos of the nukes, the N. Koreans would steamroller over the S.Koreans at first, but the remaining S.Korean forces eventually rally, backed up by conscripts and volunteers, and begin to push the Northerners back. Once they push back into the North, you have two possibilities, either the North digs in and we have a stalemate, or the people take the opportunity to rise up against North Korean rule and join the south in what they think will be greater freedom and prosperity, leading to a joint S.Korean/N. Korean Resistance invasion, eventually leading to a unified Korea. The south Korean provisional government sets up in Pyongyang as it has functioning government facilities, and the next years are spent rebuilding, re-connecting with the outside world, and bringing N.Korea up to S.Korea's level. Lets say N. Korea pushes all the way down to about the mid point of S.Korea by mid 1984. S. Korea rallys and pushes them back to the border by 1988, then pushes into the north and takes Pyongyang by mid 1989. 1990-2000 is spent rebuilding and re-establishing foreign relations. 2000-Present bringing some of N.Korea up to S.Korea's level. Unlike most western nations not all of the major companies are concentrated on one or two cities, so S.Korea would still have some pretty major industrial capability, and once it emerges from recovery would still be a major economic powerhouse in asia.

Or not.Oerwinde 08:20, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * If North Korea is allied with China then its likely the USSR would hit them along with China as they did in the TL. Mitro 12:15, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * They had a "treaty of friendship" with China, in which China pledged to defend them against their enemies, and close economic ties with the USSR. Basically they were friendly with both. I don't think the USSR would hit them. Its a possibility the US might hit them just for being communist though.Oerwinde 12:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

the US military doctrine was MAD--they wouldn't wait for Seol to be bombed to retaliate.--- and considering distances from russia, seol would be hit before anything outside of europe. at any rate,I still think north Korea's biggest problem is going to be a Chinese refuge invasion. The way I see it happen, the North gets one bomb to Pyongyang (hey, we don't even have to decide who launched it--- they're dead and no where near Korea, the south gets most of its US bases nuked, and the North invades down the south. However, it proves unable to fight a two front war (keep out the refuges) and maintain control of the population. It takes major losses, and a couple of generals defect to the south because of its superior position (one front instead of two), causing much of the rest of the country to join the south as well forming a joint Korea that is about survival and not politics. alternitively, the north signs a humilating treaty or cease fire in order to maintain its northern border. The Korean alliance becomes rather anti foreigner, perhaps uniting officially. They will be extreamly hard hit, but they could survive. this is the south best case senario. a North best case would involve Pyongyang being over looked, and a collaspe of south Korea, which would lead to the strong unified korean state that some people seem to want so bad (and it would be fun to see their relationship with Tiawan, I admit). This state would probably be strongly communist and heavily anti western. We could even pattern it after modern north Korea. And a question: where any nukes stored inside Korea (allowing a later bombing strike). Desert viking 17:32, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, so lets go with the south Korean targets above, and Pyongyang for North Korea. This would still leave the troop buildup on the border, and South Korea with a moderately sized industrial sector in the remaining cities. Perhaps the major conglomerates step up and take over in the south.Oerwinde 20:03, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just looked up some stuff on korea in 1983--- there is an awful lot of research to be done. for example, South Korea was currently under the rule of a military strong man named Chun Doo-hwan. While he is considered Korea's last autocrat and receives some credit for the transition to democracy, he suppressed political movements and transitioned under heavy western pressure. South Korea started a nuclear bomb program around 1982-1983 that Reagan talked them out of in---November of 1983. So in the south we don't have a democracy, we have military rule by a dictator who may or may not be able to hold things together Desert viking 01:31, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Realistically he may not even be alive. I know he was in Myanmar on Oct 9, but that was the first stop on an asian tour, so he was likely in Seoul on DD. Pro-democracy movements had been building for a while as well, bolstered by his democratization reforms, so I would think a democratic government would be established out of the ashes, unless Hyundai or Daewoo or something steps in to take control in order to salvage their business. That would be interesting, some sort of corporateocracy, where one of the major conglomerates steps up, keeps order, and sets up some sort of puppet government that awards all the expensive government contracts to that company.Oerwinde 08:51, January 27, 2010 (UTC)