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)

Results
So I'm guessing we're settled on a unification. I like the idea of North Korea getting pummelled by Chinese refugees and eventually abandoning conquest of the south in exchange for aid. The south had been campaigning for democracy for a while so they would want a democratic government, while the leaders of the north would want communist. Maybe settling for a federal system, giving the north and south regions autonomy, with the federal government responsible for defense and foreign policy. Kaesong would be designated the federal capital due to historical significance, and its central location. Regional autonomy would allow some measure of heavy socialism in the north, without violating the constitution, and allow the south its capitalist ideals. Initially this deal would seem fine to the north but as time goes on and the south prospers more it would eventually begin shifting economically.
 * I agree that Chun is probably dead. in fact, I would dare say that most of the South Korean National leadership dies in the attacks. As I wrote, south Korea would be one of the first nations hit due to its proximity, and it gets pounded. I see the south falling into the hands of the military. North Korea, on the Other hand, is one of the few nations with an Ideal warning, deliverred in the form of the detonations in South Korea being visible all over the Penisula. I have Kim Il survive the attack. However, the military might of the south might would still be enought, and eventually I see the above mentioned senario, with perhaps more military intervension. A Corperate take over could be possible, but I think it would be a slow de facto effect of highly localized government being dwarfed locally by the coorperations. And the North-South split should still be there. Desert viking 14:21, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of talking in maps--- though I'm thinking a little more upheaval... kind of like this: North Korea would have to loose a lot of land before unifying, and the northern border would be a pain to defend, the battle zone would be differently administered, and the nuclear "dead Zones" are larger than aboveDesert viking 18:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think the North would lose that much of the Northeast, most of the strikes and population of china would have been along the coast, and the northern border is mostly mountains, so most of the refugees would be concentrated to the west. The map I posted is more of a "Korea today" map. Yours looks would be accurate at the time of unification, leading up to my map in modern day Korea.Oerwinde 19:15, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

here is a new map modified to your recomendations. I noticed the incrediable proximity of Vladistok to North Korea, and changed the map to account for more sea driven conquest I like the Idea of a federation, though I would give each province a great degree of independence, not just the two former nations. I must admit though, I'm not sure that the "modern map should have Pyongyang as an "emergancy zone"--unless of course the strategy was just to contain the area-- but I see Korea being very agressive against "barbarians" meaning those without a nation and putting an emphasis on border maintainance. They must also find a place for the Chinese to stay once the mauraders are driven out. the Harsher part of me says to drop them off in Japan or whatever that Island to the south is. Camps are also an option, but temporary, and as the dominant political force will be nationalism, the Chinese will have difficulty assimilating. Also, the Koreans must draw the line somewhere.


 * I just had the areas still overrun with refugees and the nuked sites as emergency zones. I didn't feel like carving up the Pyongyang so I just filled in the whole administrative zone. So the Pyongyang emergency zone would be smaller. I figure reconstruction of the nuked sites would go on the backburner while the federal government is established and the refugee situation is contained.


 * New map is good. Having the south affected by the refugee problem as well gives more reason why the south would join forces with the north. The south island is Jeju, its heavily populated already. Possibly the refugees could be forced northward, and a new border fence type thingy could be built since the north/south border would not need to be manned anymore. The refugees could be used as something of a slave labor force for reconstruction. A select number are allowed entry to work on the reconstruction of various sites and are promised citizenship and a residence once reconstruction is completed. Others are shot on site if attempting to cross the fence.Oerwinde 08:28, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

I like the flag, where did you get the idea (its a little counter to the old south korean "ying and yang", but whatever, I assume it expresses unity) Just documenting some of my steps here--- south Korea's rice imports in OTL peaked at over 2 million tons of rice in 1981, then dramatically dropped to around 0 in 1984. I was worried about food before for the korean people, but with the loss of life from the bombing, I don't think it will be an issue.--- though the North Korean loss of land could change that. Also-- what happened to the american soldiers? most of them would be gone, but would they attach themselves to a group? would they become reclusive and set up some fort somewhere and sit in it? I also think we might get some US soldiers from Japan leaving the decidedly anti-american island. what do you thinkDesert viking 16:29, January 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The flag is a bit of a combo of the North Korean and South Korean flags, only instead of a taegeuk, it has a sam-taegeuk. Where the red stands for earth, the blue stands for heaven, and the yellow stands for humanity. I believe the major agricultural area of North Korea is near the south Korean border, but I'm not entirely sure. Food will still likely be a major issue, even though S.Korea loses about a third of its population. While the US Navy, Airforce, and the leadership of the army were all taken out, its major troop concentration I think was still along the border, so they would either join up with the South Koreans, or evacuate to Australia.Oerwinde 18:14, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

but which one? in the beggining they will feel that it is their duty to keep on fighting, and the south korean generals will beg them to stay to continue the fight. It will be fairly difficult for them to get out unless a ship is sent for them or they make contact and find out where to go. On the other hand, They will be alone in a land where they don't speak the language, with no real "home" remaining, and may feel betrayed by the unification under what could be percieved as Kim Il-sung's leadership. I suppose what they will do depends on contact with the outside. If they fall under the command of a strong leader, they could end up forming a colony in on of the central provinces or on an Island. If they remain led by individual leaders, they will get out if they can find out where to go, or form a special division in the Korean Army. I don't think they would assimilate though. Even if they all ended up marrying locally, the resulting community would still hold together and have a peculiar flavor. If they end up staying, They will probably be joined by the US troops in Japan.

Initially I think they would stick with the S. Korean military, and likely aid in reconstruction for the first while. Possibly late 80's they find out about the American Provisional Administration in Australia, and some choose to stay, while others choose to leave. Or if they don't discover it until after it disbands in 1994, more would stay as they would have established a life in Korea by then. It takes approx 6 months to become fluent in a language when immersed in it, so within a couple years those who don't already speak Korean will.Oerwinde 20:42, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Government
so far we have run Korea under a federal government. I haven't stated this, but I've been assuming the general commitee has 2 delegates per province, giving us 44 delagates: 16 for the North, 10 for the cities (who I imagine acting as a unit politically), 6 for the generals (of which two are northern votes, but act independent of Kim Il-sung on ocasion), and 12 delegates loyal to the old south Korean Autocracy. I worked out that nine votes from the delgates would select one member of the executive council, where the real power lay: two from the north, one each from the cities and the south Korean old structure, and a constantly changing member that the more independent middle generals and the rest of the south worked out amoung themselves, sometimes affected by a spare North Korean province. Are you planning on changing this stucture and centralizing, or reforming on a more regional level?Desert viking 22:43, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Research repository
this section is for the storage of research for this page:

Current reported South Korean Troops strength: 650,000 active duty, 3 million reserve

US Korean troop strength in 1987: 43,000

Current active North Korean Troop Strength: 700,000

Desert viking 21:33, January 30, 2010 (UTC)