I was wanting how you guys would think their approach on the war would be.
I told you. you should maybe read carefully. :facepalm:
I tell you again, because you should maybe need an extra hint:
NOT AT ALL!
If I don't really need to fight a war in North Korea with the US and South Korean Forces, I wouldn't do it. There is not much to be gained and a lot to be lost. North Korea is a dwarf blown up by dogma into a titan.
NK wouldn't fight to conquer South Korea or defeat the USA. This is impossible. Any NK action would aim at hurting the USA. Even a nuclear strike on South Korea and Japan would make sense to them then. Even more than a nuclear strike on the homeland of the USA. A strike on Guam would be rather symbolic, but cripples the US war machine a lot, while a strike on Los Angeles or San Francisco would make it impossible for the USA to retreat. The main combat strategy of NK would be binding as many forces of the USA as possible and increase the costs of war for the USA so much, that they have to retreat politically from South Korea and let North Korea have a political victory, even if South Korea would then be a nuclear waste land. Currently, they are existing under the Damocles sword of the USA, any change to this would already be a major achievement, regardless how high the price is. Conquering South Korea would only work AFTER the USA are forced to stay out of the game. Japan isn't a threat itself, but its bases are, if the USA can use them. Punishing the allies of the USA is better than punishing the USA themselves. It demoralizes. If fighting with the USA causes more danger than appeasing the DPRK, they might want to stay out. Especially Japan is a weak ally. They would have more too loose from such a war, than they can win.
If North Korea would really attack South Korea, my first priority would be air and sea superiority as US "player". The supply lines from Japan have to be defended at all costs, because even a single ignored NK submarine can cause severe damage today. The air force of North Korea could be easily retained because of the supposed poor training of the pilots, so my resources would be focused on fighting the many many many SAMs. I can't quickly get air superiority over NK, but I can isolate NK from the seas.
Next, I would need an invasion at the north of NK, in violation of the art of war, isolating it from China and Chinese resupply lines. This also forces China to choose sides early and makes many things easier. If they want to have a land resupply route to NK at all costs, they need to attack. If they can accept this invasion as excuse for them not helping their former allies, its ok. Its not exactly wise, because it refuses NK a way to retreat, they can then only capitulate or fight. But the alternatives are worse.
A pure Blitzkrieg tactic would not work on NK, because I would just simply leave a lot of NK troops behind my back and harass my supply lines.
For keeping my allies in the region happy, I need to show that I am dead serious. Not cutting the number of soldiers. Use what you have and use it with brute force. A war against North Korea would need to be successful in disabling all WMDs in days - or be just a small punishment action that weakens the USA more than North Korea. There is no middle way. Any action that will threaten the integrity of North Korea will be a reason to attack the US allies with nuclear weapons.
But the same consideration from the NK Side: A war would be bad. NK needs an enemy, that is aggressive and stupid enough to give them propaganda victories in their own world. They wouldn't want a full war, they would want to provoke the enemy into limited engagements, punishment actions. Actions that cause friction and costs, by making SK or USA run into heavy defenses.
*cough* *cough*
Disclaimer: This analysis is explicitly without the participation of the Federal Republic of Germany and not a preparation of an offensive war, as declared illegal by Article 26 of the German Basic Law and
§80 of the German Criminal Code