|
On November 24 2010 01:56 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. The US has a relatively small presence in the area. We are talking about a couple thousand versus 12 million. By the time the US can even begin mustering a significant force in a area, North Korea would have ample opportunity to invade.
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago.
|
On November 24 2010 01:57 Mo0Rauder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:28 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:22 Mo0Rauder wrote:On November 24 2010 01:16 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:10 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:04 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 00:45 Mo0Rauder wrote:On November 24 2010 00:30 Taosu wrote:On November 24 2010 00:28 Consolidate wrote:
The issue of right or wrong isn't in dispute. The consensus feeling among the civilized world is that continued existence of the state of North Korea is a crime against humanity. If they had oil deposits there's no doubt they would receive their doze of Democracy long ago, like Iraq and Afghanistan did. But luckily for them the outcome of this operation won't cover the expenses of the civilized world. The reason why N.K is allowed to exist is China. China gets a massive amount of its Coal and Silicon from North Korea, and when North Korea has this regime in power it is very easy for China to get those resources for its growing economy. Think of Civilization, if you have played it. When a city-state has a resources you need say, aluminum(in this case silicon) you just toss them a bunch of shitty low tech units (in this case artillery) and some gold and they hand that silicon, I mean aluminum, right over on a silver platter. Then comes the city-state alerts: "North Korea has a dispute with South Korea and seeks immediate Military action!"-"North Korea has a dispute with South Korea and seeks immediate Military action!"-"North Korea has a dispute with South Korea and seeks immediate Military action!" China can ignore the messages for a long time, but after awhile China's will have to do something either giving N.Korea more gold and military units, or they will have to give in to the demand, or else they can't get that precious ALUMINUM mmm... Unfortunately this is the real-world and not Civ(in Civ city-states don't attack one-another. In the real world fucked up regimes do what they want until the rest of the world stops them). This factor along with the free-world governments having terrible economic macro and not being able stabilize the financial issues quickly enough could lead to a very horrible situation in the Korean peninsula. My heart definitely goes out to anyone in or with loved ones in this ongoing crisis. <3 Do you have a source for outline-ing China and NK's trade agreements? I've had difficulty finding reliable information. I hope he didn't get that from Civilization, cause that's the only thing he mentioned in there. Upon closer reading, you seem to be right. Silicon is not a strategic resource at all and China and Russia have the majority of the world's coal reserves - something like 300 times what North Korea has to offer. Ugh, why do people try to force analogies that don't work. They may have 300 times what North Korea has, but when this regime (n.KR) is in power the Chinese can get those resources for 1/300th the cost of what the other countries charge. Note I never said they get ALL or even 75% or even 50% of their Silicon or Coal from n.KR but the resources they do get out of them end up being worth the headache. Do you have any idea what silicon is? Silicon is not processed from a rare ore or limited resource. It is made from quartz; also known as sand... You are right about silicon for sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon(since I KNOW you are a source guy and probably just got a boner from someone posting one) But it still needs to be produced, and guess what, NORTH KOREA MAKES IT! FOR CHEAP! AND CHINA GETS IT, FOR CHEAP! Now back to the coal, is coal a strategic resource? China gets some of that from Korea as well. and guess what, that's cheap as well. Oh, and they keep the west out of China's backyard, looks to me like China might want to keep North Korea around, no matter what they say through the public media. Believe what you want, just don't ask for my sources for my beliefs, I can't link them.
You sound pretty desperate to save face. North Korea makes silicon for cheap? Don't make me laugh. Please don't dig yourself into a deeper hole.
Do you have any idea how energy-starved North Korea is? Never in a million years would they give their coal away. If anything, China is the one providing North Korea with fuel.
Listen man, you have nothing to prove to me. Everything you have said is the exact opposite of what is actually the case.
|
On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 01:56 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. The US has a relatively small presence in the area. We are talking about a couple thousand versus 12 million. By the time the US can even begin mustering a significant force in a area, North Korea would have ample opportunity to invade. The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth. An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago.
I'd rather not labor on about hypothetical war scenarios. Lets just agree that a 12 million-strong army even with soviet era tech has the ability to inflict significant damage. We are talking about a land war here.
|
On November 24 2010 02:09 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. Completely untrue. While NK would get creamed, the US does not consider China as a serious backer in terms of NK if NK instigates ANYTHING. US hesitates because NK has the artillery to cause MILLIONS of casualties in Seoul before they get taken out. Closer to thousands/tens of thousands, but yes, it is horrible.
Pretty sure I read somewhere that with the amount of artillery facing Seoul, it could be absolutely leveled with hundreds of thousands if not millions in casualties. I do not remember my source however.
|
NK firing artillery at SK is no big surprise. They are still technically at war.
|
On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago.
The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it.
North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders.
So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone.
|
I'm worried x_x really hoping this doesn't lead into a large scale war
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina439 Posts
Looks like shadow world government is cooking something again.
|
Well, it appears it's up to NK and SK as to what's going to happen from here. The US, Russia, and China are all calling for peace. Just watching the short one-minute news from bbc and hearing the reporter say all three official statements made by these countries has made me feel a lot less nervous about the situation.
|
On November 24 2010 02:18 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:09 On_Slaught wrote:On November 24 2010 02:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. Completely untrue. While NK would get creamed, the US does not consider China as a serious backer in terms of NK if NK instigates ANYTHING. US hesitates because NK has the artillery to cause MILLIONS of casualties in Seoul before they get taken out. Closer to thousands/tens of thousands, but yes, it is horrible. Pretty sure I read somewhere that with the amount of artillery facing Seoul, it could be absolutely leveled with hundreds of thousands if not millions in casualties. I do not remember my source however.
Thankfully this simply isn't true.
At most their artillery would only be able to fire for a couple of hours before it was destroyed. We can shoot down the majority of their missles too. Unless a Nuke is used, they don't have the firepower to kill anywhere near that amount of people, who for sure have things like bomb shelters to run to.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:18 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:56 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. The US has a relatively small presence in the area. We are talking about a couple thousand versus 12 million. By the time the US can even begin mustering a significant force in a area, North Korea would have ample opportunity to invade. The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth. An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. I'd rather not labor on about hypothetical war scenarios. Lets just agree that a 12 million-strong army even with soviet era tech has the ability to inflict significant damage. We are talking about a land war here.
Land war includes air aswell, and with modern technology you can tactically bomb(which eliminates or minizes friendly fire), now i am 100% certain that NK will deal significant damage, but don't forget air in this war, SK will most likely have air superiority.
|
On November 24 2010 02:18 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:On November 24 2010 01:56 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. The US has a relatively small presence in the area. We are talking about a couple thousand versus 12 million. By the time the US can even begin mustering a significant force in a area, North Korea would have ample opportunity to invade. The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth. An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. I'd rather not labor on about hypothetical war scenarios. Lets just agree that a 12 million-strong army even with soviet era tech has the ability to inflict significant damage. We are talking about a land war here.
You're talking about crossing a boarder that's been continuously fortified of both sides for about 60 years straight. No, not much of a land war will go down. Nobody would invade N Korea by ground. N Korea could attack through ground but they'd need to get through the bottleneck that is their own boarder, through their own + SK's mines, with 50+ year old technology, into a force of first-world technology, with air-support from pretty much every western nation.
No, NK wouldn't fair well. They could shell Seoul but not take it.
|
On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone.
Doubt it...
Manpower these days don't mean much unless we're talking about occupation or guerilla warfare in the mountains/jungles or something. In a straight battle, US tech advantage is way stronger than extra men firing AKs.
The US will quickly gain air supremacy and bomb the hell out of the NK's just like they did in Iraq. It doesn't matter how many men you have when bombers, drones, and battleships are bombarding all your bases and armies.
|
plz let there not be somekind of war or altercation. Need my GSL each day
|
On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone.
I agree that it wouldn't be trivial. It would be an unprecedented slaughter of NK forces and easily one of the most one-sided fights the world will ever have seen.
|
"Estimates vary as to the extent of the potential damage on Seoul. This likely depends on the exact number of pieces that fire on Seoul and the intensity of that fire. However, most assessments agree that an artillery and missile attack on Seoul would greatly damage (both short term and long term) the ROK economy and cause significant civilian casualties (depended on the prior warning to any attack). When the Clinton administration mobilized forces over the reactor at Yongbyon in 1994, planners concluded that retaliation by North Korea against Seoul could kill 40,000 people. Suggestions that North Korea could unleash " ... an artillery attack on Seoul ... that could conceivably kill hundreds of thousands of people in the first few hours ... " would appear to represent a worst-case estimate that is unlikely to result in the absence of DPRK use of chemical munitions."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027-1.htm
|
If a war would break out, it would most likely be an "all-in" attempt to win the pensinsula. Everything used, nothing left behind.
The devastation that would cause in the initial hours would be tragic.
The response would be horrific.
|
How about just give SK several nukes and call it a day? No, not that simple? Damn...
Anyway, I doubt China will support NK if those guys pull something funny, hell, if they use a nuke it may be the China that would glass them (let's face it, China doesn't want neighbors with nuclear arsenal).
Anyway, has anyone who understand international law/diplomacy commented yet?
|
On November 24 2010 02:25 vnlegend wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:19 w_Ender_w wrote:On November 24 2010 02:11 Offhand wrote:
The US has troops stationed all around the area, in Japan and other Asian countries as well. NK could probably shell Seoul for a couple hours before all their military capacity was wiped off the face of the Earth.
An actual ground invasion of SK wouldn't make it 5 miles past the DMZ. NK's army is largely comprised of 1960's soviet material. They have SCUDS for fucks sake, those weren't a threat 20 years ago. The conventional wisdom in the US military is that since we have under 100,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea, if North Korea suddenly invaded we would not be able to hold the borders. Realistically we would need to give ground and consolidate in the southern korean peninsula, much like we did in the original Korean War. The South Korean military's position is such that they "will never surrender Seoul" but realistically anyone involved in the US would say that they couldn't hold it. North Korea may not have the technology, but they have a ton of numbers. I doubt they could possibly win the war, but to say they couldn't make it past the DMZ is ridiculous. If they invaded they could probably get quite far (with pretty massive casualties, but they could absorb those). On the southern side, most the US and SK troops would probably be incapable of holding their positions. Civilian and military casualties would be very high if they tried to hold the borders. So yeah. This wouldn't be some trivial engagement. Let's just hope it doesn't go any further then it has already gone. Doubt it... Manpower these days don't mean much unless we're talking about occupation or guerilla warfare in the mountains/jungles or something. In a straight battle, US tech advantage is way stronger than extra men firing AKs. The US will quickly gain air supremacy and bomb the hell out of the NK's just like they did in Iraq. It doesn't matter how many men you have when bombers, drones, and battleships are bombarding all your bases and armies.
Yes, but NK maintains a more standard army then any other country we've attacked. We're quite good at winning normal old army vs army type warfare. The problem is looking at another Iraq occupation which may or may not happen if the average NK citizen doesn't possess an enormous hatred of the west.
|
On November 24 2010 02:22 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 02:18 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 24 2010 02:09 On_Slaught wrote:On November 24 2010 02:06 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 24 2010 01:47 LegendaryZ wrote:On November 24 2010 01:36 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:25 Demand2k wrote:On November 24 2010 01:18 mmdmmd wrote:On November 24 2010 01:11 Consolidate wrote:On November 24 2010 01:00 Cedwyn wrote:
It seems illogical for the US to support SKR offensively in this conflict because they have nothing to gain. Plus I am sure most of the US civilians would concur that sending troops to an ally when they just got them from the East would be a strain on their country.
However other countries may lend a hand - probably not on the level of say the problems in the middle east, but more of a defensive aid to SKR (including the US in this case). I am sure SKR can handle their own given their radical growth over NKR.
But we all know this will blow over like the marine boat crap that happened a few years ago. Hard to say how well South Korea would fair in a war against North Korea. While SK's military has a significant technological edge, manpower-wise, NK's military outnumbers them roughly 4 to 1. Given the obvious proximity between the two nations, a DPRK invasion would be a significant cause for concern. There is an old saying in China, the most dangerous people are poor people (poor as in have nothing left to lose). So in a 1v1 fight, I think NK soldiers have a better chance. I beg to differ, some examples below: Knights templar vs anyone Nazi germany vs anyone Modern USA vs anyone Roman Empire vs anyone. Technology and superior training has always made a tremendous difference in terms of army efficiency. Look up some kill/death ratios of most known wars, there are very few surprises in favor of the "inferior". Why waste time on analogies when you can look at the specific case? North Korea has a considerable land army and is is within walking distance of South Korea's capital. Their military is well-trained and they have artillery, modern firearms and third-generation tanks. This won't be like the US rolling over the Iraqi Republican Guard. Actually, barring Chinese intervention, North Korea would get torn apart quite easily by the USA. Most of their military equipment is outdated, they have an absolute joke of a navy by comparison and the range on their weapons is inferior. The only reason the US hesitates is because Chinese intervention is possible like during the Korean War and also because there would be heavy civilian casualties in any such war in North Korea, South Korea, and possibly Japan. Trust me when I say the USA doesn't fear North Korea's vaunted military strength at all. Completely untrue. While NK would get creamed, the US does not consider China as a serious backer in terms of NK if NK instigates ANYTHING. US hesitates because NK has the artillery to cause MILLIONS of casualties in Seoul before they get taken out. Closer to thousands/tens of thousands, but yes, it is horrible. Pretty sure I read somewhere that with the amount of artillery facing Seoul, it could be absolutely leveled with hundreds of thousands if not millions in casualties. I do not remember my source however. Thankfully this simply isn't true. At most their artillery would only be able to fire for a couple of hours before it was destroyed. We can shoot down the majority of their missles too. Unless a Nuke is used, they don't have the firepower to kill anywhere near that amount of people, who for sure have things like bomb shelters to run to.
You severely underestimate the power of artillery - it has been the single most effective weapon throughout the entirety of human warfare (total casualty count), while over-estimating the effectiveness of tactical missile defense systems - a relatively unproven technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
