NationStates Jolt Archive

No, seriously. I've been reading these korea threds for a while, and cannot undrestand why everyone just shrugs off the very existance of s.korea. I mean, they are the 10th largest economy in the world, and they spend over 21 billion dollars on military yearly, netting them the 8th spot world-wide. They have over 600 000 active troops, approx half of USA. and they also have a trained reserve, ages 20-30, of 4 500 000, double the entire military personnel of USA. They have abundancy of all types of reasonably modern military equpment, supplies and munitions.

Compared to that, the N.Korea has about a million active military personnel, with a reserve of another 4 700 000 soldiers, ages 20-49, and a military spending of roughly 5 billion dollars. Most of their equipment is outdated, and they have a huge lack of all sorts of supplies, most notably oil.

Should the Korean war flame up, S.Korea doesn't need USA to utterly steamroll the north. Admittedly with a cost of massive amount of life, especially in Seoul, which is in the range of N.korean artillery.

Not only does the ROK have reasonably good equipment, but their soldiers are hard as woodpecker lips. I don't think they'd need us to win the war, but with our help it'd be a lot easier, especially with the help of the airpower we can provide.

No, seriously. I've been reading these korea threds for a while, and cannot undrestand why everyone just shrugs off the very existance of s.korea. I mean, they are the 10th largest economy in the world, and they spend over 21 billion dollars on military yearly, netting them the 8th spot world-wide. They have over 600 000 active troops, approx half of USA. and they also have a trained reserve, ages 20-30, of 4 500 000, double the entire military personnel of USA. They have abundancy of all types of reasonably modern military equpment, supplies and munitions.

Compared to that, the N.Korea has about a million active military personnel, with a reserve of another 4 700 000 soldiers, ages 20-49, and a military spending of roughly 5 billion dollars. Most of their equipment is outdated, and they have a huge lack of all sorts of supplies, most notably oil.

Should the Korean war flame up, S.Korea doesn't need USA to utterly steamroll the north. Admittedly with a cost of massive amount of life, especially in Seoul, which is in the range of N.korean artillery.

:confused:
What leads you to believe the ROK is being ignored?

their soldiers are hard as woodpecker lips.

Like I pointed out in the current thread where people are biutching about whether the US should allow their basic training drill instructors to yell at recruits a little bit... ;)

Fried Tuna;11793066']No, seriously. I've been reading these korea threds for a while, and cannot undrestand why everyone just shrugs off the very existance of s.korea. I mean, they are the 10th largest economy in the world, and they spend over 21 billion dollars on military yearly, netting them the 8th spot world-wide. They have over 600 000 active troops, approx half of USA. and they also have a trained reserve, ages 20-30, of 4 500 000, double the entire military personnel of USA. They have abundancy of all types of reasonably modern military equpment, supplies and munitions.

Compared to that, the N.Korea has about a million active military personnel, with a reserve of another 4 700 000 soldiers, ages 20-49, and a military spending of roughly 5 billion dollars. Most of their equipment is outdated, and they have a huge lack of all sorts of supplies, most notably oil.

Should the Korean war flame up, S.Korea doesn't need USA to utterly steamroll the north. Admittedly with a cost of massive amount of life, especially in Seoul, which is in the range of N.korean artillery.

Not everybody has. I've lived and worked in South Korea (Kwangju and Seoul) and still do business with clients there. While it's true that the quality of the South Korean military is higher than that of the North, the problem (as you recognize) is that Seoul is within range of about 20K+ rocket tubes and artillery pieces located in the North, most of which are heavily fortified and dug in to highly defensible positions. The damage that could be done to the capital is considerable, to say the least.

I've often questioned the wisdom of having your capital--and largest--city within shooting distance of the enemy. IMO the South should consider relocating its capital away from Seoul, maybe to Busan (or even Kyongju, one of their ancient capitals, also down south).

I wouldn't put it past that fat little orangutan with the dead rat on his head to decide that if his regime is going down, he'll do as much damage as possible on the way.

There's a little problem with all of this - North Korea might just have the bomb. If they do and South Korea invades, soon enough, North Korea will lose. Kim Jong Il will realize that, in a conventional war, he's fucked. So in a last attempt, a blaze of glory, he launches the nukes, and Seoul becomes a crater. Granted, all that does is make North Korea even more royally fucked, but to Kim Jong Il, is there a different between "fucked" and "royally fucked"? Or even "colossally fucked"? Any war against North Korea could involve potentially disastrous consequences, even if North Korea is totally and utterly defeated and the area we know as North Korea is reintegrated in time into a united Korea.

In conventional warfare, North Korea doesn't stand a chance, especially since China will assuredly not help them. I imagine China would remain neutral, and so would Russia. Without the Chinese, North Korea couldn't win a war against anyone who is prepared for them.

There's a little problem with all of this - North Korea might just have the bomb. If they do and South Korea invades, soon enough, North Korea will lose. Kim Jong Il will realize that, in a conventional war, he's fucked. So in a last attempt, a blaze of glory, he launches the nukes, and Seoul becomes a crater.

In conventional warfare, North Korea doesn't stand a chance, especially since China will assuredly not help them. I imagine China would remain neutral, and so would Russia. Without the Chinese, North Korea couldn't win a war against anyone who is prepared for them.

SK invades? NK has 700,000 men entrenched in the DMZ area(more than the entire SK military), a successful invasion is a dream. The NK's have so many guns and rockets along the DMZ that an General says all forward bases will be obliterated in 3 hrs.

No, seriously. I've been reading these korea threds for a while, and cannot undrestand why everyone just shrugs off the very existance of s.korea. I mean, they are the 10th largest economy in the world, and they spend over 21 billion dollars on military yearly, netting them the 8th spot world-wide. They have over 600 000 active troops, approx half of USA. and they also have a trained reserve, ages 20-30, of 4 500 000, double the entire military personnel of USA. They have abundancy of all types of reasonably modern military equpment, supplies and munitions. of course you are assuming that N Korea will roll over like Iraq in the face of modern technology...just to remind you the Afgans with primitive technology drove the Soviets with their tanks and gunships out, and the Vietnamese did the same to the US...Korea is not Iraq this is a rugged landscape not open desert...the difference is motivation, the will to fight and the NK's have it, the Russian, Chinese, Sk's and the US generals all know it.

당신의 음험한 것 있는 힐, 너는 조선민주주의 인민공화국을 협박할 수가 있다고 생각하는 것은 슬픈 듯 하게 잘못하고 있다!

SK invades? NK has 700,000 men entrenched in the DMZ area(more than the entire SK military), a successful invasion is a dream. The NK's have so many guns and rockets along the DMZ that an General says all forward bases will be obliterated in 3 hrs.

No one said it would be easy. Aside from that, if they're smart, they won't attack the DMZ head-on. They'll strategically bomb some areas first, try to force some chaos among the North Koreans, and then stage a naval invasion. It will probably take more than what South Korea has, but South Korea, the U.S., and Japan if we can talk them into it should be able to pull it off. That's assuming we have the fortitude to do it. Right now, at this particular juncture, the U.S. doesn't, and that's the biggest problem. If there were no Iraq, we could handle North Korea. It would cost a few thousand American troops, but it could be done, and I guarantee it would go a lot better in the end than an invasion of Iraq. But noooooo-oooooooo, Mr. Fuck Head Bush just HAAAAAAAAAAAD to invade Iraq. Iraq was harmless in the long run. North Korea's got issues.

No one said it would be easy. Aside from that, if they're smart, they won't attack the DMZ head-on. They'll strategically bomb some areas first, try to force some chaos among the North Koreans, and then stage a naval invasion. It will probably take more than what South Korea has, but South Korea, the U.S., and Japan if we can talk them into it should be able to pull it off. That's assuming we have the fortitude to do it. Right now, at this particular juncture, the U.S. doesn't, and that's the biggest problem. If there were no Iraq, we could handle North Korea. It would cost a few thousand American troops, but it could be done, and I guarantee it would go a lot better in the end than an invasion of Iraq. But noooooo-oooooooo, Mr. Fuck Head Bush just HAAAAAAAAAAAD to invade Iraq. Iraq was harmless in the long run. North Korea's got issues.NK stance is offensive if they see an invasion force they will attack 1st...they will not wait politly wait while the US SK and Japn put assemble an invasion force......"It would cost a few thousand American troops" estimates that the US would have 30,000 killed and wounded very quickly and by the end of the war as many as many as 100,000 casualties;civilian deaths estimated in the millions

No one said it would be easy. Aside from that, if they're smart, they won't attack the DMZ head-on. They'll strategically bomb some areas first, try to force some chaos among the North Koreans, and then stage a naval invasion. It will probably take more than what South Korea has, but South Korea, the U.S., and Japan if we can talk them into it should be able to pull it off. That's assuming we have the fortitude to do it. Right now, at this particular juncture, the U.S. doesn't, and that's the biggest problem. If there were no Iraq, we could handle North Korea. It would cost a few thousand American troops, but it could be done, and I guarantee it would go a lot better in the end than an invasion of Iraq. But noooooo-oooooooo, Mr. Fuck Head Bush just HAAAAAAAAAAAD to invade Iraq. Iraq was harmless in the long run. North Korea's got issues.

Now now, I don't think, in the long run, Iraq was "harmless". Much less harmful than some other countries I can think of. But not harmless, either. Nor do I think it was pointless. I think primarily the use in it was to stop it from BECOMING another North Korea or Iran. It had potential to become that, in time. We already have other serious threats - nipping a huge problem in the bud isn't such a bad thing, is it? Iraq wanted nukes... what if we'd waited until they had them, and we were no longer talking about looking for them, but talking about the huge destruction they'd caused, and wondering why we didn't take them out while we had a chance?

The trouble is, these smaller nations nuclear capabilities and pscyhotic evil dictators are really genuinely dangerous. I think part of the reason Bush says we won't invade N. Korea is he thinks with maybe a little help, S. Korea can take them - and he doesn't want to be blamed when N. Korea drops a bomb or two and completely takes out the entirety of the Korean Peninsula for the next 80 years and kills off a good percentage of the world's Korean population. At least if he stays out of it, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Kim Jong Il won't launch nukes unless he's forced to in the most dire of situations. He knows S. Korea and America would leave him alone if he keeps his control to simply oppression, not warfare.

Now now, I don't think, in the long run, Iraq was "harmless". Much less harmful than some other countries I can think of. But not harmless, either.

Which is the most harmful of the three, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea? In 2003, none of them had nukes. There may have been WMD's, but Saddam's not crazy enough to use them when the entire world's watching. I think he knew the U.S. and UK would invade if they had a reason to. I don't think he counted on a reason being invented to invade. Going back four years, I think most people would have said North Korea was the most harmful of the three.

If there were no invasion, Saddam would have continued his rule until probably 2015 or so, he would have died in bed, and someone else from that party would have taken over. Maybe his kids, I don't know. Probably someone secular, assuming the Ba'athists keep their grip on the nation. if not, we have a civil war, and no Americans die.

Nor do I think it was pointless. I think primarily the use in it was to stop it from BECOMING another North Korea or Iran. It had potential to become that, in time. We already have other serious threats - nipping a huge problem in the bud isn't such a bad thing, is it? Iraq wanted nukes... what if we'd waited until they had them, and we were no longer talking about looking for them, but talking about the huge destruction they'd caused, and wondering why we didn't take them out while we had a chance?

Getting rid of a dangerous Saddam and replacing him with a republic with free elections is a great motivation for invading Iraq, right? How does getting rid of a held-in-check Saddam and replacing him with chaos, insurgency, and civil war? What about replacing an obnoxious-but-only-mildly-anti-American Saddam with a virulently-anti-American Shi'ite theocracy? The odds were long going into this. And it's not a victory if someone worse takes his place. This is why deposing the Shah wasn't a victory.

The trouble is, these smaller nations nuclear capabilities and pscyhotic evil dictators are really genuinely dangerous. I think part of the reason Bush says we won't invade N. Korea is he thinks with maybe a little help, S. Korea can take them - and he doesn't want to be blamed when N. Korea drops a bomb or two and completely takes out the entirety of the Korean Peninsula for the next 80 years and kills off a good percentage of the world's Korean population. At least if he stays out of it, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

That may be. Any struggle between the two halves of Korea would be long, bloody, and total in nature. Both sides would be fighting for their very survival, and if no nukes are used, the South Koreans probably win. If both sides have nukes, South Korea is devastated but probably still wins after dropping a few megatons on Pyongyang. However, right now only North Korea seems to have nukes. In that situation, South Korea is massively boned. All three of these scenarios involve massive casualties, both civilian and military, and a serious loss of infrastructure. No more Hyundais, for one thing.

However, a number of people believe that North Korea's government will eventually collapse, and someone will have to come in and fill a void. It is unclear what will happen at that point, nukes or no nukes.

South Korrea doesn't have the capacity to do a naval invasion. It's not that they couldn't make a navy with the capacity (they easily could, they have a major ship building industry), they've deliberately avoided the capacity in order not to threaten NK.

South Korea could stand off or defeat any NK attack, though it might well be quite damaging. The reason they have the US there is to protect them if NK and China attack them.

Which is the most harmful of the three, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea? In 2003, none of them had nukes. ...

That may or may not be true. Iran's been posturing for longer than that that they did... but who knows the truth. They may still not have them for all I know.

If there were no invasion, Saddam would have continued his rule until probably 2015 or so, he would have died in bed, and someone else from that party would have taken over.

That may be - who knows. But as I understand it, the people set to take over after him weren't exactly ideal... and were a lot worse than he was. Perhaps, the sorts of people who WOULD use WMDs in situations where Saddam wouldn't have. The people were "into" the elections... their turnout was spectacular compared to, say, OURS. I don't know that I'll agree with who they'll elect, but again, I don't agree with who we elect often enough too. I think the question comes down, in the end, to whether you think the people of Iraq want a tin-pot dictator who will oppress them, or whether they want a western-style democracy... and what they will do with whichever they have.

As to the rest of the propaganda, from what I hear about people over there, it's not like our media (not FOX, not CNN, not BBC, not anyone) are saying. I don't think the average western mind can wrap itself around how it is there... they just don't have hooks to hang it on. People don't really believe other people can be evil. They can't even believe Hitler or Stalin were evil, much less Saddam or Kim Jong Il are evil. They look out at their pretty little flower gardens (which they bought blooming from a store, and planted) and can't imagine a world in which they could be killed for a subersive comment, or a wrong religion. Then they give up, walk over to their microwave and put in a hot pocket to munch on as a snack while watching CSI: Miami or Survivor. Denying there could be a possibility of a world in which they didn't have a TV, a microwave, paper plates, and... food.

That may be. Any struggle between the two halves of Korea would be long, bloody, and total in nature. Both sides would be fighting for their very survival, and if no nukes are used, the South Koreans probably win. If both sides have nukes, South Korea is devastated but probably still wins after dropping a few megatons on Pyongyang. However, right now only North Korea seems to have nukes. In that situation, South Korea is massively boned. All three of these scenarios involve massive casualties, both civilian and military, and a serious loss of infrastructure. No more Hyundais, for one thing.

However, a number of people believe that North Korea's government will eventually collapse, and someone will have to come in and fill a void. It is unclear what will happen at that point, nukes or no nukes.

I tend to think so myself. They don't have the resources to manage for too long. There's not enough food. There's not enough fuel. At some point, the balance of power will change, and the government will keel over. I'm afraid though, that the NK people have been so soured against the SK people/government by all the propaganda, that they'll never allow the two to merge unless they think they're winning. Which would probably require your total war, and all sorts of catastrophe.

South Korrea doesn't have the capacity to do a naval invasion. It's not that they couldn't make a navy with the capacity (they easily could, they have a major ship building industry), they've deliberately avoided the capacity in order not to threaten NK.

South Korea could stand off or defeat any NK attack, though it might well be quite damaging. The reason they have the US there is to protect them if NK and China attack them.

Quite so. I think, however, NK is nicely alienating China currently. Perhaps it's more that I HOPE they're alienating China. China has gone so far as to join with Japan against NK, politically... that's quite something. It seems NK is managing to lose its only ally...

Fried Tuna;11793066']No, seriously. I've been reading these korea threds for a while, and cannot undrestand why everyone just shrugs off the very existance of s.korea. I mean, they are the 10th largest economy in the world, and they spend over 21 billion dollars on military yearly, netting them the 8th spot world-wide. They have over 600 000 active troops, approx half of USA. and they also have a trained reserve, ages 20-30, of 4 500 000, double the entire military personnel of USA. They have abundancy of all types of reasonably modern military equpment, supplies and munitions.

Compared to that, the N.Korea has about a million active military personnel, with a reserve of another 4 700 000 soldiers, ages 20-49, and a military spending of roughly 5 billion dollars. Most of their equipment is outdated, and they have a huge lack of all sorts of supplies, most notably oil.

Should the Korean war flame up, S.Korea doesn't need USA to utterly steamroll the north. Admittedly with a cost of massive amount of life, especially in Seoul, which is in the range of N.korean artillery.


Because no one wants to get too attatched to a bunch of future victims of North Korea.

What would be really nice is if North Korea pissed China off enough that China helps SK and the US to remove Kim Jong-Il's regime.

NKs military is entirely geared towards defending against invasion from the south...it would be the ultimate stab in the back for China to invade NK, and they probably wouldn't need a whole lot of force to achieve the desired effect.

At that point, all the U.S. and SK have to do is wait for the chaos as the NK military tries to reorient northwards, then go for the full air-campaign as they stream north.

Now what might make China enact such a course, well...your guess is as good as mine.

What would be really nice is if North Korea pissed China off enough that China helps SK and the US to remove Kim Jong-Il's regime.

NKs military is entirely geared towards defending against invasion from the south...it would be the ultimate stab in the back for China to invade NK, and they probably wouldn't need a whole lot of force to achieve the desired effect.

At that point, all the U.S. and SK have to do is wait for the chaos as the NK military tries to reorient northwards, then go for the full air-campaign as they stream north.

Now what might make China enact such a course, well...your guess is as good as mine.

I'm not really sure why China feels so threatened by NK's nuke testing... but they're certainly getting their hackles up. I think China is trying hard to be taken seriously by the West, and gradually, I think they're succeeding. It may be that they would feel that would be the trump to becoming and equal to the western world.

The NK's have so many guns and rockets along the DMZ that an General says all forward bases will be obliterated in 3 hrs.
They will be shelled for three hours. After those three hours they will run out of ammunition, and counter-fire will have taken out the batteries.

For anything to actually be obliterated one would need accuracy, which is what thirty-year old commie artillery cannons don't have.

NK stance is offensive if they see an invasion force they will attack 1st...they will not wait politly wait while the US SK and Japn put assemble an invasion force......"It would cost a few thousand American troops" estimates that the US would have 30,000 killed and wounded very quickly and by the end of the war as many as many as 100,000 casualties;civilian deaths estimated in the millions
So far the only person who estimated that are you. Firstly there are millions of mines along the DMZ and the Northern Forces could not simply march across. Secondly we already established that North Korean equipment is unlikely to withstand the stress of intense combat, so their mobility is severly hampered. That's supported by the fact that they won't be able to get supply lines up and running with Allied Air Forces ruling the skies. And thirdly, even if the North Koreans could get within range of Allied ground combat units - they'd lose. Motivation is one thing, proper training in modern tactics and equipment is quite another.