The new old war in Korea

[Lissa]

Something a lot of people need to realize here, NK doesn't need to use a Nuke to devastate Seoul, Seoul is within artillery range of the DMZ (actually under maximum artillery range). NK could easily demolish Seoul with use of rocket and cannon based artillery without ever going to WMDs.

If the South Koreans and the US just sat there and took it, sure. But the North Koreans would find themselves with a pretty small window of opportunity. They'd lose control of the skies almost immediately. They're already surrounded by sea. The DMZ is, ironically, the most militarized spot on earth, and the pushback by land would happen within a week.

So, they'd have to bring a hell of a lot of artillery to bear on Seoul, because they wouldn't get very long to get the job done before the Americans would be in Pyongyang.

That's the thing, they do have enough artillery within range of Seoul that within 15 minutes Seoul could be devestated before aircraft could be on station. And NK's military is smart enough they would place enough AA equipment in with their artillery to make air strikes painful.

He would definitely go convential on the Korean Peninsula, and, with the fact that he has one of the largest military forces in the world (1.2 Million places him in the top 5, if not the top 3), it would be enough to occupy SK fully and still have enough home guard forces to deal with potential troublemakers in the North. Even though NK equipment is old and outdated, enough equipment can help win.

Sure, North Korea is in the top 5, in terms of deployment. But South Korea is not so far behind, and their principal ally is the US. Modern war is also not primarily about human waves, but about the smart use of combined arms, technological superiority, and supplies. Compare military budgets, rather than troop strengths. There, the South Koreans are far ahead, and that's even before we talk about the US.

North Korea has no chance of holding the peninsula. If things go maximally well for them, they can force a war of mutual devastation, but even that would involve catching the South Koreans with their pants down, which is very unlikely on that most watched of borders.

According to Wikipedia list of Armies SK isn't in the top 5, may not even be in the top 10 with respect to active forces (although they do have 3 million reservist, but NK had 4.5 million reservists). Now, the big question is, what percentage of SKs reservist are in the vicinity of Seoul? A potential artillery first strike could severally degrade SKs reservist forces if enough of them are in the Seoul metropolitan area.

If the NKs are going to go nuclear on this, they're going to use a missile and either hit Japan, some part of western Alaska, or try for Hawaii. We know that their missiles are good enough to hit Japan and could reach some low population areas of western Alaska, but Hawaii is the big question.

While not to minimize the devastation of a nuclear assault, the North Koreans are simply not capable of truly massive destruction in Hawaii. Even if everything goes to plan with their missiles, they just don't have the firepower. They might kill tens or even hundreds of thousands of people, but they would be hard pressed to even decimate (see: other thread) the population of Hawaii, let alone wipe it out. Even if they hit smack dab in the middle of Honolulu, it's just not that large.

-Jester

It isn't devestation they would be after, it would be terror. They would do it just to see if a bloody nose is enough to make the US to turn tail and run. And another thing that no one is looking at here about low yield weapons, they don't seem like they can do much initial damage, it's long term where they can really cause problems. In essence, you don't need much of a pop to create a weapon that makes an area uninhabitable for many years to come, simply building the warhead's skin out of a high absorbtion neutron material that becomes a radioactive isotope after neutron absorbtion (typically becoming a gamma emitter) can cause no end of trouble due to dispersion from the bomb. Co59 is a perfect example (although NK couldn't use it because Cobalt is a fairly dense material, they'd probably use something else, but I don't have my Sergei chart handy to take a look for other possibilities). A 2.5 kt to 5 kt weapon is more than enough to cause longterm issues.

[Jester]

They won't nuke their own land. They want to occupy the peninsula, so why would they nuke it. They have enough force (baring US intervention) to take what they want without nukes.

North Korea is not exactly humanitarian when it comes to their populace. They want to rule ("unite") Korea, but they quite obviously have no regard for the lives of Koreans, nor the quality of life under their rule. If a few million dead and a little nuclear fallout was the price to pay for conquering the South, I have no doubt they would have paid it by now.

What deters them is the essential certainty that the would be destroyed by even trying. I don't think that the North Koreans have enough force to decisively beat the South, without any intervention at all. Their troop numbers are impressive, but they have serious problems with their economy, their technology. They are not as strong as they appear. South Korea, by contrast, is a rich, highly militarized, technological marvel. They have a smoothly functioning government, over half a million people under arms with millions more in reserve, and a fully modern army. Worldwide, they spend the 11th most on their military, 24 billion per year. That's almost the *total GDP* of North Korea, which is only 28 billion. The North is economically outclassed. If Seoul wasn't so close to the border, the South would hold all the aces.

Defensively, while an invasion of NK would probably cause a nationalistic reaction, they are reviled in SK, which would call up the entirety of its impressive army in a defensive war of survival. I don't think North Korea has the strength to defeat that, except at the cost of mutual annihilation.

I think the North Koreans understand full well how hopeless a fight would be. They maintain their level of militarization as the necessary safeguard against internal rebellion, and to prevent the US or South Korea from getting any ideas about attacking.

-Jester

[Jester]

That's the thing, they do have enough artillery within range of Seoul that within 15 minutes Seoul could be devestated before aircraft could be on station. And NK's military is smart enough they would place enough AA equipment in with their artillery to make air strikes painful.

What do you mean by "devastated"? Flattened? Annihilated? Shelled heavily? I have no doubt that hundreds of thousands would die. Maybe even a few million. But South Korea has a population of over 50 million, and no doubt they've been planning for precisely this contingency for half a century. Outdated AA equipment is not going to stop a full-on air strike by one of the world's most modern air forces, when their whole country is at stake. The casualties would be fearful, but this would be total war.

According to Wikipedia list of Armies SK isn't in the top 5, may not even be in the top 10 with respect to active forces (although they do have 3 million reservist, but NK had 4.5 million reservists). Now, the big question is, what percentage of SKs reservist are in the vicinity of Seoul? A potential artillery first strike could severally degrade SKs reservist forces if enough of them are in the Seoul metropolitan area.

Perhaps 40% of the population of Korea is in the vicinity of Seoul. In the apocalyptic scenario where 100% of them died, then South Korea would have about 400,000 active troops, and about 2 million reservists to call up, vs. the North's 1.2 million active and 4 million reservists. That would leave them at about a 2.5 to 1 deficit in manpower, assuming zero contribution from Seoul.

However, remember that South Korea spends 4 times as much total on their troops, and almost 10 times as much per soldier. They have access to the world's most modern weapons, many of which they make themselves. North Korea, by contrast, is an economic and technological basket case, with outdated everything going back to Russian junk from the 1950s. That's a huge advantage in arms quality. I have no problem believing that military casualties would run 3 to 1 in the South's favour - even without US military intervention, which would be both inevitable and immediate.

It isn't devestation they would be after, it would be terror. They would do it just to see if a bloody nose is enough to make the US to turn tail and run.

Then they are idiots. The spiritual descendants of Curtis LeMay have been waiting to turn some Commies into craters since WWII, and this would be just the opportunity. The US public would be *furious*, and retaliation would be a political necessity. There is absolutely no way that a nuclear strike killing maybe 0.001 of the US population is going to break the morale of the world's superpower. Rather the opposite, I would imagine.

In essence, you don't need much of a pop to create a weapon that makes an area uninhabitable for many years to come, simply building the warhead's skin out of a high absorbtion neutron material that becomes a radioactive isotope after neutron absorbtion (typically becoming a gamma emitter) can cause no end of trouble due to dispersion from the bomb. Co59 is a perfect example (although NK couldn't use it because Cobalt is a fairly dense material, they'd probably use something else, but I don't have my Sergei chart handy to take a look for other possibilities). A 2.5 kt to 5 kt weapon is more than enough to cause longterm issues.

Okay. Let's say they manage the improbable, and they kill a million people in Hawaii, and force the evacuation of the rest, with the islands rendered uninhabitable. That would be far beyond their capacity, but running with it, what then? Where would that have gotten them? North Korea would be officially fracked. The US would have suffered a "bloody nose", but North Korea would burn to the ground within the week.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

They would do it just to see if a bloody nose is enough to make the US to turn tail and run.

Didn't somebody try that in December of 1941? I seem to have the impression that that didn't work out too well for them.

--Pete

[Delc]

According to Wikipedia list of Armies SK isn't in the top 5, may not even be in the top 10 with respect to active forces (although they do have 3 million reservist, but NK had 4.5 million reservists). Now, the big question is, what percentage of SKs reservist are in the vicinity of Seoul? A potential artillery first strike could severally degrade SKs reservist forces if enough of them are in the Seoul metropolitan area.

South Korea is 8th on that list, but I think you overestimate the value of numbers. From a numbers standpoint the Iraqi military was as strong as the force that invaded in 2003. It took 6 weeks for them to be utterly crushed (and by some estimates, decimated). Technology and training mean a lot more than soldier count. Zerging an opponent takes a lot more than a 3:1 numbers advantage. Using the invasion numbers from Iraq, they would need something like 174:1 to be successful.

[kandrathe]

North Korea is not exactly humanitarian when it comes to their populace. They want to rule ("unite") Korea, but they quite obviously have no regard for the lives of Koreans, nor the quality of life under their rule. If a few million dead and a little nuclear fallout was the price to pay for conquering the South, I have no doubt they would have paid it by now.

If China would just cut them off, this pariah state would finally fall, or just explode. They probably aren't as brutal as our propaganda portrays them, and if they had the means of providing for their people better and maintaining their totalitarian state they would. But, their prime motivation has been to maintain the totalitarian state at all costs.

What deters them is the essential certainty that the would be destroyed by even trying. I don't think that the North Koreans have enough force to decisively beat the South, without any intervention at all.

Probably true, however I can't solidly count on their rationality here. They are often unpredictable, ergo, irrational.

Their troop numbers are impressive, but they have serious problems with their economy, their technology. They are not as strong as they appear.

We may be over estimating their deprivation, and under estimating their motivation. I agree though that from our point of view, they appear to have deep supply trouble within their forces and low morale.

South Korea, by contrast, is a rich, highly militarized, technological marvel. They have a smoothly functioning government, over half a million people under arms with millions more in reserve, and a fully modern army. Worldwide, they spend the 11th most on their military, 24 billion per year. That's almost the *total GDP* of North Korea, which is only 28 billion. The North is economically outclassed. If Seoul wasn't so close to the border, the South would hold all the aces.

The US has worked hard to modernize the Korean forces. They have most of the technology, and innovations that we do. They are a significant force.

Defensively, while an invasion of NK would probably cause a nationalistic reaction, they are reviled in SK, which would call up the entirety of its impressive army in a defensive war of survival. I don't think North Korea has the strength to defeat that, except at the cost of mutual annihilation.

I doubt SK would strike NK first. The US maybe would, and it would be a blitzkrieg of unimaginable speed and precision using every conventional weapon in our arsenal. It would be paramount for a successful strike to cripple their communication, command and control structure almost immediately. One concern would be NK's CBW capabilities.

I think the North Koreans understand full well how hopeless a fight would be. They maintain their level of militarization as the necessary safeguard against internal rebellion, and to prevent the US or South Korea from getting any ideas about attacking.

I think the North Koreans are mostly kept intentionally ignorant of what is happening. They never knew about the little skirmish where SK kicked their butts last November, and know little about the sinking of the SK ship except perhaps they've been falsely accused. I'm sure from their perspective the outside world seems hostile, unjustly causing deprivation and suffering for their country.

[Lissa]

Hi,

They would do it just to see if a bloody nose is enough to make the US to turn tail and run.

Didn't somebody try that in December of 1941? I seem to have the impression that that didn't work out too well for them.

--Pete

Techincally, the Japanese weren't trying to shock the US into submission, they were trying to demolish the US Pacific Fleet. If the US Carriers had been at Pearl on the day of attack instead of on sea trials south of the islands, the Japanese could have had the Pacific to themselves till late in '43 or '44. It was the Carriers, and Yamamoto realized the mistake, that got the US back into shape to devestate the Japanese Navy at Midway (we sank 4 of the Japanese Carriers to our one lost at Midway). Carriers truly made the difference in the Pacific theatre (the last time the T was crossed was after Leyte Gulf when a US Battlegroup crossed it before the Japanese could and the Japanese again were devestated at sea).

[Lissa]

That's the thing, they do have enough artillery within range of Seoul that within 15 minutes Seoul could be devestated before aircraft could be on station. And NK's military is smart enough they would place enough AA equipment in with their artillery to make air strikes painful.

What do you mean by "devastated"? Flattened? Annihilated? Shelled heavily? I have no doubt that hundreds of thousands would die. Maybe even a few million. But South Korea has a population of over 50 million, and no doubt they've been planning for precisely this contingency for half a century. Outdated AA equipment is not going to stop a full-on air strike by one of the world's most modern air forces, when their whole country is at stake. The casualties would be fearful, but this would be total war.

I think you give too much creedence to how quickly aircraft can get on station. While the SKs and US could get some planes on station quickly, they won't have an overwhelming force and aircraft can only carry so much ordinance.

Also, artillery doesn't have to directly destroy things to cause a lot of problems. All the artilery has to go is cause enough structural damage to large enough buildings to bring down multiple buildings unless the damaged build goes straight down (must as the World Trade Center towers went straight down). A large building crashing into another large building can bring down both building and potentially bring down more buildings, effectively a domino effect.

Likewise, the goal in modern warfare is not to kill your enemy, it is to wound them so that you end up taking the wounded out of the fight and 2 to 3 others that are tending to the wounded. Why kill someone when you can take four out by just wounding one severly enough?

According to Wikipedia list of Armies SK isn't in the top 5, may not even be in the top 10 with respect to active forces (although they do have 3 million reservist, but NK had 4.5 million reservists). Now, the big question is, what percentage of SKs reservist are in the vicinity of Seoul? A potential artillery first strike could severally degrade SKs reservist forces if enough of them are in the Seoul metropolitan area.

Perhaps 40% of the population of Korea is in the vicinity of Seoul. In the apocalyptic scenario where 100% of them died, then South Korea would have about 400,000 active troops, and about 2 million reservists to call up, vs. the North's 1.2 million active and 4 million reservists. That would leave them at about a 2.5 to 1 deficit in manpower, assuming zero contribution from Seoul.

However, remember that South Korea spends 4 times as much total on their troops, and almost 10 times as much per soldier. They have access to the world's most modern weapons, many of which they make themselves. North Korea, by contrast, is an economic and technological basket case, with outdated everything going back to Russian junk from the 1950s. That's a huge advantage in arms quality. I have no problem believing that military casualties would run 3 to 1 in the South's favour - even without US military intervention, which would be both inevitable and immediate.

Again, you're not recognizing several facets here. You're looking at a straight up numbers game and not considering other factors. Superior technology helps, but as been proven before, a technologically inferior force can defeat a technologically superior force if properly used (take a look at some of the tactics the Russians used against the Germans in WW2, the Russians were technologically inferior in several battles, but due to the sheer number of forces available they were able to prevail.

It isn't devestation they would be after, it would be terror. They would do it just to see if a bloody nose is enough to make the US to turn tail and run.

Then they are idiots. The spiritual descendants of Curtis LeMay have been waiting to turn some Commies into craters since WWII, and this would be just the opportunity. The US public would be *furious*, and retaliation would be a political necessity. There is absolutely no way that a nuclear strike killing maybe 0.001 of the US population is going to break the morale of the world's superpower. Rather the opposite, I would imagine.

Probably true, but this is KJI we're talking about. He is crazy enough to do it.

In essence, you don't need much of a pop to create a weapon that makes an area uninhabitable for many years to come, simply building the warhead's skin out of a high absorbtion neutron material that becomes a radioactive isotope after neutron absorbtion (typically becoming a gamma emitter) can cause no end of trouble due to dispersion from the bomb. Co59 is a perfect example (although NK couldn't use it because Cobalt is a fairly dense material, they'd probably use something else, but I don't have my Sergei chart handy to take a look for other possibilities). A 2.5 kt to 5 kt weapon is more than enough to cause longterm issues.

Okay. Let's say they manage the improbable, and they kill a million people in Hawaii, and force the evacuation of the rest, with the islands rendered uninhabitable. That would be far beyond their capacity, but running with it, what then? Where would that have gotten them? North Korea would be officially fracked. The US would have suffered a "bloody nose", but North Korea would burn to the ground within the week.

-Jester

Probably less, but again, this is KJI. But the point is, don't sneeze at 2.5kt or 5kt weapons, they can do some serious damage if properly configured.

[Jester]

I think you give too much creedence to how quickly aircraft can get on station. While the SKs and US could get some planes on station quickly, they won't have an overwhelming force and aircraft can only carry so much ordinance.

I don't know how long it would take. But given the number of carrier groups the US has, the extent of their bases and friendly bases in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, I would guess that North Korea would never have control of the skies, even in a pre-emptive strike, and that total air superiority would be achieved within a week. SK already has 600 modern planes, more than enough to deal with NK's outdated air force.

Also, artillery doesn't have to directly destroy things to cause a lot of problems. All the artilery has to go is cause enough structural damage to large enough buildings to bring down multiple buildings unless the damaged build goes straight down (must as the World Trade Center towers went straight down). A large building crashing into another large building can bring down both building and potentially bring down more buildings, effectively a domino effect.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to live in Seoul the day the North Koreans go to war. It would probably be hell on earth. But even the worst case of destruction for Seoul would not break South Korea.

Likewise, the goal in modern warfare is not to kill your enemy, it is to wound them so that you end up taking the wounded out of the fight and 2 to 3 others that are tending to the wounded. Why kill someone when you can take four out by just wounding one severly enough?

Because North Korea has no long game. They are surrounded, outnumbered, outgunned, outpowered. They cannot feed their people, and would likely be unable to feed the military within a few months of war. They can't bleed South Korea to death. They need to win fast, and that means not just burdening the South Koreans with causalties, but breaking their backs strategically. And I don't think they have the muscle to manage it.

Again, you're not recognizing several facets here. You're looking at a straight up numbers game and not considering other factors.

Strange, that seems to be what you're doing, claiming North Korea would win, when their *single* advantage is numbers. On every other front, they're losing. Badly.

Superior technology helps, but as been proven before, a technologically inferior force can defeat a technologically superior force if properly used (take a look at some of the tactics the Russians used against the Germans in WW2, the Russians were technologically inferior in several battles, but due to the sheer number of forces available they were able to prevail.

Human Wave tactics were not very effective even in WWII. The Germans nearly destroyed the Russians, despite an enormous advantage in numbers. They only failed because a) the Americans provided the Soviets technology, expertise, and resources in staggering quantities, b) Russia in winter is colder than a witch's tit, c) Hitler's strategic interference was ruinous, and most importantly, d) Germany, not the USSR, was surrounded by its enemies.

Times have changed since then, and sheer volume has become even less effective. North Korea, not South Korea, is cut off from the rest of the world. Both the US and South Korean militaries are highly competent, while North Korea is no doubt plagued by all the problems of a highly politicized, internally-focused army.

The deck is stacked against North Korea. They have only a middling short game, based on sheer numbers. In the medium term, they've got no chance. The only question is how much damage they could do in the meantime.

-Jester

[Lissa]

I think you give too much creedence to how quickly aircraft can get on station. While the SKs and US could get some planes on station quickly, they won't have an overwhelming force and aircraft can only carry so much ordinance.

I don't know how long it would take. But given the number of carrier groups the US has, the extent of their bases and friendly bases in Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, I would guess that North Korea would never have control of the skies, even in a pre-emptive strike, and that total air superiority would be achieved within a week. SK already has 600 modern planes, more than enough to deal with NK's outdated air force.

You do realize who small SK is right? A week to move forces into position, the NKs could be at the tip of the peninsula before them. Likewise, it will take hours for properly equipped planes in Japan and Okinawa to get to Korea to assist. It also takes time to arm the planes as well as only a few planes are ready to go at a given time, most are not fueled and not armed and that will take time as well. You're talking a minimum response from Japanese and Okinawa based aircraft of atleast 6 to 8 hours, a lot can happen in that short amount of time.

Let me ask you this Jester, have you looked at NKs forces? I think you might be a little surprised at their technological levels for their equipment if you did.

Also, artillery doesn't have to directly destroy things to cause a lot of problems. All the artilery has to go is cause enough structural damage to large enough buildings to bring down multiple buildings unless the damaged build goes straight down (must as the World Trade Center towers went straight down). A large building crashing into another large building can bring down both building and potentially bring down more buildings, effectively a domino effect.

Don't get me wrong. I wouldn't want to live in Seoul the day the North Koreans go to war. It would probably be hell on earth. But even the worst case of destruction for Seoul would not break South Korea.

I bet it would cause some severe problems with C&C however. SK's government is based in Seoul and a good amount of their military leadership is going to be there as well to interface with the civillian government. A strike on Seoul could have dire consequences for the SK military.

Likewise, the goal in modern warfare is not to kill your enemy, it is to wound them so that you end up taking the wounded out of the fight and 2 to 3 others that are tending to the wounded. Why kill someone when you can take four out by just wounding one severly enough?

Because North Korea has no long game. They are surrounded, outnumbered, outgunned, outpowered. They cannot feed their people, and would likely be unable to feed the military within a few months of war. They can't bleed South Korea to death. They need to win fast, and that means not just burdening the South Koreans with causalties, but breaking their backs strategically. And I don't think they have the muscle to manage it.

Again, I suggest you go look at the NK forces. They're not as backwater as you may think when it comes to their military.

Again, you're not recognizing several facets here. You're looking at a straight up numbers game and not considering other factors.

Strange, that seems to be what you're doing, claiming North Korea would win, when their *single* advantage is numbers. On every other front, they're losing. Badly.

Again, go do some research on some of the weapon systems the NKs use, you might be surprised at just what they could accomplish.

Superior technology helps, but as been proven before, a technologically inferior force can defeat a technologically superior force if properly used (take a look at some of the tactics the Russians used against the Germans in WW2, the Russians were technologically inferior in several battles, but due to the sheer number of forces available they were able to prevail.

Human Wave tactics were not very effective even in WWII. The Germans nearly destroyed the Russians, despite an enormous advantage in numbers. They only failed because a) the Americans provided the Soviets technology, expertise, and resources in staggering quantities, b) Russia in winter is colder than a witch's tit, c) Hitler's strategic interference was ruinous, and most importantly, d) Germany, not the USSR, was surrounded by its enemies.

Times have changed since then, and sheer volume has become even less effective. North Korea, not South Korea, is cut off from the rest of the world. Both the US and South Korean militaries are highly competent, while North Korea is no doubt plagued by all the problems of a highly politicized, internally-focused army.

The deck is stacked against North Korea. They have only a middling short game, based on sheer numbers. In the medium term, they've got no chance. The only question is how much damage they could do in the meantime.

-Jester

I wouldn't take that bet. The US and SK does have some of a technological advantage, but it's not as huge a gap as you seem to think. From the way you talk, you think NK is using WW2 and equipment from the 50s, this is not the case. They are a lot more modern that you realize.

[Jester]

You do realize who small SK is right? A week to move forces into position, the NKs could be at the tip of the peninsula before them. Likewise, it will take hours for properly equipped planes in Japan and Okinawa to get to Korea to assist. It also takes time to arm the planes as well as only a few planes are ready to go at a given time, most are not fueled and not armed and that will take time as well. You're talking a minimum response from Japanese and Okinawa based aircraft of atleast 6 to 8 hours, a lot can happen in that short amount of time.

North Korea is not going to conquer South Korea in eight hours, or even a week. It's not going to happen. SK has a formidable armed forces, with technological superiority, along a fortified border. They know exactly where the attack will be coming from. They watch the border with every eye they have, from space, from the DMZ, from every angle they know. They have been planning for this attack since the days of their grandfathers. The North Koreans are *not* just going to roll their tanks from the DMZ to the tip of the peninsula before the South Koreans and the US can get their pants on. This is the no.1 contingency, something they've been planning for, that everyone is aware of.

Let me ask you this Jester, have you looked at NKs forces? I think you might be a little surprised at their technological levels for their equipment if you did.

(...)

Again, I suggest you go look at the NK forces. They're not as backwater as you may think when it comes to their military.

(...)

Again, go do some research on some of the weapon systems the NKs use, you might be surprised at just what they could accomplish.

(...)

I wouldn't take that bet. The US and SK does have some of a technological advantage, but it's not as huge a gap as you seem to think. From the way you talk, you think NK is using WW2 and equipment from the 50s, this is not the case. They are a lot more modern that you realize.

They do remarkably well for an impoverished technological backwater that discourages innovation and education. They spend 1/3 of their GDP on the military - and yet it still doesn't amount to more than 1/3 of what the South Koreans spend, on fewer troops, while only spending a few % of GDP. The North Korean Army just does not stack up against the world's most advanced nations, and that's exactly who their opponents are: the US, South Korea, Japan, and probably NATO as well.

Plus, they have an enormous military to equip. Once they start losing vehicles and equipment, they're going to have to fall back on something. They don't have the production capacity to replace their armaments, and what little they have will be blown into oblivion within weeks. That means using their stockpiles, and yes, their stockpiles include a hell of a lot of outdated equipment, including old Korean War material.

It's not just about having modern weapons, although they are well behind in that as well. It's about being able to produce them, replace them, fight with them, deal with your enemies' technology. They're behind on expertise, they're behind on training (Have you seen the estimates of their pilot's flight time? They're going to get blown away by US fliers, guaranteed.), they're behind on everything. This is not a reason to disregard their obviously enormous military power, but they are not, man for man, as effective as South Korea. I doubt they're even 2 or 3 to one, which is where they'd need to be to win at all, let alone decisively.

I bet it would cause some severe problems with C&C however. SK's government is based in Seoul and a good amount of their military leadership is going to be there as well to interface with the civillian government. A strike on Seoul could have dire consequences for the SK military.

What, you think with Seoul being where it is, that the South Koreans just plum forgot about the possibility of a strike on the capital? Question no. 1 for war with North Korea is: "What do we do when they attack Seoul right off the bat?" If they don't have an answer for that obvious question, then maybe they deserve to get beaten. But they're definitely not that stupid. If they don't have solid contingencies in place for the fall of Seoul, I would be absolutely shocked.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

What, you think with Seoul being where it is, that the South Koreans just plum forgot about the possibility of a strike on the capital?

Which is why Cheyenne Mountain isn't in D.C.

I wonder where the real SK military HQ is. I suspect only the top brass of the SK (and probably NK ) know for sure.

--Pete

[Lissa]

You do realize who small SK is right? A week to move forces into position, the NKs could be at the tip of the peninsula before them. Likewise, it will take hours for properly equipped planes in Japan and Okinawa to get to Korea to assist. It also takes time to arm the planes as well as only a few planes are ready to go at a given time, most are not fueled and not armed and that will take time as well. You're talking a minimum response from Japanese and Okinawa based aircraft of atleast 6 to 8 hours, a lot can happen in that short amount of time.

North Korea is not going to conquer South Korea in eight hours, or even a week. It's not going to happen. SK has a formidable armed forces, with technological superiority, along a fortified border. They know exactly where the attack will be coming from. They watch the border with every eye they have, from space, from the DMZ, from every angle they know. They have been planning for this attack since the days of their grandfathers. The North Koreans are *not* just going to roll their tanks from the DMZ to the tip of the peninsula before the South Koreans and the US can get their pants on. This is the no.1 contingency, something they've been planning for, that everyone is aware of.

Yet, your comments make you think that within 15 minutes of NK launching an assault that SK would have air superiorty. The point is Jester, it's not as simple as you portait that SK would be able to instantly pull off a repulsion from a NK first strike. You cannot get that many aircraft in the air that quickly to defend and try to take air superiorty. In order to have air superiorty that quickly, you would literally have to have the majority of your air forces fully fueled with ordinance already onboard and your pilots sitting in the cockpits or in ready shacks to get into the planes and be in the air within a minute or two of the attack. I guarentee that NK has thought through things as well and I'm sure they would use missiles with crattering warheads to remove the SK air fields as well.

Remember, as much as the SKs have been preparing for this possibility, so have the NKs.

Let me ask you this Jester, have you looked at NKs forces? I think you might be a little surprised at their technological levels for their equipment if you did.

(...)

Again, I suggest you go look at the NK forces. They're not as backwater as you may think when it comes to their military.

(...)

Again, go do some research on some of the weapon systems the NKs use, you might be surprised at just what they could accomplish.

(...)

I wouldn't take that bet. The US and SK does have some of a technological advantage, but it's not as huge a gap as you seem to think. From the way you talk, you think NK is using WW2 and equipment from the 50s, this is not the case. They are a lot more modern that you realize.

They do remarkably well for an impoverished technological backwater that discourages innovation and education. They spend 1/3 of their GDP on the military - and yet it still doesn't amount to more than 1/3 of what the South Koreans spend, on fewer troops, while only spending a few % of GDP. The North Korean Army just does not stack up against the world's most advanced nations, and that's exactly who their opponents are: the US, South Korea, Japan, and probably NATO as well.

Plus, they have an enormous military to equip. Once they start losing vehicles and equipment, they're going to have to fall back on something. They don't have the production capacity to replace their armaments, and what little they have will be blown into oblivion within weeks. That means using their stockpiles, and yes, their stockpiles include a hell of a lot of outdated equipment, including old Korean War material.

It's not just about having modern weapons, although they are well behind in that as well. It's about being able to produce them, replace them, fight with them, deal with your enemies' technology. They're behind on expertise, they're behind on training (Have you seen the estimates of their pilot's flight time? They're going to get blown away by US fliers, guaranteed.), they're behind on everything. This is not a reason to disregard their obviously enormous military power, but they are not, man for man, as effective as South Korea. I doubt they're even 2 or 3 to one, which is where they'd need to be to win at all, let alone decisively.

I bet it would cause some severe problems with C&C however. SK's government is based in Seoul and a good amount of their military leadership is going to be there as well to interface with the civillian government. A strike on Seoul could have dire consequences for the SK military.

What, you think with Seoul being where it is, that the South Koreans just plum forgot about the possibility of a strike on the capital? Question no. 1 for war with North Korea is: "What do we do when they attack Seoul right off the bat?" If they don't have an answer for that obvious question, then maybe they deserve to get beaten. But they're definitely not that stupid. If they don't have solid contingencies in place for the fall of Seoul, I would be absolutely shocked.

-Jester

Again Jester, let me reiterate. Look up NKs weapons systems. They are not as backwater as you think they are (they have Russian and Chinese weapon systems from the late 90s and also have weapon systems that they have modified for their use). The US hasn't seen significant improvements in their weapon systems since the late 90s either (most of the upgrades to US weapon systems have been tweaks and software, the only new weapon system added to the US arsenal, and the SKs don't have it, is the F22 Raptor with the closest base being Elmendorf in Alaska). The only advantage the SKs and US have on the NKs in weapon systems is the human element, the SKs and US are better trained, but the weapon systems for both NK and SK along with US theatre forcers are closer than you think.

[Lissa]

Hi,

What, you think with Seoul being where it is, that the South Koreans just plum forgot about the possibility of a strike on the capital?

Which is why Cheyenne Mountain isn't in D.C.

I wonder where the real SK military HQ is. I suspect only the top brass of the SK (and probably NK ) know for sure.

--Pete

Yet all the top brass, from the SecDef to the Joint Chiefs are in D.C. So sure, the SKs probably do have a secondary C&C location, but, they're not going to do anything until they can't get any C&C from Seoul just as Cheyenne doesn't do anything until they can't get back to the C&C in D.C.

[Jester]

Well, I suppose there's no point in beating a dead horse. Needless to say, I think you're wrong. How South Korea, spending $24 billion a year, could not manage to outclass North Korea, spending $9 billion a year on an army twice its size, is beyond me. How the "only advantage" of the United States military, the most powerful force on the planet, with a budget of $500 billion a year, would be in training? I have no idea.

Compare the compositions of their respective air forces. That tells the story well enough. MiG-17s? MiG-19s and 21s? Il-28s? They're really going to beat the South Koreans and the United States with poorly trained pilots in those planes?

-Jester

[Crusader]

What I wonder is whether any nation would retailliate with nukes against NK, should NK use a nuke on SK or it's allies. Sure, on the scale of power NK's nukes are puny, especially when put against modern nukes which can reach almost 1000x their power. (NK's nukes are in the kT range, but the USA and Russia have bombs in the MT range and then pretty much decided to call it quits, since making an even more powerful bomb is almost pointless and even dangerous for themselves, even if they throw it at the other side of the world).

What I think is that should NK throw a bomb anywhere, China would either sit back and watch NK get massacred with conventional arms or invade it themselves to make it a new province of China.

I can imagine a scenario comparable to the 2008 Georgia-Russian war. NK starts it, SK retalliates, The world is staring open mouthed in the opening moves of the war and starts deciding on what to to do and during that, China immediately makes it's move and invades and takes over NK. This nets China a new province and prevents nuclear retalliation against NK. China doesn't want nukes falling on NK because the nuclear fallout is likely to spill over China. It's like indirectly throwing a nuke on China. They wouldn't have the crater(s) but the radiation would fall over them with all the terrible long-term consequences.

[Lissa]

The South Korean Airforce

Well, I suppose there's no point in beating a dead horse. Needless to say, I think you're wrong. How South Korea, spending $24 billion a year, could not manage to outclass North Korea, spending $9 billion a year on an army twice its size, is beyond me. How the "only advantage" of the United States military, the most powerful force on the planet, with a budget of $500 billion a year, would be in training? I have no idea.

Compare the compositions of their respective air forces. That tells the story well enough. MiG-17s? MiG-19s and 21s? Il-28s? They're really going to beat the South Koreans and the United States with poorly trained pilots in those planes?

-Jester

And I think you're wrong because you're not looking at the whole picture of the theatre involved. The South Korean Airforce has a number of modern aircraft, but their forces have a large number of F4s and F5s (both Vietnam era, same as most of the NKs planes you listed). They also have no attack helicopters at all where as the NKs have a number of them (specifically Mi 24s and Mi 26s).

Now, let's take a look at ground forces (which you seemed to have ignored as well). North Korean Ground Forces are using similar era equipment to the South Korean Ground Forces. Again, the South Koreans have a few more modern pieces, but, the technical advantage isn't this gigantic amont that you continue to portrait. As I said many times earlier, have you actually looked at the forces involved here? Clearly you haven't if you continue to spout that 24Billion is trumping 9Billion to have better equipment.

Whether you want to believe it or not Jester, a lot of the money in the US armed forces budget is for training/operations and personnel. If you take a look at the US Defense Budget, you'll notice that 2/3s of the budget is going to operational/training and personnel costs, that's over $400 Billion right there. You'll also note that between procurement and research, a little than a third of the US budget is spent on equipment. If you look at the situation in NK and SK, I'm sure you will see something along the lines where SK is spending their budget like the US, $16 Billion on training/operations and personnel, where as the NKs are spending more money on procurement (and if you pay attention in the link you did above about the NK Air Forces, you'll see that an entire class of aircraft is ground due to high fuel costs which shows that NK isn't spending as much on operational/training costs if they can't fly those jets due to the cost of the fuel).

So, I think you're not viewing things in the proper light and are using some statistics in a non-meaningful manner. You are comparing NK forces to US Forces when not realizing that everything the US gets in its military does not automatically get transferred to our allies' inventories. In essence, you've been comparing apples and pineapples.

[TheDragoon]

In essence, you've been comparing apples and pineapples.

I generally agree with what Jester is saying though I don't disagree that the North Koreans are probably making the most of their money by getting equipment and whatnot from allies on the cheap which could distort how advanced they might be. However, AT THE ABSOLUTE BEST for North Korea, they could be considered South Korea's equal. Based upon that assumption (which is a major reach, in my opinion) I just can't see North Korea being able to make any push at all into South Korea. Assuming all things being equal they would just continue to lob rockets and artillery at each other while fighting around near the DMZ until such time as US forces could be brought in to heavily turn the tide against North Korea. Heck, even in the Iraq war the US took several weeks to make it to Baghdad despite the fact that the Iraqis were completely out-classed. I would have a hard time believing the North Koreans could do better.

The only thing that could possibly result in anything you describe, Lissa, is if the North Koreans somehow managed to launch a blitzkrieg campaign that completely surprises South Korea AND the US. As Jester notes, that is extremely unlikely given how many ways South Korea and the US can watch the Korean forces moving within the country. If North Korea ever started building up for a major attack, there's probably greater than a 99% chance that South Korea or the US would know something was going on in advance and they could prepare. In that case, it is not unreasonable that opposition forces would be mobilized almost immediately from staged locations nearby, resulting in the sort of rout Jester has been predicting.

[Lissa]

In essence, you've been comparing apples and pineapples.

I generally agree with what Jester is saying though I don't disagree that the North Koreans are probably making the most of their money by getting equipment and whatnot from allies on the cheap which could distort how advanced they might be. However, AT THE ABSOLUTE BEST for North Korea, they could be considered South Korea's equal. Based upon that assumption (which is a major reach, in my opinion) I just can't see North Korea being able to make any push at all into South Korea. Assuming all things being equal they would just continue to lob rockets and artillery at each other while fighting around near the DMZ until such time as US forces could be brought in to heavily turn the tide against North Korea. Heck, even in the Iraq war the US took several weeks to make it to Baghdad despite the fact that the Iraqis were completely out-classed. I would have a hard time believing the North Koreans could do better.

The only thing that could possibly result in anything you describe, Lissa, is if the North Koreans somehow managed to launch a blitzkrieg campaign that completely surprises South Korea AND the US. As Jester notes, that is extremely unlikely given how many ways South Korea and the US can watch the Korean forces moving within the country. If North Korea ever started building up for a major attack, there's probably greater than a 99% chance that South Korea or the US would know something was going on in advance and they could prepare. In that case, it is not unreasonable that opposition forces would be mobilized almost immediately from staged locations nearby, resulting in the sort of rout Jester has been predicting.

That's the thing though TD, NKs forces are mostly mobilized as is. Roughtly half of the NK forces are in the DMZ area. SK is similarly setup. Within a minute or two, either side could first strike and do some serious damage to the opposite's sides forces in and around the DMZ. I don't see the SKs launching a first strike because of what would happen if they did (China would jump in).

Also, as Jester noted, SK's population is 50 Million, but of those 50 Million, roughly half are within artillery range of the North. Between the 10 to 11 million in Seoul, 10 million in the province that Seoul is surrounded by, and 3 million in the other province that is along the DMZ, that's a lot of population to have under the barrels of the NK artillery. In a first strike opportunity, the NKs would degrade the SK forces farily quickly. While I realize it doesn't seem practical, it is, however, quite possible for NK to put some severe hurt on SK.

And something to note about the US push to Bagdahd, the size of the country added time. South Korea is fairly small in comparison to Iraq, about 100k sq km to 500k sq km. From the DMZ to the Sea of Japan is roughly 400km where as from the Iraq/Kuwait border to Bagdhad is about 1000km. Likewise, sand is more harsh on equipment than the what you would see in Korea. So travel times can vary a bit more, but since the US had absolute control of the airspace, it was really more a travel issue due to elements in getting to Bagdhad, the same situation may not occur in Korea.

Personally, I'd love to have Occhi chime in as he's got a better handle on this than all of us.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Personally, I'd love to have Occhi chime in as he's got a better handle on this than all of us.

Than all of us *combined*. Yes. I'd love to see him here more often.

--Pete