Best Korea fires mortars at Worst Korea - Developing Story - Polidicks

[QUOTE=meepugh;26251044]I would like to see you during the Cold War.[/QUOTE] I'm just saying.

[QUOTE=Godzillarr;26251041]That would just be a betrayal to the South.[/QUOTE] I know that. That is why we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I'm rather worried. Could SK even hold up, much less lead an offense, on the North?

Let North invade South and they will see all of the technology and food in the shops. Then they would see how good Souths lives are and possibly leave the army.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;26250900]You want to know the real reason? China. China has been backing North Korea for the past fifty years, and even the US doesn't want a war with them.[/QUOTE] The Mainland China you are talking about died when Deng Xiaoping became leader. [QUOTE=Derubermensch;26250422]Why doesn't the south just invade the north? North Korea has absolutely no supporters and probably has a shit military in terms of strategy and equipment. No doubt the soldiers have been heavily indoctrinated, but if South Korea sent an Armoured spearhead through the DMZ they could probably crush the North in a matter of weeks/months. They might even recieve a great deal of support from liberated towns.[/QUOTE] That's not really feasible. Here's some of what the [url=http://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-dossiers/north-korean-dossier/north-koreas-weapons-programmes-a-net-asses/the-conventional-military-balance-on-the-kore/]International Institute of Stategic Studies[/url] says about an invasion of the North. [quote]If North Korea cannot be confident of achieving a successful invasion of South Korea, do Washington and Seoul have a plausible offensive option to invade North Korea and capture Pyongyang? Despite the relative shift in the military balance of power in favour of the allies, such a pre-emptive use of force would appear very risky. Even though US and South Korean forces enjoy qualitative superiority, and, via a US military build-up, could increase this superiority rapidly, [b]they could not be confident of winning an offensive war against North Korea without sustaining heavy military and collateral casualties. An all-out invasion, along the lines of the March–April 2003 campaign in Iraq, is not an appealing option. Even with the US military’s prowess and ability to execute ‘effects-based operations’ (which aim to disrupt the decision-making ability of an adversary) an invasion of North Korea would likely prove much more costly than the 2003 Iraq War.[/b] Firstly, with so many North Korean weapons deployed near Seoul, and many in protected locations, even a well-timed surprise attack could not prevent a heavy artillery bombardment of the South Korean capital. In their current positions, a large percentage of North Korea’s estimated 10,000 or so artillery pieces are deployed within range of Seoul, with the capability to fire several rounds a minute. The initial speed of a fired shell is generally around half a kilometre per second. Therefore, even if an allied counter-battery radar, some 10km away picked up a North Korean missile or artillery shell and established a track on it within seconds, a counter-strike would not be able to silence the North Korean gun or launcher for at least a minute. As a result, one artillery piece could probably fire 2–5 rounds before being neutralised or forced to retreat into its shelter. Theoretically, several thousand artillery rounds could land in Seoul no matter how hard the allies tried to prevent or stop the attack. Secondly, many North Korean military and political leadership facilities are located deep underground, making them hard to identify and attack, and thus limiting the effectiveness of effects-based operations. [b]North Korea has studied US campaigns in the Balkans and Middle East and has taken measures – such as hardening facilities, dispersing forces, and improving camouflage, concealment and deception – to counter US technological advantages.[/b] Compared with Iraq, North Korea has more numerous hardened underground facilities, and the US has even worse intelligence on the functions or even the locations of such facilities. It would be extremely difficult for US Special Forces to infiltrate North Korea, to locate command locations and to direct aerial attacks against such facilities. Thirdly, there is no straightforward line of approach to Pyongyang, like the open desert traversed by coalition forces in their advance on Baghdad in March–April 2003. Just as the difficult terrain would complicate a North Korean attack on the South, it would also present difficulties for any allied attack against the North. [b]As a result, the harassment of supply lines during an invasion of North Korea could be a much more pervasive problem than it was in Iraq.[/b] An amphibious landing to bypass the DMZ and attack Pyongyang directly would be a substantial and risky operation, especially since the North has made efforts to strengthen its coastal defences in recent years. Airborne troops would presumably play an important role in seizing key assets behind North Korean lines, but it could be difficult to reinforce these troops if advances over land were stalled. Fourthly, North Korea’s armed forces, with a total active-duty strength of more than a million, are much larger than Iraq’s and more likely to resist. Iraq’s forces numbered around 400,000 (against coalition forces of more than 250,000) and most of Iraq’s forces melted away under the coalition’s overwhelming firepower. In contrast, the US military respects the toughness and determination of the individual Korean soldier. While difficult to measure, the North Korean regime probably commands more political legitimacy and loyalty than the Ba’athist regime in Iraq, and a collapse of North Korea’s armed forces cannot be assumed. [b]Consequently, an offensive operation against North Korea would require a build-up of hundreds of thousands of US troops, in addition to a large number of South Korean soldiers.[/b] It would be impossible to conceal this build up from Pyongyang, which would have time to prepare its defences or even launch its own pre-emptive attack before allied forces could be fully deployed. ...[/quote]

This isn't really a big deal, it's a highly contested Island.

America is gonna move it's ass in and support south...

This is pretty scary. We could be on the verge of the next big war here chaps.

[QUOTE=gerbile5;26250759]An intellectual post? I'm so proud.[/QUOTE] i grow up so fast ;(

[QUOTE=meepugh;26251118]Let North invade South and they will see all of the technology and food in the shops. Then they would see how good Souths lives are and possibly leave the army.[/QUOTE] Or they'll just steamroll everything because [i]obviously[/i] North Korea is Best Korea. In all seriousness, deserting soldiers would most likely be shot on sight. The potential for a bullet in the head is a surprisingly strong motivator when it comes to keeping indoctrinated soldiers in line.

I wish SK hadnt retaliated at all. NK will just use it as propaganda saying SK attaked NK out of the blue. Just nuke the fucking place tbh its not like there's a better fate waiting for anyone living in NK.

[QUOTE=gudman;26250915]I'm concerned that US is already tied up by the military pacts with SK, and that NATO thing, you know...[/QUOTE] Why does the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation get pulled into this? They won't do shit cause it's a european organisation. NATO members may be involved, but it won't be under the guise of NATO.

I feel like something really bad is about to happen. IE Another Cold War, or another war

Does anyone have an idea on the numbers of the NK army? I know there's multiple estimates but it all boils down to a very large number. Bad tech sure, but numbers. [editline]23rd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;26251183]I wish SK hadnt retaliated at all. NK will just use it as propaganda saying SK attaked NK out of the blue. Just nuke the fucking place tbh its not like there's a better fate waiting for anyone living in NK.[/QUOTE] I would expect nothing less from a person with 7 X's in their name then this post. It probably will be used as propaganda though. NUKE IT! However, is a dumb thing to say.

America is going to win the war.

[QUOTE=Alyx Zark;26251195]Does anyone have an idea on the numbers of the NK army? I know there's multiple estimates but it all boils down to a very large number. Bad tech sure, but numbers.[/QUOTE] I thought it was like 20-30 million. Not active tho.

:gonk: Not good, not good, not good.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;26251249]I thought it was like 20-30 million. Not active tho.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure it's not that massive. I know its over a million though. 1.2?

[QUOTE=bravehat;26251192]Why does the NORTH ATLANTIC treaty organisation get pulled into this? They won't do shit cause it's a european organisation. NATO members may be involved, but it won't be under the guise of NATO.[/QUOTE] um... what happened in 1948?. wait a minute, I forget was it NATO or a "UN task force"? imma go look.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;26251249]I thought it was like 20-30 million. Not active tho.[/QUOTE] a little over 1 million active, 8 million reserves. That is if memory serves If you're interested in this as well the South has 650k active with 8 million reserves. That's also going off memory, so don't chew me out if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;26251183]I wish SK hadnt retaliated at all. NK will just use it as propaganda saying SK attaked NK out of the blue. Just nuke the fucking place tbh its not like there's a better fate waiting for anyone living in NK.[/QUOTE] Yep, cause an unprovoked attack on a civilian populated island so doesn't warrant retaliation.

[QUOTE=XxXKillErXxxX^2;26251249]I thought it was like 20-30 million. Not active tho.[/QUOTE] That's how much they can pull out of their ass if they want to

[QUOTE=Alyx Zark;26251195]Does anyone have an idea on the numbers of the NK army? I know there's multiple estimates but it all boils down to a very large number. Bad tech sure, but numbers. [editline]23rd November 2010[/editline] I would expect nothing less from a person with 7 X's in their name then this post. It probably will be used as propaganda though. NUKE IT! However, is a dumb thing to say.[/QUOTE] 2010 version of IISS's Military Balance book gave a figure of 1,106,000 active personnel. Around 8 million are in the reserve forces.

omg

[QUOTE=iownuall;26251288]Yep, cause an unprovoked attack on a civilian populated island so doesn't warrant retaliation.[/QUOTE] Well at least SK shows they're not going to just roll over. It'll be a rough battle though.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26251301]2010 version of IISS's Military Balance book gave a figure of 1,106,000 active personnel. Around 8 million are in the reserve forces.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty large number. Especially considering reserves can just come into combat if the need be.

[QUOTE=Goblix;26251282]a little over 1 million active, 8 million reserves. That is if memory serves If you're interested in this as well the South has 650k active with 8 million reserves. That's also going off memory, so don't chew me out if I'm wrong.[/QUOTE] Would SK have the better technology? Not only that but they're allied with the US.

[QUOTE=Alyx Zark;26251331]That's a pretty large number. Especially considering reserves can just come into combat if the need be.[/QUOTE] Some reserve battalions have one rifle for the entire battalion. And no ammunition, they just wave it at people they don't like and hope they go away.

[QUOTE=DerpHurr;26251341]Would SK have the better technology? Not only that but they're allied with the US.[/QUOTE] Probably better tech but who knows about the bomb scale?

so can somebody just give a quick summary of what's happened so far?

As bad as war is, I am interested in seeing conflict. Not because I like war, but I think it is so interesting to see shit happen in real time. Of course I'm as detached as possible from this, and in reality I don't want a real war to go on because I'd feel terrible for all the civilian casualties.