Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

The thread title should be 1corvette1torpedo

[Grakelin]

Even if they have loyal troops you can't fight fight a war without supplies and infrastructure, or at least not for long. The first Korean war and Vietnam war only lasted so long due to both sides receiving foreign material support.

North Korea has lots of supplies and infrastructure.

You guys are really uneducated.

[kuro_suna]

Even if they have loyal troops you can't fight fight a war without supplies and infrastructure, or at least not for long. The first Korean war and Vietnam war only lasted so long due to both sides receiving foreign material support.

North Korea has lots of supplies and infrastructure.

You guys are really uneducated.

They won't after a round of air strikes.

[Grakelin]

You're joking, right?

[Funk]

thay have spent the last 50 year building for a war with the south.
look at there Incursion tunnels.
is the UK still in this?

[Jackrabbit]

Even if they have loyal troops you can't fight fight a war without supplies and infrastructure, or at least not for long. The first Korean war and Vietnam war only lasted so long due to both sides receiving foreign material support.

North Korea has lots of supplies and infrastructure.

You guys are really uneducated.

They won't after a round of air strikes.

Because that's absolutely how it works, and NK doesn't have any air defenses at all anyway.

[DasGuntLord01]

Is this a begining of an open war in the Korean peninsula? In such case, would NK be willing to use it's newly acquired nuclear arsenal?

Their nuclear aresenal is probably very small, and the weapons themselves troublesome and unreliable.  How many nukes can they launch?  Not enough, I'd wager.

As for war with North Korea, even if the UN or NATO does not get involved (and they will) the war would be over in weeks.  NK's economy is too weak to support total war.  South Korea would steamroll them.

[Jackrabbit]

Is this a begining of an open war in the Korean peninsula? In such case, would NK be willing to use it's newly acquired nuclear arsenal?

Their nuclear aresenal is probably very small, and the weapons themselves troublesome and unreliable.  How many nukes can they launch?  Not enough, I'd wager.

If you mean not enough to prevent the missiles from being shot down, then I don't know about that. But if you mean not enough to warrant launching them, I would be willing to bet money that they will if they are actually attacked, because their leader is batshit insane and their population will do whatever he says. It's an unhealthy combination.

But even then, they could just bury the bombs and set them off if an invasion starts (as was mentioned before), because they're crazy enough to do that too. If you merely wish to bury a bomb, there is no limit as to size.

Oh wow I suddenly need to watch that movie again.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

The US could wipe out its leadership and what little infrastructure it has in a day or two, and any lingering resistance once it's decapitated could probably be defeated with t-shirt guns and free sandwiches... :/

You're joking, right?

Only half. US air superiority could wipe out NK's ability to wage meaningful conventional warfare, and very likely eliminate their leadership in one fell swoop. The footwork of rooting out guerrilla resistance could then be left to the south koreans and psychological warfare. That's not to say it would be clean, or easy on either of the koreas, but the conflict would still be very one sided. Seoul's probably fucked, either from artillery barrages or nukes (assuming NK can even mobilize its nuclear arsenal...), but, always casualties in war. Especially fratricidal quasi-religious ones... :/

[Jackrabbit]

You left out the bit about a heavily militarized nation with over one million very well trained and fanatical troops and some serious defenses.

It would not be a one-sided fight, it would be painful, protracted and bloody (although I personally think that America might win because hell, how much money goes into defense each year?). Those one million men are not going to lump together in big groups and sit there waiting to be bombed. Also, what're the chances they have AA defenses? Pretty good.

Oh, and there's the bit about being batshit insane and possessing nuclear weapons which I'm quite sure they'd be willing to use defensively.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

It would not be a one-sided fight, it would be painful, protracted and bloody (although I personally think that America might win because hell, how much money goes into defense each year?). Those one million men are not going to lump together in big groups and sit there waiting to be bombed. Also, what're the chances they have AA defenses? Pretty good.

I sincerely doubt they'd have anti-air defenses that would be meaningful against what the US can throw at them. Meaning, within a week of the beginning of the conflict, the majority of their armor and air support would be little more than twisted heaps of slag, and their infantry couldn't meaningfully fortify any position because of nasty little toys like fuel-air bombs. Their communication networks would be wiped out, isolating pockets of resistance to be mopped up by SK infantry after a month of subjecting them to psychological warfare, and anything left past that would be only token guerrilla resistance, which, despite being heavily romanticized, is really a rather shit tactic in real life.

Oh, and there's the bit about being batshit insane and possessing nuclear weapons which I'm quite sure they'd be willing to use defensively.

That's assuming both that their arsenal works worth shit and they can mobilize it before it's destroyed. It also probably wouldn't make much of a difference for the war overall, just make it open a little bloodier (say, with the annihilation of Seoul).

[Il Palazzo]

Because it worked oh so well in Vietnam.

[Jackrabbit]

How, exactly, is guerrilla warfare a shit tactic? The US hasn't exactly proven it knows how to deal with it effectively.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

With guerrilla warfare you have, essentially, no supplies, no support, and no concentration of force, because any sizable cache of supplies will be bombed out from under you or seized, support (in this case referring to armor and air support) will be bombed before it ever gets to the front lines (in a modern conflict against a power that essentially defines air superiority) or left without fuel and ammo (see: supplies), and you can't concentrate your forces because a massed number of troops presents a nice target for the aforementioned bombing.

Then you have the nice little bonus of pissing off the occupiers to the point where they start slaughtering civilians in retribution, destroying a country utterly (see: every counter-guerrilla effort before the nineties)...

Of course, in this day and age, you can't just napalm every village you find and expect to get away with it, but there's been a good deal of advancement in the field of turning natives against the guerrillas with humanitarian support... In the case of Korea, it would help a great deal that it's other koreans rolling in instead of foreign soldiers that speak another language.

Now, you can make yourself a nuisance with guerrilla tactics, but you can't win a war, because if you've turned to guerrilla tactics, you've already lost, and are just clinging painfully on in the hopes that you'll still exist when it's all over. Which, in the case of Korea, will never happen, because the south taking the north would result in a permanent military occupation, hence the guerrillas can't just wait them out like, say, the taliban is trying to do (it can't mount a meaningful military resistance, all it can hope for is to still be a viable power when the US ups and leaves, and given that the whole point of being in afghanistan in the first place was to wipe out the taliban as a viable power...).

[RedWarrior0]

I must say that Vietnam is what this may end up being. Guerrilla warfare was indeed a shit tactic, and air support is plenty efficient. Of course, I know a Vietnam vet who wouldn't be given air support because of collateral damage risks. This was after the pickup helicopter got shot down. Interestingly enough, they would give him artillery support.

PPE: And I say guerrillas with nukes still have nukes.