North Korea readies missiles against the USA

[Ziggurat]

I sit corrected.

That worked so well in Vietnam and NK last time.

Air power has evolved considerably.

And South Vietnam fell to an invasion from the north after we stopped providing air support.

From a country paralysed by the fearsome weapon, man with a box cutter, I'm not over-confident that manpower is not going to be an issue.

So you think North Korea can sneak enough of their soldiers into South Korea to take over? You think the DMZ security is laxer than Newark Airport on Sept 10, 2001?

ETA: On a re-read, it amazes me that anyone might still believe that air power alone is any way to acquire territory.

Nobody is arguing that. But you seem to be suggesting that modern armies can acquire territory when the enemy has air supremacy (not just air superiority). Which... well, it doesn't happen.

 

[Leif Roar]

Lol. Times have changed drastically since 1950.

For traditional warfare? There's been the jetification of air forces, the introduction of night-vision gear and satellite surveillance and tactical nuclear weapons have gone in and back out of favour. Other than that, the battlefield of symmetric warfare hasn't changed much since the Korean war. Oh, there's certainly been made large improvements (and cost increases) to much equipment and many weapon systems, but nothing dramatically new has been introduced.

And where did I say that manpower was completely ineffective in all circumstances? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

Well, that was the gist I got from your arguments.

 

[Quad4_72]

For traditional warfare? There's been the jetification of air forces, the introduction of night-vision gear and satellite surveillance and tactical nuclear weapons have gone in and back out of favour. Other than that, the battlefield of symmetric warfare hasn't changed much since the Korean war. Oh, there's certainly been made large improvements (and cost increases) to much equipment and many weapon systems, but nothing dramatically new has been introduced.

You must not know military equipment very well, which probably makes this conversation pointless. For example, the introduction of the M1A1 tank IS dramatic. Its firepower consists of a 120mm main gun, 2x 240C machine guns and 2X.50 caliber machine guns. You must not understand the firepower it truly possesses. If you put just eight of those on line against a horde of oncoming Chinese, it would be a slaughter. Launching CAN round after CAN round, and then when it ran out of those spraying with all of the machine guns, they wouldn't stand a chance. And that is only 8 tanks. In other words two platoons worth. You know how many people it would take to man those tanks? Just 32. Nothing back in 1950 even came close to comparing to the power of the M1A1. And I am not even talking about the M1A2 SEP, which is the current version with even more upgraded optics.

That is just one example of MANY dramatic military improvements since 1950.

Well, that was the gist I got from your arguments.

Not sure how you gathered that, but you were way off.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

You do understand that the Chinese military is technologically advanced, and will not just run screaming in a big pile at whatever enemy they see holding shovels, right?

 

[Quad4_72]

You do understand that the Chinese military is technologically advanced, and will not just run screaming in a big pile at whatever enemy they see holding shovels, right?

I sure do. A couple of posters have attempted to take what I said out of context, but try not to be distracted by them.

 

[Leif Roar]

You must not know military equipment very well, which probably makes this conversation pointless. For example, the introduction of the M1A1 tank IS dramatic. Its firepower consists of a 120mm main gun, 2x 240C machine guns and 2X.50 caliber machine guns.

The M1 Abrams is a fine main battle tank, no question about it, but it hasn't brought anything new to the modern battlefield. It's a much better MBT than the M46 Pattons and Mk 3 Centurions of the Korean war of course, but it's just a better MBT.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I sure do. A couple of posters have attempted to take what I said out of context, but try not to be distracted by them.

Okay. I mean, our weaponry is highly sophisticated and extremely impressive, but it's well-known that the Chinese have been developing weapons specifically manufactured to counter our mainstays (mostly naval/air weaponry, for obvious reasons) for years now. I'm glad to hear that you are aware of that, but it seems to me that several posters in this thread (especially near the beginning of the first page) assume that the Chinese army just runs around in a big clump holding half-loaded AK-47s.

 

[H3LL]

Where in any of my posts did I indicate that I thought airpower alone could be used to aqcuire territory?

I took this to be implying such a thing:

So once the tanks, ships, and airplanes are destroyed by our airforce, there wouldn't be much protection for all of that manpower.

With "squishies" remaining. "Squishies" interpreted as an infective force unable to defend.

I am not familiar with you as a poster..[snip].. Someone not only having a silly post, but then editing it to add even more silliness to it.

Silly posts is what I do.... whoever you are.

As for credibility - I consider all my posts very, very, very low on that score but from a few examples, above yours and your "squishies".


.

 

[WildCat]

So if China invaded Canada you would advocate the US government doing absolutely nothing?

Now there's a wildly off-base "analogy".

 

[WildCat]

Well other than starvation, instability and the lack of infrastrucure of any type. Oh and 1.1 million men under arms.

The only reason peole are starving is because of who's in power. People aren't starving in S. Korea or China, what makes you think people would starve in N. Korea once the Kims are out of the picture?

 

[WildCat]

ETA: On a re-read, it amazes me that anyone might still believe that air power alone is any way to acquire territory.

Who's talking about acquiring territory?

 

[dudalb]

Excellent question. My understanding is that they have hoarded fuel for the army even when that meant that citizens were freezing. SO, I would imagine they have enough for a few day's operations, and I would be amazed if part of the war plan did not focus on capture of SK fuel.

That was the idea that the Germans had with the Ardennes Offensive in 1944, and it did not work out very well for them...Guaranteed, all major supply dumps in SK will be wired for demolition within minutes of the War being started, if they are not already so wired.

 

[WildCat]

You might want to look closer at the Chinese intervention in the Korean war before you make such a bold statement.

You might want to look at China's attempted invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

Collossal FAIL.

 

[Leif Roar]

You might want to look at China's attempted invasion of Vietnam in 1979.

Huh? I fail to see what relevance the Sino-Vietnamese war has to the discussion of whether "in traditional warfare infantry doesn't fare to well against airplanes and tanks."

 

[WildCat]

Huh? I fail to see what relevance the Sino-Vietnamese war has to the discussion of whether "in traditional warfare infantry doesn't fare to well against airplanes and tanks."

The Chinese infantry couldn't go toe to toe with a similarly equipped but vastly smaller Vietnamese army.

The Chinese army hasn't had any experience fighting another army since the Korean War (except for said skirmish with Vietnam). And the Chinese troops in that war were very experienced as they were all veterans of the Chinese civil war.

China's army is built to keep their civilians in line, not to fight another army. They look good marching down the street in a parade though.

At any rate, I find the idea that China will go to war over N. Korea ludicrous. There is no upside for them in doing so.

 

[Leif Roar]

The Chinese infantry couldn't go toe to toe with a similarly equipped but vastly smaller Vietnamese army.

That's ... a rather odd interpretation of the war. Anyway, it has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

 

[WildCat]

That's ... a rather odd interpretation of the war. Anyway, it has nothing to do with what was being discussed.

I thought we were discussing China's military abilities against a technologically advanced foe?

Bottom line is, without an air force providing cover from above (and no way would China's air force have a prayer of lingering over N. Korea long enough for its troops to enter) the road to the front for the Chinese military would be like the Iraq "Highway of Death" in 1991, only on a much larger scale.

How do you think China would get tanks to N. Korea, for example?

 

[dtugg]

You do understand that the Chinese military is technologically advanced, and will not just run screaming in a big pile at whatever enemy they see holding shovels, right?

Compared to the USA it isn't even close to technologically advanced.

 

[keale]

The M1 Abrams is a fine main battle tank, no question about it, but it hasn't brought anything new to the modern battlefield. It's a much better MBT than the M46 Pattons and Mk 3 Centurions of the Korean war of course, but it's just a better MBT.

You cant be serious? The Abrams can take out multiple targets on the move. Anything the NK or Chinese have would be nothing more than target practice. That being said its a moot point because we would control the skies and once you do that its all but over as far as conventional warfare.

Iraq fell in short order and they were better equipped than NK had better radar systems and more resources to wage war and they went down quick.

 

[keale]

Compared to the USA it isn't even close to technologically advanced.

The Chinese are decades behind our current platforms hence their need to buy or steal technology.

Its all about money and we spend stupid out of your mind money on military spending and thats what we are aware of never mind the black programs that we know nothing about. We spend more than the next 20 countries combined.