North Korea's Military Capabilities

[BobTheDonkey]

If you have enough firepower, yes. If not, no.

Not at all. It's only true if the planes are about the same, and even then, it only applies in individual fights between small numbers of pilots; in a large-scale campaign where there are enough engagements to look at average outcomes, the better plane will still win most engagements even if it loses some, unless the difference in training between the two sides is atrocious, which there isn't much reason to count on with China or Russia.

Otherwise, there'd be no reason to bother obtaining new planes with new technology, because they would never be more effective than the ones that came before. And there'd be no way to explain the results of historical hardware upgrades/replacements that have changed outcomes in real combat and in friendly exercises. For example, American pilots in F-15s in friendly exercises against "enemies" with the same planes or others like F-16s and Typhoons and Rafales got mixed results, but a certain set of them suddenly went to a kill ratio of hundreds to one in the last few years (and that one was due to a way the simulation differed from real combat, allowing a "shot down" plane to fly out of the engagement area and come back in to simulate new combatants arriving; the pilot ignored one because he knew it had already been "shot down"). Is it some huge coincidence that the very same American pilots somehow got that much better at exactly the same time that they irrelevantly switched from F-15s to not-really-any-better F-22s?

I'm sorry, but you'll have to show your work on this.

The maneuverability of the F22 outclasses that of the F15, which outclassed that of the F16. That's before even discussing the advances in technology in the weapons systems.

That aside, it's like you conveniently ignore just how quickly air supremacy was established in, say, Iraq in 1991 against an Air Force with aircraft roughly equivalent (as you would argue) to that of the hardware the USAF brought to the fight.

 

[Skwinty]

Not really. The technological gap between S. Korea and N. Korea has become enormous since 1952.

Well that may be so.

Look at the enormous gap between Afghanistan and America.
How is that war doing? 10 years and still ongoing.

But the growing price tag -- in money and lives -- can be roughly tracked: on average each month sees $5.7 billion in direct costs and 40 American battle dead and 79 wounded, not counting those struggling with traumatic brain injury as well as combat stress and other non-physical consequences of repeated combat tours.
And no end is in sight. Winning the war, Gen. David Petraeus says, "is going to be a long-term proposition, without question.''

 

[NWO Sentryman]

but Best Korea has the ultimate power to ignore and continue.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well that may be so.

Look at the enormous gap between Afghanistan and America.
How is that war doing? 10 years and still ongoing.

But the growing price tag -- in money and lives -- can be roughly tracked: on average each month sees $5.7 billion in direct costs and 40 American battle dead and 79 wounded, not counting those struggling with traumatic brain injury as well as combat stress and other non-physical consequences of repeated combat tours.
And no end is in sight. Winning the war, Gen. David Petraeus says, "is going to be a long-term proposition, without question.''

Ahh, if only we had committed our full military force to Afghanistan instead of concentrating on Iraq... I don't think you can really compare Iraq/Afghanistan to what it would be like in NKorea...

 

[Skwinty]

If wishes were donkeys then beggars would ride.

 

[USEagle13]

Quad: Terrain? Rugged? How about the mountains near Fort Irwin CA? Germany's Armor Division? Deployment ready FORSCOM units cycle through training environments like that several times a year.

Even 10ft of snow or more combined w/the terrain?

The majority of the obstacles I have personally seen near the border would not pose a major challenge to most modern American Vehicles except the MRAP.

I seen on the military channel Marines training tankers and that some of the M1As had problems w/sloshy mud holes and such. They had to dig em out and use other tanks to help pull them out of the mud and stuff.

It seemed to make them rather vulnerable.

Perhaps you are right though.

I don't know. I reckon China's liking the cash being made by making all our cheap plastic crap more than some old political allegiance. I don't think China will stick it's neck out for NK anytime soon. Last time I was in China was before the Olympics and everything is moving toward a market economy anyway.

I hope you are right.

Well... I certainly don't think I would have ever joined in peacetime.If somehow the War were here... Then those not fighting are treasonous.

Most definitely. If my country ever called me up I would be proud to serve. More males in my family have served their country than not. Only reason why I didn't after 911 was because of an issue of me not wanting to lie about certain things that the recruiter wanted me too lie about.

I figured if I had to lie to get in then it wasn't my time yet.

Most all of my cousins my age joined after 911. Some are still in the various forces and others terms were up and they didn't re-up due to wanting to try out civilian life.

I'm pretty sure the US missile counter measures are a little iffy.

Oh? What makes you so sure?

The fact that when they test the missile defense system it is a controlled test where they know exactly what the target "enemy missiles" speed, trajectory, angle, and exactly where it is aimed because the ones testing are shooting both missiles.

Has yet to be tested against totally random circumstances such as a real launch would be. Could not find an article I had read (about 5 yrs ago) in either "Newsweek" or "Time" about the controlled tests.

"An April 2000 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that “[a]ny country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system.” Countermeasures studied in detail were bomblets containing biological or chemical agents, aluminized balloons to serve as decoys and to disguise warheads, and cooling warheads to reduce the kill vehicle’s ability to detect them.[52][53]"

"Independent studies by some physics experts have raised some significant questions about the missile's success rate in hitting targets."

If I'm wrong please provide evidence to the contrary. I have yet to see an article claiming that it has been tested against a missile w/unknown parameters such as speed, AoA, and target zone.

We get it. China

Just making sure you realize you can't always fully trust someone because they "claim" to be an ally. Add the fact that they have a horrible human rights record.

Oh sure. It seems outdated diesel electric subs can go past carrier task forces undetected and actually get right next to our carriers. Here is a link of China testing this theory: THE UNINVITED GUEST

I was surprised no one commented on this. If China is so much our friends then why they shadowing our ships w/subs? That's what I want to know.

 

[USEagle13]

In South Korea the government while corrupt at times does run effectively, the ROK army is quite good and does not flinch at fighting

Who did the ROK army get in a war with? As far as I know they haven't actually fought anyone.

 

[WildCat]

Well that may be so.

Look at the enormous gap between Afghanistan and America.
How is that war doing? 10 years and still ongoing.

How is that even relevant here? N. Korea has a conventional army. They certainly won't be distributing weapons to their civilians to start an insurgency after the conventional army falls, and that would fall very quickly.

 

[WildCat]

Just making sure you realize you can't always fully trust someone because they "claim" to be an ally. Add the fact that they have a horrible human rights record.

China claims to be our ally? When did this happen?

 

[Skwinty]

How is that even relevant here? N. Korea has a conventional army. They certainly won't be distributing weapons to their civilians to start an insurgency after the conventional army falls, and that would fall very quickly.

And you know this for a fact?

 

[Spindrift]

Who did the ROK army get in a war with? As far as I know they haven't actually fought anyone.

Vietnam.

 

[Skwinty]

Not really. The technological gap between S. Korea and N. Korea has become enormous since 1952.

This is what makes the technology gap relevant.

 

[dudalb]

Well that may be so.

Look at the enormous gap between Afghanistan and America.
How is that war doing? 10 years and still ongoing.

But the growing price tag -- in money and lives -- can be roughly tracked: on average each month sees $5.7 billion in direct costs and 40 American battle dead and 79 wounded, not counting those struggling with traumatic brain injury as well as combat stress and other non-physical consequences of repeated combat tours.
And no end is in sight. Winning the war, Gen. David Petraeus says, "is going to be a long-term proposition, without question.''

Bad comparasion. A war with NK would be conventional rather then Guerilla.
And what do you suggest if NK attacks the South?

 

[Skwinty]

Bad comparasion. A war with NK would be conventional rather then Guerilla.
And what do you suggest if NK attacks the South?

I don't really suggest anything, other than, " Don't count your chickens before they hatch"

No war is ever a slam dunk. They tend to be long drawn out affairs regardless of technology gaps and wishful thinking.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not at all. It's only true if the planes are about the same, and even then, it only applies in individual fights between small numbers of pilots; in a large-scale campaign where there are enough engagements to look at average outcomes, the better plane will still win most engagements even if it loses some, unless the difference in training between the two sides is atrocious, which there isn't much reason to count on with China or Russia.

We can count on it with North Korea, though. They hardly let those guys train at all.

And there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Russia is going to get involved directly. But I will note that Russia's air force performed rather poorly in its last outing, where they failed repeatedly to hit the oil pipeline in Georgia. Are Chinese pilots better than the Russians? Maybe.

 

[Ziggurat]

No war is ever a slam dunk.

Are you sure about that?

The problem here is not that victory over North Korea is uncertain. The problem is that the cost to South Korea, particularly the civilian population, is uncertain. And probably quite big. But once the **** hits the fan, there's no going back, victory would be the only acceptable outcome, and it would be an inevitable one too.

 

[USEagle13]

China claims to be our ally? When did this happen?

Well, usually you only make huge trade agreements w/allies not enemies. Anyone that lets an "enemy" make their country heavily dependent on those said trade agreements is a moron.

So is China the USA's ally or foe? I think we got "sold out" to the enemy along time ago.

 

[Skwinty]

Are you sure about that?

The problem here is not that victory over North Korea is uncertain. The problem is that the cost to South Korea, particularly the civilian population, is uncertain. And probably quite big. But once the **** hits the fan, there's no going back, victory would be the only acceptable outcome, and it would be an inevitable one too.

So the invasion of Grenada by America is classified as a war?
That is like saying a 200lb weightlifter beating up a 10 year old boy is a war?

I am sure America feels justly proud of that great military achievement.

As for the outcome of a war in Korea, well, that remains to be seen.
Civilian casualities are a fact of war, and I don't see Korea being any different.

As for the inevitable victory, err, well where have I heard that before.

 

[USEagle13]

Vietnam.

Most of the ROK involved in that era of war are either dead or too old to "actually do any fighting"

Simply standing in the background barking orders at the troops means nothing as far as bravery or "strong will to fight" amongst the grunts is concerned.

Anyone can stand in the shadows barking orders.

 

[Spindrift]

Most of the ROK involved in that era of war are either dead or too old to "actually do any fighting"

Simply standing in the background barking orders at the troops means nothing as far as bravery or "strong will to fight" amongst the grunts is concerned.

Anyone can stand in the shadows barking orders.

Okay. So what? I said the South Koreans are well-trained and willing to fight. Just because they haven't been in a war doesn't mean they're unwilling to fight.