N. Korea
04-21-2003, 05:48 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Los Lunas, New Mexico, USA.
Posts: 34,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vehicle: 2001 Hyundai Tiburon, 2004 Kia Sorento, 2010 Kia Soul
[Soapbox]
Active Army Personnel - 2002: 485,000
Army National Guard - 2001: 352,000
Army Reserve - 2001: 206,000
Yup. Not a whole lot is it? Honestly though, even though I'd like a few more soldiers for myself, this is more than enough to do what we are doing, and more. We could still handle a war over here if it came up. Quality of training and our weapons DO have a huge effect on #'s, just look at Iraq. The entire country liberated, 3 weeks, using half the manpower, and with less than half the casualties (Our Side).
Makes me quiver a bit.
All I'm saying is yes, if the DPRK came south, it'd suck, the war would be longer than Iraq, it'd mean hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, and more than enough soldiers coming home in baskets.
But remember we had these same discussions before the wall fell in Germany too.
[/Soapbox]
QUOTE
I think you guys are making the N. Korea situation to be smaller then it really is...
Close, the MEDIA is making it into a BIGGER deal than it is. This "Tense" situation isn't tense at all. Ask SPIKE. Ask David from Kspec. When I was here in 95, it was tense. This is nothing.QUOTE
Granted, their nukes are low yield nukes, nothing like ours, but dropping even one of those low yield nukes on Seoul, home to 10 million people would kill thousands.
The entire reason the DPRK (N. Korea) wants the south is twofold. They want the land (80% of the land in the North is razorback mountains that can't be farmed on), and they want the factories/shipyards/manufacturing facilities. They will get neither if they nuke the South. Nothing. The biggest problem with their WMD program is either the threat to Japan (Draw them into this further and divert ALOT of our troops to help Japan after a strike), or desimination to other countries. Remember, they pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Poliferation Treaty and others.QUOTE
Don't forget, the North has 10,000 artillery weapons pointed at Seoul as well.
True. Seoul is within conventional artillery range of N. Korea, especially their FIXED guns. Buttttt... The US has the best counterfire in the world (Counterfire is our ability to track enemy rounds [read: bullets] with radar and calculate the exact location they were fired from and return fire, destroying that system before it can fire again). Also, with their poor economy and infrastructure, the DPRK would be lucky if it could hold 4 or 5 days of contiunous combat actions with it's Artillery. Their guns are ancient, and ALOT of them are fixed. Fixed guns can't be moved, guns that can't be moved can be hit, EASY. If it did happen? Lots of loss of civilian life, but the DPRK would still be lucky if they got as far as Seoul before they were pushed back.QUOTE
And all we have to do is drop a few more bombs on their soldiers? N. Korea has a military the size of 1.1 million.
Agreed, it would still be a few months long, but it wouldn't be the quagmire the last war was. Keep in mind, the S. Korean army is one of the best in the world. They may have 1.1 million and 3 million reservists, but the south has 700,000 just in their ARMY and over 6 million Reservists. You also have NO idea how well they have this place set up for defence. Everywhere you go, there's bunkers, huge concrete blocks (Like the size of 7-11's) waiting to fall and block roads, all the way from the DMZ down past Seoul. Imagine trying to attack a country that has had 50 years to prepare for it...QUOTE
As for their vastly inferior weapons.. We didn't win Vietnam for crying out loud. Are you saying Vietnamese had weapons equal to ours during that war?
Good, you know your history. wink Yes, the Vietnam war was horribly fought by us, we half assed it and the politicians didn't care what the consequences were. As for weapons, the only thing that the north didn't have that we did was the air and sea power. The ground forces were similarly equipped, and THEIR men didn't have to worry about rules of war. We had an unprofessional, and drugged up military. Now we are just drugged up. lol QUOTE
Granted our technology is vastly superior now, but still, 1.1 million isn't a number to mess around with. I'm not sure on our military's exact size, but we'd have to pull up reserves to have a million standing army if I'm correct.. And North Korea is smaller then the state of Colorado...
1.1 mil is a scary #. Very. I think about it now and then because I'm only 9 miles from them. As for our military, here's the data... (Compiled from Soldiers (Magazine) The 2003 Almanac)Active Army Personnel - 2002: 485,000
Army National Guard - 2001: 352,000
Army Reserve - 2001: 206,000
Yup. Not a whole lot is it? Honestly though, even though I'd like a few more soldiers for myself, this is more than enough to do what we are doing, and more. We could still handle a war over here if it came up. Quality of training and our weapons DO have a huge effect on #'s, just look at Iraq. The entire country liberated, 3 weeks, using half the manpower, and with less than half the casualties (Our Side).
QUOTE
In 1994, President Clinton was extremely close to going to war with N Korea. basically due the actions N. Korea is doing now. His advisors estimated they would need to use all of South Korea's military, and half a million U.S. troops. They also estimated the loss of 52,000 American lives in the first 90 days of fighting. For crying out loud, Vietnam lasted years and we lost 58,000 troops. The CIA claims that N. Korea has a missle capable of hitting the west coast of the U.S. No offense but some of you guys seem to be amused by the fact that the U.S. may drop nukes on N. Korea. Yea, it's there as a deterent to keep a nuclear war from waging, but dropping one of our current day nukes on N. Korea will probably end up making Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like childs play. Also I highly doubt China would like it if the U.S. had trigger happy soldiers and nukes falling near/on their border.
Most folks don't know that this is true, but it is. We did almost go back to war with them. They chickened out and signed the paperwork that we've all heard about now. Why? Let's see, they got the same news, of how many casualties, how far they'd get, how bad it would be. You know what the #'s would be on their side? 10 times as bad. Easily. They gave up the idea of fighting and went back to the table. Keep in mind that the DPRK is not at ALL ready to fight a defence. All their training and time goes to training to invade the south. All those bigger #'s are of us going north. The nuke issue isn't amusing at all. Especially to the DPRK. Would you be a bit scared if you got threatened with being destroyed by weapons that only ONE country has ever had the ballz to use, threatened by that SAME country?Makes me quiver a bit.
All I'm saying is yes, if the DPRK came south, it'd suck, the war would be longer than Iraq, it'd mean hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, and more than enough soldiers coming home in baskets.
But remember we had these same discussions before the wall fell in Germany too.
[/Soapbox]
