Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor1
I wouldn't be so sure about that, especially if it's the DPRK that is on the offensive.
|
Agreed, I think the ROK themselves are a force to reckon with these days. Their real question is not whether they can win even on their own - I think they're undoubtedly the more capable of the two Koreas. Their question is "at what cost?" - and the North is operating not so much on military superiority here as on unacceptable human, political and economic costs of the war to the South. They would win a war, but at the cost of turning from a mini-powerhouse on the world stage into more or less a third world country. And just the sheer amount of artillery aimed at Seoul, a world megapolis by any standard, would be as devastating as it would be completely unstoppable - even if that first artillery exchange only lasted as long as today's but with all barrels blazing before getting silenced, billions in damage and tens of thousands of casualties would result.
Also, while NBC weapons might be readily used, these are not militarily very valuable these days - i.e. they wouldn't do the damage to the South's forces so much as the civilian population. The ROK army is more than prepared to deal with the NBC threat and wouldn't be prevented by it from beating the DPRK on the battlefield.
And speaking about 50s artillery, I'm not so sure even 50s technology would be off at all like that. Guns haven't become any more accurate in that period, the only difference since has been really in spotting and coordination technology. But having held those positions since the 50s, I think the Northern guns would have their ranges known and marked very precisely... Especially given the emphasis the DPRK seems to place on their artillery capabilities. Thus me wondering.