A tale of two Koreas...

[Stealth Hunter]

The American military expects to defeat an army of 1.2 million with 698,000 men when they can't even beat a flock of goat-herders in the Middle-Eastern conflict that they're currently faced with?:rotfl:

Your wit is irreplaceable, General Bell, and your confidence counts for so much in war...

[Trex]

Keep in mind that the US forces did defeat the Iraqis quickly, efficiently and decisively. Winning wars is the strength of the USA. Then they let the opportunity slip away because of incredibly bad decisions. Winning the peace is the weakness of the USA.

[TteFAboB]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

The American military expects to defeat an army of 1.2 million with 698,000 men when they can't even beat a flock of goat-herders in the Middle-Eastern conflict that they're currently faced with?:rotfl:

Your wit is irreplaceable, General Bell, and your confidence counts for so much in war...

It's quite easy when they're all in uniforms and ranks.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

The American military expects to defeat an army of 1.2 million with 698,000 men when they can't even beat a flock of goat-herders in the Middle-Eastern conflict that they're currently faced with?:rotfl:

Your wit is irreplaceable, General Bell, and your confidence counts for so much in war...

Yes, they can. It seems the Iraqi military were defeated in days. What our military is now over there is a large police force. If our job was just to kill the goat-herders(your words not mine) we would have been and gone. Not exactly a hard job. More like a 9 to 5 job with three hots and a cot. The hard part would be trying to kill them as they run away.

[Stealth Hunter]

Given the fact the American military has NOT accomplished the simple task of removing the terrorist threat from Iraq (although they managed to defeat the rabble of an army that Saddam had, but that's not much of a surprise given the fact that Saddam's army was not well disciplined and was poorly prepared; funny how when a ruler makes his army professional, they never end up looking professional...), I still find it very unlikely that they could defeat an army of 1.2 million brainwashed and insane Koreans who are the equivalent of the Japanese during World War II or close to it. Ask any of them about the "Great Leader". You are not worthy to see his image. They have benches that he has sat on in glass containers, a spectacle for the entire populace. A blind woman who had doctors fix her sight gave all the credit to Kim Jong, stating that, "The Great One has cured my ailment! Thank him!"

These people would fight you down to the last child. They would NEVER give up, no matter how bleak the situation might become. They would fight you until they were exterminated... IF they were exterminated.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

I still find it very unlikely that they could defeat an army of 1.2 million brainwashed and insane Koreans who are the equivalent of the Japanese during World War II or close to it.

I don't know about that SH, we managed to do it quite handily in 1950 once we recovered from the initial suprise attack, and if it weren't for the Chinese bailing them out their regime would have been totally defeated. So this brainwashing may not be as effective as you imagine it to be. After all people take great personal risks to escape from North Korea on a regular basis, and i think that says something on how happy life really is in the Peoples Republic.

Brad is right, our army would have little problem defeating their military forces on the battlefield. Whether the US could pacify a factionated and well armed civilian population, and at the same time battle foreign guerillas and other external influences seeking to destabilize the situation for their own ends is another matter.

However in North Koreas case I think it would all depend on South Korea and China. If they both acted as stabilizing forces to the process I think this brainwashing you speak of could be eradicated quite easily. Personally I doubt China would allow unification of the two Koreas unless they can maintain some kind of control.

[Trex]

SH - No argument about the fanaticism, although it did not serve Imperial Nipon all that well in the long run. There's a loverly (albeit un-PC) line in The Sand Pebbles, "Who's afraid of a million gooks on the wrong side of eight machine guns?"

It would be a very nasty war, to be sure, but there is simply no way North Korea could win it conventionally. It is, in my opinion, very unlikely that they would get the massive PRC support they got in the 50s - there has been a seachange in Chinese attitudes and they have too much to lose on the economic front.

What is really scares me is their NBCR arsenal. The western media has beaten alarm bells right and left about their nukes, but few have mentioned what by some accounts is a very strong CBW capability, especially the former. One scenario if His Shortness dies or gets sidelined somehow is a balkanization of North Korea, resulting in maybe a dozen Kim-style warlords, each with his own bottled death.

[DeepIron]

It would be a very nasty war, to be sure, but there is simply no way North Korea could win it conventionally.

For North Korea to win IMO, it would have to mount a massive first strike against the South and then depend on the fanatism of it's army to carry the war forward. NK couldn't afford a long-term war without fiscal support from somewhere else. NK arms and mobile infantry is really outdated and I imagine the war would degrade into a guerilla action as we've seen in Viet Nam and now in Iraq.

It is thought that NK has a substantial stock of chemical weapons...

SK has been the primary fiscal supported of NK for decades. Talk about killing the cash cow...

[Trex]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

NK couldn't afford a long-term war without fiscal support from somewhere else. NK arms and mobile infantry is really outdated and I imagine the war would degrade into a guerilla action as we've seen in Viet Nam and now in Iraq.

For a guerrilla war to be successful, there needs to be a refuge and there needs to be a source of supply. (Funding is generally, but not always, necessary. Remember Spiderman 2 opening with the superhero delivering pizza to stay alive? Even guerillas need to buy stuff. There are examples to the contrary, but money is always useful.)

In Vietnam, the refuge was North Vietnam and some neighbouring 'neutral countries' and the source of supply was North Vietnam, PRC and the Warsaw Pact. The same situation obtains in Iraq and Afghanistan, more or less, although both of these latter are honeycombed with caches.

If North Korea invaded, the odds of them being able to use PRC territory as a refuge are pretty slim. Beijing doesn't mind having unstable countries around, so long as they aren't around them. If there was a clear understanding, even under the table, that the war would not move north of N Korea, the Chinese would probably sit it out. Indeed, an argument could be made for them invading themselves to try and bring some stability to the area (remember all those unconventional weapons?).

On the other hand, given the mindwashing there, guerrillas would probably not have to work too hard to find support from the people - classic Maoist strategy. But even Mao had to retreat to an inaccessable spot to lick his wounds at one point - the Long Walk.

Bottom line? It's a mess and is unlikely to get better.

[bookworm_020]

I doubt that China would get involved, as they have too much to loose if they came involved with the "enemy". In fact, they have been loosing face and pacience with NK, due to the stand off over the Nuclear reactors. China would try to act a go between to try and keep peace and avoid bloodshead (it alos makes them look better in the eyes of outside watches)

The American General may be right is saying that he could beat the army, but the fallout from an NBC war would not be plesant for the region. I think he needs to work on his use of tact and diplomacy, It's better to avoid a shooting war than help start one!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

The American military expects to defeat an army of 1.2 million with 698,000 men when they can't even beat a flock of goat-herders in the Middle-Eastern conflict that they're currently faced with?:rotfl:

Your wit is irreplaceable, General Bell, and your confidence counts for so much in war...

...with the leash of PC, we're not going to beat anybody.