www.ditl.org

It'd be one hell of a Pyrhic victory for the South. They'd end up with a lot of people dead, their economy in ruins, stuck occupying a country of hostile brainwashed unemployable starving people, and with half of their country left, as Mikey said, resembling post-war Dresden.

Mikey wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:I still think SK would win in a N/S showdown, but would pay a heavy price, civilian-infrastructure wise.

They'd win because (and only because) the entire Western world would come down on their side. If by "heavy price" you mean "Dresden circa 1945," then yeah.

Not really. They have by far the largest industrial base and the most modern and efficient equipment. The only thing going for the North's way is their number and their capacity to go all-out because of less to lose.

But yhea, it will be a very, very costly victory.

edit: I really find despicable the U.S. people who think their President is soft to let "North Korea go away with that". Thing is, if the U.S. start to be belligerent, it would be South Korea who would pay the price. This war, if there were is, has to be South Korea's decision, not Washington's.

The people who complain about "letting them away with it" are the ones who don't understand the situation there.

In related news:

S. Korea may strike N. Korea's missile base: President Lee SEOUL, Nov. 23 (Yonhap) -- President Lee Myung-bak ordered his military Tuesday to strike North Korea's missile base around its coastline artillery positions if it shows signs of additional provocation, his spokeswoman said.

In a video conference with Gen. Han Min-koo, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the president ordered "multiple-fold retaliation" against the North for its artillery attack on a South Korean island, according to presidential spokeswoman Kim Hee-jung.

From here.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Not really.

Yes, really:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:The only thing going for the North's way is their number and their capacity to go all-out because of less to lose.

That's enough.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:I really find despicable the U.S. people who think their President is soft to let "North Korea go away with that". Thing is, if the U.S. start to be belligerent, it would be South Korea who would pay the price. This war, if there were is, has to be South Korea's decision, not Washington's.

Exactly who did you hear make that comment? I could as easily say that I dislike all the Canadians who think their PM is soft to let NK "get away with that."

Mikey wrote:Yeah, but are we willing to commit (read: "be seen committing") anti-artillery materiel and personnel? Do we have that sort of hardware stationed over there?

I'm not 100% certain if we do, though it's one of our mainstay artillery systems so I'd be surprised if we didn't have a few on the Penninsula, but we've sold almost 100 of them to the South Koreans so they certainly have it.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Not really. They have by far the largest industrial base and the most modern and efficient equipment.

Industrial base doesn't really mean anything in terms of modern war. There's no way to replace losses at the rate a modern war will generate them through anything else than pre-produced and stationed stocks, at which point you'd be better off already having the equipment manned to begin with.

Sionnach Glic wrote:The people who complain about "letting them away with it" are the ones who don't understand the situation there.
.

Still doesn't stop people like Limbaurgh to hammer the President about it, and making him look even weaker.

Mikey wrote:Exactly who did you hear make that comment? I could as easily say that I dislike all the Canadians who think their PM is soft to let NK "get away with that."

I didn't mean "the whole of the US", just some Americans who seems to have nothing to do in their spare time than to bash their president.

Tyyr wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Not really. They have by far the largest industrial base and the most modern and efficient equipment.

Industrial base doesn't really mean anything in terms of modern war. There's no way to replace losses at the rate a modern war will generate them through anything else than pre-produced and stationed stocks, at which point you'd be better off already having the equipment manned to begin with.

You also need a strong infrastructure to supply your advancing troops, you need to be able to rebuild destroyed strategic equipment, you need to repair damaged material.

Industrial output has a lot to say about a country's capacity to wage a war. It's not the all-in-all statistic, but it's a darn important factor. The North just can't field a proper mechanised modern army and keep it going far beyond their border. If anything, they will most likely try to be on the defensive for no stretching their lines.

It depends a lot on the type of war you're waging. If it's a long-scale war of attrition, then yes, having the greater industrial capacity will lead to a win.

However, the type of war that's likely to break out in Korea is of a very different sort. In all likelyhood, much of the combat will be finished within the first few weeks. Assuming all non-Korean powers made it clear they were going to sit any war on the peninsula out, the Second Korean War would be a quick affair. Either the North would strike first and level much of the South's military and industry with its artillery, at which point the remaining SK forces in the southern regions would be hard-pressed to pull a victory out of the bag, or the South would strike first and cripple the North's ability to wage war (though not without taking heavy civillian casualties first).

Of course, the major thing that's being overlooked is just how important SK is to the economy of the region as a whole. If Seoul, Inchon and the other major cities near the 34th parallel are hit hard (which they will be in the event of a war, regardless of which side moves first), it'd throw a serious spanner into the regional economy. The moment war breaks out, virtually every neighbouring country is going to immediately start pushing for a ceasefire. And after that it wouldn't be long before the UN gets involved.

In short, regardless of which side "wins", it'll not be a prolonged conflict. And certainly not one in which the industrial capabilities of either nation are going to play a major part. It's too short a timeframe for things like the speed at which tanks can be built to really matter. Both sides will have to win with whatever forces they already have available.

Hmm. This is interesting. Apparently the South has requested that the US station tactical nuclear weapons in the South. Could this be what prompted the North to start firing across the border?

Could be, but I can't see how shelling a small island responds to that action.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:I didn't mean "the whole of the US", just some Americans who seems to have nothing to do in their spare time than to bash their president.

I'm still interested to hear who said the quote which you attribute.

Solka, SK is a lot less prepared for war then you think.

Their regular troops are of poor quality on a good day. They're out numbered 3:1 by the NK armed forces. Their primary population and industrial centers are with range of NK guns and aircraft.

On the other hand, the NK troops are of fair quality and have greater numbers and are brainwashed for war.

Deepcrush wrote:Solka, SK is a lot less prepared for war then you think.

Their regular troops are of poor quality on a good day. They're out numbered 3:1 by the NK armed forces. Their primary population and industrial centers are with range of NK guns and aircraft.

On the other hand, the NK troops are of fair quality and have greater numbers and are brainwashed for war.

Oh well. If guns really starts blazing, at least, the US have more than ennough materiel on the field there to make a big difference.

I wonder where is the closest Carrier fleet. Lemme check up my charts.

Why do you have charts of the US carrier fleets?

Mikey wrote:Why do you have charts of the US carrier fleets?

I am afraid that is confidential information.

Okkkay... the George Washington just got back (today, 23rd November) to its naval base of Yokosuka (Japan) after conducting operations in the East China Sea.

Less good news is, an Amphibious Warfare ship (the Essex) left its home port of Sabeso (Japan) and will reach Okinawa today. So if there is trouble arising, the US has quite a lot of gun in the area to join the fun, but might be a few hours late. I have no idea what is the threat range of these Amphibious Warfare ships.

The Essex carries Harriers so it has a effective combat radius of about 300 miles, but those are Harriers so they won't be carrying all that much.