CNN: North Korea rejects torpedo findings, threatens war

[Predicto]

Remind me again who funds our massive deficits? Who bought the bonds which paid for the Iraq and Afghan wars?

We would need China to fund our side of this effort if we tried to move in to stop N. Korea from taking over South Korea...

What makes you think China would write that check?

You are all over the place now.

The point is, because of North Korean weakness and poverty, there will not be a long war on the Peninsula unless China wants one, and China doesn't want one any more than we do.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Thanks for the replies...this interests me and I'll keep an eye on the updates.

[PeterMP]

Remind me again who funds our massive deficits? Who bought the bonds which paid for the Iraq and Afghan wars?

We would need China to fund our side of this effort if we tried to move in to stop N. Korea from taking over South Korea...

What makes you think China would write that check?

The bill has already been paid to defeat the N. Koreans IF they invade (and the South isn't invading North).

The S. Korean already has a completely modern and competent military that could repel an essentially WWII style military coming (essentially) pre-announced over its border at even a man power ratio of 500:1.

China might not pay to clean up the mess (especially if the north sucessfully goes nuclear), but that doesn't help the N. Koreans.

[JMS]

Feeding a mobile fighting army is different than feeding a non-active one. If they can't feed their populace, they'd have issues with their army.

You assume. How much food does south Korea have? Think the North Korean Army could invade and take the food it needs from South Korea?

People see mass starvetion in North Korea and think their army is a waste. They don't realize 25% of North Korea's population is in the military... more than 50% of their work force. That's what causes the shortages in the civilans sectors. One civilian is expected to support 2-3 military men.... Compared to the United Staes were we have about 1% of our population in the military and about 50 workers supporting every man under arms.

If N. Korea went to war without China's permission, it is entirely likely that they would not support them.

China is very nationalistic about such things, guess hundreds of years of foeign occupation will do that to a people.... They have problems with American warships and planes in international waters close to their boarders. You don't think they would object to America and likely Japan installing a client state right on their boarder?

They certainly did in 1950's... that's what caused them to interceed in the Korean war.

Not to mention China could shut us down just by threatenning to not buy our bonds.

N. Korea's artillary is ALMOST completely irrelevant. Most of their artillary is stationary and would be eliminated in pretty short order.

Yes, I agree if the United States had artilery suppression assets available. Saddly that's not the case.... and 100,000 artilery tubes in range of the south korean capital could make a huge mess even if they only got to fire once.

Comparisions to the original Korean conflict would be essentially irrelevant.

Absolutely... If we were doing the fighting..... But we only have 20,000 troops in theatre.... South Korea would be doing most of the fighting.... They aren't us, they are a fraction of the size of North Korea, and their force was never intended to fight against the North without massive and sustained American support.

[JMS]

The bill has already been paid to defeat the N. Koreans IF they invade (and the South isn't invading North).

The S. Korean already has a completely modern and competent military that could repel an essentially WWII style military coming (essentially) pre-announced over its border at even a man power ratio of 500:1.

China might not pay to clean up the mess (especially if the north sucessfully goes nuclear), but that doesn't help the N. Koreans.

Let's examine that assertion... The "modern" south korean military...

The United States spends 4.3% of our GDP on military defense. 663 Billion to support 3.3 million men under arms...

South Korea spends 2.8% of their GdP on military defense. 27 Billion to support 3.6 million men under arms.....

Get the picture? South Korea has the same number of men under arms as the United States, and spends 4% of what we do to train, and equip them. They don't have no modern force. They are a shadow of what we would consider a reasonable force. North Korea's superior numbers in both men and equipment would devistate them in short order... Just like it did in the 50's.

South Korea military was never expected to go against anybody Solo. Their entire military is designed to complement our own in their defense.

[Predicto]

You assume. How much food does south Korea have? Think the North Korean Army could invade and take the food it needs from South Korea?

No, I don't. They have to get to it in order to eat it.

People see mass starvetion in North Korea and think their army is a waste. They don't realize 25% of North Korea's population is in the military... more than 50% of their work force. That's what causes the shortages in the civilans sectors. One civilian is expected to support 2-3 military men.... Compared to the United Staes were we have about 1% of our population in the military and about 50 workers supporting every man under arms.

You think WE don't understand this? PeterMP and nonniey and Larry and me? Because I can assure you, we understand exactly how North Korea operates.

China is very nationalistic about such things, guess hundreds of years of foeign occupation will do that to a people.... They have problems with American warships and planes in international waters close to their boarders. You don't think they would object to America and likely Japan installing a client state right on their boarder?

They certainly did in 1950's... that's what caused them to interceed in the Korean war.

For the tenth time, we are talking about a North Korean invasion of the South. Not a US invasion of the North. China most definely would go berserk if we just attacked North Korea. So what?

By the way, Mao Zedong doesn't run China anymore.

Not to mention China could shut us down just by threatenning to not buy our bonds.

sigh.

Yes, I agree if the United States had artilery suppression assets available. Saddly that's not the case.... and 100,000 artilery tubes in range of the south korean capital could make a huge mess even if they only got to fire once.

SOUTH KOREA has artillery suppression units of their own, and the South Koreans can deliver more ordinance than North Korea can.

Absolutely... If we were doing the fighting..... But we only have 20,000 troops in theatre.... South Korea would be doing most of the fighting.... They aren't us, they are a fraction of the size of North Korea, and their force was never intended to fight against the North without massive and sustained American support.

They are not "a fraction" of North Korea. They are better than North Korea. And they have been intending to defend against a North Korean invasion for decades.

Seriously, what you write may have been true in 1967. It is no longer close to true today.

[PeterMP]

You assume. How much food does south Korea have? Think the North Korean Army could invade and take the food it needs from South Korea?

No, I don't assume. There have been detailed studies on the needs of a fighting/moving army. If during peace, you can't feed your military AND have enough food left over to make sure your general populace isn't on the verge of starvation, you are going to have issues feeding an invasion force.

Because the S. Koreans would have to real dumb to leave food behind for the N. Koreans. It isn't like they haven't been planning on this for 50 years.

China is very nationalistic about such things, guess hundreds of years of foeign occupation will do that to a people.... They have problems with American warships and planes in international waters close to their boarders. You don't think they would object to America and likely Japan installing a client state right on their boarder?

They certainly did in 1950's... that's what caused them to interceed in the Korean war.

Things were different in the 1950's. The world has changed. They might have an issue with it, and if they do, they will do what they have to prevent it from happening, and there won't be an invasion, most likely.

Yes, I agree if the United States had artilery suppression assets available. Saddly that's not the case.... and 100,000 artilery tubes in range of the south korean capital could make a huge mess even if they only got to fire once.

The S. Koreans have an air force and other anti-artillary weapons.

Absolutely... If we were doing the fighting..... But we only have 20,000 troops in theatre.... South Korea would be doing most of the fighting.... They aren't us, they are a fraction of the size of North Korea, and their force was never intended to fight against the North without massive and sustained American support.

The S. Koreans have their own military equipment, and even manufacture much of it.

It isn't the 60's or the 70's any more. The difference between modern military equipment, and what the N. Koreans have is stark. They could not go into a modern military and survive w/o substantial help from China.

IF they go forward with Chinese aid, then we have issues. Otherwise, N. Korea gets torn up and pretty quickly.

[Predicto]

Let's examine that assertion... The "modern" south korean military...

The United States spends 4.3% of our GDP on military defense. 663 Billion to support 3.3 million men under arms...

South Korea spends 2.8% of their GdP on military defense. 27 Billion to support 3.6 million men under arms.....

Get the picture? South Korea has the same number of men under arms as the United States, and spends 4% of what we do to train, and equip them.

And that is several times what the North Koreans can spend.

They don't have no modern force. They are a shadow of what we would consider a reasonable force. North Korea's superior numbers in both men and equipment would devistate them in short order... Just like it did in the 50's.

You are wrong. Repeating yourself does not make it any more correct.

South Korea military was never expected to go against anybody Solo. Their entire military is designed to complement our own in their defense.

Not for a long while has this been true.

[Larry]

You assume. How much food does south Korea have? Think the North Korean Army could invade and take the food it needs from South Korea?

Think the South Koreans are going to leave fuel depots, intact, sitting next to the roads leading South?

How much gasoline do think an army of a million people burns in a day, while mobile, in combat conditions?

Bear in mind, you have to ship a million troops, and their vehicles, and all of the ammo that they're going to fire in the first day.

Now bear in mind that those million people, and all of their gear, and their supplies, have to travel down only a dozen or so roads.

Now factor in all of those vehicles, traveling down those dozen or so roads. Whose Air Force do you figure will control the sky over those roads? Imagine all of those fehicles having to drive past the pre-built fortifications which have been built specifically to attack anybody who's on those roads.

Think those dozen or so roads have any bridges on them? Any places, in the mountains, where some dynamite will bring down a ****load of rocks onto the road? I guarantee you that the South Koreans know the answers.

Let's make it more complicated. You have a unit, call it the First Division, attacking down the road. Behind them is the Second Division. (And maybe the Third and the Fourth.) The fuel and ammo and supply trucks that are delivering gasoline to the First Division? They have to pass through the Second Division, because they're all on the same road.

----------

Comment I heard a General make when CNN was covering the buildup to Desert Storm:

Amateur Generals love to talk about tactics.

Professional soldiers talk about logistics.

Also reflecting that the first promotion from Desert Storm actually happened the day before Desert Storm began. When Schwartzkopf pinned a fourth star on his guy in charge of logistics.

[JMS]

You quite literally don't know what you are talking about. South Korea has almost 700,000 active troops. It makes its own weapons, its own tanks, its own missiles, and its technology is top tier.

Yes, I don't know anything... That should be assumed in every conversation I have on this board.... But please don't hold that against me.

So you are claiming South Korea has almost 700,000 active troops... and make their own guns and tanks etc so they should be taken seriously...

I will counter North Korea also makes their own guns and tanks and has doubled the number of standing troops... about double the number of reserves. 3 million man advantage on the South.

You are correct that technology is a great equalizer in warfare... I think we have demonstrated that in Iraq......

Problem is you are wrong south korea is a technologically advanced military. south korea's "small" military is actually larger than the United State's in combined active duty and reserve troops.... Yet South Korea spends about 4% of what we do outfiting their military.... For every dollar we spend, they spend $.04 for a larger force....

So much for south korea's technologically advanced military. Fact is South Korea has never had the will to spend a significant portion of their GDP to arm. Their GDP is much smaller than ours. South Korea's entire military doctrine is more akin to North Korea's.... It's based upon numbers.... 10% of their population under arms.... They think that's what will keep them safe, not modern weapons or doctrine.

[JMS]

And that is several times what the North Koreans can spend.

Absolutely... North Korea doesn't claim to have a technological advantage.... They have 3 million more men under arms and a huge numerical advantage in tanks and artilery..... Like 50, or even 100 to one...

It's the old Soviet Chinese doctrine.

As you said, we, and South Korea can counter those advantages with technological superiority...... We outspent Iraq for example about 100 to 1 back in the 1990's.... In 2003 we outspent them by about 300 to 1.

South Korea outspends North korea by 4-1. What South Korea get's for their 21 billion dollar defense ( 2003 estimate) is basically a better paid 3.6 million man military. North Korea get's a lower paid 6 million man military. Neither of them has a modern military.... That's the plain economic truth.

You are wrong. Repeating yourself does not make it any more correct.

What makes me correct is the facts....

America = 3.3 million men under arms = $664 billion defense budget = Modern, sophisticated, Capable of defeating numerically superior forces.

South Korea = 3.6 million men under arms = $27 billion defense budget NOT EQUAL to modern sophisticated or capable.

North Korea = 6 million men under arms = 6 Billion defense budget = lower paid soldiers basically, but also with a massive numerically superiority in tanks, planes, and artillery.

Not for a long while has this been true.

Ahhh. Now we are getting somewhere.... But it was true in 1990 when we had 150,000 troops in South Korea right? Back in 1990 South Korea depended upon the United States for her security.... Right?

One would expect South korea to have increased their military spending then significantly since 1990, RIGHT? I mean American military spending over the last 20 years increased by what about 5-600%?

Guess again..

Since I don't know anything about this subject, it's easier for me to destroy your misperceptions with facts.

[JMS]

Think the South Koreans are going to leave fuel depots, intact, sitting next to the roads leading South?

They did it the first time... It took North Korea what less than 3 days to take the South Korean Capital in 1950. Two Weeks to push the UN forces to the tip of the Korean Peninsula. MacArther landed at Inchon less than 3 month after the N. Korean Invasion and just barely averted disaster.

You think In that kind of caos south Korean troops will have the forsight to blow up every gas station, grocery store, or fuel depot...

Hell, would they even have too. North Korea's military walked in and out the last time they invaded.

Bear in mind, you have to ship a million troops, and their vehicles, and all of the ammo that they're going to fire in the first day.

South Korea is only about 200 miles long.... So it's not like they would have nearly the logistical problems say the United States would have coming from 20,000 miles away.

Now factor in all of those vehicles, traveling down those dozen or so roads. Whose Air Force do you figure will control the sky over those roads? Imagine all of those fehicles having to drive past the pre-built fortifications which have been built specifically to attack anybody who's on those roads.

The UN Maintained total Air superioriority in 1950 too..... course we only controled a narrow perimeter around Pusan on the ground.... Our Air superiority came from aircraft carriers and Japanese airfields....

Bottom line most of south korea's troops are on the boarder... Soeul and the majority of the south korean people are about 10 miles from the boarder with the north. South korea can't afford to give up huge territory....

And as I've already said... South Korea's airfoce isn't up to stopping a massive ground offensive all by themselves.

Amateur Generals love to talk about tactics.

Professional soldiers talk about logistics.

An American General might make that statement.... But would a south korean general outnumbered by 3 million men, looking at a 40-50 to 1 tank disadvantage say the same thing...

He might if his country had invested in military technology like ours has... But we know South Korea hasn't done that.

[Predicto]

Well, you know I'm not a military analyst JMS.

I'm just recounting what I have read - things written by real military analysts.

South Korea is a technologically advanced nation. North Korea is not.

Admittedly, South Korea does not spend the kind of money we Americans spend - no one in the world does. They do not attempt to have the ability to project force and sustain complete armies anywhere in the world - only we do. They do not have a 1500 ship bleu water navy with 11 carrier groups. And so on.

Nor are they as powerful as China, Russia, India, France, or the UK.

What they do have is significantly better military equipment than the North Koreans do, and a total military that is considered to be the 12th most powerful in the world (North Korea is 20th).

http://www.globalfirepower.com/

North Korea relies on 1960s equipment and technology, South Korea does not. They may not be as advances as the US, but they are considered advanced by world standards, and decades beyond the North Koreans.

North Korea would be invading heavily fortified territory, South Korea would be defending it.

North Korea would be logistically strapped, South Korea would not.

I don't know what else to say.

[JMS]

The S. Koreans have an air force and other anti-artillary weapons.

Yes they do, but do they have 100,000 of those artillary suppression weapons? Do they have 1000 of them? or do they have like 20.

North Korea has more than 100,000 artilery tubes just in range of South Korea's capital... Oh by the way.. more than half of South Korea's population lives within 30 miles of the boarder with North Korea.

The S. Koreans have their own military equipment, and even manufacture much of it.

So does North Korea. I own a couple of their kalashnikov. Got my wife one last year... fun to shot and they are cheap as hell.

It isn't the 60's or the 70's any more. The difference between modern military equipment, and what the N. Koreans have is stark. They could not go into a modern military and survive w/o substantial help from China.

totally agree... The military the United States used against Iraq in 1990 was a shaddow of the military which invaded in 2003. In 1990 about 5% of our munitions used were smart weapons.. In 2003 about 99% of them were smart.

Two problems.

Problem #1 is, it is the 1950's for North Korea. I don't think they've progressed all that much, except for the fact they have the bomb and some pretty swanky new Israeli technology via China.

Problem #2 is South Korea isn't much better. They do not spend anywhere near what they need to to safeguard themselves from the North. Never have.

IF they go forward with Chinese aid, then we have issues. Otherwise, N. Korea gets torn up and pretty quickly.

North Korea kills south korea in devistating fashion without significant US aid and assistance. Mano on Mano....

Both North Korea and The United States would require Chinese assistance eventually.... It's unclear who would require such aid first if North Korea invaded and we tried to come to south korea's assistance... Likely us.

South Korea, by themselves, are toast.... It's likely Japan and Taiwan would chip in and help us though.

[Predicto]

Since I don't know anything about this subject, it's easier for me to destroy your misperceptions with facts.

You are not destroying my misperceptions with facts.

You are destroying my will to bother discussing the subject any more. You pull "facts" out of the air, and you relentlessly stick to them no matter what anyone responds.

It's very frustrating.

[Predicto]

They did it the first time... It took North Korea what less than 3 days to take the South Korean Capital in 1950. Two Weeks to push the UN forces to the tip of the Korean Peninsula. MacArther landed at Inchon less than 3 month after the N. Korean Invasion and just barely averted disaster.

You think In that kind of caos south Korean troops will have the forsight to blow up every gas station, grocery store, or fuel depot...

Hell, would they even have too. North Korea's military walked in and out the last time they invaded.

You know who you should REALLY fear? The Mongols. Those guys took over half the world the last time they tried. I have no doubt that they could do so again any minute.

An American General might make that statement.... But would a south korean general outnumbered by 3 million men, looking at a 40-50 to 1 tank disadvantage say the same thing...

South Korea has over a thousand relatively modern tanks. Are you saying that North Korea has 50 thousand tanks?

Whoops, nope. North Korea has 3500 tanks (on paper), virtually all of them 1960s era Soviets T-34s. Sitting on the other side of a heavily fortified mountain range. Which makes them basically useless, even if they have been maintained and can scrape some fuel up to run them.

You see, it is this kind of nonsense that makes discussing this subject with you anymore a complete waste of time.

[greenspandan]

...Mano on Mano....

offtopic, but:

"mano" means "hand". "mano a mano" means "hand to hand [combat]".

(and "Manos: the Hands of Fate" means "Hands: the Hands of Fate")

[JMS]

Well, you know I'm not a military analyst JMS.

I'm just recounting what I have read - things written by real military analysts.

Ahh there is our problem.

I'm sorry, But did you say "real" military analysts? You think a real military analyst would claim south korea could go mano on mano with North Korea? You think real military analysts came up with the American plan to defend South Korea...

Guess again.... Our plan to "defend" south korea has nothing to do with north korea or "real" military analysts... It was entirely driven by Iraq.

Our need to mitigate the pain on the american public by rotating in tens of thousands of soldiers to Iraq for seven years...

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/29324

South Korea is a technologically advanced nation. North Korea is not.

Yes it is.... they make a mean sub compact.

What they do have is significantly better military equipment than the North Koreans do, and a total military that is considered to be the 12th most powerful in the world (North Korea is 20th).

Perhaps.... but they don't have significantly better military equipemnt when outnumbered 40-50 to 1 in tanks, 100 to 1 in artilery, etc... they don't have the overwhelming technological superiority we have... which is what they would need to go up against North Korea and her vastly superior numbers.

North Korea would be invading heavily fortified territory, South Korea would be defending it.

It's true... the worlds largest mine field is between north and south korea... Still 100,000 artilery tubes is a heck of a lot of fire power.

North Korea would be logistically strapped, South Korea would not.

I don't know what else to say.

South Korea is 200 miles long... And most of the population live in the north... That's not a very long logistical pipeline... Not for anybody with a six million man military.

[PeterMP]

JMS, the S. Koreans are building the most expensive tank in the world. They have AWACS sytems. They have their equivalent of an F-16 and F-15.

They don't spend like us because they don't pay to develop the technology, they don't have an international military, they don't have (much of) a nuclear program, and they don't have a space/military program (of course we would give them the intelligence they need from those programs in a war w/o affecting things in Iraq or Afghanistan so that isn't an issue).

Those are the expensive things. Building the equipment, without getting pegged for the cost of developing the technology is relatively cheap. Their equipment is all post-Vietnam war equipment, and in most cases is the equivalent of the best armies in the world, except for us.

You are exactly right about the N. Korean tactics. They are old Soviet tactics, and you know where the Soviets tested their tactics.

In the middle east, using the Arabs against the Isrealis, and you know what the results were. In EVERY case, the Arabs got whupped, and it wasn't even close.

AND technology has improved since then making those tactics even more out of date. The S. Korean technology is EASILY better than the Isreali technology used during those wars, which the N. Korean technology might even be worse that that used by the Arabs.

Without Chinese intervetion, an invasion by N. Korea would end up with N. Korea getting beaten BADLY.

It isn't 1950 and fighting like it is 1950 today is going to get you killed.

[PeterMP]

Perhaps.... but they don't have significantly better military equipemnt when outnumbered 40-50 to 1 in tanks, 100 to 1 in artilery, etc... they don't have the overwhelming technological superiority we have... which is what they would need to go up against North Korea and her vastly superior numbers.

South Korea has over a thousand relatively modern tanks. Are you saying that North Korea has 50 thousand tanks?

Whoops, nope. North Korea has 3500 tanks (on paper), virtually all of them 1960s era Soviets T-34s. Sitting on the other side of a heavily fortified mountain range. Which makes them basically useless, even if they have been maintained and can scrape some fuel up to run them.

You see, it is this kind of nonsense that makes discussing this subject with you anymore a complete waste of time.

Since you seemed to have missed it the first time, I thought it was worth repeating.

[JMS]

You know who you should REALLY fear? The Mongols. Those guys took over half the world the last time they tried. I have no doubt that they could do so again any minute.

I would fear the mongols, If I had not progressed significantly since the last time they rolled over my home.... If Europes idea of defense was to put a 50lb bucket on their heads and 200lbs of armor and ride out to get punctured by the Mongol short bow.

We are not in that scenario... South Korea is.

South Korea has over a thousand relatively modern tanks. Are you saying that North Korea has 50 thousand tanks?

North Korea has about 4300 tanks... Their most modern foreign tank is the T-62 last produced by Russia in the mid 1970's.. first produced in the 60's. North Korea also has about 1300 home developed tanks they've built in the 1980's and 1990's. Don't know how good they are.

South Korea has about 2300 tanks... Their most modern foreign tank is 850 of the M48 Patton first produced in the United States in the 1950s... Their most modern domestic tank is the K2 Black Panther which went into production in 2006. They are supposed to get 700 of these... It's unknown how many they've got currently. They also have 484 K1A1, tanks based upon the Abrams.. and 1000 K1-88 also based upon the Abrams both built in Korea.

Whoops, nope. North Korea has 3500 tanks (on paper), virtually all of them 1960s era Soviets T-34s. Sitting on the other side of a heavily fortified mountain range. Which makes them basically useless, even if they have been maintained and can scrape some fuel up to run them.

T-34 was the tank which defeated Nazi Germany. The soviets started producing it in 1940.

Actually they don't have any T-34's... They have T-54s, T-64's, and T-59's from Russia... They also have 1300 home grown designed tanks built in the 1980's and 1990.s.

[nonniey]

Ahh there is our problem.

I'm sorry, But did you say "real" military analysts? You think a real military analyst would claim south korea could go mano on mano with North Korea? You think real military analysts came up with the American plan to defend South Korea...

OK, JMS, it's obvious you haven't picked up on the implications of my earlier posts backing what Predicto assessed. I'll be as clear as I can. I am a real military analyst, I've worked on the Korean situation in the past and I'm telling you the South Koreans would kick the North Koreans ass's.

[Predicto]

I would fear the mongols, If I had not progressed significantly since the last time they rolled over my home.... If Europes idea of defense was to put a 50lb bucket on their heads and 200lbs of armor and ride out to get punctured by the Mongol short bow.

That is my exact point. You keep referring to what the North Koreans did in the 1950s. The North Korean military tactics are not that not that different now than they were back then - except that they don't have the Chinese and Soviets backing them anymore.

Meanwhile, the South Korea military is very different than it was then, and the defenses (which didn't exist back then) are formidable, and the old tactic of just swarming with numbers and walking to Seoul ain't going to work anymore. Especially when the numbers aren't really that different.

North Korea has about 4300 tanks... Their most modern foreign tank is the T-62 last produced by Russia in the mid 1970's.. first produced in the 60's. North Korea also has about 1300 home developed tanks they've built in the 1980's and 1990's. Don't know how good they are.

South Korea has about 2300 tanks... Their most modern foreign tank is 850 of the M48 Patton first produced in the United States in the 1950s... Their most modern domestic tank is the K2 Black Panther which went into production in 2006. They are supposed to get 700 of these... It's unknown how many they've got currently. They also have 484 K1A1, tanks based upon the Abrams.. and 1000 K1-88 also based upon the Abrams both built in Korea.

What happened to your 50-1 superiority in tanks?

(they also don't have 100,000 artillery tubes)

Actually they don't have any T-34's...

Typo. Sorry.

[Hubbs]

Hold on, hold on. Is JMS seriously trying to argue that the North would have a decent chance of winning another Korean War?

:munchout: This should be great.

[Destino]

North Korea's strength doesn't matter any further than it's ability to strike the South's civilian areas. I don't see any scenario in which the two are allowed to fight a full scale war without intervention from the US and/or China. China won't tolerate a nuclear war on it's border and likely wouldn't allow US forces along the border either. The US won't watch SK get annihilated by the Chinese. The question is would they go to war with each other or come to an agreement to pacify the region.