CNN: North Korea rejects torpedo findings, threatens war

[Larry]

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.

But, . . . but, . . . just look at how many foot soldiers they have!

[JMS]

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.

Here is my problem with your statement and "analysis". I would expect a analyst with actual DoD experience to be able to contribute to the conversation and give me reasons why he believes something.

You haven't done that. You haven't even tried to do that. Rather you've asserted your pedegree, and given me your statement I'm supposed to take as gospel.

I find that pretty weak analysis. ( It is because I say so, and I'm the only one in the thread who claims to be a defense analyst.). I don't know you, I am unfamiliar with you on this board. But basicaly I find your entire approach wanting.

I will of coarse reconsider your position if you actually care to back it up with any rational analysis or convincing explaination for your premise other than, "I say so"....

Don't take offense at my position. you might perhaps find this disrespectful given your experience as a defense analyst with experience in the Koreas.... Don't, just chaulk it up to me being opinionated.

[JMS]

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.

The point is we aren't in a position to back up South Korea. If it was just North Korea and South Korea... Yes I think North Korea would smoke them. That's basically been the United States position since the end of the Korean war in the 1950's. It;s why we've had 100,000+ troops their for decades... We don't have a 120,000 troops there presently... we have about 25,000. The reason we have 25,000 has nothing to do with North or South Korea and everything to do with Iraq.

We basically needed the troops in Korea to rotate into Iraq, and we got them from South Korea..

The 25,000 American force has been described as a human trip wire... It's just too small a force to do anything significant against a six million man military coming over the hill. Especially one equiped like North Korea is...

South Korea isn't technologically advanced military like we are... They spend about 4% on their military compared to the United States, while maintaining a larger military than we do... We have about 3.2 million men under arms including reserves... They have about 3.6 million men..

[JMS]

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.

I agree with most of your analysis... I disagree that the US won't watch SK get annihilated by NK.... The United States military is not in any position to respond in force to NK. The United States economy is not in any position to support a military response in that conflict either, not unless China allows it or we can find someobdy else to buy our bonds.

[JMS]

What happened to your 50-1 superiority in tanks?

I was wrong... 4 - 1 advantage rougly if you discount the 850, 1950 era South Korean Patton Tanks.... South Korea has designed and is building about 700 brand new tanks and started producing them in 2006. It's unclear how many they have presently and my numbers don't reflect them....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country

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

You are correct. I recalled that number from memory and I was wrong. Sorry I will check my facts more closely..

South Korea, backed by the U.S., doesn't want war, because the North has some 13,000 artillery tubes aimed at Seoul and the more than 10 million South Koreans living within 30 miles of the DMZ.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1903717,00.html#ixzz0r42kHR67

North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world. These guns can lob shells as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. The big guns are hidden in caves. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours.

The US army in Korea is equipped with Paladin anti-artillery guns that can trace enemy shells back to the guns and fire shells at the enemy guns with pin-point accuracy. However, it takes for the Paladins about 10 min to locate the enemy guns, during which time the Paladins would be targeted by the enemy guns Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours.

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

Typo. Sorry.

No problem you were still clear.

[Hubbs]

The point is we aren't in a position to back up South Korea. If it was just North Korea and South Korea... Yes I think North Korea would smoke them. That's basically been the United States position since the end of the Korean war in the 1950's. It;s why we've had 100,000+ troops their for decades... We don't have a 120,000 troops there presently... we have about 25,000. The reason we have 25,000 has nothing to do with North or South Korea and everything to do with Iraq.

We basically needed the troops in Korea to rotate into Iraq, and we got them from South Korea..

The 25,000 American force has been described as a human trip wire... It's just too small a force to do anything significant against a six million man military coming over the hill. Especially one equiped like North Korea is...

South Korea isn't technologically advanced military like we are... They spend about 4% on their military compared to the United States, while maintaining a larger military than we do... We have about 3.2 million men under arms including reserves... They have about 3.6 million men..

South Korea could handle the North without a single American boot on the ground. And it will essentially have to in the event of another war, because you're dead on about one thing - the token force we have there isn't going to change the outcome, and the war will have already been decided before we've had the time to move a significant number of troops over there. I'm sure we still will, because we could help make the war months shorter, which will mean many less deaths. But the North has one shot, and one shot only - take the whole peninsula in a very, very short amount of time. And if you think they have even a 1% chance, you're not paying attention to just how different the two Korean militaries are.

[JMS]

South Korea could handle the North without a single American boot on the ground. And it will essentially have to in the event of another war, because you're dead on about one thing - the token force we have there isn't going to change the outcome, and the war will have already been decided before we've had the time to move a significant number of troops over there. I'm sure we still will, because we could help make the war months shorter, which will mean many less deaths. But the North has one shot, and one shot only - take the whole peninsula in a very, very short amount of time.

I agree.

And if you think they have even a 1% chance, you're not paying attention to just how different the two Korean militaries are.

Ok, so that's the crux of the discussion then. How different are they?

It's been said South Korea is a technologically advanced force, like our force is technologically advanced... You decide. South Korea spends 2.8% of their GDP on defense... 27 Billion. We spend nearly 4.3% of our gdp on defense $670 Billion. South Korea is not similar to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Now Predicto made the legitamate counter argument we also have huge lift and projection abilities which south korea wouldn't need and doesn't have for their 27 Billion budget so it's not a fair comparison....

OK lets compare South Korea to Israel. Israel has a fine military and a technologically advanced well respected one too.... Israel has almost no lift or projection capacity either, similar to South Korea. Israel doesn't have a track record of getting their asses handed to them in the 1950's requiring UN help... but so be it...

Israel a country of 7 million has a small military of 600,000 people. Only 170,000 are full time standing, the rest are reserves. Israel spends 7% of their GDP or about $14 Billion dollars annually on defense.

South Korea a country of 50 million, has a relatively large military of 3.6 million men under arms (The United States with 300 million only has 3.2 million men under arms and we project power globally).....South Korea has 540,000 full time standing persons under arms. South Korea spends 3% of their GDP on defense or about 27 Billion dollars.

So Israel spends $23,000 per soldier including reserves. South Korea spends about a third of that amount $7,500 per soldier includeing reserves.

Let's take modern day Syria.... a country of 20, million, a military of 536,500 men under arms.. Spends 3.4% of their GDP on defense or about 2 Billion dollars... 4,000 per soldier.

South Korea is closer to the military basketcase Syria, than they are to Israel or the United States. Spending and willingness to invest in their military wise.

[Predicto]

The point is we aren't in a position to back up South Korea. If it was just North Korea and South Korea... Yes I think North Korea would smoke them. That's basically been the United States position since the end of the Korean war in the 1950's. It;s why we've had 100,000+ troops their for decades... We don't have a 120,000 troops there presently... we have about 25,000. The reason we have 25,000 has nothing to do with North or South Korea and everything to do with Iraq.

Actually, no. It has everything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the inability of the North Korean regime to maintain the threat level that they could back when uncle Nikita paid all the bills and provided all the weapons.

The 25,000 American force has been described as a human trip wire... It's just too small a force to do anything significant against a six million man military coming over the hill. Especially one equiped like North Korea is...

South Korea isn't technologically advanced military like we are... They spend about 4% on their military compared to the United States, while maintaining a larger military than we do... We have about 3.2 million men under arms including reserves... They have about 3.6 million men..

You keep saying this. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Predicto]

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

Ahh, now I am starting to understand the problem. You are relying on a translated North Korean propoganda document as gospel truth.

[thebluefood]

Bottom line, a second Korean war would be bloody and a terror to behold, right?

[Predicto]

Bottom line, a second Korean war would be bloody and a terror to behold, right?

Oh yes. Yes indeed.

[JMS]

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.

.

South Korea has a military... that's basically the only difference. They didn't have one at all in the 1950's. It was all the UN.

But the numbers are pretty different aren't they?.

• 3.6 million vs 6 million.
  
• 4,000 tanks vs 1,400 tanks
  
• Nuclear vs Non Nuclear.
  
• 13,000 artilery pieces in range of the souths captial and 40% of their population?
  

I don't see any of that as Equal... Well maybe the Tanks, Most of South Korea's modern tanks are based on the Abrams... which should be worth more than the N. korean jobers.

[Predicto]

Israel a country of 7 million has a small military of 600,000 people. Only 170,000 are full time standing, the rest are reserves. Israel spends 7% of their GDP or about $14 Billion dollars annually on defense.

South Korea a country of 50 million, has a relatively large military of 3.6 million men under arms (The United States with 300 million only has 3.2 million men under arms and we project power globally).....South Korea has 540,000 full time standing persons under arms. South Korea spends 3% of their GDP on defense or about 27 Billion dollars.

Let's take modern day Syria.... a country of 20, million, a military of 536,500 men under arms.. Spends 3.4% of their GDP on defense or about 2 Billion dollars... 4,000 per soldier.

South Korea is closer to the military basketcase Syria, than they are to Israel or the United States. Spending and willingness to invest in their military wise.

Umm, no. You are looking at it wrong.

South Korea spends 27 billion dollars on defense, almost 30 times as much as Syria and twice as much as Israel. That buys a lot of top notch equipment. The amount per soldier does not mean squat - conscripted soldiers barely get paid.

[Predicto]

South Korea has a military... that's basically the only difference. They didn't have one at all in the 1950's. It was all the UN.

But the numbers are pretty different aren't they?.

• 3.6 million vs 6 million.
  
• 4,000 tanks vs 1,400 tanks
  
• Nuclear vs Non Nuclear.
  
• 13,000 artilery pieces in range of the souths captial and 40% of their population?
  

I don't see any of that as Equal... Well maybe the Tanks, Most of South Korea's modern tanks are based on the Abrams... which should be worth more than the N. korean jobers.

Nuclear vs Non Nuclear is the only real advantage North Korea has anymore. Lots of fixed, antequated artillery is great to defend the mountain passes - not so great in attempting to invade the South through those same mountain passes (and mine fields, and fortifications, and rivers, and so on).

And invasion of the South is what we have been talking about all along.

[visionary]

Thanks to everyone who's contributed to the thread so far.

Have to say that the last few pages of discussion has been highly interesting and at times entertaining.

[Hubbs]

JMS, the fact that you're trying to prove how advanced a military is by the ratio of its military budget to its GDP is... well, is there a word that's more ludicrous that ludicrous? You just compared South Korea's military to Syria's. Anyone who knows anything about those two militaries would laugh you out of the room.

In fact, it's an absolute certainty that North Korea spends more of its GDP on its military than South Korea does. The North devotes virtually the entirety of the abortion that it calls an "economy" to its military. Therefore, according to your logic, the North's military must be more advanced. Except it's not. It's not even close.

[PeterMP]

South Korea has a military... that's basically the only difference. They didn't have one at all in the 1950's. It was all the UN.

But the numbers are pretty different aren't they?.

• 3.6 million vs 6 million.
  
• 4,000 tanks vs 1,400 tanks
  
• Nuclear vs Non Nuclear.
  
• 13,000 artilery pieces in range of the souths captial and 40% of their population?
  

I don't see any of that as Equal... Well maybe the Tanks, Most of South Korea's modern tanks are based on the Abrams... which should be worth more than the N. korean jobers.

What about the Navy and Air Force?

The S. Koreans have modern fighters and bombers and AWACS systems. The S. Korean airforce would destroy the whatever the N. Koreans get off the ground before the N. Koreans even see something to shot at (the big advantage of the AWAC).

The S. Koreans are developing a real navy and have several destroyers. The North has some gun and torpedo boats, and that's it.

You are overstating the importance of the N. Korean artillary. (True story, I had a poly sci class around the time of the first Gulf war. The professor had fought in Vietnam. Based on that experience, he decided that it was going to be hard to beat the Iraqis as they had plenty of time to prepare, hide, and "harden" artillary sites, and those sites were very hard to destory (based on his experience in Vietnam). However, that isn't true today. The fixed artillary sites of the Iraqis became death traps for the people manning them. We didn't even destroy that many. The Iraqi soliders manning them saw what was happening and abondoned them. We have had plenty of time identify the N. Korean sites. The S. Korean airforce and navy will be free to destroy them without any real interference by their N. Korean counterparts).

Furthermore, an invasion requires you to advance troops. Another lesson from the Gulf wars is that you can NOT move an army with modern intelligence gathering method (e.g. satelites (which we can easily support the S. Koreans with even with our involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan)) in the face of modern long range fire power.

The days of an army, like Lee's, trapsing around the country side while their opponents try and figure out where they are over (unless you have a more even fight, and the two sides are able to eliminate the others intelligence gather, which N. Korea isn't going to do).

The fact of the matter is that with ZERO land based military in S. Korea, the N. Korean army could not invade the South. The US Pacific fleet ALONE (well combined with our technologies that allow us to identify troop movements) would OBLITERATE a moving N. Korean army, and there is absolutely NOTHING the N. Koreans could do about it.

The fact that the S. Koreans have their own army, navy, and air force, that the Japanese would be willing to commit resources, and there is a US ground presence in S. Korea make a N. Korean attack that much more likely to fail.

[JMS]

Umm, no. You are looking at it wrong.

South Korea spends 27 billion dollars on defense, almost 30 times as much as Syria and twice as much as Israel. That buys a lot of top notch equipment. The amount per soldier does not mean squat - conscripted soldiers barely get paid.

The money you spend per soldiers is very important... How you spend that money is also important.. Both are more important than how much you spend in Total. The classic mistake countries make is having huge armies like Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Russia; but not being able to train or equiping those guys sufficiently....

In Iraq we showed, what Israel has known for decades. It's better to have 1 guy who knows what to do and has the tools to do it, than 10 guys who don't know what they are doing.

In 1990 Iraq was the 4th largest army in the world... One million men under arms. We took 120,000 guys and basically folded them up like a cheap wallet.

South Korea does spend twice as much as Israel.... But their standing army is 3 times as large and their reserves are 6 times as large....

Who do you think spent more on defense in 1967, or 1972? Israel on one side, or the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria? Egypt alone spent as much as Israel.. Syria did to. Both of them wasted their money by spreading it out on a large force. Israel with a relatively small force, well trained and equiped dominated all three... both times, as they did in the 50's.

That's our doctrine... South Korea doesn't subscribe to it... That's my point. For South Korea, vs North Korea; numbers will be important. Because numbers is basically what both countries have.

South Korea with 10% of their population under arms and who spends a pultry 2.8% of their GDP on defense. North Korea with 25% of their population under arms, who spends about the same % of GDP with a much smaller economy.

[PeterMP]

That's our doctrine... South Korea doesn't subscribe to it... That's my point. For South Korea, vs North Korea; numbers will be important. Because numbers is basically what both countries have.

That's simply not true. Other than nuclear, in every comparable position, the S. Koreans have an advantage in technology and fire power.

[JMS]

What about the Navy and Air Force?

The S. Koreans have modern fighters and bombers and AWACS systems. The S. Korean airforce would destroy the whatever the N. Koreans get off the ground before the N. Koreans even see something to shot at (the big advantage of the AWAC).

South Korea doesn't have strategic bombers... They do have a fine modern airforce. I would expect them to have the edge in the air... The UN troops had the edge in the air the entire Korean war too. It wasn't decisive. Especially if North Korea rapidly moves into the south as they did in the 50's and as they could be expected to do again.

The S. Koreans are developing a real navy and have several destroyers. The North has some gun and torpedo boats, and that's it.

You are correct... but we dominated the oceans in the 50's too. That wasn't decisive either.

You are overstating the importance of the N. Korean artillary. (True story, I had a poly sci class around the time of the first Gulf war. The professor had fought in Vietnam. Based on that experience, he decided that it was going to be hard to beat the Iraqis as they had plenty of time to prepare, hide, and "harden" artillary sites, and those sites were very hard to destory (based on his experience in Vietnam). However, that isn't true today. The fixed artillary sites of the Iraqis became death traps for the people manning them. We didn't even destroy that many. The Iraqi soliders manning them saw what was happening and abondoned them. We have had plenty of time identify the N. Korean sites. The S. Korean airforce and navy will be free to destroy them without any real interference by their N. Korean counterparts).

13,000 guns in range of nearly half the South Korean population and their Capital... I don't think I'm overstating the value of that many guns.. That's overwhelming fire power.

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

The US army in Korea is equipped with Paladin anti-artillery guns that can trace enemy shells back to the guns and fire shells at the enemy guns with pin-point accuracy. However, it takes for the Paladins about 10 min to locate the enemy guns, during which time the Paladins would be targeted by the enemy guns Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours.

Furthermore, an invasion requires you to advance troops. Another lesson from the Gulf wars is that you can NOT move an army with modern intelligence gathering method (e.g. satelites (which we can easily support the S. Koreans with even with our involvment in Iraq and Afghanistan)) in the face of modern long range fire power.

That's something we also learned in Korea and vietnam the first time. South east asia isn't europe, and it's not the desert either.

And remember the premise here is the United States isn't involved. this is a North on South War.

The fact of the matter is that with ZERO land based military in S. Korea, the N. Korean army could not invade the South. The US Pacific fleet ALONE (well combined with our technologies that allow us to identify troop movements) would OBLITERATE a moving N. Korean army, and there is absolutely NOTHING the N. Koreans could do about it.

I disagree dominance of the oceans equates with domanation of the land... I also think you are ignoring the central premise of the discussion. The United States would not be involved. The premise of the discussion is South Korea wouldn't require US assistance if invaded by the north.... That's what I disagree with.

The fact that the S. Koreans have their own army, navy, and air force, that the Japanese would be willing to commit resources, and there is a US ground presence in S. Korea make a N. Korean attack that much more likely to fail.

The US ground presense in 2010 is irrelivent, our own general predicted they would be anialated in the first 3 hours of the war.

[JMS]

That's simply not true. Other than nuclear, in every comparable position, the S. Koreans have an advantage in technology and fire power.

Pete, They have a larger military than we do, and they spend 4% of what we do on defense. Comparing them to the United States is being blind to that reality.

Given their spending levels and their commitment to defense, they do not equate to a modern military. They are a large, poorly funded, poorly equiped, poorly trained force which will be significantly outnumbered on the defensive. Both poor tactical positions.

Not to mention they will be defending nearly half the south Korean population right on the boarder with the North who are already within range of North Korean guns. ( 40 miles)..

If we got inolved, If we had time to position our troops, If we had a few hundred thousand combat ready troops to commit, and If South Korea could hold on long enough... Then I agree, we could give North Korea a run for thier money... Maybe even achieve victory rather than the stalemate we settled for before..... But those are all huge ifs.

South against the North... North on the offensive, with it's inherant superiorities.... I don't see the south winning, I don't see the south surviving... The only question is whether it would take weeks or months.

[JMS]

JMS, the fact that you're trying to prove how advanced a military is by the ratio of its military budget to its GDP is... well, is there a word that's more ludicrous that ludicrous? You just compared South Korea's military to Syria's. Anyone who knows anything about those two militaries would laugh you out of the room.

You misunderstood my point. I am not comparing how advanced or capable a military is by their gdp to defense budget ratio. I am showing the importance a country places on defense by how much of their GDP they commit to defense. South Korea's commitment being an enemic 2.8%.... The US being about 5%... Israel being 7%.

I am showing the capability of their military, ( how well they are equiped and trained) by the ratio of military spending per man under arms. I compared South Korea with well respected modern militaries in the United States and in Israel who both used similarly priced and complex equipment. I also compared them with a not very well respected military which I described as a military "basket case" in Syria. Showing South Korea had more in common funding per soldier wise with Syria, than they did with the US or Israel. They were still ahead of Syria, just closer to Syrian levels of spending per man than they were to the US or Israel.

In fact, it's an absolute certainty that North Korea spends more of its GDP on its military than South Korea does. The North devotes virtually the entirety of the abortion that it calls an "economy" to its military. Therefore, according to your logic, the North's military must be more advanced. Except it's not. It's not even close.

In my model that only says N. Korea sacrifices more for their military than South Korea does. Not a very controversial statement. I've never claimed N. Korea's has more modern force. I did say North Korea has huge numerical advantages, advantages South Korea would have to make up for with technical superiority and the professionalism/training of their troops.... Given their spending per soldier, I question the training and availablility of equipment of those troops which everybody else here takes as a forgone conclusion. I don't believe South Korea has those advantages they would require in order to overcome the North's advantages.

You know what.... That's not even a controversial statement. It's been US doctrine for the last 50 years. America had more than 100,000+ front line troops stationed in South Korea in order to hold their hand if fisticuffs broke out with the North. Even the 100,000+ guys we stationed there were not seen as enough to defeat a North Korean Invasion. Their mission was to hold on, until the United States could get there with relief. That was our doctrine for 50 years.

It only changed in 2006, and it changed solely because we needed the troops stationed in South Korea for rotation into Iraq. Today we have 25,000 troops in south korea. We are a fraction of our former capabilities. Our own commanding general in South Korea said we would last only about 3 hours in a fight with the North... Our troops mostly being stationed under North Korean guns... Those troops have been catagorized as a human trip wire... nothing more.

South Korea defense increases since 1990, the time when we were downsizing our own pressense there, have not even kept up with inflation, much less been increased to account for our diminished abilities in support of their defense.

(*)Actually North Korea's GDP is about 40 billion dollars a year according to the CIA factbook page. The guestimate I've found on their military spending is about 2 billion from about 7 years ago. About 5% of GDP. North Korea doesn't publish it's military spending so these numbers are subject to interpretation.

[PeterMP]

South Korea doesn't have strategic bombers... They do have a fine modern airforce. I would expect them to have the edge in the air... The UN troops had the edge in the air the entire Korean war too. It wasn't decisive. Especially if North Korea rapidly moves into the south as they did in the 50's and as they could be expected to do again.

You are correct... but we dominated the oceans in the 50's too. That wasn't decisive either.

13,000 guns in range of nearly half the South Korean population and their Capital... I don't think I'm overstating the value of that many guns.. That's overwhelming fire power.

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

That's something we also learned in Korea and vietnam the first time. South east asia isn't europe, and it's not the desert either.

And remember the premise here is the United States isn't involved. this is a North on South War.

I disagree dominance of the oceans equates with domanation of the land... I also think you are ignoring the central premise of the discussion. The United States would not be involved. The premise of the discussion is South Korea wouldn't require US assistance if invaded by the north.... That's what I disagree with.

The US ground presense in 2010 is irrelivent, our own general predicted they would be anialated in the first 3 hours of the war.

The fire power and accuracy of weapons have greatly increased since the 1950s.

Paladins are mobile. The N. Koreans will have no way of targeting them.

The S. Koreans also have these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/TPQ-36_Firefinder_radar

Note they are MOBILE. That means they can't be targeted (well they can, but by the time you target where they shot from, they have left.)

More importantly, S. Korean navy and airforce will be capapble of targeting them.

If you assume absolutely NO ASSISTANCE from the US (including intelligence), then the S. Koreans might actually have issues, but that isn't going to happen. We can't increase out troop strenth there, but us and the Japanese will be able to give them intelligence and other types of support.

[PeterMP]

Pete, They have a larger military than we do, and they spend 4% of what we do on defense. Comparing them to the United States is being blind to that reality.

Given their spending levels and their commitment to defense, they do not equate to a modern military. They are a large, poorly funded, poorly equiped, poorly trained force which will be significantly outnumbered on the defensive. Both poor tactical positions.

Not to mention they will be defending nearly half the south Korean population right on the boarder with the North who are already within range of North Korean guns. ( 40 miles)..

If we got inolved, If we had time to position our troops, If we had a few hundred thousand combat ready troops to commit, and If South Korea could hold on long enough... Then I agree, we could give North Korea a run for thier money... Maybe even achieve victory rather than the stalemate we settled for before..... But those are all huge ifs.

South against the North... North on the offensive, with it's inherant superiorities.... I don't see the south winning, I don't see the south surviving... The only question is whether it would take weeks or months.

That's because you see it as a repeat of the 1950s, when it isn't.

The difference in accuracy in fire power of long range weapons makes it completely different.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The key to victory in a war against N.K. is keeping China out of it.

N. Korea vs. US and S. Korea...no question who wins that.