10-01-2017, 06:16 PM
(10-01-2017, 06:50 AM)Mikebert Wrote:(09-30-2017, 04:35 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:(09-30-2017, 09:16 AM)Mikebert Wrote: You asserted that North Korea seeks to conquer South Korea, which implies they have the means to do this. You have not made the case for why NK would have a chance in hell of accomplishing this objective.
They don't unless the US stays out of the conflict, which it is believed likely if the DPRK has nukes, because quantity is a quality all its own. Tell me which army is more likely to win the battle: Country A has a corps of 10 000 men armed with the latest weaponry, Country B has a corps of 100 000 men armed with weaponry with 1960s level tech. Corps B will win provided they have enough bullets because to annihilate the other corps every 10th man has to make a kill, where as Corps A each man has to kill 10 men. While it is far easier to for A to kill B, B has more numbers and is less likely to suffer sufficient casualties to cause a loss.
Of course anyone who has ever served in the military for any length of time would understand this concept even if their main function as to peel potatoes.
They don't have a 10:1 edge in manpower, more like 2:1. They are numerically inferior in tank number. All told, the South Korean military matches up pretty similarly to how NATO matched up against the Warsaw Pact.
That's true. Of course, most experts believed that NATO would have had to resort to tactical nuclear weapons to prevent a Warsaw Pact victory had they chosen to invade. We had tactical nukes in Europe; we don't in Korea.
Quote:Also the US would necessarily be involved since we have troops in theatre. If NK started a war it would go ill for them.
If they get to the point they can destroy US cities, they can easily dictate that we remove the troops. If we refuse, they start shelling Seoul. If we invade, they nuke New York City. That's why it's important we not get to that point.