Threat from the DPRK (North Korea)

[Eric the Green]

(10-02-2017, 10:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(10-01-2017, 06:16 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(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.

I doubt they would actually hit a US city, knowing that if they did, that would be the end of them. Mutual Assured Destruction deterred the Russians for 40-odd years. Is Kim Jung Un more likely to attack if it means Unilaterally Assured Destruction for his regime?

Considering this further, I thought today that even if NK decides to dictate that we remove troops from Korea, and the USA refuses, and NK shells or invades the South, the USA would have to fight in Korea. South Korea is an ally who must be defended, especially from a ruthless, barbaric dictator. So then Un would have to choose whether to nuke a US city, knowing that if he did, the US would nuke him in response and wipe him out.

An interesting proposal being floated, which we may have discussed before, is whether the USA would agree to encourage China to take over North Korea, and change the regime and then leave, but presumably keep it as an ally and keep it from being a US ally, and keep it in the Communist orbit. But the regime instituted would be more like today's state capitalism in China, and more responsible in its policies.

What would Kim Jung Un try to do to China if this happened, would be my question. Would he nuke his former ally? Would he consider China is now his enemy and allied with the USA, and attack all his enemies? What would he be able to do before he is toppled?