10-07-2017, 02:43 PM
(10-07-2017, 12:29 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(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: 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.
That's why he would wait until the US invaded, since in that case his regime would be destroyed if he didn't use the nuke.
I'm not so sure that the US would nuke him in response. Yes, we could destroy his regime that way, but we also have more cities to lose than he does.
Quote: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?
I think he would nuke them, and Beijing is in easy reach of his missiles. This is why China would prefer that we take care of him rather than their doing it.
China possibly step in to do this once North Korea had exhausted their nukes on us.