>The Blue House asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a report comparing the military strength of both Koreas before the two countries’ leaders meet for their third summit next week, multiple sources told the JoongAng Ilbo on Sunday.
Okay that part is about as exciting as watching paint dry. But reading a little further...
>In 2004, South Korea’s military assessed that its Army had only 80 percent of the strength that its North Korean counterpart had, while the Navy had 90 percent and Air Force had 103 percent. All in all, South Korea’s military concluded it had only 88 percent of North Korea’s capacity.
>That conclusion changed in 2009, when the South Korean military switched to a different calculation method to gauge the combined strength of its Army, Navy and Air Force in the event of a war. South Korea’s military, according to that report, had 110 percent of the North’s military strength.
But remember, this is without taking into account North Korea’s nuclear weapons.
Does this mean that all in all North Korea is a close peer to South Korea militarily especially when you take into account nukes? And does this mean that a hypothetical US withdrawal would almost inevitably lead to a Red Unification or some kind?
Is this study even taking into account that the US would be directly involved in joint operations , thus increasing SK's strength to a far greater capacity than the North could ever dream of?
Julian Sanders
remember that north Korean soldier that escaped? he was under weight and had worms in his gut. if the army is that m as l nourished then everyone is worse off. the nukes are the only real weapons they have. that's if they can get one working when needed.
Ethan Garcia
remember that north Korean soldier that escaped? he was under weight and had worms in his gut. if the army is that m as l nourished then everyone is worse off. the nukes are the only real weapons they have. that's if they can get one working when needed.
Lucas Gray
>GUID Kike shill, fuck off.
Ryder Hill
hmmm...
Bentley Davis
North Korea has no logistics. Their military would fall apart.
Parker Lopez
Who gives a shit about percentages when Seoul gets nuked? Do you think this is Dragonball Z where you compare power index numbers?
For fucks sake, I thought you South Koreans are smarter than this.
Andrew Bennett
South Korea exists as a wealthy state today because of their strategic partnership with the US. If we withdrew it is likely the north would seek to gain concessions from the south thanks to their nuclear capability and their conventional weapons within range of Seoul. I doubt they would try to take the entire korean peninsula by force, but would eventually be the de-facto head after any kind of unification occurred.
Aiden Hill
Artillery is a hell of a weapon.
Henry Bailey
>And does this mean that a hypothetical US withdrawal would almost inevitably lead to a Red Unification or some kind? That's always what happens. Capitalists need the support of a superpower to win because they don't have the morale to fight. NK was winning easily before the US intervened, and North Vietnam easily took over South Vietnam as soon as the US left.
Carter Phillips
Doesn't take healthy soldiers to fire artillery emplacements. The reason North Korea still exists is because they're basically holding Seoul hostage with huge artillery batteries. Any aggressive action taken against them could immediately result in potentially hundreds of thousands of dead civilians, and that's well before nukes enter the picture.
Juan Turner
No. NKs military makes SKs look like a joke.
Matthew Butler
>In 2004, South Korea’s military assessed that its Army had only 80 percent of the strength that its North Korean counterpart had, while the Navy had 90 percent and Air Force had 103 percent. All in all, South Korea’s military concluded it had only 88 percent of North Korea’s capacity.
And North Korea's military uses what would amount to antiques and an equally ancient military doctrine.
>The reason North Korea still exists is because they're basically holding Seoul hostage with huge artillery batteries.
And we've spent the last 60 years mapping them out and they would be systematically destroyed by airstrikes within hours of a declared war before they could do substantial damage.
Uh, no. Those positions are heavily reinforced and protected by a very large number of AA emplacements. First you'd need to run SEAD missions, which, depending on the numbers involved, could easily take a few days, and the artillery would be firing all the while. Then you could bomb them. But they have a hell of a lot of them, and it would more or less impossible to destroy them all before they caused serious damage to Seoul. They can't level the city, to be sure. But they could cause tens of billions of dollars in damage and significant loss of life, especially if they went for a full countervalue strike.
If what you say is true, we would have done it already. The US military is absolutely an overwhelming power, but it's not an omnipotent power.
North Koreas military lacks infrastructure and supplies to sustain any drawn out engagement. After they destroyed Seoul in the first minutes of war with artillery they would be absolutely skullfucked into submission. They can't feed their troops now in "peace" time, wtf do you think would happen in an actual war?
>a dictatorship that prioritizes muh number of Soviet tier tanks before having something to eat has a huge army Wow who would have guessed. It's obvious that a direct clash between two of the Koreas would end bad for both of them. But the thing is norks don't have any allies and their soldiers would desert in huge numbers.
Wyatt Collins
China would also get involved.
It'll be great for both our economies if the gook Gaoli Bangzi massacre each other.
John Foster
either you're underage or don't know anything about the situation. either way, you underestimated north korea's military like most other retards do
Ayden Gomez
Stay the fuck away from the Chinese border or this time we will push you into the sea.
Jose Campbell
Their air force is like 2 prop planes. They can shell the fuck out of seoul in the beginning and zerg the border. Thats pretty much all.
Sebastian Miller
>SK could resist NK No doubt it could but the initial blow can't be stopped.
You call in the US and you might just repeat the Korean War electric boogaloo.
again, you continue to underestimate their military because of how north korea is portrayed by the western media. they have plenty of modern and efficient destructive capabilities at their disposal. people like you will always bring up seoul oblivious to the fact that they could easily even reach busan's nuclear reactors. they have icbm's you dunce
John Scott
It doesnt even matter if its not the most advanced it just has to do damage and it will do.
Just look at the fucking destruction in Syrian civil war, barrel fucking bombs, 19th Century cannons being used.
>It doesnt even matter if its not the most advanced it just has to do damage and it will do. Believe it or not, it's a lot easier to do damage with M-1978s & KN-09s than a 12-pounder long gun.
Lucas Carter
The fact you're still using the A-10 says alot about the load of bullshit "digital tech" is.
dumbasses seriously need to realize that there's not much more room for improvements on bullets, guns, explosives and heavy ordnance in the modern era. same reason that b-52's are still on standby
Kevin Green
No one is talking about digital anything. I'm talking about guns that can fire 40 miles and rockets that can fire 120. I'll take those over barrel bombs, thank you very much.
The north korean army isn't an insurgent force jerry rigging weapons and arms out of museum pieces. They have a modern & relatively impressive military. They don't hold a candle to America, but they could wipe the floor with Australia's any day of the week. I don't understand what point you're trying to make. The A-10 is good at doing what it does. When we make something that does it better at a reasonable cost, it will be replaced. But like the other user said, we've pretty much figured out guns & bombs at this point.
Daniel Sanders
Lmao it's easy to have a 20% better military when your military is twice the size of the other country.
Charles Miller
People make fun of North Korean because their tech is shown as a fucking Cold War Museum.
>pitting North Korea against Australia What a mouth breather. Stick a sock in it will ya?
Evan Lopez
>Air Force had 103 percent Chill out
Air supremacy is the only thing that matters.
Cameron Hill
HIVEMIND
Jaxon Reyes
What would happen if South Korea builds its own nuclear arsenal, would it even the playing field? In terms of infantry, artys, ICBMs, etc. SK has the upper gain already.
Wyatt White
not in north korea. air supremacy is nothing against a complex tunnel network and guerillas
Jose Cruz
They will never win a war if they adopt a guerrilla stance.
Isaac Bailey
your post means nothing. guerilla would pretty much be inevitable considering it's a civil war. nork spec ops can disguise as rok civies or rok troops, infiltrate and wreak havoc on american logistics apparatus
Brody Thompson
t. butthurt north korean
To win a war you must hold the key positions of your enemy like the capital, the big cities, the power supply, the water suppy and the food supply. If North Gooks act as you say they will just lose their entire country.
Nicholas Diaz
The report excludes US combat strength (conventional and nuclear). It is focused only on the two Korea's.
The numbers in OP's post are not from the new report, they are from the older reports. The new report has not been issued yet.
Gabriel Scott
It's behind a paywall. What sort of AA do they have? Surely missile strikes could hit the most critical targets or stealth capabilities would be enough to evade what must be primitive radar systems? Unless of course we're going for near zero losses, which I would be skeptical of considering Koreans would be getting shelled while we tiptoe around, so to speak.
Knocking out all the actual artillery systems can't be the minimum necessary to prevent mass-shelling of Seoul, surely? Knocking out NK comms, damaging infrastructure and suppressing artillery whenever they open up would be enough to severely limit it, right? Are we even sure NK could mobilize all the assets being discussed?
Joshua Reed
>mfw there is a public list of civil defence shelters online >mfw this could also double up as a list of great targets for certain people to achieve maximum casualties in the event
