what if.

[Suave]

Here's another chart, the equipment numbers look right, but the numbers of personel in reserve units of NK is way too low.  In these speculations it's important to consider that one country is a military dictatorship and one country is a democratic republic. Combat engineer and ADA units, maybe of particular importance in a korean conlfict. Since the ADA capabilities of both sides will make the use of transport helicopters very risky. I know that some of the transportation infrastructure is rigged for self destruction on both sides of the DMZ, but I don't know to what extent. It could be just important bridges and tunnels near the DMZ.

http://www.paulnoll.com/Korea/History/Korean-military.html

[GRUNHERZ]

Those figures dont show the north in a good light either.

1,000,000 starving robotic stalinistic soldiers who will attack in mass vaves vs 700,000 healthy and innovative western style soldiers is not a good ratio.

Even that site says both have the same reserves, CIA data would ligically disagrre since it states that only 3.6 million NK men are are fit for service. But lets think of what those reserves are like. I'll bet the SK ones are better.

How can you say the NK reserves are too low. The site states  some 4.7 million NK reserves, out of a cpuntry of 22 million, too low? How, whats your data? What, do you think they should count 6 year old girls and their grandmothers (all starving) as reserves?

Sure the NK forces have more tanks and artillery.  But how many of the tanks are servicable? How many of them are basic model T54/55 class? How often do they train, tank training is very expensive.. Compared to SK modern tanks and trained army those number begain not to be so great.. Etc etc..

Sure they look great on paper and in parades, and I'm sure they would kill planty in seoul, but they have no chance to win any war aginst the SK army, let alone a SK army backed even only by US air dominance...

[Suave]

Well way too low was probably innapropriately subjective. 30% of capable adults male and female (ages 18 - 60 I think) are in reserve militias in North Korea. One such militia has 4 million members.  Both countries would be considered militarized by our standards, we don't have a lot of roof-top ADA around our airports like one sees in south korea. But I would venture to say that North Korea is the most militirized place in the world. By the time a North Korean is an adult he or she has had a good amount of training in basic soldiering, at least as much as Pvt Lynch had.

And, "human wave tactics vs innovative western style"? Is this an exageration for dramatic effect?

I'm not speculating that NK would succeed at "reunification" if the ceasefire broke. I'm just suggesting that with the US and ROK forces that are on the penninsula now we would not be able to protect the south.  Much of the US ground forces whose "AO" if you will, is Korea are not stationed in South Korea.

[Suave]

If you'd like some additional insight on the ROK army, ask somebody who was stationed there about his experience with KATUSA personel.

[Fishu]

Originally posted by Suave
Much of the US ground forces whose "AO" if you will, is Korea are not stationed in South Korea.

I noticed this too when reading DoD articles, stating there are units in Iraq which had been assigned to Korea.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Suave
Well way too low was probably innapropriately subjective. 30% of capable adults male and female (ages 18 - 60 I think) are in reserve militias in North Korea. One such militia has 4 million members.  Both countries would be considered militarized by our standards, we don't have a lot of roof-top ADA around our airports like one sees in south korea. But I would venture to say that North Korea is the most militirized place in the world. By the time a North Korean is an adult he or she has had a good amount of training in basic soldiering, at least as much as Pvt Lynch had.

And, "human wave tactics vs innovative western style"? Is this an exageration for dramatic effect?

I'm not speculating that NK would succeed at "reunification" if the ceasefire broke. I'm just suggesting that with the US and ROK forces that are on the penninsula now we would not be able to protect the south.  Much of the US ground forces whose "AO" if you will, is Korea are not stationed in South Korea.

I just dont put too much weight in mal nourished mass reserves of a starving and poor communist state.  My father was in the armed forces of the old Yugoslav army he says and the training he recieved was a joke.. And I'll bet the old yugo ary trained a buch more than the NK can afford.

As for tactics, maybe a bit of an eggareration but I doubt its much. I just dont see those guys being too creative. Plus I think they will be overconfident due to all the propaganda of NK greatrness and SK/USA weakness they are bombarded with.  In contrast our forces are overly worried qabout the NK..

As for KATUSA is that still goping on in any significant way?  I thought it was mostly a 1950s and cold war program..

[-MZ-]

If we launced a pre-emptive war against the North, the South would be so mad (what was left of it), that we could lose the whole country.

[GRUNHERZ]

The NK couldnt do anything south of Seoul. The US wouldnt do any war against the north without south korean agreement.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
The US wouldnt do any war against the north without south korean agreement.

Which you will never get unless NK attacks first.