View Single Post
  #74    
Old April 6th, 2013 (08:01 PM).
Kanzler's Avatar
Kanzler Kanzler is offline
naughty biscotti
Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
Posts: 4,844
Iraq and Afghanistan's issues were with an insurgency and guerilla warfare though. I don't know if North Korea, with its super patriarchal and control culture has it within them to turn to insurgency. You can contrast them big time to the Communist Party, who during revolution, was a radical, guerilla based, decentralized, and revolutionary (really!) force. The North Korea today is about rigidity, doctrine, and conservatism.

Actually I lie. The Soviet partisans did really well in terms of their insurgency. But this might be an unfair comparison because they had the advantage of an overstretched Wehrmacht and large Russian territory. Oh and German brutality didn't help either, with the under-supplied army diverting food supplies away from the populace. So I suppose my point still stands that an insurgency may not be viable like it was in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also the culture between China and the two Koreas hold a common heritage, and I don't know how good most North Koreans - except the most fanatical - would feel about killing their own countrymen. They are still Koreans with thousands of years of history and probably view each other as brothers and sisters, except for the ignorant South Korean youth illiterate of their culture and hooked on Western consumerism, but that's another rant XD. The terrain is hilly like Afghanistan, but Korea's a much smaller place with around the same population. Also both China and South Korea have huge populations. So a North Korean insurgency wouldn't have too many places to hide. Especially since the peasants and farmers would be liberated from starvation and inefficient farming practices.

In terms of conventional warfare with airpower + armoured vehicles + missiles + artillery, the North Koreans would probably get destroyed by South Korea/United States/China, but not before causing maybe 2 million civilian casualties due to population density and distance. Otherwise they should be defeated relatively quickly as air superiority + concentration of force + technology should destroy their command structure and their ability to call on support, making their forces combat ineffective. Like how the ground war with Iraq, if I remember correctly, lasted a couple of months.

Edit:
Quote:
A tank is still a tank no matter how old and it can still kill...
I'm not too sure about this. I don't know if the North Koreans have modernized old models like how the HUMVEE was made more relevant in Iraq. But if they haven't, they're still relying on old shells and metal armour which is no match for the superdense sabot rounds and chemical armour tanks of the US and Korea are armed with. Especially if the US has Abrams in North Korea. I would kind of be excited if China joined an invasion, because that would allow them to test their newest tank model. I know it's macabre, but I really, really, want to see how it turns out in combat. There are so tank varieties in the world, but I don't think many have been battle-tested.
Reply With Quote