Hypothetical North Korea versus South Korea

johngalway

Hello folks,

Think this is my first time starting a thread in here, hope I don't say anything wrong in it!

I've been interested in the sinking of the South Korean Corvette Cheonan, allegedly by a North Korean submarine launched torpedo. There's an ongoing war of words between the two states that has heightened since then to actions such as involving the UN and I believe SK has ceased trading with NK or allowing it's ships to use their territorial waters.

What I'd like to know is how do the two sides stand up militarily?

I'm going on foggy memory here but a while back I read that NK has a lot of nasty substances and plenty of artillery pieces and missiles pointed at the South. With a major South Korean population centres pretty close to the border, what shape would a conflict take?

How do they stand up against each other conventionally?

I'm not sure how stable the NK leader is... But, if he ordered chemical/biological(do they have any?) or possibly nuclear strikes, would the soldier on the ground go ahead with that order?

Just digging for a bit of info I guess!

ATB,

John

BuckJamesRogers

johngalway wrote: »

Hello folks,

Think this is my first time starting a thread in here, hope I don't say anything wrong in it!

I've been interested in the sinking of the South Korean Corvette Cheonan, allegedly by a North Korean submarine launched torpedo. There's an ongoing war of words between the two states that has heightened since then to actions such as involving the UN and I believe SK has ceased trading with NK or allowing it's ships to use their territorial waters.

What I'd like to know is how do the two sides stand up militarily?

I'm going on foggy memory here but a while back I read that NK has a lot of nasty substances and plenty of artillery pieces and missiles pointed at the South. With a major South Korean population centres pretty close to the border, what shape would a conflict take?

How do they stand up against each other conventionally?

I'm not sure how stable the NK leader is... But, if he ordered chemical/biological(do they have any?) or possibly nuclear strikes, would the soldier on the ground go ahead with that order?

Just digging for a bit of info I guess!

ATB,

John

NK has a huge military force and last time they were backed by the Chinese, this time, I'm not so sure they would back up NK. Publicly, China backs NK but privately, theres rumors of a large split in the camp. The US has been putting pressure on China recently to condemn the recent attack, so if NK were to attack, China probably wouldn't join in on their side, whatever about the side of the US and SK, though previous relations might stop that. On the whole, they will probably have the regions best interests at heart, as, aside from the NK problem, the region is largely stable. If a war were to break out, Kim Jong Il would always threaten to use nuclear/chemical/biological arms, though it would be extremely dangerous for him to do so, given the proximity of the two states. In any event, the US could even probably shoot down the missile before it hits, launches would be constantly monitored. If it came down to conventional warfare, I think the US and SK would probably win, as 1. North Koreans are noticeably smaller than their South Korean neighbours, due to their worse diets and harder lifestyles, 2. their technology is not as advanced as the US and 3. China probably wouldnt back them up!

This international relations degree might be useful for something did a presentation on this earlier this year :cool:

BuckJamesRogers

also

Doctor14

South Korea has a major Technological lead of the North - as a result they can keep the North at arms length and punish them. In other words, they can strangle to North in an all out war without crossing the border, any overland attack would cost them dearly.
The only way North Korea can not lose an all out war is to attack. If the south trades ground for time, then any initial wins the North achieves will cost them VERY dearly. If the South fights for every inch of ground, their technological advantage will not be as marked and it will be likely to be very costly for both sides.
In the event of a North attack, China will not back them up.

What may be an option is a limited aerial strike by the South which would specifically target the Norths Nuclear capability and leave it at that. That would keep all sides happy (except the north). Even China would be likely to be happy with this. The unpredictability of the North would come into play then.

Manic Moran

Although the North's ability to shell Seoul is a little over-stated, they can cause great panic out of proportion to their actual effects by simply lobbing the occasional round over. The resulting mass migration will doubtless affect the abilities of the UN forces to maneuver Northwards.

NTM

DylanJM

Of course the north's capabilities are always overstated due to propaganda or whatever. However Seoul is a very densely populated city and even just one large,sustained artillery bombardment would cause a huge loss of life.

A chemical attack would also cause a huge amount of damage in such a densely populated area as well.

I really don't think we will see the south do anything about an increasingly aggressive north at the moment because of the huge consequences. It will take something a lot bigger lead to an all out conflict. However maybe it might just be best to put a stop to them now.

It's a case of damned if they do damned if they don't.

johngalway

Thanks all, I'm finding this subject very interesting. There's no doubt that a US backed South Korea certainly has the technological edge in a conflict with the North. I wonder how effective this edge would be in limiting infrastructural damage from a Northern attack, given the limited ground between the border and a main population centre.

Is there any information available about the North Korean side regarding their military, would most of it be stationed near the border or held in reserve to be moved up in the even of any conflict?