North Korea Megathread

[The Alexanderians]

Oh boy, here we go again....

The two are always on the verge of reigniting that war from 65 years ago. They have only signed a cease-fire and technically the war between the two Koreas hasn't ended.

It was technically never declared either.

[Rejected Regents]

Some people here have mentioned China coming to NK. rescue. I think it would most likely come from Russia. Yes, Russia wants good economic ties to SK. but in the long run I think they would support NK. which they also have been investing in. You got to remember that NK. was a Soviet creation and I do not think Russia which currently is having problems with the West wants to have another pro-NATO nation on its border.

Already, the train line between Russia and NK. have been improved.
Watch this its short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3yz2jVvAk

This news report from May 2015 has some history and much more about Russia and NK. -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxTiK6ld67Y

Russia? Supporting North Korea?

No. Just... no. Russia would not risk open war for a backwater nation such as North Korea. Putin is not a complete moron. They might have investments and a train line, but investments in a nation work a lot better if they have a sound economic policy. Something North Korea lacks. Putin would not lift a finger to protect the North,

Untrue. Russia has been trying to rekindle the Soviet-era partnership between the two for the entire duration of Putin's reign as President of the Federation. You are quite mistaken, I'm afraid, in your analysis of events.

[Rio Cana]

Some people here have mentioned China coming to NK. rescue. I think it would most likely come from Russia. Yes, Russia wants good economic ties to SK. but in the long run I think they would support NK. which they also have been investing in. You got to remember that NK. was a Soviet creation and I do not think Russia which currently is having problems with the West wants to have another pro-NATO nation on its border.

Already, the train line between Russia and NK. have been improved.
Watch this its short - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-3yz2jVvAk

This news report from May 2015 has some history and much more about Russia and NK. -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxTiK6ld67Y

Russia? Supporting North Korea?

No. Just... no. Russia would not risk open war for a backwater nation such as North Korea. Putin is not a complete moron. They might have investments and a train line, but investments in a nation work a lot better if they have a sound economic policy. Something North Korea lacks. Putin would not lift a finger to protect the North,

Russia might not be selling NK. there best modern weapons but supposedly both Russia and NK. will be having, if they have not already, joint military exercises.

Read this - http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00796.html

and this which shows that China and NK. are not so close.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/htm ... 00858.html

[Imperializt Russia]

A total rout is only appropriate in certain circumstances. The technological disparity doesn't permit the Norks to rely on this.

Which essentially means the Norks have no chance of winning a conventional war.

Almost no modern war has been won through a total rout of the enemy.

[United Marxist Nations]

[Western Pacific Territories]

-snip-

Want the mods to come?

[Rejected Regents]

Which essentially means the Norks have no chance of winning a conventional war.

Almost no modern war has been won through a total rout of the enemy.

Define modern war. The period you elaborate determines the validity of that statement. Also, check a page or two back, I'm curious your response to my statement made in reply to you about Serbia.

[Imperializt Russia]

Almost no modern war has been won through a total rout of the enemy.

Define modern war. The period you elaborate determines the validity of that statement. Also, check a page or two back, I'm curious your response to my statement made in reply to you about Serbia.

From reading, I appear to be mistaken. But Desert Storm was the best showcase of coalition air tactics and capabilities anyone could ever have. I thought Iraqis had gotten in contact with the Serbs, but a cursory google doesn't seem to corroborate this.

"Modern War" can arguably move as far back as WWII. Nazi Germany was effectively routed, though Japan was not. Korea did not end in victory and nor did Vietnam (though the PAVN effectively routed the ARVN in 1975 when they took Saigon).
Gulf War and the Iraq War were not routs, and these are usually the go-to examples of MURRICA STRONG the internet and the warhawks (not necessarily mutually exclusive) like to trot out. They were absolutely not routs.

[North Arkana]

Define modern war. The period you elaborate determines the validity of that statement. Also, check a page or two back, I'm curious your response to my statement made in reply to you about Serbia.

From reading, I appear to be mistaken. But Desert Storm was the best showcase of coalition air tactics and capabilities anyone could ever have. I thought Iraqis had gotten in contact with the Serbs, but a cursory google doesn't seem to corroborate this.

"Modern War" can arguably move as far back as WWII. Nazi Germany was effectively routed, though Japan was not. Korea did not end in victory and nor did Vietnam (though the PAVN effectively routed the ARVN in 1975 when they took Saigon).
Gulf War and the Iraq War were not routs, and these are usually the go-to examples of MURRICA STRONG the internet and the warhawks (not necessarily mutually exclusive) like to trot out. They were absolutely not routs.

When I was talking about overrunning positions, I meant on the tactical level, like with battle positions. I never implied there was any kind of rout, just that an overwhelming force to quickly knock out a US or SK unit would be needed to avoid the worst effects of fire support.

[Imperializt Russia]

From reading, I appear to be mistaken. But Desert Storm was the best showcase of coalition air tactics and capabilities anyone could ever have. I thought Iraqis had gotten in contact with the Serbs, but a cursory google doesn't seem to corroborate this.

"Modern War" can arguably move as far back as WWII. Nazi Germany was effectively routed, though Japan was not. Korea did not end in victory and nor did Vietnam (though the PAVN effectively routed the ARVN in 1975 when they took Saigon).
Gulf War and the Iraq War were not routs, and these are usually the go-to examples of MURRICA STRONG the internet and the warhawks (not necessarily mutually exclusive) like to trot out. They were absolutely not routs.

When I was talking about overrunning positions, I meant on the tactical level, like with battle positions. I never implied there was any kind of rout, just that an overwhelming force to quickly knock out a US or SK unit would be needed to avoid the worst effects of fire support.

Overrunning a unit is a rout.

Using the term itself makes me think you refer only to the memetic "China/Russia/Norks can only into human waves".

[North Arkana]

A rout implies a unit broke and ran from the fight, overrunning implies there was too much force for them to successfully hold and were overwhelmed.

A rout is a chaotic and disorderly retreat or withdrawal of troops from a battlefield, resulting in the victory of the opposing party, or following defeat, a collapse of discipline, or poor morale.

o·ver·run
verb
ˌōvərˈrən/
1.
spread over or occupy (a place) in large numbers.
"the Mediterranean has been overrun by tourists"
synonyms: invade, storm, occupy, swarm into, surge into, inundate, overwhelm
"guerrillas overran the barracks"

[Imperializt Russia]

Therefore, being overrun will probably involve a rout.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

From the very small amount of research I've done, it doesn't look like this represents a major deviation from the way NK-SK relations have been going for the last decade. Probably won't lead to anything we haven't been seeing already.

[Geanna]

It must be muscle-flexing season again. I doubt much if anything will come of it as the political risks of open conflict are too big for the leaders on both sides.

And even China's starting to get fed up with NKorea, not saying they'd completely cut them loose if something ever did escalate that far, but I say it's more of a possibility now.

[Rejected Regents]

Define modern war. The period you elaborate determines the validity of that statement. Also, check a page or two back, I'm curious your response to my statement made in reply to you about Serbia.

From reading, I appear to be mistaken. But Desert Storm was the best showcase of coalition air tactics and capabilities anyone could ever have. I thought Iraqis had gotten in contact with the Serbs, but a cursory google doesn't seem to corroborate this.

"Modern War" can arguably move as far back as WWII. Nazi Germany was effectively routed, though Japan was not. Korea did not end in victory and nor did Vietnam (though the PAVN effectively routed the ARVN in 1975 when they took Saigon).
Gulf War and the Iraq War were not routs, and these are usually the go-to examples of MURRICA STRONG the internet and the warhawks (not necessarily mutually exclusive) like to trot out. They were absolutely not routs.

Your perspective is what was commonly believed before the Iraqi Perspectives Project (led by the Joint Forces Center of the US Army) gathered the Iraqi government documents after the 2003 invasion. You're just not up on the current literature which isn't a bad thing, I just studied this in graduate school

If you want to learn more about it, I encourage you to read 'Saddam's War' 'Saddam's Generals' and 'The Iraqi Perspectives Report: Operation Iraqi Freedom.' All have excellent information on this topic.

[Glorious KASSRD]

Too bad. It's a shame nations that haven't been at war for over 60 years can't go a year without some military incident. Luckily full out war is not going to happen for a long time, if ever.
Were there any casualties?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Too bad. It's a shame nations that haven't been at war for over 60 years can't go a year without some military incident. Luckily full out war is not going to happen for a long time, if ever.
Were there any casualties?

Probably not, it wasn't a large exchange and I haven't heard anything about casualties.

[United States Kingdom]

This is nothing. South Korea have a more advanced military than North Korea.

[Washington Resistance Army]

This is nothing. South Korea have a more advanced military than North Korea.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the situation.

[Democratic Socialist States of Africa]

This is nothing. South Korea have a more advanced military than North Korea.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the situation.

The truth is the truth. South Korea has a more advanced military, economy than North Korea. North Korea only has numbers but South Korea has much more better equipment, and technology. No other way to look at it since North Korea invading South Korea would be the end of the dictatorship in NK.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the situation.

The truth is the truth. South Korea has a more advanced military, economy than North Korea. North Korea only has numbers but South Korea has much more better equipment, and technology. No other way to look at it since North Korea invading South Korea would be the end of the dictatorship in NK.

North Korea has been modernizing a lot for quite a few years now, their military is a lot more advanced than the average person thinks. They also have WMD's which the South lacks.

[Barboneia]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at the situation.

The truth is the truth. South Korea has a more advanced military, economy than North Korea. North Korea only has numbers but South Korea has much more better equipment, and technology. No other way to look at it since North Korea invading South Korea would be the end of the dictatorship in NK.

Think of it on a global scale, though. If it escalates seriously then more countries may get involved.

[Democratic Socialist States of Africa]

The truth is the truth. South Korea has a more advanced military, economy than North Korea. North Korea only has numbers but South Korea has much more better equipment, and technology. No other way to look at it since North Korea invading South Korea would be the end of the dictatorship in NK.

Think of it on a global scale, though. If it escalates seriously then more countries may get involved.

I am well aware of the global impact that it could have but fact of the matter is, China wouldn't risk themselves for North Korea. Yes, it is obvious that China doesn't want a United Korea allied with the USA, but China depends to much on global trade to risk getting into an invasion with NK.

[Dumb Ideologies]

They should trade areas of governance instead. Everyone needs a Korea change at some point in their lives.

[Democratic Socialist States of Africa]

The truth is the truth. South Korea has a more advanced military, economy than North Korea. North Korea only has numbers but South Korea has much more better equipment, and technology. No other way to look at it since North Korea invading South Korea would be the end of the dictatorship in NK.

North Korea has been modernizing a lot for quite a few years now, their military is a lot more advanced than the average person thinks. They also have WMD's which the South lacks.

And I am well aware of that however North Korea also has Cold War era, and World War II era equipment. Furthermore, South Korea, while not having WMD is capable of financing nuclear weapons reaserch, and most of SK's major allies have way more WMDs than NK.