North Korea vs South Korea Military comparison

[Sarjen]

How in the hell NK afforded to have 72 Subs?

 

[applesauce]

How in the hell NK afforded to have 72 Subs?

they're mostly tiny commando subs, nothing like the subs any of the P5(or india/paksitan/israel etc) would operates normally

 

[Asian.Century]

One nuke warhead would be enough with long Missile range from NK over US or SK.

 

[sicsheep]

Here we go again...

Yes, Seoul is an important target and the most important target. But as the satellite picture above obviously showed, not merely hinted at, is that South Korea's wealth is diverse and quite distributed. Even if Seoul is destroyed, a scenario exists only in Chinese minds, South Korea will survive. If signs of war are evident, South Korea's leadership will be equally distributed to assure continuation of government. But for North Korea, if Pyongyang is destroyed, NKR will collapse. Little wealth does not mean it cannot collapse. If anything, so little mean it will require only a nudge instead of a shove. NKR's leadership can go to the most remote parts of North Korea and it would do them no good. They have little to rule before, and once South Korea controls North Korea's airspace, chubby Kim will have nothing but roaches to lord over wherever bunker he may be.

it is true if North Korean leadership will be targeted first if war starts, but just like in the Korean war, old Kim immediately retreated to China after the incheon landing. If China had not sent troops, an exile government would have been set up. so targeting Kim will not work 100%, since they will most likely run the war from China.

 

[Aepsilons]

Please review:

 

[war is peace]

Nihon guy us millitary is not needed.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Please review:

View attachment 157351

It's important to remember that if needed, that graphic can become this:

An Illustration of War: US vs. North Korea Capabilities

Our 28,000 troops can quickly escalate in size if needed. From Japan and Guam we can pull troops, re-station aircraft, or base ships and subs. Our size in the region is massive, our presence in South Korea small, but hardly on its own.

Andersen Air Base can easily become a station for US tankers and nuclear capable aircraft.

 

[sicsheep]

It's important to remember that if needed, that graphic can become this:

An Illustration of War: US vs. North Korea Capabilities

Our 28,000 troops can quickly escalate in size if needed. From Japan and Guam we can pull troops, re-station aircraft, or base ships and subs. Our size in the region is massive, our presence in South Korea small, but hardly on its own.

Andersen Air Base can easily become a station for US tankers and nuclear capable aircraft.
View attachment 157390

View attachment 157391

why use nuclear capable aircraft? why not just launch ICBMs at North directly? they have no missile defense, you can wipe them out with one push of a button.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

why use nuclear capable aircraft? why not just launch ICBMs at North directly? they have no missile defense, you can wipe them out with one push of a button.

Nuclear capable... meaning that if needed they can use nuclear weapons, not that they will. The B-1b, B-52, B-2, F-15 and several other US systems can use nuclear weapons if needed, but until that point they can still be stationed at Guam and fly with conventional munitions, as seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo by B-52, B-2 and B-1 strikes. North Korea is a lot of things, stupid might be one of them, but they know that their only chance of leaving a conflict with their nation intact is to keep the conflict conventional.

Apart from the ATACMS, US ballistic missiles come only in the nuclear variety, meaning they have no use unless the conflict turns nuclear. Just because you can carry nuclear weapons doesn't mean you need to.

Also, unless the conflict turns nuclear, as the US has a no-first use policy, the US ICBMs are just dead-weight, while nuclear capable bombers have the flexibility needed to perform other missions.

 

[Aepsilons]

It's important to remember that if needed, that graphic can become this:

An Illustration of War: US vs. North Korea Capabilities

Our 28,000 troops can quickly escalate in size if needed. From Japan and Guam we can pull troops, re-station aircraft, or base ships and subs. Our size in the region is massive, our presence in South Korea small, but hardly on its own.

Andersen Air Base can easily become a station for US tankers and nuclear capable aircraft.
View attachment 157390

View attachment 157391

I should also add that the JSDF would commit boots on the ground should Seoul ever ask for our aid.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

I should also add that the JSDF would commit boots on the ground should Seoul ever ask for our aid.

And what a slice of "I hate Japan" humble pie that would be! But yes, Japan would help if needed.

(one of these might be a Calyptra)

 

[sicsheep]

Nuclear capable... meaning that if needed they can use nuclear weapons, not that they will. The B-1b, B-52, B-2, F-15 and several other US systems can use nuclear weapons if needed, but until that point they can still be stationed at Guam and fly with conventional munitions, as seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo by B-52, B-2 and B-1 strikes. North Korea is a lot of things, stupid might be one of them, but they no that their only chance of leaving a conflict with their nation intact is to keep the conflict conventional.

Apart from the ATACMS, US ballistic missiles come only in the nuclear variety, meaning they have no use unless the conflict turns nuclear. Just because you can carry nuclear weapons doesn't mean you need to.

my question is why Nuclear capable aircraft against NK. if ICBM has a shorter flight time and will do the same job, for conventional strike, US has plenty of aircraft capable in the pacific. you did not answer the question.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

my question is why Nuclear capable aircraft against NK. if ICBM has a shorter flight time and will do the same job, for conventional strike, US has plenty of aircraft capable in the pacific. you did not answer the question.

I did answer your question, you just don't seem to understand the concept presented. The US uses the same nuclear capable aircraft to deliver conventional weapons as it does to delivery nuclear weapons. No B-52, B-2 or B-1b has dropped a single nuclear weapon in conflict... just conventional ones. And in North Korea the same would be true.

Understand?!? Perhaps the problem is you don't understand the US military, or think that every conflict will require a nuclear outcome, or that the US bombers are incapable of anything other then a nuclear strike. unless North Korea uses nuclear weapons against us of the South Koreans nukes will not be used by the US either.

Also, why an ICMB or SLBM, the US has smaller, less destructive nuclear weapons that can be airdropped. Who says North Korea will have to be hit with an ICBM delivered munition.

As for the systems already in the Pacific, these are some of them. And if they aren't there already they can fly there, drop their munitions and return to US bases without needing to be bases in the Pacific.

 

[sicsheep]

I did answer your question, you just don't seem to understand the concept presented. The US uses the same nuclear capable aircraft to deliver conventional weapons as it does to delivery nuclear weapons. No B-52, B-2 or B-1b has dropped a single nuclear weapon in conflict... just conventional ones. And in North Korea the same would be true.

View attachment 157411

View attachment 157412

Understand?!? Perhaps the problem is you don't understand the US military... or that every conflict will require a nuclear outcome, or that the US bombers are incapable of anything other then a nuclear strike.

As for the systems already in the Pacific, these are some of them. And if they aren't there already they can fly there, drop their munitions and return to US bases without needing to be bases in the Pacific.

you specifically said NUCLEAR CAPABLE AIRCRAFT, I was simply making my point, it doesnt matter. If US wanted nuclear war it has 5 other more effective way of nuking NK, Nuclear Capable aircraft was designed in the cold war as a deterrent for the USSR, they would fly routine patrol along the soviet boarder and ready to drop if nuclear war start. B-1, B-2 and B-52 are the least effective aircraft used in afganistan because the base they are launching from is too far away for a rapid response, compared to A-10s and drones.

and I am the one who doesnt understand US military. ...

 

[applesauce]

why use nuclear capable aircraft? why not just launch ICBMs at North directly? they have no missile defense, you can wipe them out with one push of a button.

thats a horrible idea, considering china and russia is right there and might think that icbm is coming for them, resulting in ww3/armageddon

and the ability of the SK/US to win a second korean war barring the entrance of other major powers(ie china and russia) is never in doubt, what people are worry about is how many body bags there must be before victory.