This is a discussion on Korea still needs U.S army within the Army & Security Forces forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; I'm fairly confident that the ROK armed forces would handily defeat their NKPA counterparts. I would be an ugly couple ...
I'm fairly confident that the ROK armed forces would handily defeat their NKPA counterparts. I would be an ugly couple of weeks, with enormous damage to ROK's infrastructure along the DMZ, but they would win, with or without US assitance.
The US currently has only 1 Heavy BCT (2 Combined Arms Battalions, 1 Cav Squadron, 1 Artillery Battalion (155mm SP)), 1 Combat Aviation Brigade (1 Battalion AH-64D), and 1 Fires Brigade (2 MLRS Battalions) deployed in the ROK.
While that's a lot of fire power - especially with the 2 MLRS Battalions and the AH-64D Battalion - it is still a relatively small amount of combat power when compared to the 520,000 man ROK Army.
The old relationship where the ROK provided manpower and the US provided firepower has chaged - the moderized ROKA is more the capable of providing both, though I'm sure they appreciate the availability of USAF & USN aircraft to assist the ROK AF in bombing the crap out of NKPA forces if necessary.
The US ground presence in the ROK is a tripwire. It's a physical manifestation of the US commitment to the ROK, and a absolute guarentee that if the NKPA wants to invade the ROK, they have to kill Americans in the process, which also guarentees we'll be supoorting the ROK 100% in repelling the NKPA with our air and seapower.
The war would most likely be all but over before any significant US ground re-enforcements could arrive.
Most of the interested parties in the region (ROK, USA, Japan, Russia, PRC) would probably prefer to maintain the status quo with NK as the "evil that we know". China is worried that any regime change or collapse in NK would lead to a huge refugee crisis on thier border. Unification would put a US ally, with US ground troops stationed in it, right next to China.The ROK is worried a NK collapse could economically cripple them as they try to absorb the primitive, bankrupt north - imagine the DDR, but 10 x worse.
Japan is worried by the economic implications of a NK collapse and is also worried about a unified Korea.
There are no good scenarios in dealing with NK - only less bad ones.
As an Australian-Korean living in Korea, an attack on the South would be absolutely devastating.
The US have maintained a sizeable force here for over 50 years, and I believe it is because of this that a second Korean War has not been started.
I have many friends who have completed their compulsory military service-from the ROK marines (they are BAD as), regular army and HQ. In general, they are told that in a full scale attack, their life expectancy is less than 20 minutes for the troops and marines on the DMZ.
The concensus is that the US military is needed to support the ROK forces.
The "draft dodgers" who have not served, are the ones who insist that ROK forces can be self sustaining, yet they are the ones who find loopholes in order to NOT serve.
A good friend of mine who was stationed on Yong-Pyong Island during the shelling last year told me the confusion from the higher echelons in making decisions.
In general, the "brass" are too busy advancing their careers and retirement funds rather than leading the troops. The usual fallout from this incident and the sinking of the Cho-Nan Destroyer was lots of finger pointing between services and a witch-hunt.
As mentioned, the bigger picture is that Russia and China needs NK as a buffer. Japan would be nervous as to having a "stronger" Korea both politically and economically. The ROK would baulk at the thought of supporting an economy that has little infrastructure or technology.
The bottom line is that NK know that an attack on the South is an attack on the US.
This is the reason that US forces must stay on the peninsula.
Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.
The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small.
Currently, the SOFA agreement keeps US troop levels at 28 500. By all means not a small force, yet if in a full scale attack, most would be heavily committed and outnumbered like the South Korean forces.
From what I have heard from ROK soldiers and marines, under a full scale attack, ROK/US forces are expected to hold out on their own for 45 days, the time taken for reinforcements to arrive from the UN, Japan and mainland US.
Also, NK conscripts serve a total of 14 years in the military on a 2 years on-1 year off basis. This is compared to 21 months for ROK soldiers and marines.
Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers.
Perhaps you 'underestimating' South Korea. DPRK have made improvement, but the quality of improvement the ROK has done to their Military is much more than DPRK has. How DPRK can sustain long term war alone (if China not involved), when they can't even feed their population properly ?
The thing that worries Seoul and Washington is not they can't win conventional war, but if being pushed to the corner, DPRK will resolve to dirty bombs. If that happen with ROK do not have (currently) nuclear arsenal on their own, they have to turn to US. And if the US using their tactical nuke's, will China stand still ?
Yes, DPRK Army can swarm the DMZ and perhaps can overran it, however at same time ROK Air and Sea assets also can overran the Naval and AF of DPRK and can tip the balance in the ground. After that they have no choice than go directly to Pyongyang where the Kim Jr Jr will use their dirty nuke arsenal just on spite. This is the worrying thing about DPRK I believe that Seoul and Washington have, not entirely on their conventional military which although it will be difficult, given time ROK with or without US support on the ground should have tip the balance.
I for one am sick of going to Korea. Let them and Japan deal with NK. They keep bowing down to them. I say enough lets go. Let the UN deal with it.
The U.S. 8th army is there BECAUSE of a United Nations mandate going back to 1950. Russia abstained from the resolution to defend the R.O.K. because at the time communist China wasn't permitted it's seat on the U.N. security council hence Russia's abstension as a form of protest. IMO this was huge mistake on the soviets part but that' another story. So the U.N. has been dealing with it for some time now and the united states military is the muscle behind the u.n. how do you think we got there in the first place?
Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.
As a combat arms military professional, who was stationed in South Korea twice (once in an infantry battalion and once in an armor battalion) including a DMZ rotation, I think you are grossly overestmating the warfighting capabilites of the NKPA. I'm not sure if you have ever spent anytime on the Korean pennisula, but the terrirory of South Korea along the DMZ is one of the worst places anywhere to attempt to conduct a "bliztkrieg" style strategy. It is one of the most heavily fortified stretches of real estate in the world, and it is also mountainous AND heavily urbanized.
The vast majority of the NKPAs heavy forces are antiquated T-54/55s, T-62s, Type 59s and BTR-60s.
While they have a distinct numerical advanatge (~1 million men vs the ROK ~500,000) this is more than offset by the ROK Army's vastly superior equipment and weapon systems and it basic advanatge the ROKs have of being on the defensive in terrain that favors the defense. The rule of thumb when attacking defensive positions is that the attacker wants at least a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers - and this is assuming rough technical and tactical parity between the combatants.
If the NKPA had a real shot of pulling it off, they would have tried. They missed what ever window of opportunity they might of had, back when the ROKs technical advantage was much less and when they had the firm backing of a super power patron in the Soviet Union.
Now the the NKPA is essentially a terror weapon. While they could never militarily defeat the south, they CAN inflict massive civilian casulaties and infastructure damage on the heavily populated and industrialized areas near Seoul with conventional artillery, chemical weapons, and now possibly a nuke or two - and they use this a political leverage - and as a means of safeguarding the regime.
For those who are interested in this subject and have the time I'd recommend a book called Red Phoenix written by Larry Bond. He collaborated with Tom Clancy heavily on Red Storm Rising apparently, and although the book is a little dated (around 1984ish) it read well. In almost every scenario on the Korean peninsula it seems the critical balance is 1) making sure the conflict remains non-NBC and 2) that it would remain a regional conflict not involving China or Russia backing North Korea due to concerns over an American presence and a United Korea friendly to the U.S. right on their borders. If in such a war the U.N. command decided to go North I'd say the R.O.K. ONLY approach the Yalu but with Allied air support and any other support possible. Even though it's not 1950 anymore I doubt the Chinese would tolerate U.S. troops in strength right on their border even today.
As a combat arms military professional, who was stationed in South Korea twice (once in an infantry battalion and once in an armor battalion) including a DMZ rotation, I think you are grossly overestmating the warfighting capabilites of the NKPA. I'm not sure if you have ever spent anytime on the Korean pennisula, but the terrirory of South Korea along the DMZ is one of the worst places anywhere to attempt to conduct a "bliztkrieg" style strategy. It is one of the most heavily fortified stretches of real estate in the world, and it is also mountainous AND heavily urbanized.
The vast majority of the NKPAs heavy forces are antiquated T-54/55s, T-62s, Type 59s and BTR-60s.
While they have a distinct numerical advanatge (~1 million men vs the ROK ~500,000) this is more than offset by the ROK Army's vastly superior equipment and weapon systems and it basic advanatge the ROKs have of being on the defensive in terrain that favors the defense. The rule of thumb when attacking defensive positions is that the attacker wants at least a 3 to 1 advantage in numbers - and this is assuming rough technical and tactical parity between the combatants.
If the NKPA had a real shot of pulling it off, they would have tried. They missed what ever window of opportunity they might of had, back when the ROKs technical advantage was much less and when they had the firm backing of a super power patron in the Soviet Union.
Now the the NKPA is essentially a terror weapon. While they could never militarily defeat the south, they CAN inflict massive civilian casulaties and infastructure damage on the heavily populated and industrialized areas near Seoul with conventional artillery, chemical weapons, and now possibly a nuke or two - and they use this a political leverage - and as a means of safeguarding the regime.
Adrian
That and the fact that if the DPRK falls your going to see the worst humaniterian crisis in the last 50 years. Not to mention unmind ****ing there entire population.
Personally I believe you guys are underestimating North Korea, it has improved tremendously in the manner of equipment, troops, tanks, planes, and officers. North Korea has the capability to fight a long term war since their economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations. Also China has proven that it is willing to go to war to ensure North Korea's Sovergienty. North Korea's battle power is centered around a "blitzkrieg" style strategy and has the capability to carry it out. Probably the chief reason the North Korean assualt in the Korean War was stopped was because we had two full divisions based in Japan along with an expiditionary force in South Korea that we used to blunt their offensive. The majority of those forces aren't there anymore, we no longer keep ANY forces in Korea and if we do its small. So North Korea would undoubtably win if they went to war right now.
Where to start replying to this? It's so full of misunderstandings.
Sgtgunn has summed up the military situation well. I'll deal with the rest.
Yes, the North Korean economy is centred around its armed forces. But that doesn't make it capable of supporting them in a war. It's a war economy in peacetime, & it's at full stretch. It depends on foreign aid to stop its population starving. Unlike the peace economies of other countries, it has nothing left to mobilise. What it has is all it's ever going to get. It has no money or credit to pay for any resupply of anything, no rich civilian economy to call on for extra transport, fuel stores or the like - nothing.
You are wrong: the USA does keep forces in Korea. There is a small ground force, & a few USAF squadrons. Those USAF fighters alone are enough to defeat the KPAF rather quickly, but they won't need to do it alone, since they can be reinforced very rapidly by USAF & USN aircraft from Japan. And then there are the S. Korean forces, which you don't even seem to be aware of the existence of.
In 1950, the North Korean armed forces greatly outnumbered those of the South, & were better trained & far better equipped. That is no longer true. The only advantage the North now has is in raw numbers, as Sgtgunn says. Also, again unlike 1950, the South is now enormously richer than the North. It can mobilise its civilian economy to support its armed forces, can afford to import whatever it needs to sustain a war, & can bring it whatever it needs in its own ships, protected by its own navy. On top of that, it will have US help.
China went to war in 1950, at the height of the Cold War, when trade with the USA was nil & the USA was backing a rival Chinese government in Taiwan, which had been finally driven from the Chinese mainland only months before, to keep the US army away from the Chinese border. That proves nothing about China's willingness now to go to war to protect North Korea's independence. China is a different country now. Its leaders were small children, or not even born, at the time of the Korean War. They're Chinese nationalists, not Communist ideologues. What happened in 1950-53 is no more a guide to Chinese policy now than WW1 was to German-French relations in the 1970s.
I'm not sure what year or century you think this is. You say "eir economy is a "war economy" meaning its centered around their military like most communist nations". What communist nations do you refer to? I can't think of a single other country in the world which fits that description. China? State-dominated capitalism, not communist, & the economy is certainly not centred around the military. And so on.
