| mai said: ^Yet another who do not know what he's talking about. May I remind you that DPRK steamrolled South Korea before US and UK forces landed in Pusan preimeter in 1950, and even that operation was successful due to superiority in tanks and artillery: 40 tanks (even though vastly superior to anything T-34-85 ;) ) and 800 plus artillery (DPRK) vs. 500 tanks and 1600 plus artillery (UN and South Korean forces) with support from aviation and naval military groups. I won't say that scenario will repeat itself even if imagine some ideal world where NATO won't get into conflict and only Korean forces from both sides will engage into battle, but even considering lack of proper tech from DPRK side the war will get bloody fast and victory (if they achieve one) will be pyrrhic for South Korea, if... if... they do really plan a full scale invasion completely on their own, which is, again, completely improbable scenario.
@Kantor Why didn't you compare GDP for that matter? Following massive success of Wii Bingo I'll get a sequel Bingo game for you ready =) |
There is a reason the DPRK was winning. They had training, troops and equipment from the Soviet Union during the Manchurian campaign. Comparatively, South Korea did not.
A war between north and south would be incredibly bloody. But the South would win it pretty handily. The DPRK is using technology from the 60s and 70s, whereas the Koreans are litterally in the top-3 for most the most advanced military in the world (right there with US and Israel, and their new assault rifles are arguably the best in the world).
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
