News Stories

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you mean these rockets?

come on... they only exist to fool spy sattelites

russia's land based rocket forces still packs punch, and they're high mobile

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You seem to be under the impression that your unified Korea could build up this force on the Northern border while China would do absolutely nothing to counter it. Also your reserve figure is likely going to include North Korea's which counts almost every person of military age. Further, as has been pointed out, even if the initial invasion is successful, China can trade land for time.

Are you seriously thinking that a reunified Korea will do a third Sino-Japanese War or that PRC would be able to take Manchuria once it's taken from them?

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

You want numbers? The PLAAF has 1,617 combat aircraft. The two Koreas combined have around 1100 combat aircraft, though that includes over 200 mig-17 and mig-19 derivatives in service in North Korea. Before you say technological advantage, yes, those F-15ks are impressive, but both sides are mainly using 3rd generation fighters for numbers with a core force of 4th generation fighters. North Korea still has some 2nd generation fighters in service though.

You forgot the (officially) 651 M-21 derivatives, Shenyang J-8II and Chengdu J-7, on the PRC side. I wouldn't go into how it is known that Chengdu J-10 would be handly beating by the KF-16s.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

On the ground? The PLA has 2,255,000 active service personal, with another 1,200,000 reserves. Note that unlike the Koreas, this is a volunteer force. If China needed to they could resort to conscription and tap the over 300 million men of military age. In addition there are 4,100,000 people in paramilitary organizations.

The KPA has 1,106,000 in its army, with 8 million listed as reserves. Of course this number is idiotic, as I mentioned before it counts pretty much everyone of military age who isn't actually in the military as "reserves". I shouldn't have to explain to you why that doesn't work. The ROKA has 522,000 people with 3,040,000 in reserve.

North Korea also has 3.5 million people in paramilitary organizations, which obviously overlaps with the "reserve" figure as they just don't have the population for it to be otherwise.

So it's 2,255,000 on the Chinese side vs 1,628,000 for a unified Korea. Korea does have an initial advantage in reserves, though exactly how much is questionable as we don't have any realistic numbers for the north, but it will be 6 months to a year at the most before China's massive population advantage cancels it out, even if we accept the inflated 8 million figure for the North.

2,255,000 covering a territory that happens to be 13 times as large as the entire Korean peninsula. Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch that PRC would be able to bring all that mean from their positions to Manchuria in the time needed for stalling the initial invasion?

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

For the Navy, I really don't feel like listing the scores of patrol boats and midget subs the Koreas have. Both Koreas have impressive littoral combat capability. Suffice it to say they could stop a Chinese attempt to duplicate Inchon. China likewise has littoral capabilities to render a Korean amphibious assault out of the question. The real question is their blue water capabilities. In that department, China has 26 destroyers and 57 frigates. South Korea has 11 destroyers and 9 frigates. I am not counting North Korean forces there because the state of their blue water navy can be summed up as "lol no." Now 2 of those South Korean destroyers are AEGIS equipped, so they'll give an excellent accounting, but they're just too badly outnumbered.

There is again the problem of area. PRC has to defend both the Yellow and the East China Sea coast, spliting its forces already while the ROKN by itself has the capacity to take on either of the split forces and win. While a landing on China is certainly out of question, it is unlikely that naval battles would decide the war unless it's the Liaodong area.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

That's just their surface fleet though. How about submarines you ask? China has 4 nuclear ballistic missile subs, 6 nuclear attack subs, and 44 non-nuclear attack subs. North Korea has 20 non-nuclear attack subs, the same type as the oldest in China's fleet. South Korea has 12 non-nuclear attack subs. If you wish you can add another 40 subs for North Korea that aren't large enough to be considered a proper attack sub, but are none the less too big to be considered a midget sub. I consider them a littoral asset not a blue water asset though.

Problems with your submarine tactics: All of the Chinese subs (except for the most recent nuclear) are noisy enough to be found and killed fairly quickly. That leaves pretty much only the very limited number of recent subs for PRC.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Why just count their blue water capabilities you ask? Because it's what will ultimately decide the war. I'm sure you've heard of the Strait of Malacca, correct? Guess where most of the oil East Asian nations use is shipped through. The side that controls the Strait controls the war. Unless the US sides with Korea, unlikely considering they just invaded a sovereign nation in order to grab territory, an act that has historically lead to the US stopping its support, or Japan sides with Korea, something they are constitutionally forbidden to act on unless attacked, there is no way Korea can gain control of the strait.

Like the US or ASEAN would let anyone else control the strait, even if it's because of aggression on the part of Korea.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Now, you also keep saying nuclear. The problem there is China has over 200 nuclear warheads, many of which are carried on ballistic missile subs. Korea has good reason to not want things to go that way, so they won't strike first. China can win this conventionally, so they won't strike first. They'd be a non factor, yet at the same time constantly hanging over the conflict.

Oh yeah, like ROK, which happens to have enough nuclear material would build up nukes in a snap, would just cower and do nothing when it's already nuclear. This is why I had the "nuclear" part be a requirement: ROK would not get nukes unless it got them from the reunification, and once it has the nukes, it'll hardly let those go.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Also, I like how you're claiming China can't deploy forces there, they don't have the logistics, while at the same time claiming this unified Korea of yours can invade, as if invading a foreign nation was less of a logistical strain than deploying forces in your own country. I'd also once again point out that China doesn't have to stop the invasion at the border. They can deploy a screening force to slow a Korean advance until they can form a proper defensive line, and wait for their manpower advantage to kick in.

And where would that defense line be made? If it's at the Liao and Sungari, then PRC lost. Korea would not go further and consolidate its holdings, while the mobolization will cause enough disturbances in the PRC economy to force it to stop.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

If you didn't advocate it, you wouldn't even mention something that no sane leader would support.

1. I mentioned it when I was saying why China would want to keep the failing state that is DPRK as a buffer state. Never have I said that Korea should invade Manchuria; a nuclear reunified Korea, based on nationalism that is currently building up, would most likely start to push claims just like PRC say that Taiwan is PRC.

2. Has nationalism ever been rational?


Korea can't beat China. This is not a position you can argue. Look at the industrial output of both nations for starters. Also how much of that Korean industry depends on raw material from China? This is worse than Japan attacking the US in WWII, and we all know how that went.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

I'll say this again. No nation on Earth can successfully invade China in a conventional war. The US can't. Russia can't. India can't. Your dream unified Korea can't.

Invade and occupy all of PRC? I agree. But invade Manchuria and hold it? Hell, even Russia with its Far Eastern Forces can do it, and they're way weaker than the ROKA.



So, if we summarize our entire argument: We're discussing different scenarios, with you keeping on insisting that a war would aim for all-out occupation of China while I say that it is likely a nationalist Korea would aim for a "limited" war to take only Manchuria.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

So, if we summarize our entire argument: We're discussing different scenarios, with you keeping on insisting that a war would aim for all-out occupation of China while I say that it is likely a nationalist Korea would aim for a "limited" war to take only Manchuria.

how do you plan to keep it? you think china would let manchuria go like that?

[Terrestrial Dream]

My question would be why would we want Manchuria? That land hasn't been ours for since Balhae.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by flying ^

come on... they only exist to fool spy sattelites

russia's land based rocket forces still packs punch, and they're high mobile

Quoted for truth. There's a reason Obama's so desperate to ratify START.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

snip

You'd be welcome on the other forum I go to, as we talk a whole lot about scenario's like this (Future/Alternate history). And to be honest we could use more people with your expertise on politics in your part of the world. Now, let's get back on topic with something completely different:

China Passenger Train Hits 300 mph, Breaks Record

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

how do you plan to keep it? you think china would let manchuria go like that?

Originally Posted by Terrestrial Dream

My question would be why would we want Manchuria? That land hasn't been ours for since Balhae.

*Facepalms*

You know people, I don't support an invasion of Manchuria, so perhaps we can drop this topic? I mean, I'm sort of defending a position that I don't agree with because it's a possible situation.

Originally Posted by FDW

You'd be welcome on the other forum I go to, as we talk a whole lot about scenario's like this (Future/Alternate history). And to be honest we could use more people with your expertise on politics in your part of the world.

I'm an unregistered lurker on AH, mainly because I rather just look.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Are you seriously thinking that a reunified Korea will do a third Sino-Japanese War or that PRC would be able to take Manchuria once it's taken from them?

Why would you think they can't retake it when they possess an overwhelming population and industrial advantage?

You forgot the (officially) 651 M-21 derivatives, Shenyang J-8II and Chengdu J-7, on the PRC side. I wouldn't go into how it is known that Chengdu J-10 would be handly beating by the KF-16s.

I forgot nothing. You on the other hand seem to be forgetting the SU-27s, SU-30s, and local variants in the PLAAF, as well as the fact that the bulk of the ROKAF is still comprised of F-4s and F-5s. Further, have you stopped to consider the supply situation the unified Korean forces would be facing? If you haven't noticed, both Koreas use completely different equipment. They'd need to duplicate supply chains to keep both side's equipment operational.

2,255,000 covering a territory that happens to be 13 times as large as the entire Korean peninsula. Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch that PRC would be able to bring all that mean from their positions to Manchuria in the time needed for stalling the initial invasion?

What do you think they'd be doing while your unified Korea is building their forces on the border? Twiddling their thumbs?

There is again the problem of area. PRC has to defend both the Yellow and the East China Sea coast, spliting its forces already while the ROKN by itself has the capacity to take on either of the split forces and win. While a landing on China is certainly out of question, it is unlikely that naval battles would decide the war unless it's the Liaodong area.

That would be mainly fought with both sides littoral capability.

Problems with your submarine tactics: All of the Chinese subs (except for the most recent nuclear) are noisy enough to be found and killed fairly quickly. That leaves pretty much only the very limited number of recent subs for PRC.

Nearly all of them are better than the North's subs. A fair number are the equal of the South's, and they have a lot more than the South.

Like the US or ASEAN would let anyone else control the strait, even if it's because of aggression on the part of Korea.

You're right, they'd likely be actively assisting China here. The US traditionally doesn't like it when one of their allies decides to go rogue and start conquering other people.

Oh yeah, like ROK, which happens to have enough nuclear material would build up nukes in a snap, would just cower and do nothing when it's already nuclear. This is why I had the "nuclear" part be a requirement: ROK would not get nukes unless it got them from the reunification, and once it has the nukes, it'll hardly let those go.

What do they gain from going nuclear? They launch a nuclear strike on China, and China strikes back. They'd have fewer warheads than China and a lot less land to absorb an attack. Going nuclear would be committing suicide. The only use they could get is using them to ensure they remain independent after the thorough beating they'd get from China by threatening to go nuclear if China crosses the pre-war border.

And where would that defense line be made? If it's at the Liao and Sungari, then PRC lost. Korea would not go further and consolidate its holdings, while the mobolization will cause enough disturbances in the PRC economy to force it to stop.

Yes, because China is going to accept this and not mobilize to force the invaders out. Why do you think they'll stop, rather than fight until their land is reclaimed, especially since they'll have broad international support? They don't have to hold on to Manchuria to win, much like the Soviets didn't have to stop the Germans at the border in other to win.

1. I mentioned it when I was saying why China would want to keep the failing state that is DPRK as a buffer state. Never have I said that Korea should invade Manchuria; a nuclear reunified Korea, based on nationalism that is currently building up, would most likely start to push claims just like PRC say that Taiwan is PRC.

You say you never claimed it's a good idea, but the fact that you brought it up and are suggesting Korea could win, rather than get horribly crushed tells me you think otherwise. They don't want North Korea as a buffer against South Korea, they want it as a buffer against the US. The last thing China wants is US troops deployed along their border with Korea.

2. Has nationalism ever been rational?

There's nationalism, and there's let's attack a nation that's got far more resources and population than we do, and practically everyone else is going to side with. This is the latter.

Invade and occupy all of PRC? I agree. But invade Manchuria and hold it? Hell, even Russia with its Far Eastern Forces can do it, and they're way weaker than the ROKA.

No, no they can't. How are they going to hold it against an army the size a nation like China can field? It can't be done.

So, if we summarize our entire argument: We're discussing different scenarios, with you keeping on insisting that a war would aim for all-out occupation of China while I say that it is likely a nationalist Korea would aim for a "limited" war to take only Manchuria.

No, we aren't discussing different scenarios. You're just being delusional and thinking China is going to shrug their shoulders and think "oh well" rather than fight on to reclaim their land. This is worse than the Japanese strategy in WWII. A limited war is not a possibility here. China is going to fight as long as there are Chinese people under foreign occupation.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I'm an unregistered lurker on AH, mainly because I rather just look.

I was unregistered myself on AH for 2 years before I finally signed up. You might want to at least consider registering, because there are several boards with some really good works that are unavailable to guests. (Like the entire ASB, Shared Worlds, and Writers forums, especially the Writers forum, they were responsible for this series.)

Now, as a part of an ongoing desperate effort to change the topic at hand let's see another article:

Obama and GOP make deal on taxes

BOOOOO!!!

[Jinto]

But he is consistent in that this will require more debt => higher inflation => US economy more competitive in globalized market (if the real wages stay the same or decline in the same time) => more exports (Obama wanted the USA to become an export power again). Though I wouldn't be surprised if this strategy causes another economic breakdown in the coming years.

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Jinto

But he is consistent in that this will require more debt => higher inflation => US economy more competitive in globalized market (if the real wages stay the same or decline in the same time) => more exports (Obama wanted the USA to become an export power again). Though I wouldn't be surprised if this strategy causes another economic breakdown in the coming years.

It probably will. Honestly though, so far Obama presidency has had some odd parallels to the Nixon presidency if you ask me. (The details and personalities are completely different, but the broad strokes? Eerily similar.)

[ganbaru]

China hits back at criticism over North Korea
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6B50KX20101207

[yezhanquan]

Ah, Lord Palmerston's maxim at its best.

"There are no permanent allies or enemies, only permanent interests."

[bladeofdarkness]

well this should be interesting.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6B61PX20101207
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange arrested over rape claim

LONDON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange handed himself in to British police on Tuesday after Sweden issued a warrant for his arrest over allegations of sex crimes, London's Metropolitan Police said.

Assange, whose WikiLeaks website is at the center of a row over the release of secret U.S. diplomatic cables, was arrested under a European Arrest Warrant.

Swedish prosecutors want to question the 39-year-old Australian about allegations including rape. He denies the allegations.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

A limited war is not a possibility here. China is going to fight as long as there are Chinese people under foreign occupation.

It would go farther than that. Once the ROK's supply chain reaches its inevitable limit (Manchuria is large), the PLA would utterly destroy its armies and invade Korea itself, as it has done time and again in the past.
More likely, however, is that there would be no invasion of Manchuria because the attack would be preempted and curbed at the Yalu. Manchuria isn't some barren wasteland; there is lots of infrastructure there and it wouldn't be difficult at all to move men and equipments there.

[Roger Rambo]

I'm not exactly sure you can just take total DPRK troop numbers and add them all to Unified Korea as a modifier to determine unified Korea's combat potential against China. The DPRK army is gigantic, but it's gear is almost universally obsolete. Now the same could be said of a fair chunk of the PLA's arsenal, but the Chinese have at least had the resources to keep their obsolete stuff maintained.


North Korea has all this gear, but how much of it do you really think is viable in prolonged combat? The South Koreans certainly aren't in a position to suddenlly outfit all those North Koreans to ROK standards.

[ganbaru]

Somali pirates widen reach despite EU efforts
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6B64WS20101207

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Somali pirates widen reach despite EU efforts
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNew...6B64WS20101207

Start sinking the pirate ships and hanging them form the mast.

i believed the Marine-time law of "Pirates Hang" hasn't been repeal yet.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

Start sinking the pirate ships and hanging them form the mast.

i believed the Marine-time law of "Pirates Hang" hasn't been repeal yet.

The laws were a bit less complicated in that time...

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

The laws were a bit less complicated in that time...

weren't pirates declared "Hostis humani generis" ?
enemies of mankind ?
meaning they are held to be beyond protection of the law.

if then, why not now ?
is the act of piracy somehow less horrid in this day and age ?