If North Korea and the US went to war, who would win?

Posted by: subdeo

  • North Korea

  • United States

9% 5 votes
91% 52 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
achisap9491 says2017-05-20T15:07:58.4188728Z
If you think about it, the US is basically tricking South Korea. South Korea doesn't know what they're doing. They may have all the missile launchers, but that wouldn't mean that they would win. If you'd compared to the US, the US is bigger, and have even more technology. The US is just threatening South Korea so that they would waste their money. Once South Korea loses money, they would surrender. This is what I inferred based on the news.
LuciferWept says2017-05-20T15:58:59.1031574Z
It's North Korea, not South Korea.
Sinner says2017-05-20T20:31:49.4593682Z
North Korea VS America?Come on man!
DavidMGold says2017-05-21T04:13:41.8596633Z
North Korea would be utterly decimated in a matter of weeks. Their Air Force is mostly comprised of obsolete Cold War relics such as the Mig-23 and Mig-21. Combined with limited fuel supplies and poor maintenance, they would essentially be unable to pose any challenge in the air. North Korea's Navy is a joke in the era of modern warfare being compromised of 1950s era Soviet diesel submarines and patrol boats, which again would leave them hopelessly overmatched by the United States. The North Korean Army is another tale of defective, obsolete military equipment that wouldn't stand up to actual combat. Their massive numbers are based on compulsory military service for men and women that are poorly trained, ill-equipped, and malnourished. The best conventional threat the North possesses is longe range artillery and unguided rockets concentrated on populated areas, but with a dud rate of 25% and poor logistics they would quickly fall to counter-battery fire and US/South Korean Air Superiority. North Korea would lose and the only chance of inflicting massive damage before they're defeated would be through cyber attacks or managing to deliver a nuclear warhead or chemical warhead.
Otokage says2017-05-21T07:12:01.5408633Z
That depends on where the war is carried. If we talk about a missile exchange, well NK would suffer bigger damage but the US would have at least a city nuked. A nuclear attack on a US city would cause massive colateral damage to the government of the US, the people would riot against the government. In NK, however, most people would support the government whatever happens. It is hard so say who will surrender first. If the war is on the US ground, NK has 0 chance of winning anything. If the war is on NK ground, US will probably fail and retire.
DavidMGold says2017-05-21T11:10:52.0624198Z
Otokage, like Karl Marx's utopian fantasies, this is the stuff of fiction. I don't know if it from a lack of knowledge or self-delusions, but you don't venture into the subject of North Korea essentially existing as the world's largest prison relegating 28 million people into the lowest depths of servitude and deprived of most all modern comforts subject to the whims of a crackpot dictator who doubles as a sort of god emperor. So the notion that one of the most repressive and undemocratic regimes on Earth would enjoy popular support no matter what is extremely offensive and wishful thinking on your part. That follows your conjecture that the American people would fall into a sort of civil war and open revolt as a result of nuclear attack on an American city by North Korea as opposed to Americans being more unified than they were after 9/11 and supporting a full retaliatory strike that would completely annihilate North Korea. Of course you overlook the US deployment of THAAD and don't address the ABM capability of the American arsenal. That's assuming the US continues to remain idle and passive for the rest of the year while North Korea attempts to develop such a capability they now lack. North Korea has zero chance of reaching America with military force so saying they couldn't defeat Americans on American soil is completely obvious and undeniable. North Korea also has zero chance in a full scale war with the United States and can only hope to inflict as many casualties on South Korea as they can before being deposed for the reasons given above. Just ask Saddam Hussein. He possessed a better equipped, combat experienced military, that was crushed in 1991 and 2003. Sober up and lay off the ideological kool aid.
Otokage says2017-05-22T13:25:12.3822978Z
That NK is a prison or that the citizens feel repressed or are willing to revolt, is your wishful thinking, not mine. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that majority of northkoreans are unhappy with their government. I have never seen anything that could be remotely called popular opposition in NK, which suggest the majority of people is happy with the government. A repressive government is not enough to keep people from rebelling. Never in history a repressive government has avoided popular revolt, nor lasted half the time NK has lasted to date. That Kim is a dictator or a god emperor is fairly irrelevant as long as he has the popular support of NKoreans. As my second opinion about americans revolting, comes because I believe NK would never attack the US unprovoked. Everybody knows this, including most american citizens. We would have a situation in which US attacks a country for no legit reason (meaning a reason that doesn’t convince citizens), and as a result an american city is nuked. The americans would be in a “we told you not to attack and look what happened”, they would riot, president would resign of course. As for the THAAD or whatever defense US has. I remind you that the heart of newyork was attacked in the 9/11, an attack that was 100% undetected by every US gadget and every US security agency. The fact is that if 9/11 plane had a nuclear device inside, NY wouldn’t exist atm. About a retaliatory strike, of course the US would either retaliate and maybe loose yet another city in the process, or just sign a peace treaty. This depends largely on Russia and China allowing for this retaliation attack. The main difference here is a government that lacks popular support full of citizens with critical thinking (america), and a government with immense popular support, in which 90% of male population work for the army, hate US, and will likely give their lives for their country.
DavidMGold says2017-05-23T07:53:23.0522567Z
Otokage, I'm like gravity and I'll pull you back down to reality. You're either extremely ignorant on North Korea or this is denial through a combination of willful ignorance and ideological blindness. We could start with North Korea's concentration camps: an estimated 120,000 people...People are condemned without any judicial process, interrogated, beaten and severly tortured with the added bonus of three generations of their family being automatically condemned as well. An estimated 100,000 executions, 1.5 million deaths in the camps, and 500,000 deaths from famine. The government controls all television and newspapers. Citizens are forbidden to leave and foreigners are strictly monitored and limited. Even the most left wing human rights NGOs agree there's no modern parallel to North Korea's repression. It is shocking to find someone who could deny it and pretend there's popular support. I could name off multiple examples of repressive governments that have successfully staved off rebellion through adequate systems of brutality if you keep insisting upon this fallacy. The fact that Fat boy is a crackpot totalitarian dictator with lifetime reign and no chances of a Democratic election is completely relevant to the fact that no popular support exists and you don't bother providing any evidence of it. As to your unfounded conjecture on an American revolt, there's no provocation that would cause Americans to support the nuclear genocide of their fellow Americans beyond a handful of crackpot Communist groupies and good luck pushing that agenda. You'll need it. The politicians that'll need to resign are the ones that failed to eliminate the threat before it becomes a reality. The 911 attack is evidence of nothing when disputing the capability of the military to track, engage and destroy ballistic missiles with systems such as THAAD. Hijacking airliners with boxcutters is a far cry from smuggling a radioactive nuclear warhead on board a commercial airliner, but I can see you're wishing for an American city to fall. The United States wouldn't wait for Russia or China to wipe North Korea out with much more powerful warheads and you're suffering from a psychotic break if you imagine it would lead to a peace treaty! Go ahead, please poll that one! As for North Korea's Songun policy, military first, spending ome-third of your entire budget to field obsolete, poorly conditioned, poorly maintained Cold War relics and ill-equipped, malnourished men (and women) that must be forced into service, doesn't merit boasting and they'd surrender faster than Iraqis for the luxury of three square meals a day.
Knaveslayer99 says2017-05-26T02:40:07.8246382Z
I went off by what we know in real life and that is if USA did go back to war with North Korea China would hop straight in to defend the North and China alone should be enough to cut down the Americans in a defensive war to protect the North. If we're talking 1 on 1 then it's obvious that the USA has it.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.