North Korea vs South Korea War

Posted by: emporer1

Conditions: no allies (no military or economic support from any outside nation), no additional sanctions, NK attacks first, SK may counter attack, Nuclear weaponry is fair game. Who would win?

17 Total Votes

South Korea

10 votes

North Koreas attack will amount to nothing and the regime will fall. North Korea will lose.


North Korea

7 votes

North Korea would have won the Korean war if America hadn't intervened. South Korea will lose this time.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-06-21T20:45:59.2283605-05:00
@tajshar2k They still use windows 95?
triangle.128k says2015-06-21T20:46:09.1033504-05:00
That's hillarious.
UtherPenguin says2015-06-21T20:47:34.8642261-05:00
Think the Democratic People's Republic of Korea isn't ready for war? Think again:
tajshar2k says2015-06-21T20:47:44.2495801-05:00
Yea they do.
triangle.128k says2015-06-21T20:51:07.8715249-05:00
North Korea requires most men to serve for the military at some point as a mandatory duty. They need to do that because that's the only way they can last as a country. If they didn't have the 5th largest military in the world, they would probably be annexed by South Korea due to their crappy technology.
UtherPenguin says2015-06-21T20:53:37.1813974-05:00
Crappy tenchonology? The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a WORLD LEADER in computer manufacturing. Just look at this picture of the Glorious Supreme leader holding a piece of state of the art technology:
emporer1 says2015-06-21T21:03:54.8584843-05:00
NK has enough artillery on its border with SK to kill 1/3rd of the people in SK in 1 day. Not to mention the 20+ nuclear weapons that have the capability to hit SK. NK also has 1,000,000 troops on the border with SK alone. Since NK attacks first day one would come to an end with much of South korea in ruins facing mass invasion as millions of NK troops and thousands of tanks cross the border backed by hundreds of planes. The technology may be old but the numbers are overwhelming.
58539672 says2015-06-21T21:28:38.2818255-05:00
Logistically speaking, SK can wage a war on its own. NK can't. No amount of troops will make a difference if you can't keep them supplied.
58539672 says2015-06-21T21:29:53.0610641-05:00
@emporer1 At first I just thought you were a complete idiot. Now I think your just a troll.
emporer1 says2015-06-21T21:54:56.3187184-05:00
@58539672 not a troll. In the long run NK would be pretty screwed. However if NK attacks first they could literally destroy SK in a couple days before SK could react (that is if neither side has allied help). The artillery,nukes and number of ground troops allow for a swift surprise blitzkrieg on SK. Due to the logistics NK couldnt wage the war for more then a couple weeks and the technology sets them back massively in a long term scale. NKs forces are Litterly designed for taking down SK quickly because they know they have to be quick. It doesn't matter how old the plane, tank or gun is if you can catch the enemy when their gaurd is down. NKs ability to beat SK is found only in its rapid strike ability. It is powerful and massively destructive for a week tops before being unable to fuel or fund it's own war efforts. A week just might be enough for them though. NK is not the most powerful nation in the world but it is scary in the short term.
eagleoftheeast says2015-06-22T00:27:55.3265022-05:00
Hey but emporer1 small finland held off the massive soviet red army in the winter war
LaJei says2015-06-22T04:27:27.5456179-05:00
Any country that interacts with another country, no matter for what reason, has "opened",( meaning information can move around). If the north declares war on the south, with intervention, the northern populace will eventually discover the benefits to living in a (insert positive word) society and even if a nuclear arsenal is involved, other countries like The united states, Europe and even japan would try to get word of the benefits to living in a (insert positive word) society though the battle fronts and the now weakened defence forces to the north. Eventually the north will realise this, and even if the south is conquered, the northern populace will not forgive the government and possibly be thrown into anarchy. This is not a war with guns or nuclear missiles anymore, this is a war on information.
CannedBread says2015-06-22T09:46:30.8964949-05:00
Something that South Korea can do, and North Korea can't do, is trade with other countries. Also North Korea is in a drought right now, so I don't think they are in any position to attack a country right know. Some of the military technology that South Korea has, is the same as we have, think about North Korea's navy, it has submarines that run on diesel still, think of the submarines we have, and every other country has, our's run on nuclear power, and can fire ICBMs. South Korea may have a smaller navy than North Korea, but it is better all around.
58539672 says2015-06-22T16:15:21.3383989-05:00
@emporer1 And I have explained to you in several polls why nothing you are saying makes sense, and you just move on to another poll and type the same thing again. So yes, your a troll.
emporer1 says2015-06-23T21:31:57.3420263-05:00
@58539672 Do I repeat many of the same thing? Yes. Do I still believe that NK has the capability to accomplish a blitzkrieg style rapid invasion? Yes. So I think I should be aloud to repeat those beliefs. I still think that NK could do it in the short term so I will continue arguing in favor of that. I don't think that is trollin seeing as I am not deliberately repeating it for the purpose of annoying people.
philosa4 says2015-09-23T23:00:49.5621965Z
The question is not only loaded and hypothetical, but it reflects a lack of understanding of the military hardware involved, economics, and how a war would unfold. This isn't WWII era technology where a blitzkrieg is even possible. South Korea is a very high tech country and although they needed the US in 1960 and even 1990, they don't need them now. Their presence is mostly symbolic. South Korea is a top ten military spender these days (44 billion... And that doesn't come from the US) while The North spends only 10 billion and how much of that money comes from China? If in this situation the South cant get help from the US, then the North cant get help from China or Russia in terms of money, oil or equipment. So then, what about war? Well, North Korea has a lot of artillery pointed at Seoul, but the South has satellites watching the leadership and their weapons for activity. If an attack was imminent, the South would probably warn the North and then preemptively strike with bunker-busters. There has been talk of installing an Iron Dome, but because of the cost it hasn't been pursued. But for argument's sake lets say they get off a round of strikes on Seoul. Yeah, probably a million people would die in 24hrs and the even would be historic. The South would use their own arsenal to take out strategic targets and then all that is left (almost) are combat forces. The air force and navy of the North simply cant stand against the modern hard ware in the South. The North's million man and woman army is impressive, but again, how will they fare against tank divisions, air support, and of course, drones. It would be ugly if a war was able to go that far. Then of course is the nuclear weapons issue, but it would not only be self-destruction, but also basically saying "if I cant win then no one will win... Or live." Even that is too irrational (MAD assumes rationality) and not in line with Korean culture. The North is betting on nukes as a deterrent. It is hard to image the circumstances required for them to push the button (and be able to). This includes a lot of worse case scenario stuff, which I hope wont go down because the human toll would be severe. Yet even in that terrible end-game, and even if the North dropped 1-3 nukes (sigh), it is difficult to formulate how the North could "win". Whatever is left would still be in the hands of the South via their control of the air, sea, and technology if nothing else...

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.