It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korea vs south Korea. Who has the biggest military?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
Just a thead comparing the military might of north Korea against that of south Korea.. (sorry it's messy refer to bottom line)

North Korea Vs South Korea

1.19 million active troops- 687,000 active troops
7.7 million reserve troops- 4.5 million reserve troops.
4,100 tanks- 2,750 main battle tanks.
2,500 armored personal carriers- 2,780 armored personal carriers.
17,900 artillery pieces- 10,470 artillery pieces.
620 combat aircraft (mostly migs)- 490 combat aircraft.
420 warships- 140 warships
71 submarines- 12 submarines
800 ballistic missiles- Limited missiles under treaty with u.s.
6-8 possible nuclear weapons- 0 nuclear weapons.

Population-23.9 million, Population-48.3 million
Capital-Pyongyang, Capital-Seoul.
Size-47,000 sq miles, 38,000 sq miles.
Religion-mainly atheist, Religion-Buddhism,Christianity.
Political-communist rule, Political-democracy
Economy-fragile, Economy-thriving.
Society-poverty, Society-good standard of living.
Exports-minerals,metal,cement, Exports-electrical,machinery.
Media-government propaganda, Media-terrestrial networks, satellite tv

Looks like if it were war between just these 2 nation, maybe the north would edge it due to having more military at their disposal..

Sorry if this thread is a little messy, I did it using a phone. Looked ok when I wrote it but when I previewed it both Columns I created bunched up together..




posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 
..In the immortal words of harry hill "theres only one way to find out" FIGHT!!!!

edit on 24-11-2010 by itallmakesperfectsense because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:15 AM
link   
If NK only has 8 nukes why is the USA (who has over 5,000 nukes) telling them to disarm? Sounds a bit.. hypocritical.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
If NK only has 8 nukes why is the USA (who has over 5,000 nukes) telling them to disarm? Sounds a bit.. hypocritical. [/quote

It's like telling your drunk Uncle to put the gun down because he can't be trusted with it.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
This from bbc news yesterday.



My personal assessment of the affairs is that this is an acceleration of the passage of little Kimmy god like status to his son.

The issue is how long before the escalating attacks from NK go un responded to by the world stage?

This from bbc news.


A US aircraft carrier with 75 warplanes left a naval base south of Tokyo on Wednesday, bound for Korean waters.

The nuclear-powered USS George Washington has a crew of more than 6,000 while the US has a total of some 28,000 troops stationed in the South. US Forces Korea said the exercise had been organised in advance of Tuesday's attack and was intended to be a deterrent.

"While planned well before yesterday's unprovoked artillery attack, it demonstrates the strength of the South Korea-US alliance and our commitment to regional stability through deterrence," it said in a statement.


Source - Two South Korean civilians died in attack by North

Korg.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by Nventual
If NK only has 8 nukes why is the USA (who has over 5,000 nukes) telling them to disarm? Sounds a bit.. hypocritical. [/quote

It's like telling your drunk Uncle to put the gun down because he can't be trusted with it.


ya, i have done that. actually it was my dad. i would have pulled the trigger too.

he backed off.

whatever, nk needs me.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


Because even 1 nuke could cause a massive amount of damage and lose of life..
Imagine if 1 were fired at Seoul for example, it would devestate the whole country... No to mention the fallout..



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
nk would be gone. full stop.

china and russia would take 12hrs to respond.

we got 15min targets and they know it.

if we want we take out everyone. frikin middle east as a "DOH"! lol!

i don't care, get biblical on these chumps.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


It is okay for you, your country has over 8,000 nukes.. my country has 0.
I'm not too assured that the USA has Australia's back if WW3 was to break out so I would rather there was no WW3.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
No One has to die.

When the only option left is to kill one another, then every advancement in technology, every book written, every kind deed done; will have been for nothing.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Nventual
 


haha ummm maybe because any nuke in the hand of a little nutcase like kim jong - il is screwed up.... the guy suffers from small man syndrome (not being rude as im not very tall)
but serious with north korea in the hands of the idiots that run the country right now, there is no way they should have nukes...full stop!!
im not saying america is perfect, but its a hell of lot safer than NK

BTW i hope there isnt a war but if there is, maybe they should finish it this time and take out all the heads of the NK government/military



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nventual
reply to post by fooks
 


It is okay for you, your country has over 8,000 nukes.. my country has 0.
I'm not too assured that the USA has Australia's back if WW3 was to break out so I would rather there was no WW3.


don't worry mate!


we will nuke everything. that matters.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 

I'm confused, are you from USA or Australia? lol i've never heard an american say "mate".
I'm not too familier on USA+Australia relations but it seems to me like they use our country to test weapons and set up bases but won't help us when other countries are "bullying" us.

We're like the middle child and SK is the 1st born. We're noticed but it's the 1st born that's cared for.
edit on 24/11/10 by Nventual because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Just because North Korea has more soldiers does not mean that they will win the war.
South Korea has the most modern and up to date equipment. North Korea has about 5% modern equipment which is shows off and 95% rust buckets which would have been outdated in the 50's even. North Korea also does not have the infrastructure to support its army. They would run out of fuel in a matter of days, if its army was mobilised. Look at it like this:

North Korea is like a big strong man with a really big sword.

South Korea is like a modest science professor.....with an uzi.

North Korea wouldnt have a chance in all out conflict. It would be a bloody one though.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Misterlondon
 


It has much less to do with numbers versus that of the quality of the equipment, people, information systems, and supporting infrastructure. IMO . . . the north would be devastated in a short amount of time depending on the amount of support they receive from China.



posted on Nov, 24 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Pryde87
 


When you put like that.. Yeah I guess you right..




top topics



 
2

log in

join