Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 4/4/2006 3:24:51 PM EDT
Strictly from a military/strategic standpoint, who should we be more concerned about, the PDRK (N. Korea) or Iran? Both countries are openly hostile towards us, and both fear that we are going to attack them. Who would put up a better fight?

Personally, I think PDRK could just in that they are in a much more desperate situation. If we get into a shooting war with them, it's for their very survival. I dont think Kim Jong Il would hesitate to throw everything he has at us. Kim has demonstrated time and again that he has zero regard for his people, and would not fear their death in a US/ROK reprisal attack. Iran, on the other hand, has much more to lose. Even if a shooting war were to start with them, I don't think they would use the bomb, even if they had it. They stand to lose so much more. Right now they have street cred among the ROP for standing up to us, but if they start a war that gets thousands of ROPer's killed, I see that going away.

It's clear that neither country would stand a chance against us in a toe to toe shooting war, but I think that the PDRK could take a much bigger bite out of us before it was all over.

Discuss
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 3:25:36 PM EDT
I think we should all unite together against bandwidth terrorists.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 4:27:46 PM EDT
Mexico
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 9:52:54 PM EDT
Iran. Any attempt to separate military from political realities is doomed to failure, as the one, as Clauswitz said, is merely an extension of the other. You wouldn't be fighting a government, you would be fighting an ideology in the case of Iran, which goes beyond national boundaries, and lasts long after any surrender documents are signed.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:12:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
Iran. Any attempt to separate military from political realities is doomed to failure, as the one, as Clauswitz said, is merely an extension of the other. You wouldn't be fighting a government, you would be fighting an ideology in the case of Iran, which goes beyond national boundaries, and lasts long after any surrender documents are signed.

NTM



+1 Hit the nail on the head.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:15:28 PM EDT
Iran
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:20:31 PM EDT
Iran
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:25:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 10:25:32 PM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:
Iran. Any attempt to separate military from political realities is doomed to failure, as the one, as Clauswitz said, is merely an extension of the other. You wouldn't be fighting a government, you would be fighting an ideology in the case of Iran, which goes beyond national boundaries, and lasts long after any surrender documents are signed.

NTM



You do realize Iran has only been a theocracy since 1979, right?
And that most people there are sick and tired of the religious laws?
That "cause" is dead.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:26:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 10:28:09 PM EDT by Manic_Moran]

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
You do realize Iran has only been a theocracy since 1979, right?
And that most people there are sick and tired of the religious laws?
That "cause" is dead.



For a dead cause, it seems to be causing us a lot of angst over the last couple of years, and I believe that they have "not yet begun to fight," to paraphrase John Paul Jones.

NTM
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:27:19 PM EDT
North Korea.

Nukes, massive army which threatens genuinely productive nations (South Korea, Japan). Proximity to China.

We have already fought them. They didn't lose.

The Middle East is oil, dirt and a few spots religious whack-jobs would gladly end the world fighting over.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:53:40 PM EDT
I think N. Korea (actually the DPRK IIRC) would put up a more competent fight - until they ran out of food and fuel. This is also ass-u-me-ing that we saw it coming and were able to get troops/tanks out of the barracks/motorpools and into the trenches in time.

Iran, however, would be a longer fight against, as has been mentioned, an idealogy. I think a war with N. Korea would end with N. Korea, while a war with Iran would be far more likely to spread. We've seen this with Iraq in a way. We went into Iraq, but now we have Iranian and Syrian involvement. The whole muslim world could very well see it as an attack against themselves.


-K
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 10:59:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AROptics:
North Korea.

Nukes, massive army which threatens genuinely productive nations (South Korea, Japan). Proximity to China.

We have already fought them. They didn't lose.

The Middle East is oil, dirt and a few spots religious whack-jobs would gladly end the world fighting over.



hold on there, WE didnt lose. And look who is in better shape.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 11:00:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 11:02:11 PM EDT by thedoctors308]

Originally Posted By Manic_Moran:

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
You do realize Iran has only been a theocracy since 1979, right?
And that most people there are sick and tired of the religious laws?
That "cause" is dead.



For a dead cause, it seems to be causing us a lot of angst over the last couple of years, and I believe that they have "not yet begun to fight," to paraphrase John Paul Jones.

NTM



Causes always seem to be at their height at their end.
People though communism would win out - then it suddenly died, against all predictions.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 11:04:14 PM EDT
I think North Korea would be a much more formidable enemy, but at the same time I think we are much more likely to go to war with Iran. So, you could say that N. Korea holds the bigger threat hypothetically, but Iran holds the greater danger realistically.
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 11:21:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Napoleon_Tanerite:
Strictly from a military/strategic standpoint, who should we be more concerned about, the PDRK (N. Korea) or Iran? Both countries are openly hostile towards us, and both fear that we are going to attack them. Who would put up a better fight?

Personally, I think PDRK could just in that they are in a much more desperate situation. If we get into a shooting war with them, it's for their very survival. I dont think Kim Jong Il would hesitate to throw everything he has at us. Kim has demonstrated time and again that he has zero regard for his people, and would not fear their death in a US/ROK reprisal attack. Iran, on the other hand, has much more to lose. Even if a shooting war were to start with them, I don't think they would use the bomb, even if they had it. They stand to lose so much more. Right now they have street cred among the ROP for standing up to us, but if they start a war that gets thousands of ROPer's killed, I see that going away.

It's clear that neither country would stand a chance against us in a toe to toe shooting war, but I think that the PDRK could take a much bigger bite out of us before it was all over.

Discuss



1) It's DPRK (aka dee-perk or just call 'em norks)....

Kim is not that stupid... He knows that he will stay comfortably in power as long as he doesn't piss us off too much, or mess with the ROKs....

He can't count on Chinese backup to save his ass, either, as we have a much better relationship with the chicoms than we did when Mao was around...

So we sit here, and continue the world's longest staring contest (literaly, in the case of the ROKA & KPA guards up at the DMZ)....

Iran, on the other hand, is far more of a loose cannon - they are allready actively involved in multiple regional conflicts, and there is a much greater economic advantage to an Iranian campaign then there is to a Korean one - We're allready friendly with the part of Korea that has anything worth buying...


==============================================

Now, militarily, North Korea is far more dangerous than Iran....

The Korean countryside is far less 'wide open' than Iran's, North Korea has a larger army, and they have had 50 years to prepare... Most significantly, they have enough field artilery in the DMZ area to cause air-raid level destruction without the need to penetrate air defenses.... Camp Casey (the primary US combat base) & Seoul are bolth within arty range of North Korea....

Iran, on the other hand, has more modern equipment, but they live in a more air-force friendly region, and have not been preparing quite as long as N Korea. Further, Koreans are actually GOOD at war, the Iranians haven't demonstrated such skill in recent years....
Link Posted: 4/4/2006 11:40:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/4/2006 11:43:06 PM EDT by Mike_Mills]
You know, it seems to me the North Koreans are a greater threat to thier neighbors in the South than they are to us. Seoul would be destroyed REALLY quickly if fighting erupts on the Korean peninsula.

As soon as they come out of their rat holes we will get them from the air - fuel air bombs (or worse if they do anything truly dastardly such as nuke Seoul). Our anti-armor, anti materiel, anti-anythingthatmoves capability is truly awesome.

I view Iran not as a threat but as an opponent - openly and overtly. We are already engaging them in a low intensity conflict via their proxies in Iraq.

The risk with Iran is the Straights of Hormuz being closed, closing the Persian Gulf to oil traffic. That's the risk, therefore Iran is the bigger threat.
Top Top