{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Sapphire
4/15/2013 4:39:59 PM
4
You should imagine what the US armed forces visualized in this manner would look like.
And then also consider that simply comparing numbers doesn't tell nearly the whole story. How many of the DPRK's ships and subs are actually fully-functional and properly maintained?
English
-
Edited by Parakitteh: 4/15/2013 4:49:20 PMWhat you would do better to note is that the US does not maintain its full force on the Korean peninsula, nor near it, nor is it capable of moving significant portions of its force long distance from CONUS, either rapidly or at all. The US would be an expeditionary force (and a tiny one at that) fighting on the Nork's home turf.
-
Good point. And, if we're taking that sort of regional presence perspective, then we'd also want to include S.K.'s military, as well -- or at least whatever part thereof would be taking part in the action (I assume all of it, though).
-
The combined US and ROK air forces are outnumbered in total combat aircraft (though the F-16 and F-15C/K are combat-proven air powers and the F-15 family has yet to yield a single loss to direct enemy action). They're actually outnumbered in almost every aspect, though the technological superiority of much of the ROK and US equipment is of course going to make up for numerical shortfalls. North Korean artillery, special forces and armoured tactic are going to be what are feared in this conflict. Chemical weapon units such as the Scud missile system are fielded at very low levels of command, contrast to most Soviet-derived forces which place the Scud quite highly in the command chain, due to its primary function as, well, a chemical weapon platform predominantly.
-
Edited by Parakitteh: 4/15/2013 5:55:40 PMle ballls, double post
