An Analysis of Size and Structure of the Army of Reunified Korea

My problem with this 'analysis' is that his estimate is horrendously bad -- and I am not even a military officer. That said a lot about his and his professionalism.

1. he confuses unknown with not exist -- the equipment he included would not even equip the units he mentioned. According to his data, South Korea (he didn't include North Korean equipments) has more artillery than China, while in reality Russia, North Korea, and China are the country with MOST artillery. In this case, you need to use typical unit TOE to estimate weapons deployed.

2. he confuses weapon deployed with weapon available (in the pool). For example, he counted all 6000 81mm mortars for Korea (but none for China, by the way). The Korean units he mentioned couldn't use all 6000 mortars. Again, you need to use typical unit TOE to generate actual deployment.

So his analysis is a joke.

Kurt said:

I think a unified Korea has a reasonable chance to pull that off by sending only 1 million well-equipped and well-trained soldiers at a time into combat. The 5 million human wave is misunderstandable, it's unlikely in a modern conflict to have all eggs on the frontline. So 5 million under arms, but only a tiny fraction of them in actual combat near the zone of contact.
Tanks are totally overrated as weapons because low observeability, networked intelligence gathering and target management create a combined arms system with strong asymmetric capabilities and correspondingly reduced importance of armour.
Being a naval officer is a good qualification for assessing this war because initial army success and air force defensive ability is more of a given, while the naval campaign to end the conflict will be the hardest part. You can compare such a war in scope and inequality to the territorial conflicts in Latin America during the 19th century or the latest Sino-Vietnamese War and it's as crazy as the Sino-Soviet border conflict and the Chinese intervention in the Korean War.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if Korea sends troops in 1 million at a time, China can still supply fresh troops faster and more frequently than Korea can ever dream of.

The only way Korea can pull this off is if China falls back into the early 20th century era of corruption and warlordism.

Korea happens to be an ally/vassal of the USA and derives much economic benefit from that relationship because the USA is not a peer competitor in many fields that are of utmost importance to Korea. This makes the US-Korean alliance more beneficial for both sides with much less chances for friction than a relationship with China.
It's time to discuss the Chinese expansion. The Vietnamese and the Thai have both a narrative that they moved south because of the Chinese expansion south and in turn themselves destroyed their empire and displaced the Khmer. Korea had also been a direction of early territorial expansion under the Quin, but managed to regain their independence (by convincing the Chinese that they were willing to really hard fight for it) while recognizing official suzerainty under China (including Chinese re-unification and re-independence help from time to time). That was before the black US warships appeared in East Asia. Ever since, geopolitics have changed and the Pacific, like the Atlantic, are no longer endless oceans, but lakes with neighbouring countries all around. Considering China's eastern neighbours on islands and peninsulas, they are all unlikely to give away their economic profits from the China connection and their military and high-tech export profits from the US connection. So anyone dreaming of the old Chinese vassal system being reerected totally neglects that East Asia will never again be in the same powerplay position it was during that time and for this reason actors will behave very differently.

Click to expand...

The only reason the US has such influence in the Pacific region is because of the hugely lopsided difference in technology between the US and China. This gap is rapidly closing. Whereas before, the US could achieve dominance in the area with only a few carrier battlegroups, the time has come where the US needs to increase its resources in order to maintain its dominance. Eventually, we will reach a point where it becomes no longer cost-effective for the US to maintain dominance in China's backyard. Once that happens, attitudes in China's neighboring countries will shift rapidly.

solarz said:

It doesn't matter if Korea sends troops in 1 million at a time, China can still supply fresh troops faster and more frequently than Korea can ever dream of.

The only way Korea can pull this off is if China falls back into the early 20th century era of corruption and warlordism.

Click to expand...

Remember the Mongols or Manchu? You outnumbered them how many times?
I disagree with you because I think Korea can successfully wage a war of limited ambitions if it achieves to get out of the war through naval means for economic pressure. The big problem for Korea is ending the war.
The perception that China can send endless reserves forward would count if Korea wanted to conquer China, but that's clearly not the case. Remember, China was able to grab land from India and tried the same with the Soviets despite perceived imbalance of power and against India with a major logistic hindrance for resupplies. As daring as these were, daring and success aren't limited to China.

The only reason the US has such influence in the Pacific region is because of the hugely lopsided difference in technology between the US and China. This gap is rapidly closing. Whereas before, the US could achieve dominance in the area with only a few carrier battlegroups, the time has come where the US needs to increase its resources in order to maintain its dominance. Eventually, we will reach a point where it becomes no longer cost-effective for the US to maintain dominance in China's backyard. Once that happens, attitudes in China's neighboring countries will shift rapidly.

Click to expand...

You forget that the US receives much technology stuff for that imbalance from her allies on the Western Pacific rim and China wants to become a peer competitor in the electronic technology field among others. Sorry, just forget a Chinese military alliance of Eastern Asia, it would run counter to the interests of the rim states, but these will clearly want to also reap profits from China's growth (not sell out their economies).
There are states who do want a military alliance with China, but neither South Korea, Japan, nor Taiwan are among them. What China can achieve, is to create a conflict of interests between American military presence/alliance and economic profits by cooperation with China. This approach could work fine to de facto but not pro forma neutralize Taiwan and possibly Japan. Reunification could be the only possible price to achieve that for Korea.

Kurt said:

Remember the Mongols or Manchu? You outnumbered them how many times?

Click to expand...

And both times they were only successful because of internal Chinese weakness and corruption. And refresh my memory, did they assimilate the Chinese into their own culture, or where the assimilated into Chinese culture themselves?

If history has taught us anything, it is that there is no surely method of being assimilated into Chinese culture than to actually launch a successful invasion of all of China. So even if you win, you loose in the end.

I disagree with you because I think Korea can successfully wage a war of limited ambitions if it achieves to get out of the war through naval means for economic pressure. The big problem for Korea is ending the war.
The perception that China can send endless reserves forward would count if Korea wanted to conquer China, but that's clearly not the case. Remember, China was able to grab land from India and tried the same with the Soviets despite perceived imbalance of power and against India with a major logistic hindrance for resupplies. As daring as these were, daring and success aren't limited to China.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense based on patently false information. China did not grab an inch of land after their war with India. The PLA pulled back of their own accord after sweeping all opposition in front of them. Had they wanted to, they could have penetrated far further into India, and held a huge chunk of that land, because the PLA stopped after taking all the defensible positions and when they reached the open and flat plains of northern India that offer no defensive advantages.

Something else you are completely disregarding is Chinese domestic sentiment. After the 'century of humiliation', it is almost ingrained in the Chinese national psyche that China will never again allow any territory to be taken from in by means of military force.

That is a matter of national principle, and if another country launched an armed invasion of any part of China, the sense of national outrage will be way beyond even that experienced by Americans after Pearl Harbor, and may even be stronger than what they felt after the 9/11 attacks.

That means that China will not, cannot even, stop until they had recovered every last square inch of land taken, and will probably inflict grave retribution on the offending nation.

I say that China's sense of national outrage would be more powerful than Pearl Harbor because the Americans stopped short of launching an invasion of the Japanese home islands because of the high projected casualty projections for doing so. But if someone invaded Chinese territory so blatantly, the PLA would be willing to pay the price for invading, and will do so out of principle to make sure the offending nation does not forget in a hurry the consequences of such naked aggression against China today.

You forget that the US receives much technology stuff for that imbalance from her allies on the Western Pacific rim and China wants to become a peer competitor in the electronic technology field among others. Sorry, just forget a Chinese military alliance of Eastern Asia, it would run counter to the interests of the rim states, but these will clearly want to also reap profits from China's growth (not sell out their economies).

Click to expand...

It would only run counter to their national interests if they continue to treat China as the enemy. It is a very strange and unnatural state for China's neighbours to have China as their economic patron, but not rely on China as their security provider. Their national interests are suffering because their own national interests are pulling in polar opposite directions. But if they were to re-aline their national security interest with their economic interest, they will find that their overall national interest is improved.

It is just a hard transition to make because of decades of western propaganda and programming to make them peoples fear and mistrust China, and also because up to now, China has been too weak and too poor to be a good patron. All that is changing, and it may not be too long before China's neighours start to ask themselves just why exactly they want to be China's enemies when it is far safer and more beneficial to be China's friends.

Mongols and Manchu are not really a fair comparison.
Sung was never able to raise effective cavalry due to the lack of horse, while Mongols are raised on the back of horse.
Manchu took advantage of Ming internal upheaval.
Neither of those applies now.
Also PLA is effective a volunteer military, compare to Koreans, who use drafts. While there are effective elements in both North and South Korean forces, whether they can compare to PLA on average is another question.
Note also on spending *per soldier*, PLA is on the same level as South Korea. And since PLA's equipment are mostly indigenous and cheap, PLA may be better equipted, on average, then even the South Korean.

You have a point about US getting techs from allies, but what happens if those allies abandon US? China has a geographic advantage on committing forces against its neighbors -- you think you can get into a land war in Asia? The current limit to Chinese power extension is the sea. Once China reaches parity with US, China's neighbor will think twice before trying to cross China. Once that happens, I think Korea will be the first one to cave -- Korean themselves said that Korea won't exist today if it consist only of heroes or cowards. Taiwan, I am sorry to say, consists of more cowards than heroes. Japan respects power only. In the recent years, US has pissed off quite a few allies -- are you sure they won't abandon US when they have a chance?

Kurt said:

Remember the Mongols or Manchu? You outnumbered them how many times?

Click to expand...

This shows your lack of understanding of Chinese history. The Southern Song dynasty was one of the militarily weakest dynasties in Chinese history. Even then, the Mongols were not able to conquer it for decades. It was only when the Mongols brought in Middle Eastern siege technology, AFTER THEIR EMPIRE HAD EXPANDED ALL THE WAY TO EUROPE, that they were able to crack Song defenses.

As for the Manchu, they did NOT conquer the Ming: the Ming dynasty was finished by the time the Manchu invaded, and they did so with the help of a traitor general.

Like I said, the only way Korea can pull off an invasion is if they faced the same kind of China that Imperial Japan faced.

I disagree with you because I think Korea can successfully wage a war of limited ambitions if it achieves to get out of the war through naval means for economic pressure. The big problem for Korea is ending the war.
The perception that China can send endless reserves forward would count if Korea wanted to conquer China, but that's clearly not the case. Remember, China was able to grab land from India and tried the same with the Soviets despite perceived imbalance of power and against India with a major logistic hindrance for resupplies. As daring as these were, daring and success aren't limited to China.

Click to expand...

Actually, a Korean invasion of China would likely end with the PLA occupying the entire Korean peninsula. They might have 9 million reserves, but doing so requires the entire economic resources of North Korea, and South Korea is only able to maintain their standards of living through trade with China. On the other hand, China can raise millions of troops, including the industrial capability to indigenously support these troops, and do so for far longer than Korea can. This is not even in contention.

You forget that the US receives much technology stuff for that imbalance from her allies on the Western Pacific rim and China wants to become a peer competitor in the electronic technology field among others. Sorry, just forget a Chinese military alliance of Eastern Asia, it would run counter to the interests of the rim states, but these will clearly want to also reap profits from China's growth (not sell out their economies).
There are states who do want a military alliance with China, but neither South Korea, Japan, nor Taiwan are among them. What China can achieve, is to create a conflict of interests between American military presence/alliance and economic profits by cooperation with China. This approach could work fine to de facto but not pro forma neutralize Taiwan and possibly Japan. Reunification could be the only possible price to achieve that for Korea.

Click to expand...

Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, like all small states, will ally with whoever can provide them with the greatest advantage. Right now this is the US, but it will not always be so.

Korea can have a vested interest in uniting their country while China doesn't want to cede any territory. That's a conflict hard to reconcile. Currently, China occupies regions adjacent to Korea with a Korean population majority settlement. It'll be hard to convince the Koreans not to attempt also a reunification with these as soon as the North-South conflict is resolved. China would be well advised to develop a solution to this potential problem by ceding some territory to a unified Korea or at least allowing for special border crossing privileges within a defined region.

Japan and Korea appear to be direct competitors with China on many important fields like shipbuilding and electronics. It would be against common sense for them to form a deep union with China and lose their exclusive position of supplying the West with military hardware as well as having to make concession to a larger economy that shares lots of traits with them. China would have a chance for a stronger union if they weren't a significant competition for their eastern neighbours. That's totally unlike the modern China and for this reason forget a renewed Chinese hegemony. You would not be fighting the US only, but the whole West under NATO and the vested local interests. The only island you can obtain is Taiwan because they have a number of people who identify as one nation with the mainland and are willing to settle and do business in mainland China as domestic investors. Koreans, Japanese and the West do foreign investments and don't feel like giving away their know-how treasures like the Taiwanese.
Japan and Korea do likely have an interest to achieve a balance between profits from Chinese prosperity and connections to the West. From my perspective some Chinese in this forum seem to have missed the point that the Arabs started it and the Nanban finished the geopolitical change of this region by enlarged interconnection. To me they seem to be stuck in the age of the silk road.

I know, we are soooo deeply indoctrinated in the West and indoctrinating others that it's all fake. What we are about is to enslave people and exploit them while brandishing our weapons. The PRC is the most perfect state on earth and will soon convince the whole world of her perfectness by giving them a lesson in Chinese ecological concerns and world salvation from climate change by increased burning of sulfur.

deleted

Kurt said:

Korea can have a vested interest in uniting their country while China doesn't want to cede any territory. That's a conflict hard to reconcile. Currently, China occupies regions adjacent to Korea with a Korean population majority settlement. It'll be hard to convince the Koreans not to attempt also a reunification with these as soon as the North-South conflict is resolved. China would be well advised to develop a solution to this potential problem by ceding some territory to a unified Korea or at least allowing for special border crossing privileges within a defined region.

Click to expand...

Wow, you really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Just because there is a large population of ethnic Koreans settled in some areas, the Korean states are somehow entitled to that territory? And "China occupies" those area? Do you even understand what "China" and "Chinese" means? Here's a hint: it doesn't mean "Han".

I know the Chinese perspective, but international law and Korean feelings simply differ. The Wilson-doctrine supports the Korean claim. The Koreans can feel as entitled as the Chinese will feel invaded.