![Which Korea Has the Bigger Army? [Graphic]](http://cdn1.diggstatic.com/story/which_korea_has_the_bigger_army_graphic/t.png)
Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Naveed Javaid
8062 Followers
gorgeoussand
8413 Followers
adam jones
11736 Followers
Phil Perspective
9368 Followers
Nocturbulous
6618 Followers
anomaly100Dec 1, 2010
Let's hope we don't have to find out which wins.
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
Or how many other countries will pledge to fight along side them
redsfaithfulDec 1, 2010
Which one has food?
kirakunDec 1, 2010
I don't think Koreans understand that question. Try, "which one has minerals and Vespene gas?"
faithclubdotnetDec 11, 2010
You're being buried for not understanding what food is in Starcraft. Food refers to supply.
PS: I pray war never breaks out in the Koreas because too many lives would be senselessly wasted.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
The numbers matter little as the south has the tech advantage, what the north has is the tactical advantage until a counteroffensive can be organized from the initial surprise attack.
The North has over a dozen undiscovered tunnels directly into the heart of seoul along with 51,000 artillery guns that can reach seoul and kill millions before a response can happen.
The south wins in most scenarios, but the amount of death is unheard of in the modern world before the happens.
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
As the USA has discovered both in Vietnam and Iraq, technology isn't the be-all-end-all.
If the tunnels are undiscovered, how do we know they exist? And if Kim-Jong farts in one, does it smell?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
atomic1fireDec 1, 2010
But North Korea seems like it's looking for a war.
They might not outright start one, but they are bound to get south korea started up and then blame it on them.
China would no doubt get involved on North Korea's behalf. considering a nab of south Korea would no doubt benefit both north Korea and China.
The USA and maybe a few other countries might get involved just because a bigger north Korea seems like a bigger threat.
A war seems like the economical move on North Korea's behalf.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
Do you even keep abreast of current events?
fadetooneDec 1, 2010
Despite public insecurity on the matter, the last thing China wants to do is to get into an open conflict with the US.
bille3Dec 1, 2010
We will not. China is holding too much of our debt and trade. War will only result in China shutting us down economically. We will bow to China and let them have South Korea. Congress, Hillary nor Obama will stand up to China.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
fadetooneDec 1, 2010
China depends on us pretty heavily economically too.
No one's going to buy all the stuff the chinese factories and sweatshops are making if we stop (or blow them up).
bille3Dec 1, 2010
All China needs to do is to stop lending us money and call for the repayment of debt. They hold the purse strings, we gave that control to them.
norelecDec 2, 2010
Actually, the Chinese Government said they do not approve of North Korea's actions, and are actually in favor of Korea Re-unifying under South Korea. which makes sense, when you consider South Korea's Economy is far superior to North Korea's and North Korea was receiving humanitarian aid from South Korea. Neither the US or China want another Korean War, and will do as much as they can to prevent it.
grim1316Dec 2, 2010
I agree Norelec that China would most likely join with South Korea. It would be bad buisness for both the US and China if either one got in a shooting war.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
Because some of the tunnels have been discovered by accident
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Tunnel_of_Aggression
Also, tech won both of those ground wars, Iraq in a few days; tech always wins wars, sometimes even with overwhelming numbers on the other side. There are no hearts and minds to win over this time, so guerrilla warfare is not a worry.
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
The US withdrew from Vietnam, we never "won" the war. And while we rolled in Bagdad within a couple dyas we've spent the past 7 years battling insurgents who use roadside bombs and RPGs to knockdown helicopters. Reliance on supposed technological superiority is a dangerous position to take in this time of asymmetrical warfare.
Yes, I know that North Korea has tunnels, the comment was that you declared there to be a dozen, yet we don't know about them.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
that's the estimate the military gives us here in Korea from what they expect and what defectors have told them
sorry, we pwned vietnam, we just didn't accomplish the political objectiveComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
The Fall of Saigon might indicate otherwise.
bille3Dec 1, 2010
The purpose of the Tet offensive was to defeat us just as they had defeated the French in 1953. We turned the tables on them and defeated those forces and drove them back. That was a major victory. However congress did not want us to win that war and stopped any effort to drive them out of South Viet Nam after Tet and let them rebuild their effort.
kevenmDec 2, 2010
So they are no longer undiscovered. Anything else is just a guess.
proudpheepleDec 1, 2010
To the credit of the S. Koreans, they've probably discovered several of those tunnels by now. It makes a lot more sense to keep it quiet from the public though, so that the potential element of surprise isn't reduced. Government branches, especially the military, often obscure the truth for the good of the people.
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
NEVER! It is never for the good of the people! I demand that the rapist frmo Wikileaks reveals to the South Koreans that their government has found some tunnels! Don't worry...no one else will find ouut!
protargolDec 2, 2010
Until wikileaks comes in and f**ks it up
wf80diditDec 1, 2010
When I was stationed there in '06 I was scared s**tless of these tunnels. This was the same year they launched all those missiles over the sea of Japan, traded pop-shots with each other at the DMZ and they tested a nuclear weapon all within a few months of each other. I couldn't help but to imagine the scenario playing out like that, millions of North Korean troops swarming out of the tunnels and catching everyone with their pants down. Luckily it didn't happen and I really think their Army is too malnourished and under equipped to physically fight with the ROK or US. There'd be lots of deaths in the beginning stages but our combined forces with all the technology and air power would crush them within a month. And if they launched a nuke we'd shoot it down before it gets off the ground.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
They don't have the ability to deliver a nuclear payload by missile, they just don't have the knowledge
Of course delivering it by foot in the tunnels or vehicle during ground invasions is completely possible
3the3dude3Dec 2, 2010
I doubt your assertion, considering that they recently unveiled a high-tech uranium enrichment facility to the surprise of everyone.
If they can pull that one off, there's no reason to think that they haven't been working on a sufficient delivery system, as well.
ficklefidelityDec 1, 2010
"The North has over a dozen undiscovered tunnels directly into the heart of Seoul" o.0 the only way you can know their are over a dozen undiscovered tunnels if if you are a N.Korean spy :O
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
no, you need to learn to see further than your nose
that or read the rest of what I've said
it's pretty damn easy to see how someone could know about undiscovered tunnels if your reasoning level is beyond a third grade levelComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
My original comment was in jest, but you're missing the point...........you can make a declarative statement that there are a dozen tunnels when they have yet to be discovered.
There might be two or there might be a hundred.
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
our reasoning level is pure crap. Basically what you are saying is...we have found a few...that means there MUST be more.
So...if you have no idea how many cards in in a standard deck, and you throw them in the air, then you find 52, you could use your logic to conclude that there are several dozen cards left, since you found so many.
The FACT of the matter is, no one knows. The number that have been discovered could be 1% of the total, or 10% or 100%.
amaoicanDec 2, 2010
I for one would hope that after finding the first tunnel, we/SK would have put in the time and effort to find the rest of them. This isn't exactly the kind of thing you want to be wrong about.
inajeepDec 2, 2010
sorry kinerry, they are right. Guessing the number of undiscovered tunnels is a statistical fallacy. The wiki link you used does not explain how it reached that additional 10 tunnels as yet undiscovered.
davidtcDec 1, 2010
"The North has over a dozen undiscovered tunnels"
Well that doesn't make sense.
"Because some of the tunnels have been discovered by accident"
So cause you find some you now know they have over a dozen that are undiscovered? Well that also doesn't make sense. You can assume, but if they are undiscovered, you don't know.
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
You didn't learn anything from today's lessons
You see kids, there are these things calls spys and defectors, along with numbering systems in the already discovered tunnels
Nice tryComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ficklefidelityDec 2, 2010
then there are over a dozen discovered tunnels?
amaoicanDec 2, 2010
Assuming you mean that the discovered tunnels were somehow labeled in order, and several spots were missing... how do you know those weren't failed tunnels, or for that matter, mind f**ks? you know, skip over a dozen numbers and have the SKoreans work themselves to death looking for tunnels that don't even exist...
racer20Dec 2, 2010
Let's take a look at the evidence:
1. Some tunnels were discovered ACCIDENTALLY
2. The numbering system found indicates that there may be more
3. Defectors and spies have provided testimony or evidence of more tunnels, even though we may not know their exact location.
Now, using reason and common sense, let's see which of the following scenarios is more likely:
1. We just happened to have found every last hidden tunnel by accident, AND the numbering system was purposely designed to mislead us, AND the defectors and spies are lying.
*OR*
2. There are probably more tunnels.
I know arguing on the internet makes you feel smart and cool while being safely cooped up in your parents basement, but for the love of FSM, use your f**king head.
amaoicanDec 2, 2010
I don't see what all the aggression is about. And where are you getting and validating all of this supposed evidence in the first place?
racer20Dec 2, 2010
For a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone
Regardless, I'm not claiming the evidence presented above in this same thread is 100% true, just as you aren't claiming it's inaccurate. You are claiming that the evidence cited was planted or deliberately misleading. I'm only questioning the (lack of) logic you applied to come to that conclusion.
Calling them "undiscovered" was dumb, but so is using a simple poor choice of words to overrule common sense just to play devils advocate. If you want to refute the evidence, then feel free to provide evidence. Making up baloney just to go against the grain and seem smart just makes you look like a troll.
There is a serious lack of common sense and logical thinking that is causing a lot of problems in our educational, financial, and political systems.
I call it out when I see it.
amaoicanDec 2, 2010
"You are claiming that the evidence cited was planted or deliberately misleading."
No, I'm not. I'm asking how he knows it isn't. We ARE talking about a country where some average citizens believe their leader doesn't piss and s**t.
amaoicanDec 2, 2010
PS The only reference I could find to additional tunnels is, "March 1990: The fourth North Korean infiltration tunnel was discovered, in what may be a total of 17 tunnels in all." That's not exactly a slam dunk.
racer20Dec 2, 2010
But my point is that it doesn't HAVE to be a slam dunk to come to a reasonable conclusion. That line of thinking is why people claim the moon landing was faked and Barack Obama wasn't born here, despite the evidence that any REASONABLE person would accept as proof otherwise.
If you were jumping around in a pile of leaves and found a couple bloody syringes, THEN someone came by and told you they know that there is more bloody syringes in there somewhere, would you say "No, I don't beleive you! Prove it!" as you continued to frolick? Or would you use common sense and get your ass out of the pile of leaves?
amaoicanDec 2, 2010
"and Barack Obama wasn't born here"
Are you suggesting that if Obama provided no evidence of his origins except a sentence on his wiki page, that would be enough for you? Because that's all you've actually given me - a lot of talk and a link to a page with one sentence suggesting that there might be 17 tunnels instead of the 4 that have been found.
And you expect for me -based on this one (notoriously unreliable) source with one sentence that passingly mentions your thesis- to do what exactly? You seem to think this is really f**king important. You compare me not being 100% sure of the existence of additional North Korean infiltration tunnels with me rolling around in bloody syringes. Am I somehow going to contract HIV because I am withholding judgement on an issue that I know next to nothing about?
breadfredDec 2, 2010
Kinerry, stop assuming you are the only one who knows everything about every subject. It is obnoxious and not realistic, Also, it makes you unattractive to girls.
pphat88Dec 2, 2010
The tech advantage is THE most important one. Numbers are irrelevant, especially in terms of airspace and armored vehicles. S.Korean tanks and fighters and bombers are up to date as are thier pilots. N. Korea has outdated MiGs and their pilots are lucky to fly a few times a month. Look at the 2nd Gulf War and the Invasion of Iraq for proof in the fallacy of relying on numbers to predict outcomes.
davidtcDec 1, 2010
Wasn't there one of these the other day that you didn't have to scroll around to compare stats cause of its size?
And no, I don't care about your 30" computer screen.
socivitusDec 1, 2010
Top left of the screen there's a link that says "OpenZoom Viewer". That'll make the graphic fit your screen properly.
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
In Firefox just right click and view image
arschgaudiDec 1, 2010
Since we obviously have a couple of FireFox retards, opening the image, right clicking and then viewing will resize the image to fit your browser window instantly.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidtcDec 1, 2010
So now what is your solution to read the text that is too small to read when doing that besides resizing it to the normal size which leads back to my first complaint?
Do you even think when posting?
talonhDec 1, 2010
Agreed, a perfect example of an infographic that makes the information less accessible and less clear. bad.is
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
But that is pretty much EVERY infographic.
viol999Dec 1, 2010
There are 35 thousand U.S. soldiers in Korea on the DMZ which were described by their commander as no more than a speed bump if the North Koreans decide to invade the south.
atomic1fireDec 1, 2010
But you also have to factor in china getting involved.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
no, you don't. please watch the news more often.
rujtuDec 2, 2010
The word is that China isn't willing to get involved in a war to protect N. Korea. Kinerry is correct, and his comment gets dugg down. Good times, Digg.
racer20Dec 2, 2010
This is just my opinion, but even before the wiki leaks revelation, I'd be hard pressed to believe that China would actually go to war in support of North Korea unless directly provoked by South Korea and the US.
If push comes to shove, I think China will end up letting NK get wiped out in return for some say in how the country is restructured.
rujtuDec 2, 2010
Agreed. China likes to save face, but not enough to defend a state that is clearly out of control, a drain on China's finances, a source of constant illegal immigration, and a public example of the failures of communism.
I believe word has also come out that China would be willing to settle for a unified Korea, run out of Seoul as long as US forces do not move any farther North than they already are.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
the service they provide is preparedness, ask the soldiers here and they will tell you the soldiers here have no combat experience and are often very lazy and just want their two years over so they are caught sleeping on the job a lotComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pphat88Dec 2, 2010
I think you mis-interpreted that. US forces wouldn't be simply run over, but act as a buffer and trip-wire for a broader US involvement. The importance of US forces in the peninsula cannot be understated, nor can their impact on the outcome of conflict.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
Can't forget both sides have about 5million reserves, which make the numbers about even
circlefusionDec 1, 2010
If a war broke out and North Korea deployed their troops, it's likely they would have difficulty maintaining their military with food, fuel and others resources as long as South Korea. This is just based on those spending budget numbers. Who knows how accurate those are, but the budget has to have an effect on their ability to use reserves too.
Closed AccountDec 1, 2010
As I said before, the south wins in the long run.
The north will never attack with the thinking that they can win, they will attack out of desperation or misguided patriotism from a recent incident that got them angry enough to attack.
The north will attack to do as much damage as possible, and the surely will, but they will not win, and they know this.
thubanDec 1, 2010
The sad thing is that North Korea spends this much money on defense while most of it's people are starving.
andy3109Dec 1, 2010
The entire chart is useless unless we know what types of tanks, aircraft and submarines each side has.
circlefusionDec 1, 2010
I would also like to know more details. But I can assume a lot from the difference in the spending budget.
vigrocoDec 1, 2010
"The entire chart is useless."
FTFY
benroyDec 2, 2010
N. Korea - Chinese s**t.
S. Korea - American s**t.
donkeybonggggDec 1, 2010
its all good...US got their back
uncoverorDec 1, 2010
That infographic isn't loading. If anyone got here before the link died, what did it say?
dalexandruzDec 1, 2010
South Korea needs to grow a backbone and deal with this major issue. North Korea is not a communist country it's a freaking dictatorship run by that melon head. People of South Korea need to pack their bags and get the f**k out the area where North can easily target and this can give South an advantage to attack and get rid of Kim dong bong Ill. I'm telling you once his regime is gone the people will be thankful. Don't tell me North Korean people love him and his regime. Live in one and i did not like it.
cme884Dec 2, 2010
2 things:
1. Yes, 22 Million South Koreans (half of the population) can pack their bags and get out of Seoul, because that's a reasonable suggestion. After all, South Korea is such a big place; they can easily move in with relatives in other parts of the country, right?
2. The people of North Korea have been taught to worship Kim Jong Il and his dead father as Gods. They might be starving, but to them, they hear that life is worse in other countries. They have no reason to doubt this line, so they believe it. Those who escape say they didn't leave because they hated Kim Jong Il; they left because they were hungry. It was only after leaving and reaching South Korea (by making the long trek through China in order to reach the South Korean Embassy in Thailand) that they learn that they've been taught a pack of lies.
If war does break out (and I hope it doesn't since I currently live here), it will be a costly war for both sides, but the South will prevail. I don't think there will be much of an insurgency a la Iraq or Afghanistan, but the cleanup will be tremendous. You'll have an entire population who is malnourished, undereducated, and completely out of touch with the modern world. War will be the easy part; the decades after will be the hard part.
bille3Dec 1, 2010
North Korea has China to back them up and China most certainly will. With China holding so much of our debt and trade they will dictate to how we respond. Hillary and Obama will bow to the demands of China. China has hold of our 'short hairs' which puts South Korea without any real outside support.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cleverjesterDec 1, 2010
Did you just make this a Republican/Democrat thing? WOW! That's stretching it.
bille3Dec 1, 2010
Hillary is still Secratary of State and Obama is still president. My statement regarded those two office holders, not their party affiliation. You were stretching it, in trying to make it political. Not very clever, jester.
bille3Dec 1, 2010
Hillary is still Secratary of State and Obama is still president. My statement regarded those two office holders, not their party affiliation. You were stretching it, in trying to make it political. Not very clever, jester.
mbraynardDec 2, 2010
Why are so many people so stupid about this. You have it exactly backwards
China doesn't have us by the short-hairs, we have them by the short-hairs.
Our government owes them $800b, and they have no collateral and no means of ever getting repaid if our country decides not to.
If that money disappeared into thin air and they lost access to the US market, their government would collapse and their politborough would be hanging from lamp posts like Chauchescue.
We have all the leverage over China and they have zero reason to prop up North Korea. North Korea realizes this; why do you think they have been making so many trips to Beijing to beg for leniency?
3the3dude3Dec 2, 2010
"Our government owes them $800b, and they have no collateral and no means of ever getting repaid if our country decides not to."
You're incorrect about you're zero collateral theory. The United States economy and the land, itself, are both collateral. Debt is the stuff that wars are made of.
Would China or the US ever want to fight that battle? I severely doubt it, but we do not have all of the leverage. China could flood the market with U.S. treasury bonds, tomorrow and deal a significant blow to the dollar.
cme884Dec 2, 2010
Part of the Wikileaks dump in the news is the revelation that China has about had it with North Korea. South Korea is a strong trading partner and North Korea is nothing but a money suck. Many people in Beijing would be more than happy to let Seoul have the peninsula.
racer20Dec 2, 2010
China is not stupid. Keeping the status quo benefits them economically and strategically. NK buys food and supplies from them and provides a convenient buffer zone to keep other countries far away from their border.
Going to war to defend North Korea doesn't benefit them in ANY way. If it came down to dropping bombs, they'd let us roll over NK, and we'd give in to some of their demands regarding how the country is run after the war. Or better yet, just let them deal with the mess however the want. Once Ding Dong Ill is gone, we can pretty much pretend that Korea is just a province of China.
cleverjesterDec 1, 2010
There's a difference between a trained and well fed soldier and a civilian that is forced to wear a uniform. Let's hope we don't have to find out though.
bille3Dec 1, 2010
Enough civilians wearing a uniform being used as cannon fodder can be a serious foe by shear numbers alone. Unarmed civilians defeated the British in India by simply being fodder until the British just stopped firing out of frustration of murdering unarmed citizens.
cme884Dec 2, 2010
The bulk of South Korean forces are conscripts, usually between 18 and 21. They're well fed, but they're still kids.
I'd say North Korea probably trains their soldiers more rigorously, and if anyone gets fed well, it's them. Still, they're using old tech in most cases.
mredofcourseDec 1, 2010
South Korea has the biggest army in the world, the United States.
Here's how it would play out:
North Korea would inflict major damage and casualties early on just across the border. Seoul would be hit very hard.
U.S. would suffer casualties during this initial attack, as well as if at any point North Korea uses a nuke.
The U.S. would start a massive bombing campaign that would cripple the North Korean offensive and shortly the North Korean army would surrender in mass as they starved and ran out of supplies while thinly stretched out and under overwhelming attack.
China would "act" enraged, but would only use this as leverage for advancing their own agendas on completely other issues. In the end, China would be happy to see a unified Korea that it could participate in the rebuilding of as long as refugees don't flood into its borders.
Once the "mission was accomplished", the rest would be MUCH different than Iraq as a unified Korea would be much easier to rebuild. There wouldn't be many different fighting factions, acts of terrorism, etc... This is a country that wants to be unified and one crazy MF (and sons) is keeping it from happening.
Alternatively, China could apply massive pressure on North Korea for reunification and all of this could transition without any bloodshed whatsoever. This is a win for everyone... except Kim Jong Il.
cme884Dec 2, 2010
I think you underestimate how easy unification would be. You're talking about one population that is firmly in the modern age, with 99.9 percent of the population wired into the Internet and has access to pretty much every bit of free information on the planet. The other population has so little food, it only eats meat twice a year, if at all.
There's an education gap. There's a cultural gap. Not to mention all the people of North Korea know of the rest of the world is that their lot, however s**tty, is the best on the planet, thanks to their living God, Kim Jong Il.
Iraq, although under a dictatorship, still had educated people. Afghanistan has a lot of poor uneducated people, but they tend to be tribal and self-sufficient.
scoutzrevolutionDec 2, 2010
I know I may seem like an ass but I'm kind of hoping for WW3 to start already (and I'm hoping N.Korea starts it) regardless of which has a bigger army they BOTH would probably get annihilated during the war (possibly by nukes or missile bombardment)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
xiqatDec 2, 2010
The guy with the bigger bombs win.
slappybag9Dec 2, 2010
oh good, another f**king chart on this subject
tyhoDec 2, 2010
I'm getting tired of info-graphics in general on the front page.
hackenbushDec 2, 2010
The difference is Japan. Today, they feel as if they are Israel considering defense against Iran. If N. Korea continues to develop nukes, they will eventually bomb Japan, as will Iran bomb Israel. So, many in Japan think that the lesser of all evils is to destroy N Korea ASAP. Japan wants a real military response against N Korea, and will continue to want the same, until N Korea is no longer a threat.
If you want a clearer picture of the future of the region, spend more time looking at Japan than S Korea.
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
Infographics are supposed to be EASY to read quickly. And most people do not have 2000 X 1200 resolution monitors.
ren1999Dec 2, 2010
The chart is misleading. Let's talk about the quality of the equipment.
The U.S. and South Korea would have complete naval superiority within a day.
ubermannDec 2, 2010
Ahhh how we forget our history - remember that during the Korean War the US had Korea on the ropes, until China invaded and tried (unsuccessfully) to get the US out. Its not a war of North and South - its a war of the US against China again.
tyhoDec 2, 2010
China's stance has changed over the years. I don't believe they will stop the removal of that crazy dictator and son. There have even been recent leaks showing China is not opposed to a reunified Korea.
Closed AccountDec 2, 2010
Inaccurate, there is no count for how many Zerglings, Seige Tanks, or Carriers S Korea has at its disposal
jgshotDec 2, 2010
South and North Korea need to chill. they need xanax
babywookieDec 2, 2010
We need to stand firm together with our North Korean allies.
dwhsDec 2, 2010
I feel bad for the surrounding countries that will be effected by North Korea's nuclear attacks.
davidmoorerx7Dec 2, 2010
I think North Korea needs to back off of South Korea. All the South has to do is employ a few Starcraft players as strategists in the military and North Korea would be wiped out over night.