Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Strategy - simulation north korean - france conflict

  1. Jun 18, 2007 #1


    User Avatar


    i was wondering, if there happened to be a North Korean - French conflict
    that there would be no economic sanctions on both countries
    that all other countries stay neutral
    who would have the advantage ?

    i know France has a small army, but modern
    1 aircraft carrier (2 in 2015), nuclear attack submarines, Dassault jets, ect

    north korea has a large army, but not completely modern
    they still have some T34 tanks (Russian WW2 tanks), diesel submarines, ect
    but they have a modern communication system so that their troops can communicate to each other, ect
    and they have thousands of underground bases

    France : about 130 000 troops
    North Korea : 1 000 0000 troops

    so , i was thinking, if we simmulate this conflict who would have the advantage ?

    i was thinking that France would win the fight in the seas, maybe in the airs, but not in the ground

    that france could set a missile belt in china, and set some long range guns
    that france could send its troops by russia (russian trans siberian railway)

    if any of you, work in strategy, your comments would be even better
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2007 #2
    You're President Nicolas Sarkozy, aren't you? Come on, admit it. :tongue:
  4. Jun 18, 2007 #3
    Who strikes first? Where?

    N Korea has about $5bil for its military budget, compared to France's $60bil.
    France: almost 260,000 active troops.
    North Korea has 4,810,831 (males) fit for duty, and 1,102,600 troops.
    Also, I think France has an extensive nuclear testing experience.

    I give it to France:

    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  5. Jun 18, 2007 #4


    User Avatar

    firstly, zarkozy is not really into war

    secondly, obviously if you take in consideration the nuclear capabilities, its obvious france wins

    but what i mean, is that even if france controls the skies and the sea, you still have to conquer their incredible amount of underground bunkers

    and how could this be possible ? without just using the easy way and dropping a nuclear bomb
  6. Jun 18, 2007 #5
    you should'nt talk about that if i have really understund what does $have advantage$ means.there are a lot of wars in the world and in my opinion
    they will(Korea+france) lose .
  7. Jun 18, 2007 #6
    let's say that the experience of the modern times show that there is no more such a thing as winning a war. Moreover there is the globalization, when country A and B decide to have war, it obviously also means that international business concern X finds to be in war with itself.

    But anyhow, when is a war won? When the winner has reached his objectives? And how about long term objectives? If an overall long term (unreachable) objective would be peace and prosperity for *our* country and no others threatening that, then the only way to achieve the latter part, would be ensuring that potential hostile nations have the same prosperity, such that they have no incentive to act hostile. War, with the objective to hurt an opponent, to subject him to our will, is obviously counterproductive to that end.

    But anyway, if you want to win a two-state war, study Tsun Zu, Von Clausewitz and John Boyd, not the least of the three, and learn how number of bunkers and troops is completely irrelevant to the outcome a the war.
  8. Jun 18, 2007 #7
    France knows all about bunkers. :smile:

    So, you're just interested in a ground war? If you're going to take out the nuclear element, is there any other variable you would change? What kind of scenario is this?

    You even mentioned "nuclear attack submarines" in your original post. :(
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  9. Jun 18, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There's an obvious morale factor... would North Korean troops hang out in their bunkers waiting to kill French troops for weeks on end after Kim Jong-il is killed by a missile strike and Pyongyang is carpet bombed for two weeks, and they're killing dogs for food because the supply lines are cut off?
  10. Jun 18, 2007 #9


    User Avatar

    depends how much food they have in their bunker

    but for conquering the skies, i thought the north korean had a good anti air defence


    But if you make it sound so easy for france, who only spends 2 percent of its budget on defence
    why is north korea spending all its money in army ? if by spending everything in army , their country still is weak, whats the point ?
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  11. Jun 18, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They may spend a larger percent of their budget on military, but keep in mind:

    1.) They have a lot less money to start, so 50% of their budget may only be 2% of France's
    2.) They sell a lot of what they make (North Korea that is)

    Besides, if North Korea and France went to war, France wouldn't be spending 2% of it's budget on military.

    Oh, I found this website


    Note how much higher France is than North Korea ;)
  12. Jun 18, 2007 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Loved Coram's Boyd Bio. Viva la OODA loop. Should have figured a member of the fighter mafia would put him alongside Clausewitz et al :tongue2:
  13. Jun 18, 2007 #12
    Unnessecary ad hominem. BTW a friend of mine actually did a Ph.D thesis on John Boyd.


    His thesis has a ISBN:

    Osinga, Frans. Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, 2007. ISBN 0-415-37103-1
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  14. Jun 18, 2007 #13


    User Avatar

    Japan !!

    Japan 44.7 billion rank 5

    is it their fleet they spend a lot of money in ?

    i thought they had made a treaty with USA saying that they would not have much army
  15. Jun 18, 2007 #14
    France, unlike some other terrorist countries in the world, still has some respect for the United Nation Organisation. France would not go to war unless the UNO has approved it, it is therefore very unlikely that France would go alone in war. This discussion is pretty meaningless. If France wanted to go in war against North Korea, that would only be to destroy the regime. If you want to destroy a regime in place, you first have to make sure that all representative in the UNO agree on what to do next.

    Some things really drive me insane, and I cannot keep my blood cool in certain matters.
  16. Jun 18, 2007 #15
    I agree, a pointless thread.

    Guess what, if N. Korean invaded anyone, the US-of-A would blast it to hell, - just like they did to Iraq and Afganistan. And they wouldnt wait for anyones approval.

    I dont care if N. Korea has 2 million troops, the US would just send in missile after missile until the country is a parking lot.

    But honestly, isnt there better things to discuss than how one nation is going to destroy and kill another nation? :rolleyes:
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
  17. Jun 18, 2007 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Sorry, I was only kidding Andre. I'm fascinated w/ Boyd's theories and I'm a fan of the fighter mafia, as those I know in it refer to themselves on occasion.
  18. Jun 19, 2007 #17


    User Avatar

    i know it does not have a direct meaning

    i was just wondering if the army of my country was weak or strong
    if it has the capacbilities to act in some red zones

    the answer was , as you confirmed me yes ,

    but i am still disapointed they only have 1 aircraft carrier
    even through this one has nuclear capacities and that they plan to make a second good one for 2015
    1 aircraft carrier seems weak compared to USA who has 24 of them, not all of the same quality i agree, but still 24


    and i was wondering,
    does submarines who can send missiles to destroy nuclear missiles (while they in the air away from destination) exists ?


    and to finish with
    what does japan spend its defence bubget on exactly ?
    very expensive ships ?
  19. Jun 19, 2007 #18


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No - it wouldn't really be practical due to their size and lack of AA radar.
    They have a few, but due to the treaty ending WWII, their forces are required to be strictly defensive. Their primary contribution to the Iraq war, for example, was money.

    Last edited: Jun 19, 2007
  20. Jun 19, 2007 #19
    I don't think you have anything to be concerned about. France is a very strong country, more now than they ever were. And this has little to do with it's military power. A suitable measure of a country's strength has more to do with a leader's wisdom than the country's bombs. For starters, when I want to know where a country's strength is, the first place I'll look is to its neighbors and examine their attitudes toward each other.
  21. Jun 19, 2007 #20
    Okay, France is doing well, but let's not go that far. There was a time when they Rivaled the British Empire, remember?
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Strategy - simulation north korean - france conflict
  1. Resolving conflict (Replies: 0)