# News Strategy - simulation north korean - france conflict

1. Jun 18, 2007

### JPC

hey

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. Jun 18, 2007

### Mallignamius

You're President Nicolas Sarkozy, aren't you? Come on, admit it. :tongue:

3. Jun 18, 2007

### Mallignamius

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab16.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_France

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

### JPC

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

5. Jun 18, 2007

### arkhammedos

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 .

6. Jun 18, 2007

### Andre

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.

7. Jun 18, 2007

### Mallignamius

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
8. Jun 18, 2007

### Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
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?

9. Jun 18, 2007

### JPC

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
10. Jun 18, 2007

### Office_Shredder

Staff Emeritus
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

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php

Note how much higher France is than North Korea ;)

11. Jun 18, 2007

### mheslep

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:

12. Jun 18, 2007

### Andre

Unnessecary ad hominem. BTW a friend of mine actually did a Ph.D thesis on John Boyd.

http://www.mil.be/rdc/viewdoc.asp?LAN=nl&FILE=doc&ID=128

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
13. Jun 18, 2007

### JPC

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

14. Jun 18, 2007

### humanino

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.

15. Jun 18, 2007

### Cyrus

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?

Last edited: Jun 18, 2007
16. Jun 18, 2007

### mheslep

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.

17. Jun 19, 2007

### JPC

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 ?

18. Jun 19, 2007

### 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

Last edited: Jun 19, 2007
19. Jun 19, 2007

### Mallignamius

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.

20. Jun 19, 2007

### Smurf

Okay, France is doing well, but let's not go that far. There was a time when they Rivaled the British Empire, remember?