Strategy - simulation north korean - france conflict

[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

 

[Mallignamius]

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

 

[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

"France is said to have an arsenal of approximately 350 nuclear weapons stockpiled as of 2002."

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

 

[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

 

[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 .

 

[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, http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm 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.

 

[Mallignamius]

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

France knows all about bunkers.

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. :(

 

[Office_Shredder]

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?

 

[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, what's the point ?

 

[Office_Shredder]

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, what's the point ?

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 ;)

 

[mheslep]

...and John Boyd, not the least of the three, ...

Loved https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316796883/?tag=pfamazon01-20. Viva la OODA loop. Should have figured a member of the fighter mafia would put him alongside Clausewitz et al :tongue2:

 

[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

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[Cyrus]

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 wouldn't wait for anyones approval.

I don't 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, isn't there better things to discuss than how one nation is going to destroy and kill another nation?

 

[mheslep]

Unnessecary ad hominem.

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.

 

[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 ?

 

[russ_watters]

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

No - it wouldn't really be practical due to their size and lack of AA radar.

and to finish with
what does japan spend its defence bubget on exactly ?
very expensive ships ?

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

 

[Mallignamius]

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
-snip-

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.

 

[Smurf]

I don't think you have anything to be concerned about. France is a very strong country, more now than they ever were.

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

 

[JPC]

i think
france's best time for strengh was during 1800 - 1810
with Napoleon 1

 

[Smurf]

Ten Years of total war with almost every other nation in Europe eventually leading to a collapse of the state? I guess it depends how you define 'strength'

 

[Mallignamius]

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

What kind of terms were they on with them?

 

[Smurf]

Well, France supported the American revolution, what do you think?

 

[Mallignamius]

Well, France supported the American revolution, what do you think?

Then I think I already covered that. I was implying that strength can be found in one's friends and allies.

 

[JPC]

i think Napoleon's empire could have stayed longer if he didnt attack Russia

but one other prob is that he was physically dying

 

[Mallignamius]

To expand, France and the U.S., as well as the U.K., currently are on excellent terms. Count up and gauge its current friends against any other time in its history.

 

[Art]

i think Napoleon's empire could have stayed longer if he didnt attack Russia

The key to survival of any empire is it has to be profitable. Having subjugated another country you need to be able to reap the economic benefits. To do this you need peace which wasn't Napoleon's forte. Constant wars meant the land gained was a drain on the central coffers which eventually leads to collapse of empire as one loses the will and the financial power to support the large military force needed to hold onto your gains.

Historically Britain was far more successful in the profitable administration of empire than France (with a couple of notable exceptions).

but one other prob is that he was physically dying

Recent evidence shows the probabilty is he was poisoned. Presumably that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't lost at Waterloo.

 

[Art]

To expand, France and the U.S., as well as the U.K., currently are on excellent terms. Count up and gauge its current friends against any other time in its history.

France and the UK on excellent terms When did that happen :tongue2:

 

[Mallignamius]

France and the UK on excellent terms When did that happen :tongue2:

Okay, so they're not bedbuddies. But you know what I mean.

 

[Art]

Okay, so they're not bedbuddies. But you know what I mean.

I meant it tongue in cheek though there is still a lot of anti-French rhetoric in the British media. Tabloids such as the Sun routinely run insulting headlines referring to the French as 'feelthy frogs' in a way that British racism laws would never allow were it any other nationality. It seems an exception is made for the French.

I suspect the French media probably represents Britain in similar vein.

Having said that they are so tied up together economically it is very unlikely at least in the forseeable future that they would ever go to war although on the other hand it's not that long ago that France was selling exocet missiles to Argentina and celebrating their success against British ships. That really did not go down well in Britain at the time.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The key to survival of any empire is it has to be profitable. Having subjugated another country you need to be able to reap the economic benefits. To do this you need peace which wasn't Napoleon's forte. Constant wars meant the land gained was a drain on the central coffers which eventually leads to collapse of empire as one loses the will and the financial power to support the large military force needed to hold onto your gains.

Rome had a pretty good go at the conquer conquer conquer method

 

[Art]

Rome had a pretty good go at the conquer conquer conquer method

As did Britain but new territories, not the same land repeatedly. Napoleon conquered the same countries such as Austria several times, Each time they were beaten they would sign peace treaties, lick their wounds for a while and then come back for more. Hence the need to consolidate gains through diplomatic and administrative skill.

The Romans too were excellent administrators who worked with indigent leaders to ensure peace in conquered lands thus enabling them to reap the benefits of trade and allowing them to move the bulk of their troops on to the next venture.

Examples of where Britain failed by failing to garnar sufficient support for continuing British governence in their 'possessions' are the USA and Ireland. In both cases they were loss making ventures as the high military cost in maintaining control greatly outstripped revenues gained. In the case of the US it was Britain's attempt to cover it's losses from the US in the shape of taxes which led to the Boston tea party and ultimately America's break from Britain.

 

[ray b]

trying to think of a good reason for this war
really cannot come up with one

but that aside if there was a war it would be very very one sided
N K has no way to get at France
and France can missile or aircraft attack at will any point in N K or any place they may have an reason to attack [ but none I can think of outside the country ]
or shipping if they have any other then their fishing fleet
with no valid reason or need to invade or even let their army get near N K
so a very low troop cost war and over quickly

 

[Plastic Photon]

Can you imgaine the fuel costs associated in traveling half way around the world to fight a starving pact of light-weight, resourceless communist with very few incentives to attack? The French would lose by fault of accounting. They have money, but not the same amount a united state would have, such as France + everyone other Euro exchanger may stand a better chance.