|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 3:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| I'm pretty sure it's more than "marginal". |
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Look it up.
| Quote: |
| I do believe Japan has the 2nd largest navy in the world. How big is Korea's? I doubt it is even close to the same size. |
Japan does not have the 2nd largest navy in the world. Last time they could make that claim was WWII.
Japan has marginal advantages in both.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, Japan is a far larger and more powerful country than Korea. Like by a factor of 5. The idea that Korea has a military option against Japan (esp. in the long term, if Japan were to start viewing Korea as an actual threat) is silly. |
Korea has a military option in the sense that Argentina had a military option during the Falklands and I would submit that the gap in forces between S.Korea and Japan would be significantly less (their equipment largely overlaps) than that between Argentina and Great Britain.
However what is likely to happen in a "Race for Dokdo" situation is that one side or the other, or likely both, would try and goad the other into sending a force out to seize Dokdo, employ a "low risk-high reward" strategy of firing anti-ship missiles and try and gain the upper hand on the cheap (while still preserving a way to save face by suffering minimal losses), which both militaries are certainly equipped to do.
More important is that the Japanese would be worried more about the Chinese and the S. Koreans would be wary about North Korea, thus keeping everything to a glorified Clinton War (Fire off cruise missiles that blow up dirt (or ocean) and declare victory).
But please guys, look at the actual forces involved and their strengths and equipment before spouting off about how Japan would steamroll Korea. The Brits probably thought the same thing, they won, but there are some lads who wish they had taken a bit more care to worry about Exocets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I'm pretty sure it's more than "marginal". |
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Look it up. |
I'm sure you have no idea what you're talking about.
I did look it up:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ship.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/ship.htm
Japan's navy outclasses Korea's in every category. Just look at the number of destroyers (and Japan's ships are superior to boot).
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| I do believe Japan has the 2nd largest navy in the world. How big is Korea's? I doubt it is even close to the same size. |
Japan does not have the 2nd largest navy in the world. Last time they could make that claim was WWII. |
Japan's navy is much stronger than any other country in Asia, even China.
| Quote: |
| Korea has a military option in the sense that Argentina had a military option during the Falklands and I would submit that the gap in forces between S.Korea and Japan would be significantly less (their equipment largely overlaps) than that between Argentina and Great Britain. |
This is nonsense, but even if it were true and Korea were to somehow defeat Japan's navy in a battle and prove themselves a real threat, the Japanese would just take their time to rearm. There is nothing to stop them from just totally overhauling their fleet and even building aircraft carriers (the constitution doesn't prohibit this as long as it's interpreted as being in "self defense"). Japan has the technology and resources to do so within a fairly short period of time, Korea does not. Hence, Korea does not have a real military option against Japan in any meaningful sense.
| Quote: |
| But please guys, look at the actual forces involved and their strengths and equipment before spouting off about how Japan would steamroll Korea. The Brits probably thought the same thing, they won, but there are some lads who wish they had taken a bit more care to worry about Exocets. |
Japan would steamroll Korea. No question about it. Moreover your comparison of it to the Falklands War (as if to negate the point that Japan would win) is just laughable, since the Brits were the clear winners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of guided missile destroyers, S.Korea has 11, all of which have been in service since 1998. Japan has 8. 6 of those are ships commissioned in the 80s or early-mid 90s.
However Japan does offset this with an edge in modern submarines.
As for Japan's edge in "destroyers", actually those ships are considered frigates or corvettes.
| Quote: |
| This is nonsense, but even if it were true and Korea were to somehow defeat Japan's navy in a battle and prove themselves a real threat, the Japanese would just take their time to rearm. There is nothing to stop them from just totally overhauling their fleet and even building aircraft carriers (the constitution doesn't prohibit this as long as it's interpreted as being in "self defense"). Japan has the technology and resources to do so within a fairly short period of time, Korea does not. Hence, Korea does not have a real military option against Japan in any meaningful sense. |
Dude, this isn't WWII. This is a Flaklands type scenario. You might not even have a formal decleration of war. The ghost of Yamamoto isn't going to resurrect itself into some sort of massive Japanese carrier dleet.
As for resources, when it comes to shipbuilding, are you seriously calling Korea at a disadvantage? Korea, the number one country in the world in terms of shipbuilding, that Korea?
All these people who still live in WWII-Cold War era fantasies about massive industrial output and total war and all that....
Have you even looked into what kind of vessels the Korean Navy operates?
| Quote: |
| Japan would steamroll Korea. No question about it. Moreover your comparison of it to the Falklands War (as if to negate the point that Japan would win) is just laughable, since the Brits were the clear winners. |
If the Argentinians had not decided to put a WWII-era cruiser out to sea, they would have certainly made it a pyrrhic victory for the UK.
Have you actually looked at the damage inflicted on the Royal Navy by a 2nd rate air force? The Royal Navy lost 2 destroyers and 2 frigates and would have lost plenty more if the Argentine Air Force had had adequate number of Exocets and its aircraft were properly maintained and at closer range. 2 more destroyers and 3 more frigates were severly damages and likely would have been sunk had the bombs dropped on them actually exploded. If that had happened, even if the UK had won the land war for the Falklands, the cost of 4 destroyers and 5 frigates would have been a severe one indeed (probably enough to claim victory), and that's just accounting for the unexploaded bombs.
Sorry, but analysis of things goes beyond looking at webpages and numbers and concluding who "won" and who is "stronger". You have to actually read the information and interpret it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Superior fire power and equipment doesn't equal automatic win. Just ask the US army for any war after 1945 that they participated in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Of guided missile destroyers, S.Korea has 11, all of which have been in service since 1998. Japan has 8. 6 of those are ships commissioned in the 80s or early-mid 90s. |
WTF are you talking about? Korea has 3 guided missile ships, not 11. Japan's destroyers are all state-of-the-art and more powerful, with 6 equipped with Aegis Combat Systems (Korea has only 3). As you already mentioned, Japan's submarine fleet is also superior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JMSDF_Fleet#Guided_Missile_Destroyers-.28DDG.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republic_of_Korea_Navy_ships
Japan also has a superior air force.
| Quote: |
| As for Japan's edge in "destroyers", actually those ships are considered frigates or corvettes. |
Yeah, and Japan has a whole lot more of them than Korea does. In addition to having 2.5 times as many large destroyers, of superior quality. Hardly a "marginal" advantage.
| Quote: |
| Dude, this isn't WWII. This is a Flaklands type scenario. You might not even have a formal decleration of war. The ghost of Yamamoto isn't going to resurrect itself into some sort of massive Japanese carrier dleet. |
Who the hell is talking about WWII? The only thing holding the Japanese back from having carriers is the political will. If their current navy was humiliated by any Korean attack, it is a near certainty that the Japanese would overhaul their military, and probably build carriers. Japan's economy is like half as big as the US. The US has 11 super carriers. Japan could easily afford a few (hell, even the UK and France have one apiece). Korea could not afford it.
All of this is pretty obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense.
| Quote: |
| As for resources, when it comes to shipbuilding, are you seriously calling Korea at a disadvantage? Korea, the number one country in the world in terms of shipbuilding, that Korea? |
Woopdeedoo. Japan still has better ship building technology, it's just not a major industry there anymore, because ship building is just not very profitable (it is better left to developing countries). In other words, yes, Korea is at a disadvantage. Japan's economy also dwarfs Korea's.
| Quote: |
| All these people who still live in WWII-Cold War era fantasies about massive industrial output and total war and all that.... |
Yeah, you always like conjure up straw man arguments. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Cold War. It has to do with the obvious fact that Japan is economically, politically, and militarily a much more powerful country than Korea. The notion that Korea has any sort of option to "intimidate" Japan militarily is a joke, plain and simple.
| Quote: |
| Have you even looked into what kind of vessels the Korean Navy operates? |
Of course.
| Quote: |
| Have you actually looked at the damage inflicted on the Royal Navy by a 2nd rate air force? The Royal Navy lost 2 destroyers and 2 frigates and would have lost plenty more if the Argentine Air Force had had adequate number of Exocets and its aircraft were properly maintained and at closer range. 2 more destroyers and 3 more frigates were severly damages and likely would have been sunk had the bombs dropped on them actually exploded. If that had happened, even if the UK had won the land war for the Falklands, the cost of 4 destroyers and 5 frigates would have been a severe one indeed (probably enough to claim victory), and that's just accounting for the unexploaded bombs. |
There is no point to any of the about, and your comparison is just plain irrelevant. In the first place, Korea and Japan are both within air range of each other, so it's not even remotely similar to a Falkland's scenario. In the second place, the UK won a decisive victory and kept the islands. If this were compared to Takeshima, then the moral of your story is that Japanese would retake the islets. But I doubt that was what you intended.
| Quote: |
| Sorry, but analysis of things goes beyond looking at webpages and numbers and concluding who "won" and who is "stronger". You have to actually read the information and interpret it. |
Interpret what? Your straw man arguments?
This isn't even a debate. Go on wikipedia and compare the and numbers of ships and how powerful they are. Then realize that Japan has a much superior navy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
| Superior fire power and equipment doesn't equal automatic win. Just ask the US army for any war after 1945 that they participated in. |
Actually, it nearly always does equal a win. The US has never "lost" a war per se. We just fail at the "occupying force" part.
Obviously, I don't think there is any way Japan could invade and annex Korea again. But in a war over some rock in the middle of the ocean, the Japanese would be virtually guaranteed a win (assuming the political will were there, which in this case it certainly would be). Korea would be out of its league to even attempt to take on Japan militarily.
It would be kind of like if Holland (which has a proportionately bigger GDP compared to the UK than Korea does to Japan) decided to take on the UK's Royal Navy militarily in a dispute over some rock in the English Channel. Who do you think would win? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koharski
Mod Team
Joined: 20 Jul 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, enough of the "my country can beat up your country" garbage. Why does every thread discussing Dokdo end up with the same posters waging war game scenarios at each other?
This thread has run its course.
Koharski |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
