User blog comment:Daxus Inferno/Real Countries?/@comment-4780584-20130402142849/@comment-3398633-20130403052717

Allow me to jump to the cluster bomb bit. They are only effective when civilians aren't in the way. Since this would most probably take place in densely-populated South Korea, the West would be too concerned with the collateral damage to use them, especially considering current arms treaties have banned them. Now on the part of the fighters. Any engagement would be an American/South Korean victory. However, that would only be if they took place at long ranges. The North Koreans are right next to South Korea (duh), and would be able to get many hundreds of planes into the air before the US and South Korea could respond effectively.

While they would manage to get their own planes into the air, the battles would take place at much closer ranges, and F-22s are only good against radars, not human vision, which given that the fighting would be close, would render their stealth ineffective. When you add the fact most if not all F-22s have no guns, it'll be a one-sided fight if the F-22s don't use their speed to get away. Our planes are too slow in terms of manuverability since that isn't an important factor in modern aerial combat. In a clutter sky full of hostile planes fighting in a tight region, modern jets are outclassed. This isn't even mentioning the fact that we couldn't hit them before they put MiG's in the air seen we don't even know where they are.

Like I said before, NATO fought three wars for the United States already, and would not fight a forth one that would be catastrophically violent and destructive. It would be too expensive, and the battle is too far from Europe for most of the citizens there to understand why defending South Korea would be worth destroying their already fragile and recovering economies, and potentially losing tens of thousands of more European soldiers. As far as the US is concerned, we can't afford another war. We don't have the money to waste on an effectively political war. We don't have anymore willing soldiers, as the stoploss debacles of the Iraq War are still painfully vivid to many. And most importantly, as we both pointed out, we don't have the desire to fight another conflict.

China might see the loss of South Korea as a good thing as it potentially eliminates an economic rival, opens up a large market when the North Koreans ask for aid in rebuilding, and solidifies their position as a global military power. If it weakens the United States, then China may go for it. Right now, their economies ties to the United States, and their biggest customer, are too important to tolerate the North Koreans silly gambits. The ammo issue is nice, but South Korea will eventually have to turn to the West for aid as it doesn't have the industrial capacity to maintain its economy and fight a total war at the same time (few nations have the ability). The North's submarine fleet could effectively strangle trade for the South as allied warships won't be numerous enough to track down every North Korean sub. Even the tech of the South couldn't detect the one that blow up one of their ships.

In the end, as I already stated, the money issue will be the deciding factor in the war. America is strapped for cash after the last two wars, and South Korea's is too fragile to support a prolonged war. NATO won't get involved as the Eurozone is on life-support. And China might jump in for the economic potential that may come with a North Korean victory. AMRAAMs are expensive, yes, but they take time to make, ship out, load up, and get in the air. The North Koreans only need bullents, and they have plenty of factories for that. Nothing special, nothing expensive, and nothing complicated. My money is on a North Korean victory. Now on to the Sahara if there is nothing more to discuss (we can carry the discussion on to the talk pages if you want).