|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jul 17, 2017 9:11:25 GMT
Singapore's Strength:
Available for military service: 1,255,902, (age 18–49) (2016 est.)
Fit for military service 2,105,973, age 18–49 (2016 est.)
Reaching military age annually 52,466 (2016 est.)
Active personnel 71,600 (incl. 45,800 conscripts)
Reserve personnel 1,386,000+ (2016 est.)
Budget SGD $14.2 billion (FY2017)
Percent of GDP 3.2% (FY2015)
Malaysian Strength:
Military age 18 years of age
Available for military service 14,817,517, age 16–49 (2011 est)
Fit for military service 12,422,580, age 16–49 (2011 est)
Reaching military age annually 519,280 (2011 est)
Active personnel 127,000
Reserve personnel 300,300
Budget US 3.61 billion(FY2017)
Percent of GDP 1.16% (FY2016 Q4 $311.0bn
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Jul 17, 2017 10:03:24 GMT
Indonesian Strength:
Military age 18
Available for military service 131,000,000, age 15–49 (131,000,000)
Fit for military service 108,000,000, age 15–49 (131,000,000)
Reaching military age annually 4,500,000 (131,000,000)
Active personnel 476,000
Deployed personnel 1,673
Budget US$ 8.05 billion (2015)
Percent of GDP 1.0% (2013)
|
|
|
|
Post by TurkichBall on Jul 25, 2017 13:22:26 GMT
Hmm its interesting
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim on Aug 1, 2017 21:01:21 GMT
So Americanized Asia versus communist Asia? Let's see:
1. No nukes is bad for Commies, but still doable. North Korea holds a good number of chemical and biological weapons and won't hesitate use them. Then again, the South Korean military power is greater, not to mention an invasion coming from US navy and military bases in Japan and the US bases in South Korea. Overall, due to the US and its air force support, I say South Korea wins, after a very painful struggle. As for the rest of Asia, I unfortunately have to say that they will get eaten for lunch by China. After that, a struggle between US invading forces coming from newly unified Korea would enter China, ensuing another conflict.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 1, 2017 21:28:06 GMT
So Americanized Asia versus communist Asia? Let's see: 1. No nukes is bad for Commies, but still doable. North Korea holds a good number of chemical and biological weapons and won't hesitate use them. Then again, the South Korean military power is greater, not to mention an invasion coming from US navy and military bases in Japan and the US bases in South Korea. Overall, due to the US and its air force support, I say South Korea wins, after a very painful struggle. As for the rest of Asia, I unfortunately have to say that they will get eaten for lunch by China. After that, a struggle between US invading forces coming from newly unified Korea would enter China, ensuing another conflict. I'd say the NK/SK conflict would be a pyrhhic victory for NATO; Seoul and Tokyo would likely be targeted by North Korean missiles, along with most of the metropolitan areas in SK and Japan, while the war would turn into a guerrilla war worse than Vietnam or Afghanistan, with fighting over every inch of land in NK. The NATO forces will likely win because of their larger population, technology, and industrial ability, but a very painful one, with most of the Korean Peninsula likely turning into a wasteland, and the resulting 'liberation' of the North Korean citizens will be a logistical nightmare, as NATO struggles to feed, shelter, and reintegrate c. 25 million people who were cut off from the rest of the world for ~70 years. |
|
|
|
Post by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim on Aug 1, 2017 21:36:17 GMT
So Americanized Asia versus communist Asia? Let's see: 1. No nukes is bad for Commies, but still doable. North Korea holds a good number of chemical and biological weapons and won't hesitate use them. Then again, the South Korean military power is greater, not to mention an invasion coming from US navy and military bases in Japan and the US bases in South Korea. Overall, due to the US and its air force support, I say South Korea wins, after a very painful struggle. As for the rest of Asia, I unfortunately have to say that they will get eaten for lunch by China. After that, a struggle between US invading forces coming from newly unified Korea would enter China, ensuing another conflict. I'd say the NK/SK conflict would be a pyrhhic victory for NATO; Seoul and Tokyo would likely be targeted by North Korean missiles, along with most of the metropolitan areas in SK and Japan, while the war would turn into a guerrilla war worse than Vietnam or Afghanistan, with fighting over every inch of land in NK. The NATO forces will likely win because of their larger population, technology, and industrial ability, but a very painful one, with most of the Korean Peninsula likely turning into a wasteland, and the resulting 'liberation' of the North Korean citizens will be a logistical nightmare, as NATO struggles to feed, shelter, and reintegrate c. 25 million people who were cut off from the rest of the world for ~70 years. Both North and South Koreans would definitely suffer a lot of casualties during this struggle, yes. Guerrilla warfare, huh? It could be, definitely, albeit the chem and bio weapons would still be highly prevalent. I actually think that guerrillas plus chem and bio weapons would actually decimate the numbers of the N.K. army, with negligence in the use of said weapons causing NK soldiers to walk straight into lingering pests and viruses and die. But if there weren't any invasion from Korea then I would say that it would simply end with China and the US being at odds similar to the USSR-USA rift that gave way to the Cold War. The rest of Asia would be colonized for the purpose of dispersing the high density population of China, which might jump its population to around 1.3 billion, factoring in casualties from the war. The Philippines will likely be taken as well. So in total it's Chinese domination of Asia. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Aug 2, 2017 0:13:43 GMT
Basically, the general idea is that Korean War will be a bloody and long war, tying dowm SK and NK.
Meanwhile, all of PRC's other opponents (its border neighbours and South-East Asia) will fail in the end?
I do not recall ever involving USA. However, troops loaned to countires can take part and while loaned troops (like NATO/USA) may not have their home countries join in on the war, these loaned troops can still take part.
|
|
|
|
Post by Laurent de Gouvion on Aug 2, 2017 14:04:57 GMT
The Korean War would be determined by North Korean competence - despite lacking industrial capacity, it can give quite the early blow to SK (bombarding Seoul with artillery and other cities with missiles). It then depends on how NK command uses this initiative: a sharp push could result in a quick victory, though a series of reverses is more likely. If SK can keep its industry, it will win in the end.
On China itself, I don't think it'll be able to take more than Mongolia. Perhaps disputed territories with India as well, but not another country. While China on its own is militarily powerful, splitting its forces into many fronts diminish that. Attacking Central Asia would be foolish given the terrain, opening up other regions to an offensive. India would devolve to a stalemate. ASEAN is a bit of a wild card. I think they'll be able to stand on their own, though. Their total power would outclass Chinese local power.
In summary, a stalemate. If the US joins, the China is in a pretty bad spot. A navy sufficient to counter her, and air presence as well diminishes a lot of Chinese advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Aug 2, 2017 15:13:47 GMT
Do Japan and China count as border neighbours though? If that's the case, Japanese assistance might be barely but still helpful in Korea.
Say PRC gets distracted in Korea first, they'll close in and 3-4 (depends on how "border is defined navally) countries will be dragged in. ASEAN amasses its forces, India moves in on the disputed territories and the others begin gathering their forces.
(Least likely) They'll lead coordinated all-out assaults on PRC. The initial reaction is slight chaos but soon PRC deploys troops to meet each threat while already deployed army continues joining the Korean War.
Initial PRC resistance will push back the invaders to starting territories. However, PRC employs a 1815 Napoleón styled war strategy of disrupting coalition postitions and forces. A mistake costs them to be overrun by large numbers of coalition forces like at Waterloo 1815.
Hong Kong rebels and joins in. Taiwan seizes the chance to end the PRC threat. The corrupt starts to evacuate when the war swings sideways.
Korean War ends late in this war, leaving Korea very bloodied and reduced to rubble. Meanwhile, coalition makes considerable gains especially in Western China. Mongol forces that have been tied down at key strongpoints in Northern China may start to crumble or they already had done so.
After a long and bloodied war, an armistice is signed. Or maybe an unconditional PRC surrender. What do you guys think?
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim on Aug 3, 2017 15:58:30 GMT
Basically, the general idea is that Korean War will be a bloody and long war, tying dowm SK and NK. Meanwhile, all of PRC's other opponents (its border neighbours and South-East Asia) will fail in the end? I do not recall ever involving USA. However, troops loaned to countires can take part and while loaned troops (like NATO/USA) may not have their home countries join in on the war, these loaned troops can still take part. There's hundreds of US troops stationed all over Asia, so that won't be a problem. The ones in Korea will likely overrun NK but the ones in SE Asia most likely will be overrun and either forced to retreat by the US people or by the Red Army OR will get killed, which would then prompt WWIII. But that's another conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by Polenbal on Aug 3, 2017 22:22:37 GMT
The Korean War would be determined by North Korean competence - despite lacking industrial capacity, it can give quite the early blow to SK (bombarding Seoul with artillery and other cities with missiles). It then depends on how NK command uses this initiative: a sharp push could result in a quick victory, though a series of reverses is more likely. If SK can keep its industry, it will win in the end. On China itself, I don't think it'll be able to take more than Mongolia. Perhaps disputed territories with India as well, but not another country. While China on its own is militarily powerful, splitting its forces into many fronts diminish that. Attacking Central Asia would be foolish given the terrain, opening up other regions to an offensive. India would devolve to a stalemate. ASEAN is a bit of a wild card. I think they'll be able to stand on their own, though. Their total power would outclass Chinese local power. In summary, a stalemate. If the US joins, the China is in a pretty bad spot. A navy sufficient to counter her, and air presence as well diminishes a lot of Chinese advantage. on youtube there is a channel called bunkos battle fields that did a USA PRC fight and at the start he mentions that US just wouldn't be able to get any planes their easialy |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 3, 2017 22:26:01 GMT
The Korean War would be determined by North Korean competence - despite lacking industrial capacity, it can give quite the early blow to SK (bombarding Seoul with artillery and other cities with missiles). It then depends on how NK command uses this initiative: a sharp push could result in a quick victory, though a series of reverses is more likely. If SK can keep its industry, it will win in the end. On China itself, I don't think it'll be able to take more than Mongolia. Perhaps disputed territories with India as well, but not another country. While China on its own is militarily powerful, splitting its forces into many fronts diminish that. Attacking Central Asia would be foolish given the terrain, opening up other regions to an offensive. India would devolve to a stalemate. ASEAN is a bit of a wild card. I think they'll be able to stand on their own, though. Their total power would outclass Chinese local power. In summary, a stalemate. If the US joins, the China is in a pretty bad spot. A navy sufficient to counter her, and air presence as well diminishes a lot of Chinese advantage. on youtube there is a channel called bunkos battle fields that did a USA PRC fight and at the start he mentions that US just wouldn't be able to get any planes their easialy Binkov only analyses the military factor, with no other nations involved, and with certain rules. |
|
