Very informative Matt. You definately know more about this stuff than I do. I focus too much on guns alone, maybe I should expand my political and warfare knowledge.

Know any good sites (or wikipedia pages) that can help me out?

Not anything too specific. And frankly, there are people doing much more specific and more advanced degrees in this stuff than myself. I learned a lot from the exchange program I did at King's College London (they have a wonderful War Studies department), lots more at my last internship. My undergraduate thesis dealt with the CI lessons of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

I guess I would recommend reading the External Links on the Wikipedia page on 4th Generation/Asymmetrical warfare, for starter's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Generation_Warfare

Thanks, I'll look over it.

A heavy, complicated, airburst grenade launcher that needs a giant ridiculously advanced computer scope to be deployed accurately vs. a light, simple M203 that only needs a small leaf sight to be deployed with accuracy? :confused:

Hmm... considering the point in modern warfare is to be lighter and faster, I'd go with the 203.

Think about it from a tactical standpoint. The South Koreans are in the same position we were in the Fulda gap - if war comes, they know exactly where and with who and have been preparing for it for 60 years. It's not going to be mobile warfare, they're going to be fighting from the same defensive positions they've been preparing since 1953.

Now, I'm not saying I'm entirely sold on the system being ready for battlefield employment myself, but if you think about the tactical problem it makes alot of sense for them.

Exactly, South Korea is stuck in a Cold War-type situation with the North where measures of conventional armed strength (number/quality of personnel and equipment, battlefield formations, primary and secondary strike capabilities, etc.) still apply.

Although it is important to keep in mind that North Korea's conventional military capabilities are highly overrated by many analysts. I'm personally far more worried about the possibility of them using the combination of their nuclear/chemical weapons expertise and their extremely well-trained intelligence operatives to carry out terrorist acts, which would then be blamed on non-state entities. I think a situation like that is more likely than the Kims ever launching a nuke-tipped ICBM.

Not that I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with you, but considering the F35 was designed from the outset as a strike fighter (much like the F16 and F/A-18), asking it to do the job of an F15 or F22 is only going to result in the US losing a lot of planes (and possibly pilots) when Su-37s start showing up.

Su-37s. Really? Did you forget what Matt said? We aren't going to fight fighter jets in a long time.

It's better to have a condom and not need it, than to need a condom and not have one. [/random gratuitous Aliens vs Predator reference]

And...which one of us is Matt? :confused:

MT2008. It's nice to train and arm up against both conventional threats AND unconventional ones, but a lot of those contracts like the Future Soldier and the F-22 and XM29 are just shit. We have a good military that can kick conventional ass. I'm sure we could win a war with North Korea. Of course, there would be Millions dead and Seoul would be in shambles and there would be shit loads of refugees crossing the border into the South and China.