North Korea - how serious should we take them?

[jmorgan]

Talksteer said:

hidetheelephants said:

jmorgan said:

Problem with a captive population. Even if someone has a coup tomorrow non west intervention there is the potential for mayhem.

Not half. The Iraq thing illustrated what happens if you overturn a highly ordered tyranny without having a transition plan and dismantle the apparatus of state before there's a replacement available; it all goes to ratst in a New York minute, the populace think you're a cock and throw shoes at you. The planning/prep to deal with the fallout from overturning NK will be a lot more expensive and time-consuming than the military effort to achieve the toppling in the first place.

I wouldn't necessarily assume it would go that way, take Germany as the counter example.

Half the problems with Iraq are related to it's complicated ethnic and religious make up combined with the fact that the great satan invaded. The North Koreans were effectively one people with the south, though 60 years of insane rule may have changed that to a degree.

I was thinking more you have a population brainwashed and underfoot. The South are going to eat their babies and they have no food, not much of anything. I don't think anyone in their right mind will think of marching North. The potential perhaps for a coup then a faction fight was more my thinking. They may well get nasty with each other but all hostile to the South.

[Jimbeaux]

hidetheelephants said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

hidetheelephants said:

The planning/prep to deal with the fallout from overturning NK will be a lot more expensive and time-consuming than the military effort to achieve the toppling in the fist place.

& no-one willing to pay the cost, and/for no oil resources to pillage.

Who has pillaged Iraqi oil? Just curious.

The lizards.

Of course, I forgot about them.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

hidetheelephants said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

hidetheelephants said:

The planning/prep to deal with the fallout from overturning NK will be a lot more expensive and time-consuming than the military effort to achieve the toppling in the fist place.

& no-one willing to pay the cost, and/for no oil resources to pillage.

Who has pillaged Iraqi oil? Just curious.

The lizards.

Of course, I forgot about them.

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

hidetheelephants said:

Jimbeaux said:

Mermaid said:

hidetheelephants said:

The planning/prep to deal with the fallout from overturning NK will be a lot more expensive and time-consuming than the military effort to achieve the toppling in the fist place.

& no-one willing to pay the cost, and/for no oil resources to pillage.

Who has pillaged Iraqi oil? Just curious.

The lizards.

Of course, I forgot about them.

Yep; contracts but no oil!

[Previous]

Munter said:

Here's the problem as I see it

If we go in: Many of the NK population will die fighting and as collateral damage.
If we encourage revolution: Many of the NK population will die fighting and in camps.
If we don't go in: Many of the NK population will die in camps and of starvation.

Basically there is no good option, and we'd be on the hook financially with (So sorry many of you got killed payments), if we get too involved. So we watch them die, rather than kill them. It's all fun fun fun.

I agree with this.

No politician is going to want to go in, with the cost and effort involved, for relatively little short term gain

If we dont go in its somebody else's problem

The only time that changes is if they become a threat (nuclear) and the cost / gain ratio changes significantly.

For NK it simply a question of maintaining control whilst keeping an eye on the cost / gain ratio - if they ease up the cost to other powers to act becomes smaller (so keep a few million in the Army, a few thousand artillery pointing south, lob a few shells every so often), get too ambitious and the gain becomes too attractive (Keep your weapons programme under control, agree concessions every so often).

[irocfan]

the little bd is inventive I guess...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/08/north-k...

[Mojocvh]

South Korea reinvents the thunderflash...

[superkartracer]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/graphic-no...

Check that lot out.

[Zod]

superkartracer said:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/10/graphic-no...

Check that lot out.

Mostly 50-60 year old hardware. They are still flying MIG 17s FFS! It wouldn't have a hope against US technology. They could launch hundreds of MIG 17s and 21s and the only issue for the Americans would be loading enough armament on a handful of places to shoot down the lotin a matter of minutes from way outside Korean visual or radar contact.

[superkartracer]

Nope, but they could still cause plenty of damage to the south, this old tat still *kills*

[Zod]

superkartracer said:

Nope, but they could still cause plenty of damage to the south, this old tat still *kills*

A few would get through. The rest would be destroyed quickly en masse. We heard the same sort of thing about Saddam's forces.

[FourWheelDrift]

Troop transport aircraft, Classic, Crusty and Careless Sums them up.

Welcome to the 1970s North Korea.

[superkartracer]

Zod said:

superkartracer said:

Nope, but they could still cause plenty of damage to the south, this old tat still *kills*

A few would get through. The rest would be destroyed quickly en masse. We heard the same sort of thing about Saddam's forces.

How would the 1000's of missiles and shells not get though?, agreed regards the flying tat tho.

[Zod]

superkartracer said:

Zod said:

superkartracer said:

Nope, but they could still cause plenty of damage to the south, this old tat still *kills*

A few would get through. The rest would be destroyed quickly en masse. We heard the same sort of thing about Saddam's forces.

How would the 1000's of missiles and shells not get though?, agreed regards the flying tat tho.

How many of the missiles do you think are actually serviceable? They are ancient.

[superkartracer]

No idea but guess the 1000's of shells filled with god knows what prob work.

[Mojocvh]

Zod said:

superkartracer said:

Zod said:

superkartracer said:

Nope, but they could still cause plenty of damage to the south, this old tat still *kills*

A few would get through. The rest would be destroyed quickly en masse. We heard the same sort of thing about Saddam's forces.

How would the 1000's of missiles and shells not get though?, agreed regards the flying tat tho.

How many of the missiles do you think are actually serviceable? They are ancient.

Classic underestimate your enemy mistake...

[Zod]

Mojocvh said:

Zod said:

superkartracer said:

Zod said:

superkartracer said:

Nope, but they could still cause plenty of damage to the south, this old tat still *kills*

A few would get through. The rest would be destroyed quickly en masse. We heard the same sort of thing about Saddam's forces.

How would the 1000's of missiles and shells not get though?, agreed regards the flying tat tho.

How many of the missiles do you think are actually serviceable? They are ancient.

Classic underestimate your enemy mistake...

As I said earlier, we heard the same about Saddam.

[superkartracer]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/south...

500 odd shells fired in a bit of a test the other day, they seemed to work.

[FourWheelDrift]

The USN has a new toy though for ship based testing in 2016 - http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rail-gun-...





North Korea can wait, they aren't going anywhere soon.

[Zod]

superkartracer said:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/31/south...

500 odd shells fired in a bit of a test the other day, they seemed to work.

NK would obviously cause damage and a lot of casualties on the first day or so in SK, but it would all be over very quickly.