North Korea - how serious should we take them?

[MartG]

spookly said:

Why don't South Korea just buy a whole load of C-RAM to at least partially counter the long known threat of NK artillery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFzlwzFgKw

Is it just me, or does the narrator sound like Kermit the Frog ?

[Petrus1983]

spookly said:

Why don't South Korea just buy a whole load of C-RAM to at least partially counter the long known threat of NK artillery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFzlwzFgKw

I feel S. Koreas defences are a lot more advanced than they let on, but don’t want to start an arms race and keep quiet knowing the US would be there in an instant given half the chance.

[Pommy]

Where's Wally - North Korean Edition.


















Answer: In a death camp of course.

[Burwood]

Petrus1983 said:

spookly said:

Why don't South Korea just buy a whole load of C-RAM to at least partially counter the long known threat of NK artillery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFzlwzFgKw

I feel S. Koreas defences are a lot more advanced than they let on, but don’t want to start an arms race and keep quiet knowing the US would be there in an instant given half the chance.

I'll qualify this by saying I know nothing about warfare. Isn't it the case that no matter how good a defence system is, the fact the North have thousands of mobile rocket launchers and bomb chuckers, even if ancient, it would still inflict major damage

[dukeboy749r]

Burwood said:

Petrus1983 said:

spookly said:

Why don't South Korea just buy a whole load of C-RAM to at least partially counter the long known threat of NK artillery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFzlwzFgKw

I feel S. Koreas defences are a lot more advanced than they let on, but don’t want to start an arms race and keep quiet knowing the US would be there in an instant given half the chance.

I'll qualify this by saying I know nothing about warfare. Isn't it the case that no matter how good a defence system is, the fact the North have thousands of mobile rocket launchers and bomb chuckers, even if ancient, it would still inflict major damage

It's the ancient bit that might determine whether they, in fact, work - or not.

What is showcased on TV in their regular military parades may (or may not) amount to pretty much the sum total of what they have - that works. Their may be occasions when not being a modern army suits very well - using flags for battlefield comms so that in the event of an EMP (electro magnetic pulse) your comms still work was for the Soviet army a valid state of affairs (that and the fact that they had little money for modern radios), the Viet Cong didn't need vast helicopter fleets and multi barrelled rocket launchers to win their war. However, start trading shots across a line at your enemy and 'ancient' shells/armaments etc, may soon not get you the result you'd hoped for.

[105.4]

HTP99 said:

robinessex said:

[url|https://thumbsnap.com/2qdyNjqh[/url]

I'd love to know what their working day actually consists of, that's a st load of generals.

According to Wikipedia, the combined NK armed forces numbers 2 million.

Could someone more informed than me state how many Generals an armed forces of 2 million would usually have?

There must be at least 2500 ‘Generals’ in that picture.

[FourWheelDrift]

robinessex said:

Copy & paste mad they are in North Korea.

[robinessex]

Burwood said:

Petrus1983 said:

spookly said:

Why don't South Korea just buy a whole load of C-RAM to at least partially counter the long known threat of NK artillery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMFzlwzFgKw

I feel S. Koreas defences are a lot more advanced than they let on, but don’t want to start an arms race and keep quiet knowing the US would be there in an instant given half the chance.

I'll qualify this by saying I know nothing about warfare. Isn't it the case that no matter how good a defence system is, the fact the North have thousands of mobile rocket launchers and bomb chuckers, even if ancient, it would still inflict major damage

Do they have 1000's? Do they have the ammunition supplies? Do they have the logistics to supply the firing line? Can they feed the troops needed? Have the troops had lots of practice with these? I could go on. A bloody parade of farmers in Army Fatigues with bulletless rifles isn't an effective army. Some of the trucks carrying the missiles seem to have the behaviour of a very light load. Dummies maybe? As for the 1000's of generals, It would be complete mayhem trying to get communications going with that lot. Just who is in charge I wonder?

[dudleybloke]

Just carpet bomb the North with Happy Meals.
This would work in the UK too.

[Sway]

jsf said:

robinessex said:

What chance would his starving soldiers stand against the USA if it came to a punch up?

Same chance as always, they would drag them into a jungle bloodbath if they were stupid enough to get involved on the ground.

After flattening Seoul via artillery...

[anonymous-user]

Once you cut the head off, would it be much more effective than Iraq? The NK people would probably love the idea of living like they do in the South, it's just they don't mention it now because they'll get killed to death if they do.

[Sway]

dukeboy749r said:

Iamnotkloot said:

bristolracer said:

I've said this a couple of times in this thread
The NK threat comes from conventional artillery which has the range to hit Seoul
They could inflict massive damage on many border SK towns and cities using WW2 technology.
For the US to locate and destroy every artillery battery would be impossible
Sure the war wouldn't last long, it wouldn't take the Yanks long to pulverise NK but the cost to South Koreans would be massive.
The Chinese are the ones keeping a lid on it all right now, they do not want the Americans turning up in their back yard, but are happy enough to let NK irritate the west.

I pretty much agree with this. With no Chinese intervention, the West would win but the cost of any war to the South Koreans would be devastation.

That assumes that the North Koreans have sufficient, in date artillery rounds.

If the Russians and Chinese haven’t been sending newer stock regularly, I wouldn’t be confident of fighting for very long time with ammunition that might be decades old.

Coupled with this news about famine, perhaps the NK’s army might not be as keen to fight as their leader and generals would like everyone to believe

Edited by dukeboy749r on Monday 12th April 07:16

They have hundreds (if not thousands) of artillery pieces in very well defended mountain emplacements.

We routinely have washed up WW2 ordnance on the beaches nearby, and a significant percentage are still more than able to go bang by themselves...

They don't need to fight long. The grunts on the ground see SK/US coming over the border, then they load/fire/reload until dead or out of ammo. Even if only a small percentage were viable, that's Seoul fked.

[robinessex]

I'm pretty sure any semi-permanent gun emplacements are securely on the Yanks target list. God knows what they've lined up if they need them.

[Iamnotkloot]

robinessex said:

I'm pretty sure any semi-permanent gun emplacements are securely on the Yanks target list. God knows what they've lined up if they need them.

Not sure I'd want to take that chance, looks like you'd only have an hour to take them all out otherwise:

Scenario 5. The “Sea of Fire” scenario simulates North Korea’s threat to turn Seoul into a flaming ruin. Some 324 heavy howitzers and rocket launchers plaster Seoul with 14,000 rounds in one hour. The toll would be 130,000 casualties, plus 1.2 million people traumatized.

Other interesting stuff here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/08/1...

[Sway]

Iamnotkloot said:

robinessex said:

I'm pretty sure any semi-permanent gun emplacements are securely on the Yanks target list. God knows what they've lined up if they need them.

Not sure I'd want to take that chance, looks like you'd only have an hour to take them all out otherwise:

Scenario 5. The “Sea of Fire” scenario simulates North Korea’s threat to turn Seoul into a flaming ruin. Some 324 heavy howitzers and rocket launchers plaster Seoul with 14,000 rounds in one hour. The toll would be 130,000 casualties, plus 1.2 million people traumatized.

Other interesting stuff here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/08/1...

Indeed.

The emplacements are also far from "semi permanent" - they're the result of decades of specific mining and building in ridiculously tough geology (for both surveilling and for eliminating).

[robinessex]

Sway said:

Iamnotkloot said:

robinessex said:

I'm pretty sure any semi-permanent gun emplacements are securely on the Yanks target list. God knows what they've lined up if they need them.

Not sure I'd want to take that chance, looks like you'd only have an hour to take them all out otherwise:

Scenario 5. The “Sea of Fire” scenario simulates North Korea’s threat to turn Seoul into a flaming ruin. Some 324 heavy howitzers and rocket launchers plaster Seoul with 14,000 rounds in one hour. The toll would be 130,000 casualties, plus 1.2 million people traumatized.

Other interesting stuff here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/08/1...

Indeed.

The emplacements are also far from "semi permanent" - they're the result of decades of specific mining and building in ridiculously tough geology (for both surveilling and for eliminating).

A thermobaric weapon, aerosol bomb, or vacuum bomb[1] is a type of explosive that uses oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. In practice, the blast wave typically produced by such a weapon is of a significantly longer duration than that produced by a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel–air explosive (FAE) is one of the best-known types of thermobaric weapon.

Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel–oxidizer premix (black powder, for example, contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer), whereas thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel, so thermobaric weapons are significantly more energetic than conventional condensed explosives of equal weight. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They are, however, considerably more destructive when used against field fortifications such as foxholes, tunnels, bunkers, and caves—partly due to the sustained blast wave and partly by consuming the oxygen inside.

The yanks have 76 B52's flyable.

Edited by robinessex on Monday 12th April 17:26

[Sway]

robinessex said:

Sway said:

Iamnotkloot said:

robinessex said:

I'm pretty sure any semi-permanent gun emplacements are securely on the Yanks target list. God knows what they've lined up if they need them.

Not sure I'd want to take that chance, looks like you'd only have an hour to take them all out otherwise:

Scenario 5. The “Sea of Fire” scenario simulates North Korea’s threat to turn Seoul into a flaming ruin. Some 324 heavy howitzers and rocket launchers plaster Seoul with 14,000 rounds in one hour. The toll would be 130,000 casualties, plus 1.2 million people traumatized.

Other interesting stuff here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2020/08/1...

Indeed.

The emplacements are also far from "semi permanent" - they're the result of decades of specific mining and building in ridiculously tough geology (for both surveilling and for eliminating).

A thermobaric weapon, aerosol bomb, or vacuum bomb[1] is a type of explosive that uses oxygen from the surrounding air to generate a high-temperature explosion. In practice, the blast wave typically produced by such a weapon is of a significantly longer duration than that produced by a conventional condensed explosive. The fuel–air explosive (FAE) is one of the best-known types of thermobaric weapon.

Most conventional explosives consist of a fuel–oxidizer premix (black powder, for example, contains 25% fuel and 75% oxidizer), whereas thermobaric weapons are almost 100% fuel, so thermobaric weapons are significantly more energetic than conventional condensed explosives of equal weight. Their reliance on atmospheric oxygen makes them unsuitable for use underwater, at high altitude, and in adverse weather. They are, however, considerably more destructive when used against field fortifications such as foxholes, tunnels, bunkers, and caves—partly due to the sustained blast wave and partly by consuming the oxygen inside.

Yes, there are 'bunker busters'.

Exactly how many do you reckon could be employed at short notice, where every minute huge casualties are being created by the other couple of hundred emplacements along a miles wide mohntain range?

You've also got to be able to target them effectively - open hillsides as per Afghan it is not.

[Cobnapint]

How's this for a scenario. China gets so stressed about NK starting a brawl with the US, and it's entirely possible outcome of the US ending up occupying NK - that Xi says fk this, tells KJU to sit down/shut up and marches in there himself (Crimea stylee) and takes over before it can happen.

China isn't backwards in coming forward when it comes to building their real estate portfolio up of late.

[eldar]

robinessex said:

The yanks have 76 B52's flyable.

Edited by robinessex on Monday 12th April 17:26

Fighting 50's technology with 50's technology. Plus a rather more modern ordinance load.

[mybrainhurts]

Cobnapint said:

How's this for a scenario. China gets so stressed about NK starting a brawl with the US, and it's entirely possible outcome of the US ending up occupying NK - that Xi says fk this, tells KJU to sit down/shut up and marches in there himself (Crimea stylee) and takes over before it can happen.

China isn't backwards in coming forward when it comes to building their real estate portfolio up of late.

Who do you think told Kimmy Wrong Un to meet Trump, when no other leader had ever set foot in KJU's North Korea?

Trump was beginning to stretch China and I reckon they did this to draw Trump's attention away from China.

I think China has full control of the little fat gangster.