North Korea: The worlds three year old.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The AK-47 isn't a distance weapon at all.  You just point it, press the trigger and hose the clip across the enemy.  You are bound to hit something.  If you are facing a modern infantry unit with newer gear, you are not so badly off if you can get to close quarters.  The problem is, that these days, you don't get into such range.  Besides the thermal imaging and night vision capabilities of a modern fighting suit, you are also facing supporting fire power that will take you out before you can load your second clip.

[sneakeypete 16]

You do have a very good point with regard to fuel.

However, the ak47 is not useless. I'm sorry, but its just not. battles don't take place at ranges of 800m, with snipers killing everyone. if that was the case, modern armies would be armed with only designated marksman rifles. They are not. Its not the greatest rifle out there, but its still effective.

"bombs that can wipe out an entire tank comum with just one bomb,. from a jet fighter" are not prevelant last i checked. Or even existant, if they can be deployed from a jet fighter. I also think your misunderestimating the AA ability. Some are going to get shot down. Hell, the sporadic AA from the iraq wars downed a few aircraft, and this time in stead of a few hundred AA sights opening fire, there'll be a few thousand. Hell, even one of the airforces high tech AC130's, with all its electronic aviodance gear, was shot down in the first gulf war by an old soviet model shoulder launched AA missile. My main point is, the air forces would not be able to operate iwth the impunity that they currently do in iraq, and air support might suffer.

As for the artillery, well there is a problem there. you see, the thing, they are close enough to it for it to do a lot of damage. there's a heavily fortified border there, and you could probably bet that the majority of the 12000+ peices are located within range of it, and have preset targets of most of the souths positions. It might be older, but its probably still accurate enough cause damage, and like i said, and there is a rather large number of guns to take out

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

@sneakypete:  Good points.  Let's all take a page from Napoleon who, on viewing the storming of the Bastille, said "A little grape would soon clear this rabble."

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

I exaggerated the inaccuracy of the AK to make a point. If your weapon can't hit anything at range, you have a useless weapon. When your staring down the bare iron sights at a target a few hundred meters away and can barely see him, much less hit him, and meanwhile the other side has hi-tech optical scopes, thermal sights, trained long-range snipers, and weapons that can actually reach out and touch someone.

As for those column-killing weapons, they actually exist in large numbers. A bomb called the Joint Stand Off Weapon releases 144 submunitions, each of which can kill a tank or truck. Four of these JSOWs can be launched from a single aircraft from a range of forty miles, which is well out of the range of Korean air defense weapons. Then again, flying headlong into 10,000 SA-7s is going to be suicide for a number of those involved. That leaves only two options: staying high and out of range, or flying at treetop level and dodging the SAMs to minimize casualties. Though the second option may sound stupid, this is actually what NATO pilots were trained to do to minimize the threat of Warsaw Pact SAMs. The good news is that the majority of these weapons are located in two places: Pyongyang and the DMZ, so that leaves safe-transit corridors across most of the country.

I forgot to say that those 12,000 artillery pieces does include 7000 short range mortars, which are an even bigger problem. As they are man-portable, they're hard to track, which means the KPA have an untraceable artillery asset. And seeing as even a small 84mm mortar can kill an armored vehicle, that poses a major issue.

I seriously need to get a life.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

You do have a very good point with regard to fuel.

However, the ak47 is not useless. I'm sorry, but its just not. battles don't take place at ranges of 800m, with snipers killing everyone. if that was the case, modern armies would be armed with only designated marksman rifles. They are not. Its not the greatest rifle out there, but its still effective.

"bombs that can wipe out an entire tank comum with just one bomb,. from a jet fighter" are not prevelant last i checked. Or even existant, if they can be deployed from a jet fighter. I also think your misunderestimating the AA ability. Some are going to get shot down. Hell, the sporadic AA from the iraq wars downed a few aircraft, and this time in stead of a few hundred AA sights opening fire, there'll be a few thousand. Hell, even one of the airforces high tech AC130's, with all its electronic aviodance gear, was shot down in the first gulf war by an old soviet model shoulder launched AA missile. My main point is, the air forces would not be able to operate iwth the impunity that they currently do in iraq, and air support might suffer.

As for the artillery, well there is a problem there. you see, the thing, they are close enough to it for it to do a lot of damage. there's a heavily fortified border there, and you could probably bet that the majority of the 12000+ peices are located within range of it, and have preset targets of most of the souths positions. It might be older, but its probably still accurate enough cause damage, and like i said, and there is a rather large number of guns to take out

quote>

No that depends on the terrain. I can tell you, most firefights in Afghanistan do take place at such ranges. The Taliban dont stand a chance in conventional warfare. Giving everyone a sniper would be a retarded idea since a sniper is only a useful weapon when you can fight at such long ranges. If they get to close, they are far less effective. Besides that, they dont work in with the modern infantry doctrine. You cant lay down effective suppressing fire with a sniper. 

And never watched discovery channel? They do have bombs that once dropped spread out in lots of smaller high explosive mini bombs, all of them capable of detecting vehicles and hit them effectively destroying them. 

And an high tech AC 130 is rather slow which makes it a really easy target. The bomb I was talking about is dropped from a jet fighter who can essentially fly over without the need of going super slow. Hell, I know a F-22 can drop a JDAM and hit a moving target from 30 kilometers distance. There exists no AA that has a range of 30 kilometers. 

You know the border consists of a long strip called the demilitarized zone? But okay, even then, they have a range of a few miles. They can hit some positions, but any significant damage? Doubtful. The South Koreans could just move their positions a little further south and still hit the North Korean positions if they wanted too. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

Ak-47's are one of the most reliable weapons ever made, very durable under harsh conditions,easy to maintian with interchngeable parts that are very easy to get.

Thats why they are still around after thier introduction in 1947

[Nucks8 1]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Maybe we should move this discussion to World Affairs.  What about Burma?  And what is it called now?  With the unrest in Thailand (a.k.a. Siam), I've kind of lost track.

quote>

I think so as well.

I mean is this really a "Current Event" anymore?

To ANYONE who wants to comment from now on, go to World Affairs.

This topic will be shut down on Sunday unless 20 people still want it up.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,939]

Originally posted by: Nucks8

I think so as well.

I mean is this really a "Current Event" anymore?

To ANYONE who wants to comment from now on, go to World Affairs.

This topic will be shut down on Sunday unless 20 people still want it up.quote>

Why? I don't think this should be closed on your personal whim. People are behaving quite nicely.

This is a completely legitimate thread, the conversations that need to be moved are the ones about Iran and other off topic things.

As for this being a current even, is NK still there? Then this is still a current and extremely important topic for the entire world.

[JayStimson 212]

Of course this is still a current event. NK hasn't gone away have they ?

IMO, NK is not the one who's going to throw the 1st nuke. It's Iran. Right at Tel Aviv.

I have a bet going with an old friend. I predict Iran will launch one against Israel withing the next 2 years.

If I'm wrong, I buy dinner. If I'm right, he buys dinner.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: JayStimson

Of course this is still a current event. NK hasn't gone away have they ?

IMO, NK is not the one who's going to throw the 1st nuke. It's Iran. Right at Tel Aviv.

I have a bet going with an old friend. I predict Iran will launch one against Israel withing the next 2 years.

If I'm wrong, I buy dinner. If I'm right, he buys dinner.quote>

If you are right, there will be a higher level of radiation in your food.  But back to our muttons:  NK has fielded a team for the FIFA World Cup, and according to CNN they are not bad players.  Holy fun zone, Batman, can you imagine a bunch of NK's having fun?

[SimRabbit 48]

A couple of days ago I read that NK is experiencing economic problems and their currency lost value. They are apparent using propaganda to encourage workers to work harder.

But these things are nothing new, the economic problems, peace talks, ship sinking etc etc

[Nucks8 1]

Originally posted by: SimHoTToDDy

quote>

Why? I don't think this should be closed on your personal whim. People are behaving quite nicely.

This is a completely legitimate thread, the conversations that need to be moved are the ones about Iran and other off topic things.

As for this being a current even, is NK still there? Then this is still a current and extremely important topic for the entire world.

quote>

[SimHoTToDDy 2,939]

This isn't a game show, or a telethon, or some kind of popularity contest, this is a global issue worth discussing. The whole world should care, or at least know about the situation.

If you want it to stay open why do you insist on getting 20 people? Why 20? Why any at all? This makes no sense.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: trainguy4449

I exaggerated the inaccuracy of the AK to make a point. If your weapon can't hit anything at range, you have a useless weapon. When your staring down the bare iron sights at a target a few hundred meters away and can barely see him, much less hit him, and meanwhile the other side has hi-tech optical scopes, thermal sights, trained long-range snipers, and weapons that can actually reach out and touch someone. quote>

Of course, but the north has those things too. They wouldn't just have ak47's, they'd have machine guns, sniper rifles, mortars, other support weapons aswell. With regards to optics such as thermal sights, you have a point, the south does posess an advantage. this of course only applies during the night. The north doesn't have to attack at night. Of course, this opens up counterattacks and other such oppertunities. however, the fact is, there's millions of troops, the entire war can't just be night special force style raids. To be honest i'm not sure what sort of a difference it would make.

Ah, now i know which weapon you are talking about. pretty formidable, I agree. Still, you have all the problems about contested skies I was talking about before.

Originally posted by: trainguy4449

The good news is that the majority of these weapons are located in two places: Pyongyang and the DMZ, so that leaves safe-transit corridors across most of the country.quote>

Unfortunatly, this is where all the tanks, artillery peices, AA you want to destroy is actually located.

Lexus- I don't watch the discovery channel because i dislike paying for TV. i also don't like to use it as a source as i find its likely to be bisaed, albeit from my limited view of it. (find me a discovery channel program that shows how a russian weapon is superior, without imediatly mentioning how the new US counter weapon will best it, and i might change my mind)

Regarding the cluster bomb, its a very interesting weapon. The one I could find out was a cluster bomb with 40 submunitions that could cover an area of 1500m*1500m or so. Its been used in the war in iraq, but i can't easily find any operational use records. of course the US might want to keep that secret. Like you said, deployable from fighter aircraft. However, its deployment isn't similar to a JDAM, it needs to be dropped over the target area, as the bomb doesn't have any facilities for a guided glide to target like a JDAM. Oh, and there's plenty of AA that has a range of 30 km's mate.

Regards to the shot down AC130, speed shouldn't be a huge problem for these missiles, after all they travel and many times the speed of sound. my point was that, an aircraft with the latest electronic countermeasures was shot down by a single missile shot at it. with 10000 missiles pointed at the sky, odds of at least something being shot down are high, and odds of many somethings are also pretty dam high.

Its also worth pointing out that these missiles aren't "old 50's tech", the earliest were designed in the late 60's and deployed in the 70's, so one would assume what the north has would have to be one of these models, or newer. Not cutting edge, of course, but still a significant threat.

artillery has a range of much more than "just a few miles", your looking at numbers upwards of 6miles/10km. The south has all of its defences along this line, from what i can gather, and the north should be able to get its guns to positions it can fire at the south from its side. that's my point

Originally posted by: trainguy4449I seriously need to get a life.quote>

at least with airchair generals, noone gets hurt

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Whatever, change comes to everyone so Cuba, China, and The "Democratic" People's Republic of Korea will eventually open up farther to the global economy (China has already started).

[hym 358]

First, this thread will continue to remain open so long as everyone follows the rules.  With that said, on to the more interesting discussion.

Stuff about the North Korean military:

• AK-47:  AK's have two things going for them: reliability and low production cost.  As for why most shows appear biased to weapons like the M16, it's because on paper, and in testing too, the M16 is a clearly superior weapon.  After WWII, the Russians wanted a weapon that was cheap and easy to make.  This was literally all they requested.  No demands that the gun have certain performance specifications, no testing to see how it would perform against other weapons, nothing.  On the other hand, in developing the M16, the US had a long list of expectations for the new weapon.  It was designed to take full advantage of America's most advanced gun manufacturing technologies.  Furthermore, as the M16 has been used, they have continued to make improvements to the design, unlike the AK-47 which hasn't seen any major changes to the design since it was first developed.
• AA:  The range of an AA battery is a non-issue as far as US aircraft is concerned.  What matters more is knowing where all of them are.  The US possesses an air-to-surface missile that was specifically designed for destroying NK AA defenses.  The aircraft is capable of acquiring the target, firing the missile, and leaving the area before the AA device is even capable of hitting the aircraft.  The US is capable of destroying NK's AA defenses with impunity.  Also, about the AC130.  The AC130 is an incredibly slow moving aircraft with little to no defenses against ground fire except for it's own withering firepower.  US commanders are well aware of this limitation of the AC130 gunship and it is very rarely called to serve in battles where it stands a decent chance of being damaged or destroyed.  NK'S AA defenses won't find themselves facing such easy targets, as commanders won't take any chances with losing aircraft like that.
• Submarine fleet:  NK has a fairly sizeable submarine fleet, and US commanders are somewhat concerned about it.  They know that the fleet doesn't do much training, but that doesn't mean that the fleet will be of no concern.
• Troop placement:  80% of NK's troops are located near the DMZ, with most of them living in huge underground bunkers that even US bunker busting technology won't be able to fully destroy.  Dealing with those troops will be a major problem as there are no good options for neutralizing any potential threat without sending troops to clear the bunkers room by room (which would likely get very bloody).

[sneakeypete 16]

People seem to be misunderstanding my point regarding the Ak-47. Is it slightly inferior? yes. Is it useless? no. will having them instead of m16's make a noticable difference? probably not.

Hym, you seem to be grosly misinformed (or maybe just uninformed) on the development process of the ak47. there were infact performence trials against other weapons, (infact, some other weapons offered better performence. however, due to the country being communist, stealing other peoples ideas for your own design was good: it helped the country overall). A redesigned ak47 won the second round of trails (due, of course, partly to its cheapness of construction). Secondly, the Ak-47 was redesigned in the 50's. as it was origionally designed, the construction would be of stamped materials, however there were a number of manufacturing defects that meant that the more complex process of maching the parts was actually cheaper than stamping them. The revised model was introduced when they got the stamped parts working correctly, and they also added a few other changes, by all accounts reducing weapon weight by a full third. This was introduced in the late 50's if my memory serves me correctly, and called the AKM (most ak's made were this variant). As well as this, you could probably argue that the Ak series of weapons has undergone the same continual upgrades as time goes by. in the 70's, the ak74, with its reduced calibre was introduced, and recently more weapons have been designed in the 90's (such as the an-94), but aren't likely to equip the russian army due to cost. because of this, more recent ak74's have been made with composite stocks etc to reduce weight.

in regards to the AA: that's a good theory Hym, but does the US possess the number of weapons, and more importantly, the number of planes, required to disable the entire network? what if the north doesn't turn on their entire radar system at once, instead turning it on at a critical moment when the souths air attacks are taking place? what about portable shoulder fired missiles, etc? the AA of Iraq was destroyed with impunity, but, like i said before, this took time. in korea, that time doens't exist if the norths army is advancing across the border.

Re the submarines, that's another good point that i hadn't thought of before, but i doubt they could cause any significant damage to alter the effect of any conflict.

[hym 358]

If we're including weapons like the AK-74 in the discussion, then, yes, there have been major improvements.  (I wasn't as in the opinions of many weapons experts I am familiar with the AK-74 is better classified as a new weapon than as an AK-47 improvement.)  Regardless of whose opinion you want to go with, you are correct that the AK family, be it a 47, an AKM, or a 74 is not a worthless weapon.

As for the US's ability to neutralize NK AA defenses, there isn't a need to turn on the radar system for the US to know where these installations are.  The US has maintained a continual watch for them for roughly the past 50 years.  We don't know where all of them are, but we know where quite a number of them are located.  Time is a factor, and I don't know one way or the other how many of these missiles the US possesses as that number is classified.

When it comes to the submarines, it may well be that they won't be an issue, but naval commanders do not share your optimism.

[sneakeypete 16]

Regarding those subs, exactly what type are they? i've only ever heard of them in passing before. Are they old ex WW2 style subs, or something more? do they have a capacity to mount some kind of cruise missile or similar?

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

@sneakypete: 1. The AK-47 that is in service with the North Korean military are not the upgraded variants of the AK that have come into service in other countries. In every image I have found showing North Korean soldiers carrying the AK, they are carrying an unscoped, bare-bones weapon that is straight out of the 1950s. This is not the upgraded weapon that the Russians are fielding, this is a firearm that is identical to the original Kalashnikov design that rolled off the assembly line in 1947. The only thing better than the 47 are a handful of AK-74s that Korea got a hold of, and are now likely only in the hands of the elite bodyguards or their equivalent of the Special Forces.

About the anti-AA weapons, going off a Jane's Defense estimate, the KPA possesses (and I'm ballparking it here) 814 large SAM launchers, not counting the various MANPADS systems Those 814 launchers make for around 135 separate batteries, going off Soviet doctine of 6 launchers per battery with 3 radars at the center. Seeing as these radars would be grouped together at the center, a single anti-radar missile would be likely to take out or at least cripple all three of the grouped systems. Now, the US standard ARM, the AGM-88 HARM, is standard fare on Navy and Air Force aircraft in the region. There are literally thousands of these weapons in service, so running out should be no issue. As for aircraft, the US Pacific Fleet currently has a total of six Nimitz class supercarriers attached to it, and each one of those can put 64 combat fighter aircraft over Korean airspace. That doesn't even count USAF planes in Korea and Japan, the Marine Corps Harriers aboard the amphibious ships in the Pacific Fleet, and Korean's own planes. As for their MANPADS, they could be an issue. However, the primary system they have is the SA-7, and that is a launcher that was pulled out of Soviet service for being unreliable. Their gunners are likely poorly trained, due to the lack of targets actually practice on. Even trained fighters over the years have been only marginally successful, as the SA-7 has at best only a dozen recorded kills.

@hym and sneakypete: The Korean sub fleet consists of mainly Romeo, Sang-O, and Whiskey class submarines. The Romeo are Whiskey class subs are Soviet diesel designs that date back to the 1950s, and have been prone to breakdowns and failures over the years, as well as having the need to surface every day or two to recharge the subs batteries and bring in air (diesel boats can't cycle air like nuclear subs, and thus have limited time underwater). The Sang-O is a homegrown design that is likely simply a shortened version of one of these two other subs. For the moment they do not appear to have any offensive capability outside of their torpedoes, so there's no real likelihood of cruise missiles coming from these things like their American counterparts. In addition to a lack of capability, the diesel subs are notoriously loud on sonar systems, especially when compared with American and Korean boats. Even worse, the Korean sub crews spend that vast majority of their time in port, so they likely have only minimal training and experience.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Regarding those subs, exactly what type are they? i've only ever heard of them in passing before. Are they old ex WW2 style subs, or something more? do they have a capacity to mount some kind of cruise missile or similar?quote>

They're more advanced than WWII subs, but I don't know their capabilities beyond that.

[ikhwan 33]

I hope war is going to happen. Dont know why.

[Loney 22]

One deadly weapon that NK has and could use: Nukes.

A few stragetically placed nuclear weapons in purposely well created chokepoints where the highest concentration of U.S. and other military forces are located in would demolish a large portion of the ground invasion force.

And if NK ever develops missiles that can launch nuclear weapons far away, ouch to SK, Japan, maybe China (if they also decide that NK has to go) and any clustered invading naval forces. If they get really far in their development, Washington D.C., NYC, and other major cities far away from NK might get hit with nukes.

EDIT: Did I also forget th mention that NK has thousands of artillery guns pointing toward SK's capital city? As soon as the war kicks off, there would be a multi-million massacure and widespread leveling of parts of the city before all of the artillery guns are neturalized.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: ikhwan

I hope war is going to happen. Dont know why. quote>

Blecch!  May you live in interesting times.

Don't wish  for things, you might get them.  War is not anything anyone wants, and if you had ever smelled a battle field you would know why.  War is sick, sick, sickening, stupidity on a monstrous scale.  Ask any vet to has been in a fire fight and, if you can get him to talk at all, you will be enlightened.

@Loney:  We are not really sure about the nuclear capability of the NK's.  Material to build even fission bombs is hard to come by, and if they were building anything bigger, any test would be detected.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

According to most reports, North Korea has, at best, five working nuclear warheads in the 5-10 kT range. Thats fairly small, considering the Nagasaki bomb was around 15kT. Despite being small weapons, they would probably destroy everything in a two mile radius upon detonation at their target. The only issue is, the North Koreans have no efficient method to put the weapon on its target. They could strap a few to their Scud launchers, which are accurate to within this solar system. Another option is their Hwasong-5 and 6 theater ballistic missiles, a homegrown development that seems to have good range and accuracy. Then there's the Taepodong-2, the feared ICBM that so far, hasn't even come close to having a successful launch.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: Nucks8

I think that now people don't care that much now.

If 20 people think it should be up, it'l stay up.

I really want it to!

Keep up the support!

So Moose, talk about Iran somewhere else.

Either way by Sunday this Iran talk WILL STOP!
quote>

Yeah why close it? The thread title states pretty clearly this is about North Korea right? And as long as North Korea exists, North Korea remains a current event (as its still happening) and this remains a valid discussion topic. 

If you wanna talk about Iran, do that in the world affairs topic or something. 

@Sneakeypete: 

Ive seen plenty of Discovery channels (their top 10 lists arent that biased) where the American weapon didnt end up winning (top 10 tanks Ive seen the Challenger MBT and the Leopard 2 MBT win). As for a Russian weapon. Before I can find such a program, Im afraid they have to find a superior Russian weapon first. 

For the cluster bomb, there was one where the submunition did have some guidance system. In fact, they could set the submunitions so that they would explode in the air if they did not find and lock on a target. Also, they could drop the carrier which contains the submunitions from a distance since that thing could glide and also contained a guiding system. 

As for the AA, seeing the state of the North Korean army, I just dont think they actually have SAM missiles. I think most of it is still based on shooting a lot of bullets into the sky and hoping you hit an overflying plane. And those things dont have a range of 30 kilometers. But okay, say they do have old SAM's. The west still has stealth bombers and planes with a small radar signature. Harder for them to lock on. Sure, they might score a few kills, but eventually most of them would miss against anything that isnt a B-52 or a AC130. 

As for their artillery. All nice they have artillery that can shoot that far, but any modern army has artillery that has a superior range. They can still easily set up their artillery out the range of their artillery and pound their positions to bloody mud while the North Korean shells fall short. Again, look for example at the German Pantserhowitzer 2000 with a range of 40 km. Now, the South Koreans probably dont have the latest of the latest kind of technology, Im sure they have artillery that can shoot further then 10 km. 

[thepokemaniac 18]

Well they played in the World Cup today! I was pulling for them just so the people in North Korea could watch the game, as we all know the gov. probably wouldnt show it unless they did. They played a good match though i must say, and they even scored against Brazil! But they still are ranked #32...

Adam

[Nucks8 1]

Originally posted by: SimHoTToDDy

This isn't a game show, or a telethon, or some kind of popularity contest, this is a global issue worth discussing. The whole world should care, or at least know about the situation.

If you want it to stay open why do you insist on getting 20 people? Why 20? Why any at all? This makes no sense.quote>

You know what you're right!

Screw it!

This is staying up!

As long as we talk about NK this topic is here to stay.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

@Lexus, the North Koreans have plenty of SAM launchers, around 800 of them, plus a few thousand shoulder-launched MANPADS missiles. The vary in range from 3km to 40km, with the handful of SA-5s situated around Pyongyang that can hit targets out to 300km. Granted, they only have two dozen of those SA-5s, but they may be an issue for strike craft coming from carriers in the Sea of Japan.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The ability of the North Koreans to do a limited amount of serious mischief is undoubted, the question is whether their generals would dare.  Surely their strategic studies have shown that in an all out confrontation with almost any of their neighbours, they will lose.  Considering the allies that South Korea can bring to the table, I think we have a stalemate.

A little patience will bring these people out of their shell.  Communistic totalitarian governments are as obsolete as the gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine, not all of them have made it yet to the scrap heap.  Sooner or later the NK general staff will find out that they can live in a higher style if they are more friendly with everyone.  Just now they are sitting comfortably in their 19th century set up, but modern luxuries are much more attractive.  Also, a happier, less terrorized populace would be more productive and therefore make life easier for them.  Oppression can only take you so far.