North Korea: The worlds three year old.

[MayorCain 2]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Ak47 can't hit the side of a barn at 50 meters? bwahaha, that's laughable mate. You sound like your talking propaganda. It might not be the most accurate assult rifle in the world, however it is the most common. if its accuracy was horrible to the point of it being useless, it wouldn't be the most common now would it?

Tanks? yes, the south has vast supremecy, tank to tank. they've even made their own home grown main battle tank that's quite impressive. On the other hand, these tanks are outnumbered by about 2-1, depending on, of course, the speed of conflict (overseas countries could of course provide more as a war drags on etc). I wouldn't go as far as to write them off completely. the gulf war involved almost complete air supremecy by allied forces, and as far as i know, most iraqi tanks were disabled by air (read recently about a mechanise attack on a Saudi town that was competely stopped by air units). Air supremecy over north korea couldn't be guarenteed, and there'd be many more targets per aircraft than in iraq.\

1300 aircraft is a dam lot more than the iraqi's possessed, each one needs to be shot down, and they'd be sure to take down a few of the souths aircraft. the crippling air superioity in iraq allowed ground attack aircraft to operate without risk of being shot down by air assets, it probably wouldn't be the same in korea. Its also woth noting that in the iraq war, a prolonged bombardment preceeded actual fighting, giving plenty of time for AA to be systematically 'dismantled'. in the case of a korean war, the south wouldn't have the luxury of slowly grinding away at the norths AA assets (which are rumoured to be in the 1000's, if not 10's of thousands), as the norths troops would probably start moving straight away, this air superiority and ground attack would need to be performed at once, liminting inital, at least, ground attack. this could, of course, allow the norths tanks to be used, theoretically.

The artillery, well, 12000 peices are a lot. If you somehow gain air superioity, that's 12000 individual airstrikes/counterbattery fire to take them out, odds are that a lot of them are going to do a fair amount of damage for a fair amount of time.

Now, your figures don't agree (infact, are an underestimate) with wikipedia, however i know that, especially on something as controversial as this, wikipedia isn't really reilable. however, its just worth taking not that any figures could be biased or positioned to make one side look more powerful than the other for political or othewise motivated reasons. Its needless to say that, the north's military isn't the most impressive thing out there, but it is substantial. While i really doubt they'd be able to conquer the entire peninsular, they certainly have the capacity to do a lot of damage to the south economically, and as such the south would probably really want to avoid a war as much as possible.quote>

Lexus the AK isn't a useless weapon. Sure it may be somewhat inelegant compared to the high tech weapons of todays modern armies but it still gives the troops of these modern armies a run for their money. The bullet is a powerful round which can penetrate light cover (walls, sandbags and humvee doors for example) with relative ease and still have enough power to seriously wound anything behind it. The 5.56 round travels so fast its got a lot of inertia and doesn't tumble or break inside a target over about 100 metres, plus when it hits a solid object because of its speed the round will generally shatter removing most of its penetrative qualities and any power it had. The 5.56 round has regularly been observed striking a target in Iraq with little or no reaction from the soldier it struck. This is like I said before, the inertia of the round due to its speed. The AK round is slower, but has a huge amount of energy behind it. It's a common misconception that the AK has no range as all, its a simple matter of aiming higher and dropping the bullet onto your target. At 400 metres, while the chances of hitting your target are low with the AK, you can be sure it will still hit MUCH harder than a 5.56 round at the same distance.

The AK was designed with typical Soviet doctrines in mind, similar in style to the US Civil war, collumbs of advancing troops firing indiscriminatly towards the emeny keeping them pinned down while the troops advance. So accuracy wasn't a primary goal when designing the weapon. And powerful bullets were popular, as the general ethos was not to simply wound your enemy but to kill him entirely, much like it was in WW2. I can see the NK's having a very similar doctrine to the Soviets, so the weapon is actually the best they could ever need.

The AK has been giving our troops in Iraq a lot of trouble. In relation to tank vs tank then yes, the NK's tanks are outclassed by a long way. But since that theatre of war is mainly a video game compared to actual troop vs troop combat, then newer is better.

I always think a weapon is only as good as its soldier. Since we don't exactly know what the NK trooper will be like, lets hope for the best plan for the worst.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: MayorCain

I always think a weapon is only as good as its soldier. Since we don't exactly know what the NK trooper will be like, lets hope for the best plan for the worst.quote>

A good point.  The North Korean soldier is probably a conscript, but the army is one of the places in the country where he gets to eat regularly and probably not badly.  Malnourished soldiers don't fight, they run away at the first chance.  I expect a highly trained force dedicated to their bellies, and thoroughly propagandized.  They are probably deadly fighters, especially hand to hand.  They won't want to give up their hot meals for an unknown quantity.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: MayorCain

Lexus the AK isn't a useless weapon. Sure it may be somewhat inelegant compared to the high tech weapons of todays modern armies but it still gives the troops of these modern armies a run for their money. The bullet is a powerful round which can penetrate light cover (walls, sandbags and humvee doors for example) with relative ease and still have enough power to seriously wound anything behind it. The 5.56 round travels so fast its got a lot of inertia and doesn't tumble or break inside a target over about 100 metres, plus when it hits a solid object because of its speed the round will generally shatter removing most of its penetrative qualities and any power it had. The 5.56 round has regularly been observed striking a target in Iraq with little or no reaction from the soldier it struck. This is like I said before, the inertia of the round due to its speed. The AK round is slower, but has a huge amount of energy behind it. It's a common misconception that the AK has no range as all, its a simple matter of aiming higher and dropping the bullet onto your target. At 400 metres, while the chances of hitting your target are low with the AK, you can be sure it will still hit MUCH harder than a 5.56 round at the same distance.

The AK was designed with typical Soviet doctrines in mind, similar in style to the US Civil war, collumbs of advancing troops firing indiscriminatly towards the emeny keeping them pinned down while the troops advance. So accuracy wasn't a primary goal when designing the weapon. And powerful bullets were popular, as the general ethos was not to simply wound your enemy but to kill him entirely, much like it was in WW2. I can see the NK's having a very similar doctrine to the Soviets, so the weapon is actually the best they could ever need.

The AK has been giving our troops in Iraq a lot of trouble. In relation to tank vs tank then yes, the NK's tanks are outclassed by a long way. But since that theatre of war is mainly a video game compared to actual troop vs troop combat, then newer is better.

I always think a weapon is only as good as its soldier. Since we don't exactly know what the NK trooper will be like, lets hope for the best plan for the worst.quote>

 That entirely depends on the weapon they use. The AK-47 uses the 7.62 cartridge, which in quite a few cases also doesnt tumble and fragment inside the enemies. That was the reason why the AK-74 doesnt use the 7.62 cartridge but a 5.45 cartridge. That one is supposed to tumble as well. But youre right, the 5.56 isnt the best either. They all give problems. Hence the development of rounds like the Grendel which is 6.something. Increased penetration but not so much they punch clean through organic matter and cause only relatively small wounds. 

And it remains to be seen how well their troops are actually trained. Keep in mind, they have closed themselves off almost completely from the outer world. That cant have had a positive on their training doctrine. Its fairly well possible they use an outdated military doctrine that gets them wiped from the battlefield in no time. And I can see that happen in case they gotta fight against an army like the us. 

Oh and it appears they have slightly better artillery then I thought. They have at least one Artillery unit that can fire more then 40 km.  However it has a really slow rate of fire. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I only hope for the best. I would pray also but...

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

I only hope for the best. I would pray also but...quote>

Thats all we can do. Just pray that Kim Jong Il forgets all this war  crap to sit in the corner and play with himself.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

It is easy to talk about war if you don't have to participate in it.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

It is easy to talk about war if you don't have to participate in it.quote>

It is, but your point? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

It is easy to talk about war if you don't have to participate in it.quote>

It is, but your point? 

quote>

Let us all take a line from the spiritual and "Study war no more".  Wars must become a thing of the past, and the sooner the better.  It is good to have a well-trained defense force, but foreign adventures should be expunged, erased, and nullified with all the expedience possible.  War is the cancer of politics.

[Herdervriend 46]

All useless countries, which include this 2, should just murder each other off till there is nothing left. Why must we suffer this crap in the Western world? It's their problem and in my eyes, if I was North or South, I would have thrown the nukes the second the ship sunk already.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

Originally posted by: Herdervriend

All useless countries, which include this 2, should just murder each other off till there is nothing left. Why must we suffer this crap in the Western world? It's their problem and in my eyes, if I was North or South, I would have thrown the nukes the second the ship sunk already.quote>

I sense a Palin supporter. I hate to say it, but this is some of the most arrogant talk I have ever seen on these forums. You see, the problem with nuclear weapons is that they don't stay isolated in one country. Once one side fires the first shot, there's no stopping the exchange. 

This is a whole lot more complex than "shoot or don't shoot". There are millions of human lives at stake here. Its not a simple yes or no decision, as anyone with half a brain would realize.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[tommy949 0]

Ok, so someone should point a gun at Kim Jong il and say back off the freaking throne but his citizens are too brainwashed. If North Korea wants to throw their nukes, 2 nukes can wipe off the entire North Korean regime, just aim it correctly at Pyongyang and it has to be aimed at Kim's mansion too. If Kim Jong il successfully escapes to Luxembourg, Luxembourg police should strip and execute him in front of millions of people.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

Thats the issue with North Korea. Even if you replace the executive leadership (Kim Jong Il, his family, and his generals) the populace is so brainwashed that a new government would be next to impossible to set up. The people would slip right back into the state of semi-worship that they're in right now. Winning a war in Korea would take half a century or longer, as it is only won when the people realize the truth and accept it.

I apologize for what I said earlier. Arrogance annoys me.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

May you all live in interesting times. The whole business is rather like someone ranting in a bell jar.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Let us all take a line from the spiritual and "Study war no more".  Wars must become a thing of the past, and the sooner the better.  It is good to have a well-trained defense force, but foreign adventures should be expunged, erased, and nullified with all the expedience possible.  War is the cancer of politics.

quote>

Its also unavoidable in certain cases. I dare even say that those foreign adventures are simply necessary from time to time. I believe its unacceptable to just idly stand by while one party murders the other.  

[tommy949 0]

 The only possible way to take it over is to brainwash them back but if that doesn't work. We can always kill them all

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: tommy949

 The only possible way to take it over is to brainwash them back but if that doesn't work. We can always kill them all quote>

That never works either.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Let us all take a line from the spiritual and "Study war no more".  Wars must become a thing of the past, and the sooner the better.  It is good to have a well-trained defense force, but foreign adventures should be expunged, erased, and nullified with all the expedience possible.  War is the cancer of politics.

quote>

Its also unavoidable in certain cases. I dare even say that those foreign adventures are simply necessary from time to time. I believe its unacceptable to just idly stand by while one party murders the other.  

quote>

Now doesn't that depend on whether it is your ox being gored?

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: tommy949

 The only possible way to take it over is to brainwash them back but if that doesn't work. We can always kill them all quote>

That never works either.

quote>

Agreed.   Genocide is also a crime against humanity.  Someone should wash his mind out with soap.

[Nucks8 1]

Originally posted by: tommy949

 The only possible way to take it over is to brainwash them back but if that doesn't work. We can always kill them all quote>

 WHAT!?

That's Genocide and it's considered a war crime!

Besides, why would you want to kill innocent civilians?

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Now doesn't that depend on whether it is your ox being gored?quote>

No, if they wanna murder each other in some far away country and we can, through direct intervention stop it, then it should be done. 

Besides, all nice and all being philosophical about war, but having a defense force isnt always enough. Take a look at Afghanistan for example. Im a firm supporter of that war, and I believe its absolutely necessary for the west to put things in order there. We can be all peaceful in our intent with other countries, but if another country harbors criminals that wage a secret war against us in a way a defense force cant defend us from, I believe it is our right and duty to take matters into our own hands and show them what waging war is all about. 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: -Lexus-

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

Now doesn't that depend on whether it is your ox being gored?quote>

No, if they wanna murder each other in some far away country and we can, through direct intervention stop it, then it should be done. 

Besides, all nice and all being philosophical about war, but having a defense force isnt always enough. Take a look at Afghanistan for example. Im a firm supporter of that war, and I believe its absolutely necessary for the west to put things in order there. We can be all peaceful in our intent with other countries, but if another country harbors criminals that wage a secret war against us in a way a defense force cant defend us from, I believe it is our right and duty to take matters into our own hands and show them what waging war is all about. 

 quote>

That's all very well, but wouldn't it have been better to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than take on Saddam Hussein who was really not much compared to Bin Laden, and who, as near as we can tell, had nothing to do with Al Q'aida?  The U.S. intelligence community is an oxymoron.  They are too busy playing the "I know and you don't and I won't tell you" game when they should be co-operating with each other.  Now you have yet another one (Homeland Security) who are busy bulging into everyone else's affairs with poor oversight, and just competing with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Secret Service, to say nothing of NCIS, the Army's CIS, and other parts of the Judge Advocate's services.

On top of this, you probably have some other black operations that are not named even in the federal budget.

We have just sicked a civilian watch-dog on the RCMP, and we still don't have a clear picture of what CSIS is up to, but at least we only have two agencies.  It is clear that you have too many outfits with overlapping mandates.  Theoretically, with us, the RCMP is internal and CSIS is external.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,939]

We didn't go into Afghanistan for Saddam. I too supported the Afghanistan war, but never did for the Iraq war. They are different conflicts (despite the anti-terror objective) and mixing them in the same bag seems a bit unfair.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: SimHoTToDDy

We didn't go into Afghanistan for Saddam. I too supported the Afghanistan war, but never did for the Iraq war. They are different conflicts (despite the anti-terror objective) and mixing them in the same bag seems a bit unfair.quote>

You are confused.  You wasted time in Iraq, chasing Saddam based on false intelligence estimates, when you should have been in Afghanistan chasing Bin Laden.  In fact, you wasted too much time after 9/11 playing intelligence games, when you should have been after him, foot, horse, and marines.  You chances of catching him went down exponentially every day you failed to act.  Dubya is probably the worst president you've had since Clinton.

[morriswalters 16]

Assume the worst about Korea and be pleasantly surprised if it turns out better than that.  If they use nukes, assuming they actually have them, it could really be ugly, depending on how they deliver them.  It would be a prudent assumption to assume that if they were losing they would use them.  Remember that China is the key.  The sent troops the last time it looked like the regime would fall.

Everybody has an opinion on Iraq and Afghanistan, however you feel about them though, it's easier to get in than to get out.  I didn't like Bush or his policies, but we, as a country elected him.  And thats what passes for democracy here.

[-Lexus- 2]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

That's all very well, but wouldn't it have been better to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan rather than take on Saddam Hussein who was really not much compared to Bin Laden, and who, as near as we can tell, had nothing to do with Al Q'aida?  The U.S. intelligence community is an oxymoron.  They are too busy playing the "I know and you don't and I won't tell you" game when they should be co-operating with each other.  Now you have yet another one (Homeland Security) who are busy bulging into everyone else's affairs with poor oversight, and just competing with the CIA, NSA, FBI, and the Secret Service, to say nothing of NCIS, the Army's CIS, and other parts of the Judge Advocate's services.

On top of this, you probably have some other black operations that are not named even in the federal budget.

We have just sicked a civilian watch-dog on the RCMP, and we still don't have a clear picture of what CSIS is up to, but at least we only have two agencies.  It is clear that you have too many outfits with overlapping mandates.  Theoretically, with us, the RCMP is internal and CSIS is external.

quote>

This is not about Iraq. I said there are situations where a foreign adventure, like you called it, are simply necessary for our own safety at home. Sometimes the best defense is simply a strong offense. Of course, there are plenty of situation where it isnt the case, and Iraq obviously wasnt such a case. 

Anyways, Bosnia was a foreign adventure and I personally think America and NATO did a damn good job there stopping the whole thing as much as possible. WW2 was a foreign adventure and Im personally still glad that the allies did what they did. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As far as the NK's are concerned, they need the pancake flipper treatment.

When I was about three years old, I used to throw jump up and down tantrums, just like them.  One day my Father got me in the butt with the pancake flipper just as I was coming down from a jump.  Needless to say, that ended the tantrums.  The trick here is to find the right pancake flipper.

[SimHoTToDDy 2,939]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

You are confused.  You wasted time in Iraq, chasing Saddam based on false intelligence estimates, when you should have been in Afghanistan chasing Bin Laden.  In fact, you wasted too much time after 9/11 playing intelligence games, when you should have been after him, foot, horse, and marines.  You chances of catching him went down exponentially every day you failed to act.  Dubya is probably the worst president you've had since Clinton.

quote>

I'm confused? Perhaps you misunderstand what I was getting at.  I only stated that the Afghanistan conflict and Iraq were distinct conflicts. I just said that I never supported the war in Iraq, it was a fruitless waste of time, money, and human life. I would agree that if we put that wasted effort into Afghanistan instead we might have fared better. I would also agree that Bush 2.0 was the worst president, in my lifetime at least.

But alas, we are drifting away from the topic. Only time will tell, but I don't think anyone, even China, would be willing to back NK if they keep acting up.

[warrior 169]

A Nonny Moose:

Sure it would be lovely if we could just stop fighting, but that requires all parties to stop. And some people don't believe that war is wrong. (ie fighting for their religion/people who believe anyone not of their religion should be killed). If we wanted to stop war we'd have to pretty much close up the borders of the world, with a couple of exceptions like most of Europe.

[SomeRandomAmerican 5]

China has always been hesitant to condemn North Korea for its various acts of idiocy, mainly due to the economic interest it has in the country. Still, when the bullets start flying (and they will eventually, whether its in two months or two years) I doubt China would be dumb enough to go to war to defend a country that is more of a hindrance than a help to the acceptance of China as a part of the modern world.