[QUOTE]North Korea denounced the US deployment of a naval strike group to the region Tuesday, warning it is ready for "war" as Washington tightens the screws on the nuclear-armed state.The strike group -- which includes the Nimitz-class aircraft supercarrier USS Carl Vinson -- cancelled a planned trip to Australia this weekend, heading to the Korean peninsula instead in a show of force.
"This goes to prove that the US reckless moves for invading the DPRK have reached a serious phase," a spokesman for the North's foreign ministry said according to state news agency KCNA.
"The DPRK is ready to react to any mode of war desired by the US," he said, using the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]South Korea's top nuclear envoy said Monday after talks with his Chinese counterpart that the two nations had agreed to "strong" new measures to punish Pyongyang if it carried out another nuclear test. The talks came shortly after Trump hosted Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a summit at which he pressed Beijing to do more to curb the North's nuclear ambitions.
"(We) are prepared to chart our own course if this is something China is just unable to coordinate with us," US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said after the summit.
While a US unilateral strike on North Korea from a shorter range might be more effective, it would likely endanger many civilians in the South and risk triggering a broader military conflict, experts warn.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.afp.com/en/news/15/north-korea-vows-response-reckless-us-navy-move[/url]
All bark no bite
[QUOTE=redBadger;52089080]All bark no bite[/QUOTE]
Forgetting the hundreds of artillery pieces pointed at South Korea, the hundreds of kilometers of tunnels running under the DMZ and the millions of troops North Korea can mobilize.
[QUOTE=Stopper;52089108]Forgetting the hundreds of artillery pieces pointed at South Korea, the hundreds of kilometers of tunnels running under the DMZ and the millions of troops North Korea can mobilize.[/QUOTE]
They'd never actually use them or they know they would loose, which is why he said all bark no bite.
[QUOTE=Stopper;52089108]Forgetting the hundreds of artillery pieces pointed at South Korea, the hundreds of kilometers of tunnels running under the DMZ and the millions of troops North Korea can mobilize.[/QUOTE]
That's their last and only resort. Won't ever happen unless a direct attack on NK soil occurs.
They know they'll be wiped off the face of the Earth if they ever launch mortars into SK.
Is it just me or has Spring pretty consistently been the "NK kicking up a fuss" season for years now?
Its almost as reliable as a Game of Thrones season
[QUOTE=Stopper;52089108]Forgetting the hundreds of artillery pieces pointed at South Korea, the hundreds of kilometers of tunnels running under the DMZ and the millions of troops North Korea can mobilize.[/QUOTE]
Can't we bomb the artillery pieces from high enough up that they won't know what hit them? Isn't that what we have stealth bombers for?
They can't level Seoul if their cannons have been reduced to scrap metal before they can even fire a shot.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52089140]They'd never actually use them or they know they would loose, which is why he said all bark no bite.[/QUOTE]
That is the issue, people underestimate their ability to do damage. People get so caught in in the whole win/lose factor but the reality is what if they don't give a shit about that? What if they said screw it, we lost already lets do some damage. They very well could.
so why risk that when NK has clearly been evolving eternally? It might be slow change, but it is still good change.
[QUOTE=jonu67;52089140]They'd never actually use them or they know they would loose, which is why he said all bark no bite.[/QUOTE]
yeah but countries go to war even if it's obvious they'll be ruined in them
[QUOTE=ironman17;52089333]Can't we bomb the artillery pieces from high enough up that they won't know what hit them? Isn't that what we have stealth bombers for?
They can't level Seoul if their cannons have been reduced to scrap metal before they can even fire a shot.[/QUOTE]
I'm wondering the same thing about they tunnels. Just rock the area enough to collapse any underground structures. I do not know how long the DMZ is, but it's a thought.
[QUOTE=ironman17;52089333]Can't we bomb the artillery pieces from high enough up that they won't know what hit them? Isn't that what we have stealth bombers for?
They can't level Seoul if their cannons have been reduced to scrap metal before they can even fire a shot.[/QUOTE]
(Desperately trying to avoid entering armchair general territory here :v:)What you say does sound plausible, but I doubt that even such a strike would destroy the whole of NK's artillery. I've read accounts (don't quote me on this one) that they have ~5000 guns of various sizes, and since the only logical enemy they have in their vicinity is South Korea, they're basically all trained to the south. Presumably most are concealed in some fashion (North Koreans were allegedly excellent at this sort of stuff as proven in the Korea war), so I doubt the efficacy needed to avoid the destruction of Seoul, would be easy to achieve.
Not easy, but still doable if they play their cards right. If the bombs all drop within the space of a second or two, with enough bombers in the right places, they could probably make out most of the ones we know about. There would still be some bombardment, but not enough to obliterate the South. Better to lose a hand or a leg than to be pulverized completely.
[QUOTE=ironman17;52089671]Not easy, but still doable if they play their cards right. If the bombs all drop within the space of a second or two, with enough bombers in the right places, they could probably make out most of the ones we know about. There would still be some bombardment, but not enough to obliterate the South. Better to lose a hand or a leg than to be pulverized completely.[/QUOTE]
Unmanned Aerial Systems can spot a buried package the size of a shoebox from nearly five miles up. So, a large, crew-serviced artillery piece is very difficult to conceal from the IR surveillance payloads tacked on to even small, basic model UAS's like the Shadow. The artillery piece itself glows, the crew glows, the ammunition glows, etc. Even with netting and camouflage in a forested environment, modern airborne reconnaissance and surveillance systems are difficult to hide from.
Assuming we acted first, we could likely neutralize a significant majority of North Korean artillery pieces before a shot was even fired. However, even if we could not locate and destroy most of the guns before they fired, once they [I]have[/I] it is all but impossible to conceal.
My real fear would not be conventional shelling, but chemical weapons. The Kim regime is not above using them. A surprise artillery barrage of explosive shells could cause significant damage to Seoul and likely kill hundreds, even thousands, before a counter-attack could fully neutralize their artillery pieces. Using those pieces to deliver chemical weapons, instead, would be much more horrifying a scenario.
I sincerely doubt we would be able to preemptively destroy 100% of every single gun at the same exact moment in time for them to never fire a single shell southward.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52089778]I sincerely doubt we would be able to preemptively destroy 100% of every single gun at the same exact moment in time for them to never fire a single shell southward.[/QUOTE]
Not every gun, obviously, but enough to significantly mitigate the damage that North Korea would be able of dishing out before the people of Seoul could get to shelters. It would still be pretty horrifying, of course, but "erasing Seoul in a sea of fire," as NK has repeatedly stated, simply isn't possible compared to their actual effective firepower. Short of chemical attacks or a nuclear detonation, casualties would be comparatively minimal to the rhetoric.
Could also target the command/control/communication for the artillery batteries first. Is a gun crew going to fire without orders? If your first missile hits a com tower, the rest could be picked off seconds later without them ever knowing war just started.
[editline]11th April 2017[/editline]
Not to mention an extremely well planned assault would be able to time the launches in a manner where the missiles hit most of the critical targets at the same time or within seconds of each other. They can even do it with guns these days.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery#MRSI[/url]
That's what I'm talking about.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52089778]I sincerely doubt we would be able to preemptively destroy 100% of every single gun at the same exact moment in time for them to never fire a single shell southward.[/QUOTE]Only ones that can hit Seoul from the border are the Koksan guns iirc (using rocket-assisted shells), rest are out of range. It's all the Scud knockoffs they've got that'd be the problem, especially since SK hasn't enough Patriots to block them (plus their accuracy isn't perfect). Doubt they'd have time to move arty past the border just to shell Seoul, but the DMZ area would get hammered in the opening phase of a war.
There was this rather nice thread on some military photography forum bout 8 years ago that looked at NK's arty stock and their ranges, satellite photos of emplacements, potential missile launch sites and stuff, but that disappeared years ago.
Lmao try it fatty
So if a preemptive strike were launched on NK and took out Kim and his top goons by surprise before they could send the order to attack, would the military surrender with only very minimal damage done to Seoul or are they going to fight to the death?
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52090437]So if a preemptive strike were launched on NK and took out Kim and his top goons by surprise before they could send the order to attack, would the military surrender with only very minimal damage done to Seoul or are they going to fight to the death?[/QUOTE]
I feel like there would be a bit of both. I think a lot of people would defect and surrender immediately, but there would also be a lot of actually brainwashed people that would fight to the death.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52090437]So if a preemptive strike were launched on NK and took out Kim and his top goons by surprise before they could send the order to attack, would the military surrender with only very minimal damage done to Seoul or are they going to fight to the death?[/QUOTE]
That's a really good question actually.
Would the populous brainwashed to worship a man like a god fight for him in "righteous" anger for vengeance?
Or, seeing their "deity" die like a man and their invincible military attacked and sustain loss, would they all become disillusioned and not fight?
[QUOTE=Dr.C;52090437]So if a preemptive strike were launched on NK and took out Kim and his top goons by surprise before they could send the order to attack, would the military surrender with only very minimal damage done to Seoul or are they going to fight to the death?[/QUOTE]
I'd assume they would fight to the death given the Kims god like status. And i'd assume that they have been told countless times to fight even if that was to happen, or something among those lines.
Or mass suicide, that would be another likely outcome when you think about it. I believe that was the case with Japan at the end of World War 2 given the god like status of the Emperor at the time and the general fear of America. That was mostly avoided when the Emperor told everyone to stand down.
I do wonder what would happen if one of their generals, like a Non-Kim decides to plant some rounds into the back of Kim and take over, would the North Korean people accept that or would they revolt?
Or heck, not even assassination. What would happen if the fat bastard swallows something the wrong way and he doesn't have any suitable replacement in the family, and a non Kim took over the country?
I think that the civilians outside of Pyongyang would be happy they're finally free from Kim's reign of terror while the top commanders in the military would hold out and order their men to fight. I think once the grunts see the weaponry of the SK and US forces, they'll surrender but the problem isn't the war, it's the insurgency that comes after(NK has some dedicated agents) and their first strike on Seoul because they can fire their artillery way before they know that Kim is dead and they're just buying time for their commanders to flee the country
It's worth noting that logistics is the biggest failure of the North Korean military. If we were to eradicate the majority of military compounds in a preemptive strike, their already strained logistics network would be shattered. Ammunition and food are in short supply, and getting them where they are needed, efficiently, would be the undoing of the army.
As an actual standing military force, the North Korean army would have essentially no choice but to surrender in very short order under those circumstances. Regardless of alliegance, you can't fight if you don't have bullets and food.
I'm sort of curious how long NK would even be able to stand. It's a small nation surrounded on two sides by ocean (which the US navy would dominate), is small enough for the US air force to lock down almost completely from bases in SK and the rest of Asia (not to mention carriers), and has a military that far outstretches any logistic capacity it has. Not to mention, every single military officer has been planning on how exactly they'd take the country for the past 60 years, and the tech disadvantage?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52090581]It's worth noting that logistics is the biggest failure of the North Korean military. If we were to eradicate the majority of military compounds in a preemptive strike, their already strained logistics network would be shattered. Ammunition and food are in short supply, and getting them where they are needed, efficiently, would be the undoing of the army.
As an actual standing military force, the North Korean army would have essentially no choice but to surrender in very short order under those circumstances. Regardless of alliegance, you can't fight if you don't have bullets and food.[/QUOTE]
The Japanese during WW2 sure gave it a shot.
[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;52090771]The Japanese during WW2 sure gave it a shot.[/QUOTE]
The Japanese of the 40s did not have as much access to information from outside world as modern day North Koreans, I'd imagine that the majority would defect / surrender
[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52090463]That's a really good question actually.
Would the populous brainwashed to worship a man like a god fight for him in "righteous" anger for vengeance?
Or, seeing their "deity" die like a man and their invincible military attacked and sustain loss, would they all become disillusioned and not fight?[/QUOTE]
What makes you think the wider population would find out he was killed when the NK state controls all forms of media in the country? A military junta would immediately be formed, followed by promotions of Kim until they see fit to reveal his death (and by see fit, I mean secure their power).
[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52090463]That's a really good question actually.
Would the populous brainwashed to worship a man like a god fight for him in "righteous" anger for vengeance?
Or, seeing their "deity" die like a man and their invincible military attacked and sustain loss, would they all become disillusioned and not fight?[/QUOTE]
I think more would lean towards fighting, even those not in the military.
Imagine if Trump got taken out by another country. We all hate Trump but at the same time, he's our asshole. We wouldn't like very much that our President was killed in a strike. There would be people willing to fight because of it. Not for Trump, but for the office
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
