Obama reminds North Korea of U.S. 'military might'
74 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;44653787]Take over south korea? I very much doubt that.
South Korea would stop North Korea in it's tracks.
I seriously doubt anything North Korea had could protect them from any sustained air attacks from South Korea.[/QUOTE]
Actually North Korea has a LOT of artillery and soviet anti-air equipment. While SK might be more modern and has big allies, NK has a VERY large army, and a lot of artillery. NK would put holes in the north of SK before the fighting even really began. Not to say they could win in the long haul, but they could do a massive shitton of damage in a short period of time.
[editline]27th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=iFail;44655648]Numbers don't mean much of anything when you're fighting a better trained and better equipped force. Or to quote Col. Beckwith, "I'd rather go down the river with seven studs than with a hundred shitheads."[/QUOTE]
Afghanistan. All it takes is a few guys with soviet era equipment and some hidey holes to give a much more advanced fighting force trouble. All this new tech is great, but a few guys with some AKs/RPKs/RPGs can do some serious damage. Not to mention that once you start fighting in cities it doesn't matter how advanced your technology is if the other guy is close enough to beat you to death with a broomstick.
[editline]27th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44655491]People really overestimate North Korea's ability to maintain a fight, they could not sustain an advance for long, they would be destroyed in less than a day.[/QUOTE]
If an invasion started right now NK would have a major man advantage, and the element of surprise. Fighting could go on for months. NK has major artillery batteries stationed at SK's northern border, and could do serious infrastructural damage.
Invading/fighting Best Korea would not be like Iraq. The NK soldiers would actually fight back, and most likely with zeal. On the battlefield you can have all the technology, all the shit you want, but a squad of good rifleman is still going to give you trouble, and they're still going to kill people.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;44655652]
Afghanistan. All it takes is a few guys with soviet era equipment and some hidey holes to give a much more advanced fighting force trouble. All this new tech is great, but a few guys with some AKs/RPKs/RPGs can do some serious damage. Not to mention that once you start fighting in cities it doesn't matter how advanced your technology is if the other guy is close enough to beat you to death with a broomstick.[/QUOTE]
Not the same. The Taliban are in their own backyard, fighting in mountains they've lived on for decades. If NK ever did a no shit attack on South Korea, the situation will be completely reversed.
Also, they may "give a much more advanced fighting force trouble," but that's a thought coming from the perspective that all war casualties are unacceptable. Using the same example of Afghanistan, anywhere between 10,000 to 12,000 Taliban were killed in 2013, while ISAF forces suffered a measly 160 killed. Is the war going badly for our national interests as Americans? Probably. Are we crushing the enemy tactically? Most definitely.
In any full scale war, those rates we see in Afghanistan would be a miracle, and yet they aren't too far off for a war between US/NK/SK.
Edit:
Also, I'd like to dispute your analysis of the NK armed forces and civilian populace as being fanatics willing to die for their glorious leader. Famine in North Korea has become significantly worse. The economy is in shambles, and 2009's failed currency reform lost the government a lot of credibility. Are some of the people there brainwashed into fighting for their leadership? Probably. Is it as extensive or as successful as we thought it was a decade ago? Probably not.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;44653967]Perhaps the most unfortunate thing about South Korea is the location of Seoul. It's so close to the border that North Korea can strike it with artillery, and it's pretty much a given fact the entire city will be demolished within a couple hours from the outbreak of a war.
The war would probably initiate as a Northern invasion of the south. They'd start off with such a massive advantage against the South that I don't know how the ROK could make an effective comeback without support from the United States and Japan.[/QUOTE]
North Korean artillery can not reach Seoul, it's a myth that I have no idea why is still around.
Also have no idea how NK can have any sort of advantage. South Korea has one of the most militarized borders in the world, it's not like they're going to be unprepared.
[QUOTE=iFail;44655709]Not the same. The Taliban are in their own backyard, fighting in mountains they've lived on for decades. If NK ever did a no shit attack on South Korea, the situation will be completely reversed.
Also, they may "give a much more advanced fighting force trouble," but that's a thought coming from the perspective that all war casualties are unacceptable. Using the same example of Afghanistan, anywhere between 10,000 to 12,000 Taliban were killed in 2013, while ISAF forces suffered a measly 160 killed. Is the war going badly for our national interests as Americans? Probably. Are we crushing the enemy tactically? Most definitely.
In any full scale war, those rates we see in Afghanistan would be a miracle, and yet they aren't too far off for a war between US/NK/SK.
Edit:
Also, I'd like to dispute your analysis of the NK armed forces and civilian populace as being fanatics willing to die for their glorious leader. Famine in North Korea has become significantly worse. The economy is in shambles, and 2009's failed currency reform lost the government a lot of credibility. Are some of the people there brainwashed into fighting for their leadership? Probably. Is it as extensive or as successful as we thought it was a decade ago? Probably not.[/QUOTE]
You're failing to take into account the fact that the US military has not fought a conventional war in 20 years, and ever since 9/11 and the declaration of the war on terror, began turning its might into lighter, unconventional forces designed specifically to combat insurgent terrorist groups and anything of the sort - making them ill-equipped and untrained to fight against conventional military forces.
Furthermore, not only is judging conflicts based on kill-death ratios simply stupid, it's also not even a good comparison. Most terrorists (especially Taliban) lack any sort of proper organization or coordination, resulting in a lot of hit-and-run tactics being used, coupled with no weapon training that's worth mentioning, no logistics of any kind, no nothing. Of course a well-funded, specially trained military will be able to efficiently fight the people they are specifically trained to fight. It's not exactly impressive.
The question isn't about "who has more numbers" or "who has more expensive gadgets", NK losing this war is a given - it's a question of, at what cost? And I'm not only talking about American casualties.
[QUOTE=Melnek;44655853]You're failing to take into account the fact that the US military has not fought a conventional war in 20 years, and ever since 9/11 and the declaration of the war on terror, began turning its might into lighter, unconventional forces designed specifically to combat insurgent terrorist groups and anything of the sort - making them ill-equipped and untrained to fight against conventional military forces.
[B]Not really. The emphasis on armor and cav has decreased somewhat, but it's not like tank drivers stopped training just because they weren't fighting, and good infantry training, which is what we have been doing, is basically universally important anyways. Little of the equipment that's been purchased to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq will need to be tossed out either; stuff like improved optics, body armor, and load bearing gear is universally useful. Perhaps some things like biometric readers or anti-ied jammers will get stripped out, but it's not the end of the world to lose the kit that nobody ever really used either. If there's one thing that these two wars have achieved, it's making the US military [I]flexible[/I], and that counts for a hell of a lot.
Furthermore, the military still runs exercises and train with ROK military, which makes me doubt that they are "untrained" to fight, especially given that NK can barely afford to equip a conventional military, and will probably end up fielding what amounts to a largely irregular force.[/B]
Furthermore, not only is judging conflicts based on kill-death ratios simply stupid, it's also not even a good comparison. Most terrorists (especially Taliban) lack any sort of proper organization or coordination, resulting in a lot of hit-and-run tactics being used, coupled with no weapon training that's worth mentioning, no logistics of any kind, no nothing. Of course a well-funded, specially trained military will be able to efficiently fight the people they are specifically trained to fight. It's not exactly impressive.
[B]Logistics for the Taliban certainly do exist, just not in conventional military terms, as they are funneled gear and weapons by other non-state actors. Not exactly impressive to kill 10,000 of the enemy for only a few hundred of your own? Maybe. But this goes back to the first point; I doubt that the training used to fight the Taliban is really super different from what will be used against NK military, given their general lack of military readiness. Remember the beginning stages of the Iraq War; Coalition forces steamrolled Iraq conventional military with ease. While NK is probably a bit better, it's certainly not by much.[/B]
The question isn't about "who has more numbers" or "who has more expensive gadgets", NK losing this war is a given - it's a question of, at what cost? And I'm not only talking about American casualties.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44655491]People really overestimate North Korea's ability to maintain a fight, they could not sustain an advance for long, they would be destroyed in less than a day.[/QUOTE]
Oh believe me, I have it worst of anyone here in terms of that. If anyone recalls, I have a friend that believes that NK could defeat the entire world in a war. And guess what this news did to him? I'd rather be stuck in a North Korean POW camp than talk to his crazy ass right now.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44654413]North Korea would lose a war with Medieval France.[/QUOTE]
How about Industrial Revolution France? Battle of the tiny dictators.
[editline]27th April 2014[/editline]
Oh wait, Il was the short one.
[editline]27th April 2014[/editline]
Come to think of it, Napoleon was probably around average for that time as well.
North Korea would probably shock their way to Seoul and then realize they don't have anymore steam left. Then a joint North Korean-American effort would swiftly repel the armed forces of North Korea. Kim and other Korean elite go into hiding. Remnants of North Korean army resist, but can't do much because they don't have enough rations. Like literally, they don't have have enough to eat; not enough calories to sustain an adult male soldier.
Only card North Korea has up it's sleeve is WMDs. I don't think they have any 'warheads' but they could just blow a stationary nuke and let the radiation blow all over the place. Or they might have something of the biological/chemical nature.
A few Brigades of the Army's 2nd Infantry Div. as well as many CAV units would face the brunt of initial fighting as well as their South-Korean counterparts.
I have no doubt in my mind that despite years of training to combat insurgent forces, conventional fighting doctrine, as it is still taught in the U.S. Army school of Infantry would be executed in the usual deadly fashion.
A conventional war with Russia and or China might be a totally different story depending on which country's turf it is fought on, but that's a different thread entirely..
[QUOTE=cqbcat;44656023]North Korea would probably shock their way to Seoul and then realize they don't have anymore steam left.[/QUOTE]
Where are you getting this idea?
Why does anyone think NK will gain [I]any[/I] ground? The South Korean military is entirely based around the scenario of defending the DMZ, they have all of their best tech aimed at the DMZ and every major North Korean missile battery in a hundred miles, it's not like the North Koreans will somehow blitz.
[QUOTE=Melnek;44655853]You're failing to take into account the fact that the US military has not fought a conventional war in 20 years, and ever since 9/11 and the declaration of the war on terror, began turning its might into lighter, unconventional forces designed specifically to combat insurgent terrorist groups and anything of the sort - making them ill-equipped and untrained to fight against conventional military forces.
Furthermore, not only is judging conflicts based on kill-death ratios simply stupid, it's also not even a good comparison. Most terrorists (especially Taliban) lack any sort of proper organization or coordination, resulting in a lot of hit-and-run tactics being used, coupled with no weapon training that's worth mentioning, no logistics of any kind, no nothing. Of course a well-funded, specially trained military will be able to efficiently fight the people they are specifically trained to fight. It's not exactly impressive.
The question isn't about "who has more numbers" or "who has more expensive gadgets", NK losing this war is a given - it's a question of, at what cost? And I'm not only talking about American casualties.[/QUOTE]
And the North Korean Army has never engaged in a war in the past 60 years.
The US Military still has plenty of advantages to be had against the N. Korean Army.
Conventional warfare hasn't changed since Desert Storm and the US can still be able to counter the N. Koreans just like they did to the Iraqi Army.
I don't understand why you guys don't take into account that NK has a couple of nukes to meet enemy armies. I mean, sure they have a bad delivery system, but all they need to cause a horrible damage to invading forces is to bury a couple of nukes on their way and remotely detonate them.
It's a typical "atomic mine" thing that was invented during the cold war to stop soviet tanks from pushing deep into Europe in case of war.
[QUOTE=antianan;44658431]I don't understand why you guys don't take into account that NK has a couple of nukes to meet enemy armies. I mean, sure they have a bad delivery system, but all they need to cause a horrible damage to invading forces is to bury a couple of nukes on their way and remotely detonate them.
It's a typical "atomic mine" thing that was invented during the cold war to stop soviet tanks from pushing deep into Europe in case of war.[/QUOTE]
Because in this day and age, a country (not terrorist organization) using a nuclear weapon against another country is game over for whoever launched the nuclear attack.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44658475]Because in this day and age, a country (not terrorist organization) using a nuclear weapon against another country is game over for whoever launched the nuclear attack.[/QUOTE]
If it will escalate, it would be a game over for them in any possible way. People tend to make reckless decisions in desperate conditions, you know.
[QUOTE=antianan;44658506]If it will escalate, it would be a game over for them in any possible way. People tend to make reckless decisions in desperate conditions, you know.[/QUOTE]
And making that reckless decision is committing political, economic and military suicide. It won't matter if NK launches a nuclear weapon, they would have their regime toppled and their military installations bombed into the dirt.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44658526]And making that reckless decision is committing political, economic and military suicide. It won't matter if NK launches a nuclear weapon, they would have their regime toppled and their military installations bombed into the dirt.[/QUOTE]
That's my point, actually. If you one hundred percent sure that your country and regime is going to be destroyed no matter what actions you will take, and you know that it can't get any worse for you, so why not try to do a last hit that your enemy will never forget?
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;44655584]Sure enough, But North Korea has numbers and a lot of them. North Korea would just throw bodies at the South Korean armed forces, regardless of the causality rate. Their Army and civilian population would be willing to throw away their lives and die for the 'great honorable leader'. Technology is a major help but it can't defend against a absolute brute force attack forever.[/QUOTE]
In 1912, the German Kaiser asked what the Swiss militia of a quarter of a million men would do if he invaded with half a million. They replied "shoot twice and go home."
Numbers don't exactly mean playing Cortex Command with the enemy'll work.
[QUOTE=LoganIsAwesome;44653116][url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/26/us-korea-north-usa-idUSBREA3P02U20140426[/url][/QUOTE]
Sooner or later, that pile of barely functioning atomic weaponry that Lil' Kim is sitting on is going to turn Pyongyang into a problem that solves itself.
[QUOTE=antianan;44658589]That's my point, actually. If you one hundred percent sure that your country and regime is going to be destroyed no matter what actions you will take, and you know that it can't get any worse for you, so why not try to do a last hit that your enemy will never forget?[/QUOTE]
Because they would lose all of their power with that act. Do you really believe NK wants to lose what it has? Not saying that like I think you're crazy, but I believe that Kim Jong Un is smart enough to not lose everything his father built. He's not reckless, just cocky and wants to be a major player in world politics. Nuking someone would destroy all of that and is not something a country who wants more power and respect would do, it's something a terrorist organization would do which isn't NK's goal.
I doubt their nuclear armaments could do much damage anyways. I'm fairly sure there's countermeasures that would stop or destroy the missile in mid-flight before it could detonate, and I doubt the missile itself will have a large yield. Most likely a Hiroshima sized bomb.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44659226]Because they would lose all of their power with that act. Do you really believe NK wants to lose what it has? Not saying that like I think you're crazy, but I believe that Kim Jong Un is smart enough to not lose everything his father built. He's not reckless, just cocky and wants to be a major player in world politics. Nuking someone would destroy all of that and is not something a country who wants more power and respect would do, it's something a terrorist organization would do which isn't NK's goal.[/QUOTE]
Of course he doesn't want to lose everything, but the point is that[I] in case of war [/I]he will lose everything either way if allied forces would oppose him, and they sure will. It's like if Hitler succeeded in creating an atomic bomb in the end of ww2, and could use it to stop the allies (the analogy is not about leaders, it's about the whole situation, if anything).
[QUOTE=Marksman117;44659624]I doubt their nuclear armaments could do much damage anyways. I'm fairly sure there's countermeasures that would stop or destroy the missile in mid-flight before it could detonate, and I doubt the missile itself will have a large yield. Most likely a Hiroshima sized bomb.[/QUOTE]
Sure if they will launch it in a missle, it would be shot down (still they don't even have a missle that can carry they bomb though). I'm speculating around the fact that they could make a land atomic mine and just blow it up in the right time.
[QUOTE=antianan;44661005]Of course he doesn't want to lose everything, but the point is that[I] in case of war [/I]he will lose everything either way if allied forces would oppose him, and they sure will. It's like if Hitler succeeded in creating an atomic bomb in the end of ww2, and could use it to stop the allies (the analogy is not about leaders, it's about the whole situation, if anything).[/QUOTE]
There won't be a war unless NK does something stupid like attack with a nuclear weapon. If U.S. troops set foot in NK, China would absolutely come to their aid unless NK had done something idiotic to deserve being invaded.
The whole "preparing for war" thing is just dick waving by NK because China has their back, and to do something stupid and lose that protection is not an option. They are in the perfect position to threaten and talk a big game to gain some attention/recognition but if push came to shove, they have nothing without China's support. And to nuke another country would force China to withdraw their support and open NK up for U.S. invasion, i.e. that will never happen.
[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;44653250]dick waving competition[/QUOTE]
Small dick North Korea has there.
You guys are seriously overestimating the USA's ability to defend seoul against artillery. Within an hour of a war breaking out, Seoul would be flattened. We have CIWS and other things, but they can't stop everything. In Israel they're marginally efficient at shooting down incoming strikes. But that's some guy with a mortar. That's nothing in comparison to dozens of 105's.
Everyone knows the US could crush NK. Pretty much the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because if war broke out, millions would be dead within an hour in Seoul.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44661948]You guys are seriously overestimating the USA's ability to defend seoul against artillery. Within an hour of a war breaking out, Seoul would be flattened. We have CIWS and other things, but they can't stop everything. In Israel they're marginally efficient at shooting down incoming strikes. But that's some guy with a mortar. That's nothing in comparison to dozens of 105's.
Everyone knows the US could crush NK. Pretty much the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because if war broke out, millions would be dead within an hour in Seoul.[/QUOTE]
U.S. ability to react to artillery is irrelevant due to SOUTH Korea's ability to react to and destroy enemy positions.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44661948]You guys are seriously overestimating the USA's ability to defend seoul against artillery. Within an hour of a war breaking out, Seoul would be flattened. We have CIWS and other things, but they can't stop everything. In Israel they're marginally efficient at shooting down incoming strikes. But that's some guy with a mortar. That's nothing in comparison to dozens of 105's.
Everyone knows the US could crush NK. Pretty much the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because if war broke out, millions would be dead within an hour in Seoul.[/QUOTE]
I think you forget that within an hour of a war breaking out South Korea and the US would have counter artillery zeroed in on North Korean artillery. South Korean people would be in shelters as well. The minute North Korea fired and hit a South Korean city I imagine South Korea wouldn't hold back and would open fire immediately on artillery they likely already know the location of.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;44661948]You guys are seriously overestimating the USA's ability to defend seoul against artillery. Within an hour of a war breaking out, Seoul would be flattened. We have CIWS and other things, but they can't stop everything. In Israel they're marginally efficient at shooting down incoming strikes. But that's some guy with a mortar. That's nothing in comparison to dozens of 105's.
Everyone knows the US could crush NK. Pretty much the only reason it hasn't happened yet is because if war broke out, millions would be dead within an hour in Seoul.[/QUOTE]
This is why I hope that we start the war. It would allow us to knock out every bit of the North Korean artillery, and then flatten their air force capabilities, therefore preventing any meaningful damage to the citizenry of South Korea.
As soon as we manage to destroy all of the artillery positions, we move inland, and seize control of some of the labor camps, as well as the re-education camps. Take a few dramatic pictures, release them to the world. Anyone who goes, "B-BUT AMERICAN AGGRESSION" would be laughed out of existence, and eventually we'll cease control of North Korea, unifying the two Korea's under democracy.
[QUOTE=outlawpickle;44661411]There won't be a war unless NK does something stupid like attack with a nuclear weapon. If U.S. troops set foot in NK, China would absolutely come to their aid unless NK had done something idiotic to deserve being invaded.
The whole "preparing for war" thing is just dick waving by NK because China has their back, and to do something stupid and lose that protection is not an option. They are in the perfect position to threaten and talk a big game to gain some attention/recognition but if push came to shove, they have nothing without China's support. And to nuke another country would force China to withdraw their support and open NK up for U.S. invasion, i.e. that will never happen.[/QUOTE]
Well, it was a discussion about hypothetical "who's gonna win and what damage can be done to both sides" thing, and I just added my little bit, nothing more. It's not about what will or won't happen, it's just a small workout for the mind, you know. Don't take it so wide.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;44662107]This is why I hope that we start the war. It would allow us to knock out every bit of the North Korean artillery, and then flatten their air force capabilities, therefore preventing any meaningful damage to the citizenry of South Korea.
As soon as we manage to destroy all of the artillery positions, we move inland, and seize control of some of the labor camps, as well as the re-education camps. Take a few dramatic pictures, release them to the world. Anyone who goes, "B-BUT AMERICAN AGGRESSION" would be laughed out of existence, and eventually we'll cease control of North Korea, unifying the two Korea's under democracy.[/QUOTE]
You've taken everything into account besides the North Korean citizens, which are apparently entirely expandable. Good job.
[QUOTE=Melnek;44662187]You've taken everything into account besides the North Korean citizens, which are apparently entirely expandable. Good job.[/QUOTE]
Knocking out military installations =/= Attacking North Korean civilians
Propagandizing reeducation and labor camps =/= Attacking North Korean civilians
Most North Korean citizens outside of the elite or the die-hard insurgents are going to most likely welcome the invasion force.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.