S. Korea Announces Another Drill... This time with Fighter Jets! - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26872919]Seoul would be completely levelled. Any other cities within range of NK's (fully-functional short- and medium-range) ballistic missiles would also suffer heavily i.e. all of them. [/QUOTE] That's assuming SK does nothing to fight back, which it of course will (another reason why these drills are important.) SK's navy is very capable of shooting down missiles launched from NK, and NK's artillery divisions would be easily destroyed, given SK/US's airpower and the fact that NK's artillery divisions are effectively stationary.

[QUOTE=Kim_Jong_il;26872958][img_thumb]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_0O2CPGcOPk0/Sc309Rk6Z3I/AAAAAAAADzk/vno9k5g2k1Q/s400/North+Korean+Missile.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] oh great, wheres this one going? poland?

[QUOTE=Moose;26872991]oh great, wheres this one going? poland?[/QUOTE] Mars

[QUOTE=Vinze;26872974]Yeah, my point exactly... Just not as narrowed-down...[/QUOTE] I'm just saying this is sort of an overextension of that "flexing"

[QUOTE=thisispain;26872950]uh no it isn't[/QUOTE] [quote]do you understand this important distinction? i'm not against a unified korea by any means, i'm against a bloody conflict that will only be a reminder of the failure in the korean war[/quote] So you support a unified Korea, and you're against a bloody, failed war. So if the war unifies Korea and is successful, we will have gained something by war. (which, again, I addressed in my earlier post.) That's why it's a blanket statement.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873021]So you support a unified Korea, and you're against a bloody, failed war. So if the war unifies Korea and is successful, we will have gained something by war. That's why it's a blanket statement.[/QUOTE] Nah, he just doesn't understand that sacrifice is a part of life that's necessary in order to solve problems and get what we want.

[QUOTE=Moose;26873045]Nah, he just doesn't understand that sacrifice is a part of life that's necessary in order to solve problems and get what we want.[/QUOTE] You have to weigh the cost of the sacrifice is his point.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873009]I'm just saying this is sort of an overextension of that "flexing"[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I'm just so afraid of becoming a snob, so I try to use a commoner's talk as much as possible, sorry for being unclear.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873064]You have to weigh the cost of the sacrifice is his point.[/QUOTE] and that's why this discussion will never end [QUOTE=Vinze;26873067]Fair enough, I'm just so afraid of becoming a snob, so I try to use a commoner's talk as much as possible, sorry for being unclear.[/QUOTE] Commoner's talk? you some kind of noble or something?

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873021]So you support a unified Korea, and you're against a bloody, failed war. So if the war unifies Korea and is successful, we will have gained something by war. That's why it's a blanket statement.[/QUOTE] i didn't say i support it either and you are completely downplaying the if [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Moose;26873045]Nah, he just doesn't understand that sacrifice is a part of life that's necessary in order to solve problems and get what we want.[/QUOTE] how very idealistic you all are

[QUOTE=thisispain;26873074]i didn't say i support it either and you are completely downplaying the if[/QUOTE] this thread has been entirely semantics

Nothing will happen.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26872986]That's assuming SK does nothing to fight back, which it of course will (another reason why these drills are important.) SK's navy is very capable of shooting down missiles launched from NK, and NK's artillery divisions would be easily destroyed, given SK/US's airpower and the fact that NK's artillery divisions are effectively stationary.[/QUOTE] Deadman's switch on aircraft. [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Vinze;26873067]Fair enough, I'm just so afraid of becoming a snob, so I try to use a commoner's talk as much as possible, sorry for being unclear.[/QUOTE] Ouch.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873109]Deadman's switch on aircraft.[/QUOTE] which aircraft? NK's fleet of unfueled biplanes?

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873098]this thread has been entirely semantics[/QUOTE] not at all i have no opinion on the unification of korea and the if to me is the biggest factor when i look at "if" my pessimism only leads me to the most disastrous conclusions

[QUOTE=thisispain;26873122]not at all i have no opinion on the unification of korea and the if to me is the biggest factor when i look at "if" my pessimism only leads me to the most disastrous conclusions[/QUOTE] ...cool?

Your parents sacrificed their time to raise you, and your parent's parents most likely sacrificed their lives to ensure you didn't live under a totalitarian flag. Which is exactly what the south koreans would be doing, giving up some to get something even greater, and easing the world's troubles by establishing peace their own way because words are obviously not working here.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873119]which aircraft? NK's fleet of unfueled biplanes?[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Air_Force[/url] You only need a handful for devastating affects.

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873127]...cool?[/QUOTE] if you don't want to continue discussing this then don't it's entirely up to you [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Moose;26873133]Which is exactly what the south koreans would be doing, giving up some to get something even greater, and easing the world's troubles by establishing peace their own way because words are obviously not working here.[/QUOTE] but this is fantasy, you have no idea this will result in something great, it's complete speculation what is not complete speculation is the fact that war between these two states will result in a large amount of lost lives and that's where i begin to have an issue with it

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873139][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Air_Force[/url] You only need a handful for devastating affects.[/QUOTE] So you're suggesting that North Korea will have bombers over South Korea? Despite the massive presence and almost farcical technological superiority of SK/US airpower? And that they will be carrying nuclear weapons, despite the fact that NK has not demonstrated the ability to make practical nuclear bombs?

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873160]So you're suggesting that North Korea will have bombers over South Korea? Despite the massive presence and almost farcical technological superiority of SK/US airpower?[/QUOTE] same could be said of WW2, yet the complete opposite happened in the battle for britain

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26873160]So you're suggesting that North Korea will have bombers over South Korea? Despite the massive presence and almost farcical technological superiority of SK/US airpower?[/QUOTE] It would affectly be a kamikaze, you send your planes strapped with nuclear warheads and if/when they get hit it falls to the ground and the nuke goes off because of the deadman's switch.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873139][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Air_Force[/url] You only need a handful for devastating affects.[/QUOTE] [img]http://www6.atwiki.jp/namacha/m/plugin/ref/?guid=on&serial=210[/img] Because the KF-16 can't handle soviet shit.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873186]It would affectly be a kamikaze, you send your planes strapped with nuclear warheads and if/when they get hit it falls to the ground and the nuke goes off because of the deadman's switch.[/QUOTE] that's stretching it a little bit

[QUOTE=Sector 7;26872986]That's assuming SK does nothing to fight back, which it of course will (another reason why these drills are important.) SK's navy is very capable of shooting down missiles launched from NK, and NK's artillery divisions would be easily destroyed, given SK/US's airpower and the fact that NK's artillery divisions are effectively stationary.[/QUOTE]Those guns are in fortified mountain positions. SK had trouble hitting back at Yongpyeong, judging by aerial photography of the NK gun emplacements, and those NK emplacements were out in the open. In any case, I was referring to their ballistic missile arsenal exclusively; only their Koksan guns have the kind of range needed to hit Seoul, of which they have but a few. As for their missiles? Let's take their most numerous one into account (keeping in mind they've got other kinds as well, quite a lot of them), Hwasong-6. 700km range, therefore can hit anything on the peninsula. They have 700 of these. They're essentially Scud clones, so this gives us a good idea of the effectiveness of SK ABM systems. I don't know why you mentioned their navy in this instance; they don't have anti-ballistic missiles. They've got the systems for them, AEGIS and all, just not the right missiles. Instead, let's take into account their MIM-104 Patriot systems, of which they have 48 units, and 192 missiles for. Already you can see an immediate disparity in defence capabilities against the amounts NK has. These systems are of the PAC-2/GEM-T variant, an update for handing ABMs, so they stand a good chance of taking down the missiles they can handle numerically. These are one step above those used in the Gulf War, which had a 50% success rate against improved Scuds (specifically, when used by Israel to defend their cities), success rate being defined as stopping the missile hitting it's target. Accuracy was in the 33% range. With the GEM-T upgrade, we can reasonably expect maybe 50-70% accuracy. That particular variant has not been tested in combat, however; the systems used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq were of the PAC3/GEM+ variant. Effectiveness analysis is, quite frankly, ancillary to the point. South Korea does not have enough of them to take down even 1/7th of their missile arsenal. Then there's North Korea's ground forces to add to the bodycount. I've talked about their tank forces in other threads regarding their absolute outdatedness, but their troops outnumber South Korea's almost 2-1, not taking into account reserves. A bullet is a bullet, after all; and twice the number of tanks, even outdated ones, will still cause damage.

[QUOTE=thisispain;26873209]that's stretching it a little bit[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Weapons_Emergency_Separation_System[/url] All you'd need is a barometer (which all planes should have anyway) and a chip with a bit of programming. [editline]22nd December 2010[/editline] If NK was clever they could quickly launch and be over seoul in less time than it would take SK just to scramble enough aircraft to take down the bombers.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26873109]Ouch.[/QUOTE] Oh... I insulted you there, didn't I? Ehhh... I extend my apology to cover that too :ohdear:.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;26872653]China is completely xenophobic. Did you not hear how they are banning western words from appearing on their news? They have no intention of changing. They use the US for an economy but they don't LIKE the US, which is my point. Like how sometimes you don't like your boss but you put it up with it cause the job pays.[/QUOTE] 1. Ordinary Chinese (ages 18-30) all use proxies to get news from other places, information can't be blocked, when the young people can go around it. And it is annoying them, so just wait some years and they'll stop blocking. You got to remember, like the soivet union, that the old guard still lives. The "revolution" only happened 61 years ago, so they are probably going to change the party's "inventory" in 20-30 years. 2: It's a good example, although where you might find a new job if you quit because of the boss, there is no other job. Without the USA, China will go into a deep spiral of economic problems, especially if they don't get their trillions of dollars out of the lending the US has done. It would be incredibly stupid to fight the US when you've lend them that much money, especially because they have them by the balls economically.

[img]http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/yir/timeline/images/16.north.korea.gi.afp.jpg[/img] OOO. DEY LAUNCHIN JETZ!!

[QUOTE=thisispain;26872167]i don't know how you can sarcastically say "sounds perfectly reasonable to me" when you're suggesting human lives are unimportant compared to looking like a coward[/QUOTE] Looking like a coward isn't exactly going to stop NK from attacking and killing people either as we already saw. My guess is both drills are really just to serve as deterrents, to show NK that next time SK wont just sit in their asses, if you're right and like you've said NK gains nothing from a war, then this deterrent will work.