Best Korea fires mortars at Worst Korea - Developing Story - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Teh Phoenix;26257379]DEFCON 4 :smith:[/QUOTE] Oh no! We're at "slightly alert"

[QUOTE=Nyaos;26257720]Who the hell here honestly supports NK? I don't know what you're talking about[/QUOTE] What are you mean? Glorious north Korea support by all us! Hail mighty leader!

[QUOTE=Teh Phoenix;26257379]DEFCON 4 :smith:[/QUOTE] Source?

We've been at Defcon 4 for AWHILE now

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26258048]We've been at Defcon 4 for AWHILE now[/QUOTE] Since when? I thought we were at five :o

[url]http://www.worldnewsexpress.net/777/world-war-3-its-about-to-begin/[/url] Its fucking on now chaps.png

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26258048]We've been at Defcon 4 for AWHILE now[/QUOTE] Someone said S. Korea was at Defcon 1. But no source to back it.

[QUOTE=counterpo0;26258124]Someone said S. Korea was at Defcon 1. But no source to back it.[/QUOTE] South Korea doesn't use the DEFCON system as far as I know.

Apparently all troops in bases have had all leaves cancelled and are to remain on base and not drink alcohol.

Kim's giving me and my coworkers in Misawa problems.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;26258149]Apparently all troops in bases have had all leaves cancelled and are to remain on base and not drink alcohol.[/QUOTE] I thought you weren't suppose to drink alcohol on bases anyways

[QUOTE=W0w00t;26249792]however if this does escalate please do eat me[/QUOTE] okay I will feed your 1 inch penis to my dog

[QUOTE=huntskikbut;26258076]Since when? I thought we were at five :o[/QUOTE] We're in a war and we are suspicious of terrorists i guess

[QUOTE=The man of "Wat";26258103][url]http://www.worldnewsexpress.net/777/world-war-3-its-about-to-begin/[/url] Its fucking on now chaps.png[/QUOTE] You are also literally retarded

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26257417] Here are some quotes from USAF Colonel Steven R. Prebeck from a [URL="http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/9305prebeck.pdf"]dissertation[/URL] he wrote back in the 1990s. Although he uses nuclear facilities as the primary target, you could replace that with North Korea's fielded ground forces: While North Korea's AA systems are outdated, there's a shitload of them and they can launch plenty of stuff into the air to pose a danger to Allied air forces. USAF doctrine would place any SAMs and AAA as priority targets. As Colonel Prebeck identifies, eliminating them would involve hundreds of sorties, which would take up resouces and time. .[/QUOTE] More on this, very interesting read: [URL]http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?128528-Bluffer-s-guide-Fortress-North-Korea[/URL] Against an air campaign though, I dont see AAA as being an effective counter, even radar guided. 99% of our strategic (and much of our tactical) aircraft operate at higher altitude than AAA is effective at. Though the AAA would be a massive threat to any helicopters or paratroopers, so they would have to be cleared out at some point, or land deployments would be needed. Clearing them out would take forever, and moving infantry strictly by land would take forever AND possibly result in more casualties than needed. In other words, NK would get its ass handed to it, but it would take a while and would probably require more than we are willing to commit. Also, fun fact: [quote]there are so many AAA positions around Pyongyang that if they were all to fire at once they’d throw up over 63,000t of high explosive shells in the first minute[/quote]

[QUOTE=JohnRockefeller;26258246]You are also literally retarded[/QUOTE] u seem mad about something.

[quote=Yonhap]North Korea's bombardment on a populated South Korean island was probably a politically calculated provocation in part to help secure the ongoing succession of the North's leader-in-waiting, the youngest son of leader Kim Jong-il, South Korea's defense chief said Wednesday. "Our judgment is that North Korea carried out the attack to consolidate the succession process in the country by showing off the leadership of Kim Jong-un," Defense Minister Kim Tae-young told lawmakers, referring to the communist state's heir apparent. [/quote]

[QUOTE=The man of "Wat";26258103][url]http://www.worldnewsexpress.net/777/world-war-3-its-about-to-begin/[/url] Its fucking on now chaps.png[/QUOTE] By the way look of things at this moment, North Korea would have to attack South Korea again to start a possible war. It seems everyone is on the defensive.

I know that nothing will probably happen, but for the life of me I cannot stop watching this thread. :f5:

[QUOTE=Howlthrug;26258438]By the way look of things at this moment, North Korea would have to attack South Korea again to start a possible war. It seems everyone is on the defensive.[/QUOTE] It would seem that way. Thank you for responding logically.

I personally hope South Korea and who ever else forever cripples North Korea's military. South Korea president already stated that they might go on a full on counter attack to prevent events like this from happening again.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;26258296]More on this, very interesting read: [URL]http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?128528-Bluffer-s-guide-Fortress-North-Korea[/URL] Against an air campaign though, I dont see AAA as being an effective counter, even radar guided. 99% of our strategic (and much of our tactical) aircraft operate at higher altitude than AAA is effective at. Though the AAA would be a massive threat to any helicopters or paratroopers, so they would have to be cleared out at some point, or land deployments would be needed. Clearing them out would take forever, and moving infantry strictly by land would take forever AND possibly result in more casualties than needed. In other words, NK would get its ass handed to it, but it would take a while and would probably require more than we are willing to commit. Also, fun fact:[/QUOTE] True, but they still have hundreds of SAMs that pose a threat to anyone trying to launch or drop shit on ground forces or fixed installations. Taking them out as well is also as said by Colonel Prebeck going to require a lot of time as well as assets.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26258571]True, but they still have hundreds of SAMs that pose a threat to anyone trying to launch or drop shit on ground forces or fixed installations. Taking them out as well is also going to as said by Colonel Prebeck require a lot of time as well as assets.[/QUOTE] Looking at the link I posted, they dont really have an overwhelming number of SAMs, and all of them are pretty outdated and easily defeated by stealth technology or jamming. Edit: Wow, their SAM's are even more outdated than I thought. The S-200 is from the 1960s, and thats the best they have, as far as we know.

SK needs to stop six pooling and step their game up.

[QUOTE=Timebomb757;26258613]Looking at the link I posted, they dont really have an overwhelming number of SAMs, and all of them are pretty outdated and easily defeated by stealth technology.[/QUOTE] Of course, you can't always rely on Google Earth to get accurate military information. The US has no stealth aircraft in the Korea theater that they can use in the first phases of fighting. They would need to ferry their precious fleet from the US which is going to take time.

[QUOTE=Tac Error;26257417]Is that why NATO's 1999 bombing in Yugoslavia didn't end "well" for Serbia? Despite NATO and US aircraft dropping all kinds of shit on Serbian military targets and its air defense systems roughly on par with 1991 Iraq, it got away without much of a scratch since Serbia used the terrain, weather and false targets to counter the threat of PGMs. Here are some quotes from USAF Colonel Steven R. Prebeck from a [url=http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/9305prebeck.pdf]dissertation[/url] he wrote back in the 1990s. Although he uses nuclear facilities as the primary target, you could replace that with North Korea's fielded ground forces: While North Korea's AA systems are outdated, there's a shitload of them and they can launch plenty of stuff into the air to pose a danger to Allied air forces. USAF doctrine would place any SAMs and AAA as priority targets. As Colonel Prebeck identifies, eliminating them would involve hundreds of sorties, which would take up resouces and time. If NK uses similar counter-air measures as Serbia did, then it will likely end "okay" for them. Additionally, if a surprise attack is launched, there wouldn't be enough aircraft or cruise missiles on hand to conduct a "killer" air campaign against NK ground forces. What will be the main bulwark against NK forces are going to be the poor ground pounders who will bear the brunt of the fighting.[/QUOTE] Man if North Korea goes and somehow hides entire cities, then they deserve to win. Because those are the targets. If the North goes after the south with guns blazing, then we will strike the North straight in the heart. When the food and ammunition stops coming down south, good luck continuing the conflict. The naval blockade will stop anything and everything not coming from China and we will end their production capabilities on any serious scale. Reports from TWENTY YEARS AGO that references at least FOUR aircraft that have been replaced entirely by significantly SUPERIOR aircraft does not provide an accurate picture. [editline]23rd November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Tac Error;26258571]True, but they still have hundreds of SAMs that pose a threat to anyone trying to launch or drop shit on ground forces or fixed installations. Taking them out as well is also as said by Colonel Prebeck going to require a lot of time as well as assets.[/QUOTE] That report predates the adoption of the B-2 by seven years. The F-22 by fifteen. Hell, even the F-15E had only been in service one year at that point. The Super Hornet by nearly a decade.

[QUOTE=GunFox;26258687] Reports from TWENTY YEARS AGO that references at least FOUR aircraft that have been replaced entirely by significantly SUPERIOR aircraft does not provide an accurate picture.[/QUOTE] Gunfox does have you there dude. Bunker buster technology and guidance technology (shit, most air technology) have come a looonnggg way since the NATO air campaign in the Balkans.

[QUOTE=GunFox;26258687]Man if North Korea and somehow hide entire cities, then they deserve to win. Because those are the targets. If the North goes after the south with guns blazing, then we will strike the North straight in the heart. When the food and ammunition stops coming down south, good luck continuing the conflict. The naval blockade will stop anything and everything not coming from China and we will end their production capabilities on any serious scale. Reports from TWENTY YEARS AGO that references at least FOUR aircraft that have been replaced entirely by significantly SUPERIOR aircraft does not provide an accurate picture.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about military targets, eg fielded ground forces and AA emplacements, not cities. It's hard to believe that the entire US Air Forces Korea can completely shut off NK logistics lines considering that they have just two wings of aircraft. Yes, the some of the aircraft he states are obsolete, but it shows an example of what is needed to launch a sustained air campaign against North Korea. I'm not trying to say the North Korea would win, but NK forces are going to adapt to the lethalty of air power and PGMs and it's not going to look like 2003 in Iraq.

the fuck are you guys even doing? you guys have little to none experience in these fields, why are you acting like you do? Unless you're a general of course, then by all means go ahead

[QUOTE=Tetracycline;26258833]the fuck are you guys even doing? you guys have little to none experience in these fields, why are you acting like you do? Unless you're a general of course, then by all means go ahead[/QUOTE] I'm more than a general. I'm an Emperor :hist101: