• North Korea 'likely to attack again'
    220 replies, posted
[QUOTE=teh pirate;26479261]you guys still forget that no matter how many tanks, planes, jeeps etc these guys actually have they can't fuel them all at once. they'll run out of gas and most of their mechanized army will be left abandoned.[/QUOTE] They probably have more fuel in storage than food. Believe me you can't just walk in there. The whole country is built for war. NK is filled with minefields, anti-tank ditched, over 400 artillery positions (that can be seen via google earth) unknown amount of long Range Artillery hidden in tunnels, anti-air artillery sites (of which almost all are operated by women =[ ), the streets are filled with huge road blocks ready to be knocked over and they are always combined with anti-tank guns. They have lots of semi-long range ballistic missles, which are a real threat to Seoul. Small and big ships with anti-ship missles and other missle ships are patrolling the seas, along with almost 100 submarines. There's at least one almost fully underground air base and several partially underground, There are dozens of tunnels near the border. We can't just bomb them right away, because the extremely thick AAA net forces planes fly at medium/high altitude, where SAM missles and NK fighters would be a big threat, altho they are quite outdated. We don't really know the real numbers, because NK can self-produce a huge variety of things.
[QUOTE=David29;26481704]That is an incredibly arrogant attitude and completely wrong, especially given their numbers. Or have you forgotten Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq?[/QUOTE]While what he said was incredibly stupid, those 3 wars you mentioned are not equatable with what a continuation of the Korean War would be like.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;26444227]North Korea doesn't operate T-55s or T-59s anymore. They use their own heavy version of the T-62 (the Chonma-ho, which features the armored plating and gunnery of the T-72) and the PT-85 amphibious light tank. [img_thumb]http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/2415/chonmaupgradeoct20104.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/2349/post416905dprktank13bk.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] that bottom one IS a t-55. Note the bore evacuator at the end of the gun. Either way t-55 or t-90 the north koreans will only prevail if they have the proper training which i get the feeling they don't.
[QUOTE=LarparNar;26480538]Jesus it's not even November anymore. Baby vagina is not right.[/QUOTE] Honestly, did anybody even think she would be right?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;26443892]Actually it's incredibly weak, just very large. Their soldiers are underfed and most of their equipment is still from the cold war.[/QUOTE] Most of the US' equipment is still from the cold war.
[QUOTE=CertainDOOM;26482384]that bottom one IS a t-55. Note the bore evacuator at the end of the gun. Either way t-55 or t-90 the north koreans will only prevail if they have the proper training which i get the feeling they don't.[/QUOTE] Not really, they managed to steal a lot of advanced ideas for equipment I'm pretty sure they will have invented a giant paintball round for tanks for training exercises dude.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;26482167]While what he said was incredibly stupid, those 3 wars you mentioned are not equatable with what a continuation of the Korean War would be like.[/QUOTE] Why not?
[QUOTE=Layley;26489667]Honestly, did anybody even think she would be right?[/QUOTE] I sure hope not.
Bullshit, south Korea just want an excuse now, I'm sorry but, NK have been doing this.
[QUOTE=David29;26490632]Why not?[/QUOTE]The failure point of Vietnam was insurgency and political willpower, which is also the main characteristic of the other 2. The coalition forces crushed the conventional forces of Iraq within weeks. Essentially, a seen target is a dead target; and while the other 2 haven't been won yet, they're far from being lost. The US excels in conventional warfare because that's what it's been equipped and trained for since before the Cold War. That's why it buys shiny new stealth fighters, smart bombs and so on; counter-insurgency equipment is a very recent development. Political willpower may well be a factor for the US in involvement in the Korean peninsula, but needless to say the South will have no such problems, considering they'd be defending their country. Even if the US doesn't get involved (highly unlikely), i'd bet they'd be more than willing to sell the South a whole bunch of military hardware. That is ignoring for a moment the absolutely different situation. North Korea is completely alone, China will not back them in a war of aggression; and you can bet your ass South Korea doesn't want to be the one to fire the first shots, simply taking into account the civilian casualties from the North's ballistic missile barrage in the waking hours of the continuation of the war. South Korea has been preparing themselves for war with North Korea since the armistice, they are almost equally as militarised as the North. Certainly better equipped and fed. The war, should it actually occur, will be bloody, but it will be conventional. When the South's troops and it's allies set foot on Northern soil for the counter-attack, there may very well be an insurgency, but with the experience garnered from fighting such things in the past, plus taking into account the dire food supply situation in the North, I personally don't expect it to last long. Besides, most of their people fit to fight would have long been conscripted into the army. Though I understand the main point of your post was to demonstrate US fallibility, reality has to be faced with regards to the North's capabilities and the overall political situation. They will be beaten in the eventuality of a war, the only question is how many millions will die in the process.
[QUOTE=The Winner;26480001]WWIII [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/baba.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Ahem she predicted November not December
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.