Poll of the Day > I am interested to see what N. Korea does tomorrow.

(+) Yeah! (+)

WarGreymon77 posted...

Runner_style posted...

omanojyaku posted...

What would happen if he mobilized his army BEFORE launching at someone?

He could have massive troops deployed when his country is effectively wiped out. I wonder what all those troops would do the second they find out he is dead?

Honestly I can see NK troops prepping to goto war, then when they leave NK they drop their weapons and claim asylum.

I get the feeling they've been conditioned and brainwashed not to.

This. Watch the Lisa Ling documentary about the eye doctor who went to N. Korea to do charity surgeries. The level of brainwashing is surreal. It is literally a massive cult and the Kim family are viewed as deities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVG4mOgJotY
---

Japan Prime Minister Abe claims North Korea may be capable of sarin missiles
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/04/14/japan-prime-minister-abe-claims-north-korea-may-be-capable-of-sarin-missiles/22040224/
---

BlazeAndBlade posted...

helIy posted...

you know what a nuke does right

yeah something happened to make one of russia's power plants (Chernobyl disaster)meltdown and screwed most of europe with the way the winds carry radiation for many miles

so, there's differences here.

hiroshima and nagasaki were airbursted, this means that the fallout from the explosion left minimal radiactive residue.

if they had landed onto ground, it would have been a different story as the radiation would have been absorbed from the ground, making it take a long time to be able to go back there.

chernobyl was a nuclear reactor, not a bomb. they weren't able to get much, or any, of the nuclear waste out of there, so it just got to sit. unprotected.

now i know with chernobyl, they're starting to actually do stuff to contain the reactors radiation. they recently moved a containment building around it.

so, chernobyl, how it happened was because they fucked shit up so during a test power outage, a combination of having improperly arranging the a core caused the nuclear material to turn all the water cooling it into steam, which caused a steam explosion, and the resulting open air graphite material in there to catch fire and release nuclear fission "products" into the atmosphere and surrounding areas for 9 days, essentially simulated what would have happened if an actual bomb hit the ground. then there was a second explosion, i think a hydrogen one? that essentially had the force of something like 10 tons of TNT which...didn't help.
---

This pic pretty much sums up Chernobyl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest


---

TyVulpine posted...

Cacciato posted...

darkknight109 posted...

7.5 million strong army

"strong"

US has weapons that can be launched from US naval bases in San Francisco or LA and can hit their targets in North Korea. So much for that 7.5 million soldiers...

If North Korea starts something, the very first thing they're going to do is start invading South Korea. Kind of hard to indiscriminately bomb 7.5 million troops when they're interspersed with civilians from an allied nation.

Again, if war was as simple as you guys are making it out to be, Iraq (with its similarly dilapidated armed forces) wouldn't have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Now take that, multiply it by a factor of 15 and you've got an idea of the amount of effort it would take to pacify North Korea at a minimum (and this is not including the dynamics of China/Japan/South Korea; unlike Iraq, this would very likely not be a contained conflict where all the fighting takes place in one country).

Also, the only weapons I'm aware of that have trans-oceanic range are nuclear missiles; I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain conventional weaponry is not made with that kind of range in mind (hence why most cruise missiles are launched from navy ships rather than land bases). Also also, a missile campaign on the scale you're talking about would be obscenely expensive. Missiles do not come cheap.
---

Welp, looks like they chickened out..

All for the best as long as they stop with their shenanigans
---

RIP Korea.
---

darkknight109 posted...

TyVulpine posted...

Cacciato posted...

darkknight109 posted...

7.5 million strong army

"strong"

US has weapons that can be launched from US naval bases in San Francisco or LA and can hit their targets in North Korea. So much for that 7.5 million soldiers...

If North Korea starts something, the very first thing they're going to do is start invading South Korea. Kind of hard to indiscriminately bomb 7.5 million troops when they're interspersed with civilians from an allied nation.

Again, if war was as simple as you guys are making it out to be, Iraq (with its similarly dilapidated armed forces) wouldn't have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Now take that, multiply it by a factor of 15 and you've got an idea of the amount of effort it would take to pacify North Korea at a minimum (and this is not including the dynamics of China/Japan/South Korea; unlike Iraq, this would very likely not be a contained conflict where all the fighting takes place in one country).

Also, the only weapons I'm aware of that have trans-oceanic range are nuclear missiles; I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain conventional weaponry is not made with that kind of range in mind (hence why most cruise missiles are launched from navy ships rather than land bases). Also also, a missile campaign on the scale you're talking about would be obscenely expensive. Missiles do not come cheap.

see, the thing is, if you destroy their entire country, including their leaders, they have absolutely nothing to fight for.

Iraq was different because we couldn't do that.
---

TyVulpine posted...

WarGreymon77 posted...

Runner_style posted...

omanojyaku posted...

What would happen if he mobilized his army BEFORE launching at someone?

He could have massive troops deployed when his country is effectively wiped out. I wonder what all those troops would do the second they find out he is dead?

Honestly I can see NK troops prepping to goto war, then when they leave NK they drop their weapons and claim asylum.

I get the feeling they've been conditioned and brainwashed not to.

It's not that (there is a history of North soldiers defecting) its more the penalty. If a North Korean soldier defects, his entire family (parents, spouse, children, including the two following generations born and sentenced to live their entire lives in the camps) are targeted and punished by the government for the soldier's action.

Shit, yeah I completely forgot about the N.K gov using the families as hostages.
---

@darkknight109 posted...

unlike Iraq, this would very likely not be a contained conflict where all the fighting takes place in one country).

Please elaborate. Assuming we consider both Korea's as "one" country, I don't see how this is going to spread outside, aside from some missiles being fired out of NK.

They tried their best

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-attempts-fails-missile-launch/
---

If North Korea was in Civ4 (NK is the computer)

You: On future tech and have an entire army of modern armor, have all you cities able to make more modern armor at 2-10 turns per unit and you have 30+ cities
NK: Only has musket men
Takes 15 turns for them to train new units and only have 7 cities


NK: I dont like you, we are going to War
You: Okay *spends in your entire army and wipes them out in a few turns*
---

desuno-to posted...

darkknight109 posted...

unlike Iraq, this would very likely not be a contained conflict where all the fighting takes place in one country).

Please elaborate. Assuming we consider both Korea's as "one" country, I don't see how this is going to spread outside, aside from some missiles being fired out of NK.

Well, first of all, both Koreas aren't one country, which means that there will likely be enormous South Korean casualties. Secondly, "some missiles being fired out of NK" is rather a more concerning idea than you seem to be giving credence to. Thirdly, China is right next door to North Korea and that's the dragon that will be woken up by this fight. China does not want North Korea or the Kim regime destabilized, because the resultant humanitarian crisis would be a huge drain on them (given that they share a land border with North Korea, a healthy chunk of the refugees - especially those wanted by South Korea or the US - would be fleeing that way), because China does not want US troops on the Korean peninsula effectively right in their backyard, and because the Kims are still useful in an "I have a rabid dog in the backyard, so be nice to me or I might just look the other way while he jumps the fence" kind of way.

You can bet that if war broke out, China would get themselves involved immediately. What exactly they would do I can't predict - they could shield the Kim regime a la Russia and Assad, they might try and forcibly quell the fighting, or they could attempt a takeover of North Korea. Difficult to say, but either way once China is involved the war becomes infinitely more complicated.

Again, this is not Saddam Hussein in Iraq where the fighting was restricted to one country and no external powers are threatening to jump in to gum up the works; this is a country which is seen as a borderline vassal state by one of the most powerful countries in the world and who borders on multiple American allies; even ignoring the fact that North Korea's army is enormous (which people seem to be woefully downplaying in this topic), this is not that simple. If it was, one of the more hawkish presidents would have dealt with the Kims decades ago.

helIy posted...

see, the thing is, if you destroy their entire country, including their leaders, they have absolutely nothing to fight for.

Yeah, because annihilating an entire country is super easy and inexpensive to do and totally wouldn't constitute genocide or anything.

helIy posted...

Iraq was different because we couldn't do that.

Why not? What was different about Iraq that would make the calculus around that strategy any different?
---

kim Jong un is one of the ugliest people to ever exist.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Well, first of all, both Koreas aren't one country, which means that there will likely be enormous South Korean casualties. Secondly, "some missiles being fired out of NK" is rather a more concerning idea than you seem to be giving credence to. Thirdly, China is right next door to North Korea and that's the dragon that will be woken up by this fight.

1) For the purposes of this discussion, I think we can call it one country. Separating the two would be like calling the Iraqi war a multi-country war because it involved Kurdistan. But let's not get caught up in semantics, there is no doubt that there will be huge casualties in both Koreas; the question is, if the war will encompass the neighbouring countries.

2) Is it though? Literally the entire world knows the exact progress and capabilities of their missile program, and we've been able to monitor all the missiles that were launched. Both Japan and SK have counter measures (You can see the anti-missile batteries all over Tokyo whenever NK says they will fire a missile over Japan). It's literally the equivalent of the Israeli Iron Dome.

3) While I agree that a destabilized NK will be a humanitarian nightmare for China, that won't be the case of a Unified Korea, which I would think would be the goal of any New Korean War. Assuming that SK "wins", I can't foresee a huge exodus of North Koreans fleeing a Unified Korea.

Just to clarify, I took your comment as saying that if NK goes to war, it will spread to SK, Japan and China (and even other countries). NK's military, as big as it is, doesn't have the capability to launch an offensive campaign (outside of missile strikes) while simultaneously defending their turf. On the other hand, the Japanese/SK forces, combined with the US forces (which is currently the largest deployment outside of the US) does have this capability. And so long as NK does attack Japan, Article 9 goes out the window, so the JSDF can be used to invade NK in that case.

The wildcard, like you said is China. We don't know exactly what they'll do, but IMO I don't see them committing their forces like the First Korean War. I don't even know if they'll bother to support them piecemeal like Russia/Syria if it becomes clear that the goal is regime change. You can tell they are getting sick of Kim (they're denouncing missile tests while a decade ago they wouldn't), and like I said, a unified Korea wouldn't be a humanitarian issue for them. There just isn't much benefit to them getting involved if that is the endgame.

desuno-to posted...

1) For the purposes of this discussion, I think we can call it one country. Separating the two would be like calling the Iraqi war a multi-country war because it involved Kurdistan. But let's not get caught up in semantics, there is no doubt that there will be huge casualties in both Koreas; the question is, if the war will encompass the neighbouring countries.

Call it semantics if you like, but the point is this is different than Iraq. In Iraq the fighting was simply the US and her allies attacking Iraq; in Korea, it would be the US/allies attacking the North and the North attacking the South.

desuno-to posted...

2) Is it though? Literally the entire world knows the exact progress and capabilities of their missile program, and we've been able to monitor all the missiles that were launched

Except this isn't true. In fact, one of the reactions to the recent military parade was surprise from international experts as to the type and number of missiles on display, some of which had never been seen before (or, at least, not publicly acknowledged). The international community can watch the North's progress on ICBMs due to their unique nature, but keeping tabs on their conventional arsenal is much more difficult.

desuno-to posted...

3) While I agree that a destabilized NK will be a humanitarian nightmare for China, that won't be the case of a Unified Korea, which I would think would be the goal of any New Korean War. Assuming that SK "wins", I can't foresee a huge exodus of North Koreans fleeing a Unified Korea.

Then you're not thinking about what the country will look like in the immediate aftermath of fighting. Countries don't tend to come out of large-scale conflicts without some pretty significant damage. Consider Syria - the refugees there aren't fleeing because they don't like Syria (many, in fact, wish they could return home), they're fleeing because their houses have been or are at significant risk of being blown up. Korea would be the same thing, except orders of magnitude worse.
---

desuno-to posted...

Just to clarify, I took your comment as saying that if NK goes to war, it will spread to SK, Japan and China (and even other countries). NK's military, as big as it is, doesn't have the capability to launch an offensive campaign (outside of missile strikes) while simultaneously defending their turf.

You can spread 7.5 million people pretty far; it's not inconceivable that the North would simply split their forces into an attacking and defensive force. Moreover, Seoul is so close to the North it lies well within artillery range; the North wouldn't even have to move its forces to potentially kill millions in an artillery campaign (and a subsequent invasion wouldn't have to go far at all to seize the South's capital).

Again, I'm not saying the North would win any war that the US chose to get involved in - not unless China was willing to throw their full weight behind them (at which point this becomes a potential "hot" war with nuclear arms involved, something that is literally unprecedented in the history of the world). I'm simply pointing out that "Walk in, drop some bombs, declare victory" is not how this fight is going to go, not unless you're content to see a seven-digit death toll on both sides.

desuno-to posted...

The wildcard, like you said is China. We don't know exactly what they'll do, but IMO I don't see them committing their forces like the First Korean War. I don't even know if they'll bother to support them piecemeal like Russia/Syria if it becomes clear that the goal is regime change. You can tell they are getting sick of Kim (they're denouncing missile tests while a decade ago they wouldn't), and like I said, a unified Korea wouldn't be a humanitarian issue for them. There just isn't much benefit to them getting involved if that is the endgame.

If China wanted regime change in the North, they could easily get it by cutting off their supply of oil, which would torch the regime almost overnight; they don't want it, because as soon as Kim falls, the America-friendly South is going to move in and take over, likely with American military support. China has already flipped out about America deploying a THAAD system in the South out of concerns it could be used to spy on them; how do you think they'd react to an even greater American military presence sitting right on their doorstep in an area they're trying to set-up as their sphere of influence? From China's perspective, that situation would be reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, albeit with tensions not quite as high.

China doesn't like the latest Kim, but they've also shown that he hasn't expired their patience yet. They're certainly not yet at the point where they would tolerate war on their doorstep without getting involved themselves.
---

---

^ In that case, I'm going to wait until TC contributes to the discussion before replying.

desuno-to posted...

^ In that case, I'm going to wait until TC contributes to the discussion before replying.

I stopped reading after N. Korea didnt test the bomb.
---