EPTNorth Korea Fires Artillery Rounds at South Korean Island…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Craton
United States17274 Posts
| ||
|
bRuTaL!!
Finland588 Posts
I did a really simplified calculation with insanely optimistic scenario and came out with 75,000,000 shells to destroy Seoul. | ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
On November 28 2010 21:02 HolydaKing wrote: It doesn't seem to be that easy. Nobody knows if they are already able to use nuclear weapons (which would be very bad for SK) and most of all if China supports NK like they have been in the past. It's highly doubtful that they would have working nukes already. Their tests only seems to have been mildly succesful so far, and miniaturization of the warheads to fit in a delivery system is a process that takes a long time to accomplish. If anything, SK is probably running out of time to take the north out before they get nukes. I doubt China would support NK directly in case of war, there's nothing they can gain from it. On the other hand, if SK could take the north out, China would greatly benefit for selling materials for the rebuilding of the Korean peninsula. But yeah, they won't do that since they don't want a country allied with the US directly on its border. Which really could sway towards China if they gave them their support.  | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
On November 28 2010 21:09 Craton wrote: Nukes are kind of a non-issue. NK and SK have enough artillery pointed at each other to level both countries in a matter of minutes. A war by either obliterates both countries. There was a link to a militaryphotos.com thread that explained it well that only a certain type of NK artillery has the range to hit Seoul. It is indeed the missiles that are the more serious threat. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009) | ||
|
Shizuru~
Malaysia1676 Posts
On November 28 2010 21:32 Squeegy wrote: There was a link to a militaryphotos.com thread that explained it well that only a certain type of NK artillery has the range to hit Seoul. It is indeed the missiles that are the more serious threat. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009) its based on information available to the general publics, seems pretty interesting but i would take that article with a grain of salt... i'd bet the military contractors are getting jiggly and wiggly over this, but against the extensive networks of tunnels and mountain areas, its no freaking way that NK will be a push over like Iraq during the second gulf war, think something more along the lines of Vietnam, and i seriously doubt that NK gives a shit about the morality of using chemical and biological weaponry. i really hope this shit would go no further after both sides has shown how large their cojones are, or how "serious" they are... | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
nucleargnome
Australia167 Posts
On November 28 2010 22:37 Deathstar wrote: Couldn't we prevent Seoul from being under threat by preemptively striking all the artillery positions pointing at Seoul? Not a good diplomatic plan, but it gets the job done. Temporarily anyway. I think alot of the artillery is embedded into mountains and stuff and thus would be hard to detect where exactly all the artillery is. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
On November 28 2010 22:37 Deathstar wrote: Couldn't we prevent Seoul from being under threat by preemptively striking all the artillery positions pointing at Seoul? Not a good diplomatic plan, but it gets the job done. Temporarily anyway. I think there are just way too many missiles and artilleries pointing at Seoul that it would be almost impossible to preemptively neutralize all of them. Many of them are hidden in caves and bunkers too. | ||
|
rMadness
United States50 Posts
| ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
On November 28 2010 23:37 rMadness wrote: really shoulda put the capital a little further away They tried to move it to Deajon some 5 years ago I think. It wouldn't have changed the fact that Seoul still would have been the biggest city in SK. | ||
|
oRacLeGosu
Norway151 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
On November 28 2010 23:41 oRacLeGosu wrote: LIke I said..NKR wants the six-party talks to resume to get whatever they need. China is advocating restarting the talks asap. NKR can postpone all nuke related issues, and get what they want out of it. You are right.South Korea doesn't want to continue the talks though | ||
|
oRacLeGosu
Norway151 Posts
On November 28 2010 23:42 Grettin wrote: You are right.South Korea doesn't want to continue the talks though Just wait. It is only a nationalistic display to seem resolved for the masses. Everyon wants to get NRK off the planet once and for all, but it is not the right time, and it might be too many casualties in a wider sense. We'll see though. I would be surpised to see a full scale war. This would mean building up yet another a country from scratch..but there is alot to gain for the people, the world, and Korea as a whole in the long run. | ||
|
r0yale
United States51 Posts
| ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
|
ZERG_RUSSIAN
10417 Posts
| ||
|
ZerglingSoup
United States346 Posts
| ||
|
don_kyuhote
3006 Posts
On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK. The number of soldiers never meant everything in warfare, especially in today's. Most of North Korean soldiers probably don't even have more than 3 magazines of their own AK-47 though that's just my guess. Regardless, SK and USA would much rather have a million men charge towards Seoul than a ten thousand missiles and artillery shells. | ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
On November 29 2010 00:32 don_kyuhote wrote: The number of soldiers never meant everything in warfare, especially in today's. Most of North Korean soldiers probably don't even have more than 3 magazines of their own AK-47 though that's just my guess. Regardless, SK and USA would much rather have a million men charge towards Seoul than a ten thousand missiles and artillery shells. Yeah I'm not too worried about the number of soldiers too. Look at how well the Soviet Union performed against Finland and Nazi Germany. It's just unfortunate that the capital had to be right next to NK border and in range of the artillery. | ||
|
Blobskillz
Germany548 Posts
On November 29 2010 00:19 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Honestly the problem isn't the missiles or the artillery but the fact that NK has the largest standing army in the world and are physically connected to the largest city in SK. a lot of soldiers dont mean that they can fight a war. It needs more then 2 million soldiers to win a war, especially when you look at NK food problems and the massive floods they had in the last years. NK should hardly be able to fight a long war, netiher will the chinese help them. So in the end it comes down to how their gorvernment will change with the new Kim and how the talks go. And really trade restrictions dont hit the gorvernment they always hit the normal people. Which makes them only more willing to listen to the propaganda. On November 29 2010 00:36 Deathstar wrote: Yeah I'm not too worried about the number of soldiers too. Look at how well the Soviet Union performed against Finland and Nazi Germany. It's just unfortunate that the capital had to be right next to NK border and in range of the artillery. it's more like look how well Germany was able to hold against the Russians. They outnumbered the german army by like 5 times | ||
| ||
