|
im curious, although i would think most would agree at this point that military action isnt warrented based on what NK has done, does anyone see a long term resolution to the korean problem without another war?
|
Well, the main hope is always that they somehow solve their problem with an insane oppressive regime internally, and then there is someone to talk to that has an other agenda then trying to keep their own lifestyle at the cost of their entire population.
Which also appears to be the main plan the rest of the world has. Let them keep abusing their own people and hope that they are not really insane enough to start a war, and hoping that at some point in the future the whole thing breaks.
|
On March 16 2013 07:39 turdburgler wrote:
im curious, although i would think most would agree at this point that military action isnt warrented based on what NK has done, does anyone see a long term resolution to the korean problem without another war?
Only real chance of a real change would be if someone more sane took over power in NK, As it is now NK will keep playing these passive aggressive games as long as Kim Jong-Un is in power. Also note that it's far safer for a opponent to blatantly show off their "Power" since they are doing it to scare away and avoid a confrontation. A really bad scenario would be if NK all the sudden would go totally quiet, then you know that shit probably will happen since you don't want your opponent to know when you strike.
As far as wars goes, NK hasn't really showed they want to go to war, all they've done so far can be viewed as a protest of the embargo that's been imposed on them, nor do they show any signs that they are planning for some long term war with SK either so my view on it is that there won't be a war in the near distant future at least. Then again it doesn't look like it will get any better either :/
|
On March 16 2013 07:22 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
Overall, great opportunity for US expansion. Taking over the whole Korean peninsula rather than just the South would put us at China's border, which would be a huge political/strategic bargaining chip in the future.
Nah, China would just annex or puppet NK.
|
On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises.
I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader.
Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy).
The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground).
I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days.
|
On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days.
Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds.
|
On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds.
Absolutely, not only level the cities but it would decimate the entire frontline of the SK military forces on the DMZ. Everyone keeps thinking NK is some joke, if NK goes crazy (as it's apt to) then you're not going to see a few thousand dead, you're likely to see a few million South Koreans dead.
|
On March 17 2013 06:05 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds. Absolutely, not only level the cities but it would decimate the entire frontline of the SK military forces on the DMZ. Everyone keeps thinking NK is some joke, if NK goes crazy (as it's apt to) then you're not going to see a few thousand dead, you're likely to see a few million South Koreans dead.
Not only would they level Seoul and the whole of the SK military forces, they would also blow up half of japan and at least 3 american carrier groups within the first 3 minutes of a war.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 17 2013 06:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 06:05 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds. Absolutely, not only level the cities but it would decimate the entire frontline of the SK military forces on the DMZ. Everyone keeps thinking NK is some joke, if NK goes crazy (as it's apt to) then you're not going to see a few thousand dead, you're likely to see a few million South Koreans dead. Not only would they level Seoul and the whole of the SK military forces, they would also blow up half of japan and at least 3 american carrier groups within the first 3 minutes of a war. User was warned for this post
too much defcon
|
No, just me getting warned for sarcastically pointing out that the previous poster apparently has done no research whatsoever in this subject. Any calculation i have seen so far shows NK artillery being able to either attack the DMZ OR inflict casualties in the order of some tens of thousands within seoul. Which, as horrible as it is, is a far way of "levelling the city within seconds". I really need to stop posting in the general forums, mods here are way too triggerhappy.
Edit: Why do you quote this post without even reading it?
|
On March 17 2013 06:33 Simberto wrote:
No, just me getting warned for sarcastically pointing out that the previous poster apparently has done no research whatsoever in this subject. Any calculation i have seen so far shows NK artillery being able to either attack the DMZ OR inflict casualties in the order of some tens of thousands within seoul. Which, as horrible as it is, is a far way of "levelling the city within seconds". I really need to stop posting in the general forums, mods here are way too triggerhappy.
3 carrier fleets, somebody is a little to drughappy
|
you should not worry at all. North Korea is so small what can they really do.
|
On March 17 2013 06:05 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds. Absolutely, not only level the cities but it would decimate the entire frontline of the SK military forces on the DMZ. Everyone keeps thinking NK is some joke, if NK goes crazy (as it's apt to) then you're not going to see a few thousand dead, you're likely to see a few million South Koreans dead.
You are highly underestimating the US air power if you think NK will get a chance to fire even half of their front line artillery.
US will not make a first strike unless both China and Russia are on board. However, that doesn't mean that US will sit around doing nothing until SK get struck by artillery and chemical missiles from North.
|
On March 16 2013 07:39 turdburgler wrote:
im curious, although i would think most would agree at this point that military action isnt warrented based on what NK has done, does anyone see a long term resolution to the korean problem without another war?
Sure. China orchestrating some sort of coup and offering the current leaders refuge + golden parachute in exchange for not blowing stuff up.
|
On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds.
Even the siege of Leningrad, the most destructive in history, failed to completely level the city, and that took 2,5 years of deliberately trying to do so - with both conventional artillery and airplane bombings. Seoul is many times larger, and SK has vastly superior military and airpower, there's not a chance in hell NK would be 'level the city within seconds'.
|
On March 17 2013 06:41 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 06:33 Simberto wrote:
No, just me getting warned for sarcastically pointing out that the previous poster apparently has done no research whatsoever in this subject. Any calculation i have seen so far shows NK artillery being able to either attack the DMZ OR inflict casualties in the order of some tens of thousands within seoul. Which, as horrible as it is, is a far way of "levelling the city within seconds". I really need to stop posting in the general forums, mods here are way too triggerhappy. 3 carrier fleets, somebody is a little to drughappy
lol what?
|
I think the biggest factor is time. Time is in South Korea's side since the economy gap between the two nations will widen more and more. The only problem is that nukes can change everything. That's why North Korea is so resilient about its nuke research IMO
|
On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader.
The division of Korea is not a new issue. The North's regime has stayed in power for over 60 years, and that's all any regime wants to do into the future. It's kind of weird to assume the people in power who spread an extreme amount of propaganda to control their country would actually believe that same propaganda. The people who can make decisions are the people in power, not the people living in propaganda land. Actually, the state of the common people is interesting lately, because outside culture does get in and circulate through a couple ways: the border with China, DPRK citizens abroad in China and Russia, even Europe and Vietnam - children of the well-off get to study outside the country, and the well-off themselves indulge in foreign luxuries. Media like movies, TV shows, and books get passed around through modern technology. There are universities for foreign studies. Foreign tourists intermingle with DPRK guides and friends. And I think we might still send over our own propaganda balloons.
On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy).
In seconds? Gangnam (south of the river but part of Seoul proper) is 60-100km from KPA military areas in the DMZ. Now, lots of rockets and artillery can't reach that far, so let's go with the lower limit. Let's say, 5 seconds, assuming that the KPA soldier manning the gun has already received his target orders from his superiors who had to pick a strategic plan, that he has loaded and aimed the gun, and all he has to do is pull the trigger. To go 60km in 5 seconds is 12km/s. For reference, orbital velocity for low earth orbit is 7.8 km/s, the actual amount of delta-v you need to reach that orbit is around 9.2-9.8 km/s, and escape velocity is 11.2 km/s. What about 60 seconds, which is about when you stop counting in seconds and start counting in minutes? It turns out that unless the DPRK has vastly more artillery pieces than we ever suspected or far less ammunition than we thought, they wouldn't be able to expend all their ammunition in one volley. It takes time to reload and fire more rounds, it takes time to verify targets with forward observers, it takes time to get your orders from the chain of command to change targets. I'm not talking about the kind of time that you count in seconds, either. The analysis of a few scenarios on http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/ leaves quite a wide margin against Seoul being leveled with millions of casualties.
I was not trying to disparage Soviet rocket technology by pointing out that it's from the Cold War. Rather, the point was that the peak growth of the the KPA is in the past and winning a war through a military advantage is no longer an option if it ever was. Rather, as long as you can maintain a semblance of parity, the military is a political tool.
The figure of 50 launchers was specifically for the KN-02 rockets (the shortest ranged ballistic missile they have) that I was talking about, and that estimate was the more generous of the two I've seen given (30 and 50). I'll note again that although North Korea has ballistic missiles and although they have nuclear weapons, they don't have nuclear weapons that they can deliver with ballistic missiles yet.
On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:
The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground).
I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days.
On March 17 2013 06:05 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:
Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds. Absolutely, not only level the cities but it would decimate the entire frontline of the SK military forces on the DMZ. Everyone keeps thinking NK is some joke, if NK goes crazy (as it's apt to) then you're not going to see a few thousand dead, you're likely to see a few million South Koreans dead.
It's not physically possible for them to level the Seoul Capital Area and decimate the entire ROK frontline. Not with artillery alone (not only because artillery isn't potent enough for the job, but because it's impossible to put enough artillery in range of both targets), and not with artillery and other weapons because they don't have the power. Also, because the other side actually will fire back at you. Artillery and rocket launchers have rates of fire. It's not as simple as Kim Jong-eun rolls out of bed onto the red button and every piece of ammunition in the DPRK is instantly teleported to Seoul and detonated. Real militaries don't work as fast as Nada sieging all his tanks and turning your dragoons into blue goo instantly when you weren't looking at the minimap.
To get a feel for this kind of thing, think about comparable events in history like the bombing of German and Japanese cities in WW2. Multiple kilotons worth of bombs in relatively short time, with discriminate and indiscriminate targeting depending on what strike you look at, and only casualties over the entire campaign approach seven figures.
Now that's not to say I think your first strike is more viable than if the risk were thousands instead of millions of civilian casualties. Any decision that means the loss of any human lives can't be the first option. Not to mention soldiers, just because they were born into the wrong country and conscripted? And who's going to take responsibility for occupation of the former DPRK? The repair of both countries? There are human rights problems in the DPRK but any military move will bring its own set of problems and unfortunately more dead people.
|
On March 17 2013 07:07 sushiman wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds. Even the siege of Leningrad, the most destructive in history, failed to completely level the city, and that took 2,5 years of deliberately trying to do so - with both conventional artillery and airplane bombings. Seoul is many times larger, and SK has vastly superior military and airpower, there's not a chance in hell NK would be 'level the city within seconds'.
Not to be argumentative, but what about the bombings of dresden? That pretty much leveled the entire city, granted not in seconds, but it did get leveled way easier then Leningrad.
|
On March 17 2013 08:01 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2013 07:07 sushiman wrote:On March 17 2013 06:00 Kaal wrote:On March 17 2013 05:38 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 16 2013 07:15 oBlade wrote:
I know that looks serious, but consider a couple things. DPRK military hardware is basically a stockpile of Cold War technology. And it really is a stockpile, not some kind of bottomless pit of missiles. Now there's not much use for those weapons besides posturing if you're not in the middle of a war, and a great way to posture is to fire a few of them into the ocean just to prove they still work. But if you do that, you're going to only use a couple of your shortest ranged missiles (which you only have around 50 of and aren't building any new ones).
Now if war ever did come, you're not sealing your fate by being short 2 missiles, whereas you'd be a lot weaker if you made driftwood out of all your rockets at once. It's not really an escalation so much as trying to maintain parity with allied military exercises. I don't think you understand the irrationality of the human mind... You make all of these comments, stockpile and talk about prolonging or engaging from NK as well as the cold war technology but that's all irrelevant, the mind of the average NK commander is very similar to that of a religious zealot, win or lose they will follow the word of (in this case not god) their leader. Let's just say that, whether you like it or not, if SK doesn't find a way to stop those "Cold War" projectiles from absolutely leveling Seoul in a matter of seconds (also your approximation of 50? is most certainly a gross underestimation, you think NK has 50 short ranged missiles? What? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction (note, yes it's wikipedia so go to the citations where you see the weapon numbers on chemical and others) then NK has a massive amount of pushing room to do as they have been doing, the issue is that the longer we've waited to remove them (due to China but mainly politics) the more concrete their position gets and solidified their indoctrinated citizens are (I.E. the food received by the US is perceived as a gift to the Dear Leader and not as a mercy). The only real tactical plan is to infiltrate (if the information is not already known), find out where the majority of their munitions are, eliminate them with a massive barrage of military strikes to neutralize their offensive capabilities and then proceed with invasion. Odds are Seoul will lose quite a few citizens due to the retaliation but it would be buffered dramatically and it would not nearly equate the threat caused by NK developing nuclear arms (and testing them under ground). I mean maybe I'm wrong and you're right, but it's a pretty solid assumption NK is confident (especially their military) in their capabilities in engaging the United States (even though its a farce) and will surely kill everything it can until the last days. Even barring missiles, conventional artillery and rail artillery alone would level the city within seconds. Even the siege of Leningrad, the most destructive in history, failed to completely level the city, and that took 2,5 years of deliberately trying to do so - with both conventional artillery and airplane bombings. Seoul is many times larger, and SK has vastly superior military and airpower, there's not a chance in hell NK would be 'level the city within seconds'. Not to be argumentative, but what about the bombings of dresden? That pretty much leveled the entire city, granted not in seconds, but it did get leveled way easier then Leningrad.
That was more or less from the firestorm that formed from the incendiary weapons used; the city was small and with older structures that couldn't withstand the heat. You wouldn't get that phenomena with artillery against modern buildings, especially when you have no way of attacking from the air.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
