North Korea

[Gwadien]

How about, while we are at it, he shuts down the forced labour camps, stops "disappearing" people, stop waving his 1 inch cock about the place, then we get around the table and talk as we (the west) are constantly asking for.

Oh right, yeah, he isn't interested.

I mean, he comes across as a happy shopper bond villain, looks ridiculous, comes out with some hilarious quotes and so on, but he is actually a proper evil bastard with little interest in diplomacy or human rights.

Yes, but how can you justify the deaths of millions of innocent people, on both sides of Korea and say 'yeah but we stopped a bloke who also killed millions'

 

[Scouse]

He'll be interested in real diplomacy when he feels safe.

 

[Ctuchik]

It's alright us sitting in the safe parts of the world telling our armed forces to go and annihilate a massive area of Far East Asia, think about all those lives - think about the South Koreans, they don't want a war, they know what will happen.

That's what makes this situation so utterly shit. But how do we know that there won't be a much worse war further down the line if we let NK keep doing what they are doing?

Can we afford to take that risk? Kim has proven time and again that he does whatever he wants no matter what the rest of the world say or do. Even China seems to have lost what little control they had over NK...

Also don't forget that Kim really really REALLY want to reunite the korean peninsula under his reign.. So him getting nukes might actually be an attempt at doing that. Maybe he thinks that if he can just get enough nukes no one will dare oppose him when he finally make the demand and/or start the invasion...

Then what?

If we let kim believe that him owning nukes makes him get his way there WILL be a much bigger war later. And if NK could, why not Iran or Israel or Syria or Cuba or Burma or Belarus or any of the other dictatorships?

Hell maybe Sweden should revive its nuclear weapons program again? Because why not?

 

[Scouse]

Why not indeed.

 

[Wij]

If there was a war south Korea would get fucked massively anyway, the north Koreans have lots of conventional artillery - they have units attached to their infantry units they have so much.

I'll try the video but basically these experts (sorry I couldn't find an ex London banker) were saying that a NK war wouldn't last long but there would be millions of deaths and Seoul would be destroyed.

Not destroyed no. If it was the artillery alone and no nukes hit Seoul then they could potentially wipe the city out yes but it would take time; time which in reality they wouldn't have. South Korean and US satellite intelligence knows where the artillery is. Even if they didn't know all then the first salvo would reveal them. They wouldn't get many rounds fired before they were destroyed. Thousands of casualties in Seoul certainly. Maybe tens of thousands. The city would not be wiped out though. That's why it's a misleading argument. Technically NK has artillery capable of doing as much damage to Seoul as a nuke. It couldn't deploy it all in time though in a real-world scenario.

 

[Gwadien]

Not destroyed no. If it was the artillery alone and no nukes hit Seoul then they could potentially wipe the city out yes but it would take time; time which in reality they wouldn't have. South Korean and US satellite intelligence knows where the artillery is. Even if they didn't know all then the first salvo would reveal them. They wouldn't get many rounds fired before they were destroyed. Thousands of casualties in Seoul certainly. Maybe tens of thousands. The city would not be wiped out though. That's why it's a misleading argument. Technically NK has artillery capable of doing as much damage to Seoul as a nuke. It couldn't deploy it all in time though in a real-world scenario.

Problem with the NK artillery is that it is numerous; if you throw enough shit at a wall some of it will stick approach.

There's pretty much no way that in the event of a war there would be quick enough response to destroy all of the artillery positions at the same time, it's pretty much impossible unless the US brought their entire army, but they won't.

 

[Wij]

Problem with the NK artillery is that it is numerous; if you throw enough shit at a wall some of it will stick approach.

There's pretty much no way that in the event of a war there would be quick enough response to destroy all of the artillery positions at the same time, it's pretty much impossible unless the US brought their entire army, but they won't.

I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm just stating that NK couldn't do the same damage to Seoul as a nuke could in the real world even though technically it has enough firepower to do so.

 

[Scouse]

Either way, the loss of life would be devastating

 

[DaGaffer]

If NK wanted to destroy Seoul they could detonate a hydrogen bomb on their own territory, and devastate the economy of South Korea at a stroke. They don't need an ICBM to fuck South Korea up, just a truck. The missiles are for the Japanese and the Americans

 

[Access Denied]

OK so having not read everything so far (I will) I just want to make a point about NK's artillery on and near the border. Do you guys not think they the U.S knows exactly where every piece of artillery is at any given time? They have satellites that can see the date on a newspaper, they can certainly track artillery movements. The fact is that if they've got any sense at all, any military action against NK will be preceded by the complete annihilation of said artillery in one coordinated strike.

Now, back to reading...

Edit: Wij already said it. Damnit!

 

[Wij]

If NK wanted to destroy Seoul they could detonate a hydrogen bomb on their own territory, and devastate the economy of South Korea at a stroke. They don't need an ICBM to fuck South Korea up, just a truck. The missiles are for the Japanese and the Americans

Seoul is 35 miles from the border. An H Bomb from there would certainly induce panic but devastate the economy? Long term?

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia

 

[DaGaffer]

Seoul is 35 miles from the border. An H Bomb from there would certainly induce panic but devastate the economy? Long term?

Effects of nuclear explosions - Wikipedia

I was wrong, they'd need a fishing boat, not a truck. Detonate off Incheon, let the wind do the rest.
NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

 

[Lakih]

LA / San Fran?

Just north of Seattle.

 

[Tom]

A closer look at North Korea's artillery capabilities


It really doesn't matter.

No-one is talking about how much artillery they have, they have stupid amounts.

@Bodhi Iron Dome fends off a few stray rockets, there's no way it could cover millions of salvoes.

Artillery is easy to find. You can track incoming shells by radar, calculate their origin and then send a very large explody thing back. Remember Iraq's million man army?

 

[Gumbo]

I would imagine that the opening salvo would consist of some hundreds of cruise missiles each tasked with a different artillery position. In a dream world, China, Russia and the US would all take part and contribute a couple of hundred missiles each.

Radar controlled counter battery fire from South Korea would then account for anyone stupid enough to loose off a round in the direction of Seoul.

Follow that up with a second huge strike on C&C, nuclear and ballistic missile sites, and any position where the leadership is assumed to be.

Reinforce the defensive line at the DMZ which is already pretty well defended, and from there adopt a defensive posture whilst the dust settles.

Jobs a carrot.

 

[Scouse]

I imagine any military action would result in massive death of innocent people on both sides whatever the fantasists on either side think.

Just like every. war. ever.

 

[Embattle]

I imagine any military action would result in massive death of innocent people on both sides whatever the fantasists on either side think.

Just like every. war. ever.

I don't believe any one has denied that, the issue they have is allowing someone who keeps making threats about wiping other countries out gain the ability to do it over a longer distance and a greater scale.

 

[Scouse]

So? Threats isn't action.

 

[Gwadien]

Artillery is easy to find. You can track incoming shells by radar, calculate their origin and then send a very large explody thing back. Remember Iraq's million man army?

Iraq didn't have an city 20 miles away from their border with a population of 20million (including the close cities)

 

[Job]

I'm sorry Scouse, I thought you were ignoring everything.

 

[Gwadien]

I would imagine that the opening salvo would consist of some hundreds of cruise missiles each tasked with a different artillery position. In a dream world, China, Russia and the US would all take part and contribute a couple of hundred missiles each.

Radar controlled counter battery fire from South Korea would then account for anyone stupid enough to loose off a round in the direction of Seoul.

Follow that up with a second huge strike on C&C, nuclear and ballistic missile sites, and any position where the leadership is assumed to be.

Reinforce the defensive line at the DMZ which is already pretty well defended, and from there adopt a defensive posture whilst the dust settles.

Jobs a carrot.

That's the issue - China, Russia and the US would not contribute - they'd send a small strike force.

War is profitable if it's low enough scale, if they blow it up massively and hundreds of thousands of soldiers die, then it starts to become detrimental.

 

[Bodhi]

That's what makes this situation so utterly shit. But how do we know that there won't be a much worse war further down the line if we let NK keep doing what they are doing?

Can we afford to take that risk? Kim has proven time and again that he does whatever he wants no matter what the rest of the world say or do. Even China seems to have lost what little control they had over NK...

Also don't forget that Kim really really REALLY want to reunite the korean peninsula under his reign.. So him getting nukes might actually be an attempt at doing that. Maybe he thinks that if he can just get enough nukes no one will dare oppose him when he finally make the demand and/or start the invasion...

Then what?

If we let kim believe that him owning nukes makes him get his way there WILL be a much bigger war later. And if NK could, why not Iran or Israel or Syria or Cuba or Burma or Belarus or any of the other dictatorships?

Hell maybe Sweden should revive its nuclear weapons program again? Because why not?

Because if Sweden built a nuclear warhead it's intended recipient would have to build it themselves, only to find out they were 3 screws and 4 washers missing.

 

[Wij]

Because if Sweden built a nuclear warhead it's intended recipient would have to build it themselves, only to find out they were 3 screws and 4 washers missing.

BADDUM-TISH!

 

[fettoken]

BADDUM-TISH!

Predictable, 2/5. (slightly butt-hurt)

 

[Bodhi]

BADDUM-TISH!

I'd suggest the veal.

 

[Tom]

Iraq didn't have an city 20 miles away from their border with a population of 20million (including the close cities)

Iraq had an army in Kuwait.

 

[Raven]

That's the issue - China, Russia and the US would not contribute - they'd send a small strike force.

War is profitable if it's low enough scale, if they blow it up massively and hundreds of thousands of soldiers die, then it starts to become detrimental.

War is profitable after the war too, especially a country like N Korea, the amount of construction afterwards would be amazing, pretty much a blank canvas for infrastructure.

Thousands of soldiers wouldn't die not "ours" anyway, those sorts of long wars of attrition are very much over. It would be quick, organised surgical strikes to take out their backbone and leadership, then wait for them to surrender. With no military and no leadership, who cares how long it takes.

Anyway, we will know when its about to kick off, China will harden the border to stop the refugees beforehand.

 

[Job]

I think trooped invasion would be difficult, either the remaining population come open armed or they fight like the Japanese to the death under the cult of leadership.

 

[BloodOmen]

Cannot be unseen.

 

[Moriath]

War is profitable after the war too, especially a country like N Korea, the amount of construction afterwards would be amazing, pretty much a blank canvas for infrastructure.

Thousands of soldiers wouldn't die not "ours" anyway, those sorts of long wars of attrition are very much over. It would be quick, organised surgical strikes to take out their backbone and leadership, then wait for them to surrender. With no military and no leadership, who cares how long it takes.

Anyway, we will know when its about to kick off, China will harden the border to stop the refugees beforehand.

Afganistan ? Not a quick war by any stretch?