Looming north korean threat

[Blimey]

If our only goal is to prevent his having a missile based nuclear delivery system, that we can do with air power alone.

Can't win a war, but we can destroy every ICBM and the facilities to make more. It would then be up to Kim if he wants to cross the DMV, or try to FedEx a nuke to the US.

This armchair warrior agrees. If we are not interested in regime change and merely putting a stop to their nuclear program, air power should be able to do that. And every time they manage to sneak a rocket past the satellites and launch it, that entire location gets flattened, each and every time.

To ensure no counter attack against SK, SK should even publicly condemn this responsive behavior to have plausible deniability while the US, at this time quite impervious to attack from NK, just plays whack a mole until kim figures it out. In fact, I wonder if SK is even making moves toward this by saying recently they want to talk to Kim.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

This armchair warrior agrees. If we are not interested in regime change and merely putting a stop to their nuclear program, air power should be able to do that. And every time they manage to sneak a rocket past the satellites and launch it, that entire location gets flattened, each and every time.

To ensure no counter attack against SK, SK should even publicly condemn this responsive behavior to have plausible deniability while the US, at this time quite impervious to attack from NK, just plays whack a mole until kim figures it out. In fact, I wonder if SK is even making moves toward this by saying recently they want to talk to Kim.

I wouldn't trust in plausible deniability for SK. NK will have to retaliate some how. Kim would have to do something to maintain control. If they aren't ballsy enough to hit us back, then my money would be on them hitting the south, regardless of what the south says.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I think NK would certainly retaliate with their hackers both at our government/ power grid, and our private industry / corporations. They would lash out like an angry child throwing a tantrum. I don't know if they would retaliate with kinetic attacks say against guam, Hawaii or Okinawa because doing so might deal their fate.

I guess their reaction would be in part determined by who was in command. If there was a full out "regime change" or if we take out their nuclear and missile infrastructure and Kim is still in command.

 

[Robin]

I think if we took him out with a cruise missile, or the like, when he is at one of these events like the launching, or a vicious execution, where he makes all his upper echelon attend, we could take out the entire upper tier of that barbaric regime. Of course there would be consequences including very public saber rattling from tin horn dictators around the world, including the Chinese, but in the quiet of their blood stained palaces they would be singing: Robin

 

[FrankenCub]

4 weeks??! Shhhit this Country ain't no Iraq..it's a small dot of a thing on the map. I'd bet some of our arsenal can blanket the whole dame "country" in one drop. This would be over in hours. The only problem is the need for precision bombing though, because South Korea can't be hit accidentally..

Oh I know that, but with our success rate in everything else we've been involved in since Nam I think we should go in 110% with one goal in mind. Total destruction of every and any government and military post with no possible chance of rebuild. Keep politicians out of this and let the military handle it with absolutely no influence from politics, especially the UN. Otherwise I see NK just rebuilding their military programs to come full circle back to where we're at now.

 

[FrankenCub]

I wouldn't trust in plausible deniability for SK. NK will have to retaliate some how. Kim would have to do something to maintain control. If they aren't ballsy enough to hit us back, then my money would be on them hitting the south, regardless of what the south says.

This is another reason we shouldn't do shit unless we can be assured that our military will have nothing but complete destruction of every NK government and military post so they can not retaliate against SK. Lil Douche would strike at them out of spite otherwise.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

This is another reason we shouldn't do shit unless we can be assured that our military will have nothing but complete destruction of every NK government and military post so they can not retaliate against SK. Lil Douche would strike at them out of spite otherwise.

I think we all better gird our loins as a country. I don't think there is any solution other than military and I feel like it's either going to be a cake walk or a very large catastrophic conflict with a lot of casualties and the real probability of turning into a regional war at best involving China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea and US.

 

[FrankenCub]

I think we all better gird our loins as a country. I don't think there is any solution other than military and I feel like it's either going to be a cake walk or a very large catastrophic conflict with a lot of casualties and the real probability of turning into a regional war at best involving China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea and US.

I agree, no matter how we proceed it's guaranteed to piss someone off. For all the skeptics saying NK could never hit us with an EMP, how do you feel now that they've successfully launched ICBMs? I do feel he's loose enough to do it, especially if he feels we may preemptively attack his missile launch vehicles/pads.

 

[Snappo]

The US had a clear shot at killing Kim Jong Un on July 4 — here's why it didn't strike

If we had wiped out the missile test location and Kim (along with anyone in attendance), would what was left of the NK power elite suddenly figure they need to go to war? Or would they lick their wounds and ask China for help and guidance on the matter? I saw in the article he said "massive response" but doesn't say what that could mean. We have a system called MLRS. It can fire 12 rockets in a minute or two, and reload in a matter of minutes using the on-board crane system to take the old pod off and put a new pod on. Those missiles can be nuclear tipped; and we have thousands of MLRS and something like 700,000 missiles. So literally if a country builds a wall of assets at a border, you can use these small theater type warheads and destroy that wall of assets. So with just MLRS, if NK put 1,000,000 troops at a border we could just literally make that border disappear and right along with it those 1,000,000 troops. It's actually just that simple; though I have no idea about the political fallout from erasing a million enemy lives in 5 minutes. UN, Russia, and China might be kind of pissy about that. I'm sure we would be if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[Snappo]

I think we all better gird our loins as a country. I don't think there is any solution other than military and I feel like it's either going to be a cake walk or a very large catastrophic conflict with a lot of casualties and the real probability of turning into a regional war at best involving China, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea and US.

Does Russia have any skin in the game? I thought they don't much like China? Japan, Taiwan, and SK might be a bit perturbed at radioactive fallout blowing their way in the wind.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Does Russia have any skin in the game? I thought they don't much like China? Japan, Taiwan, and SK might be a bit perturbed at radioactive fallout blowing their way in the wind.

My line of thinking is that they share a small stretch of border with North Korea. There would be the possibility of a mass exodus into China and perhaps Russia if war happens. The other thing would be simply that Russia would position troops there just as a precaution and they may also want to play a part in stabilizing and or peace keeping. If North Korea were to subsequently descend into civil war after whatever military action takes place, a Syrian kind of situation comes to mind. I tend to over think things, but considering how on edge things are with NATO and the Russians, I'm sure North Korea is just another place Russia wouldn't want US troops in.

 

[Snappo]

My line of thinking is that they share a small stretch of border with North Korea. There would be the possibility of a mass exodus into China and perhaps Russia if war happens. The other thing would be simply that Russia would position troops there just as a precaution and they may also want to play a part in stabilizing and or peace keeping. If North Korea were to subsequently descend into civil war after whatever military action takes place, a Syrian kind of situation comes to mind. I tend to over think things, but considering how on edge things are with NATO and the Russians, I'm sure North Korea is just another place Russia wouldn't want US troops in.

Since the end of the Korean War, that genocide in NK has already killed a few million people between forced labor and starvation. I'm not sure why they never have had a revolt. You'd think all those soldiers that are losing friends and family to starvation and forced labor would rise up and kill the military leaders and the political leadership. I would think word has leaked into that country by now that the rest of the world is way better off.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

Daily mail UK is crushing the NK coverage. Here's another great story on the recluse dictatorship.

North Korea may have MORE nuclear bomb fuel than thought | Daily Mail Online

Imagine the consequences of allowing NK to produce a new nuclear nuclear bomb.....
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Per. Month.

Right. Now.

And their capabilities and production of scale will only increase over time and they will produce more and more.

That's terrifying and a helll of a lot more than most people have been led to believe they are capable of doing. The media makes them out to be backwards idiots, (which in many ways they are) but they do so deliberately undermining the threat we face from them. As backwards as They are, They are far more dangerous than we have respected them as being so.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I am starting to think Nk's nuclear capability is far greater than any current news we are getting on the matter. Could be one reason we haven't just gone in and imposed our will.

 

[holdover]

Air power alone Cant do it .its to risky. The problem is you cannot guarantee there will not be a nuclear launch at the first sign of an attack. 40,000 Americans are sitting ducks if you don't get all of them in the first hour. Seaol will be hit with over 25,000 artillery pieces which are all well dug in across the border. An impossible feat even for the US.

There is not going to be a surprise attack .when they see 3 or 4 carriers off the coast they will be hyper vigilant. Getting deep into NK from the only direction they can isn't going to be an easy task. The navy had to contend with 250 enemy subs

Sure the US can kick their ass ,but not in that time frame it's going to take time to weaken their defensEs

And while the Air Force and navy fighters are assigned the task of air strikes, the north Koreans will be spilling across the border along a 2000 mile front. Somebody has to fly cover for ground support for a 10s and apaches.some fighters have to stay back and protect the fleet.

North Korea will use nukes to protect itself as we would. It's a no brainer

Korea is no walk in the park .the terrain is tough, and it's soldiers are highly motivated.

If we go in its going to take time to set it up right there is good reason to pause. Nukes changed everything.

 

[spat]

I think NK would certainly retaliate with their hackers both at our government/ power grid, and our private industry / corporations. They would lash out like an angry child throwing a tantrum. I don't know if they would retaliate with kinetic attacks say against guam, Hawaii or Okinawa because doing so might deal their fate.

I guess their reaction would be in part determined by who was in command. If there was a full out "regime change" or if we take out their nuclear and missile infrastructure and Kim is still in command.

That is assuming they are holding their hackers back at all now.

The smart money would be to take out the ICBM while Kim is standing next to it. Plausible deniability That it was an assassination (although he is the military commander of a country we are technically still at war with, so you'd probably be covered for that anyway).

 

[spat]

Air power alone Cant do it .its to risky. The problem is you cannot guarantee there will not be a nuclear launch at the first sign of an attack. 40,000 Americans are sitting ducks if you don't get all of them in the first hour. Seaol will be hit with over 25,000 artillery pieces which are all well dug in across the border. An impossible feat even for the US.

There is not going to be a surprise attack .when they see 3 or 4 carriers off the coast they will be hyper vigilant. Getting deep into NK from the only direction they can isn't going to be an easy task. The navy had to contend with 250 enemy subs

Sure the US can kick their ass ,but not in that time frame it's going to take time to weaken their defensEs

And while the Air Force and navy fighters are assigned the task of air strikes, the north Koreans will be spilling across the border along a 2000 mile front. Somebody has to fly cover for ground support for a 10s and apaches.some fighters have to stay back and protect the fleet.

North Korea will use nukes to protect itself as we would. It's a no brainer

Korea is no walk in the park .the terrain is tough, and it's soldiers are highly motivated.

If we go in its going to take time to set it up right there is good reason to pause. Nukes changed everything.

The border is more like 200 miles, not 2000, and I don't believe the vast majority of his artillery has the range to hit Seoul.

Could North Korea Annihilate Seoul with Its Artillery?

 

[Blimey]

The border is more like 200 miles, not 2000, and I don't believe the vast majority of his artillery has the range to hit Seoul.

Could North Korea Annihilate Seoul with Its Artillery?

Best stuff I've seen is something like perhaps 30,000 south koreans killed if NK went absolutely all balls out on an artillery attack. Much of seoul is beyond range of artillery, SK has lots of bunkers throughout the city, and as soon as NK artillery starts shooting counter battery starts taking it out. It would be hugely expensive for SK not just in lives lost, but NK, no surprise, has greatly overstated how much they can really do.

 

[holdover]

The border is more like 200 miles, not 2000, and I don't believe the vast majority of his artillery has the range to hit Seoul.

Could North Korea Annihilate Seoul with Its Artillery?

I thought the border was bigger than that .in any case that article is hogwash. They didn't dig in thousands of artillery pieces, so they can move them if attacked. and to make the claim that they aren't accurate enough to hit a city,or are out of range is nonsense .

Let's assume that there are 12,000 pieces, then we will assume their officers are semi retarded and placed half of their peices out of range like the article suggests ,let's say the rate of fire is 4 rounds a minute x 6000 guns, in the first minute seauol is hit with 18000 rounds x 15 minutes=270,000


Anybody saying that their artillery is not major threat is selling you a bridge.the entire Air Force could not get most of them in 15 minutes. That city will burn. There's no saving it.

If I'm your commander and task you with neautralizeing the threat in less than 15 minutes .how are you going to do it and guarantee the city won't be destroyed? Don't assume that the North Koreans won't have heavy SAM cover.

Can anyone guarantee they can take out the Sam's, the radar sites to clear the way for strikes in 15 minutes? There is no possible way to complete the mission in that time frame .

That's the dilema the US is facing. You would require at least 1000 strike aircraft, each hitting 4 targets in 15 minutes flawlessly to have chance.now where are they going to come from? Carriers can't hold that many. They have to be land based .easy targets for nukes .

 

[spat]

I thought the border was bigger than that .in any case that article is hogwash. They didn't dig in thousands of artillery pieces, so they can move them if attacked. and to make the claim that they aren't accurate enough to hit a city,or are out of range is nonsense .

Let's assume that there are 12,000 pieces, then we will assume their officers are semi retarded and placed half of their peices out of range like the article suggests ,let's say the rate of fire is 4 rounds a minute x 6000 guns, in the first minute seauol is hit with 18000 rounds x 15 minutes=270,000


Anybody saying that their artillery is not major threat is selling you a bridge.the entire Air Force could not get most of them in 15 minutes. That city will burn. There's no saving it.

If I'm your commander and task you with neautralizeing the threat in less than 15 minutes .how are you going to do it and guarantee the city won't be destroyed? Don't assume that the North Koreans won't have heavy SAM cover.

Can anyone guarantee they can take out the Sam's, the radar sites to clear the way for strikes in 15 minutes? There is no possible way to complete the mission in that time frame .

That's the dilema the US is facing. You would require at least 1000 strike aircraft, each hitting 4 targets in 15 minutes flawlessly to have chance.now where are they going to come from? Carriers can't hold that many. They have to be land based .easy targets for nukes .

Most of them are out of range, because most of them don't have the 35 mile range necessary to hit Seoul from the border, you just can't get 30+ miles of range from a 50 year old 120mm howitzer.

On top of that, you would have to put *all* that artillery within a small spot *on* the border for Seoul to be in range.

Their commanders also aren't dumb enough to put every long range artillery piece they've got within a 5 square mile zone around one point on the 200 mile border and leave the rest undefended.

If they did, we wouldn't need precision strikes, we could just carpet bomb the whole area with heavy bombers.

The article seems fairly well informed to me.

 

[Blimey]

There is also the fact that in previous artillery attacks something like 25% of NK rounds are duds.

Here is a very long, detailed analysis of NK's ability to turn Seoul into a sea of fire. It's lengthy but pretty interesting and well-informed.

SPECIAL REPORT: Mind the Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality

 

[holdover]

Placing short range guns ,out of range, makes no sense at all.either they have the correct artillery properly placed and dug in OR they don't. Neither of us can know for sure. Bear in mind, the nature of the regime, Russian doctrine of artillery, and 60 years to dig in, as far as duds are concerned, it seems obvious to me that they burned up a lot of older ordanace, the same as our military does. I wouldn't put much confidence in their rounds failing.

Let's assume they only obtained 20 heavy guns a year, which is a ridiculously low number.over the couRseof 60 years=2200 heavy guns .anything less that is not believable. At a slow rate of 4 rounds a minute =8800,in 5 minutes something like 40,000 rounds can strike seaol. That's a best case scenario.

There is no time to carpet bomb since we would have to engage fighters and strike their airstips and radar sites before sending in the big boys. That can't be done in a 5 or fifteen minute time frame.

Even using nukes on them would be uncertain as those mountains are solid rock.

I don't see anyway around it, there is no way to neutralize the threat in that time frame.

Like joey Stalin said, quantity has a quality of its own.

The picture this article is painting is that after 60 years, the North Koreans have a few dozen large guns with 25 percent ammo fails ,led by incompetent leaders.

I find this very hard to believe, if an airstrike on their nuke sites isn't 100 percent effective you can kiss seaol and American troops goodbye .

The time frame is far to short to prevent an enemy strike. You have to be willing to accept great losses to win, and the US finds that to be unacceptable . So long as that is the case n Koreans wins by default as they have for 60 years
=

 

[Blimey]

I remain I have yet to see a thorough analysis by an accomplished military authority that says seoul would be flattened. An anecdotal defense of that notion reminds that in WW II it would take weeks or months or bombardment to do that to a town in any case. Seoul is 233 square miles. How many millions of artillery should would it take to flatten that? NK can't get them across.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I remain I have yet to see a thorough analysis by an accomplished military authority that says seoul would be flattened. An anecdotal defense of that notion reminds that in WW II it would take weeks or months or bombardment to do that to a town in any case. Seoul is 233 square miles. How many millions of artillery should would it take to flatten that? NK can't get them across.

I think the wildcard of unpredictability in all of this... Does NK stop with artillery, OR do they decide to go down in flames and take everyone with them. Shooting VX off into Seoul or Japan would be a while new level of terror. Would they date use nukes? What if we don't destroy them all quickly enough?

 

[Blimey]

For now they still cannot deliver nukes. Until a missile is armed they need bombers and short of a surprise attack any plane would be shot out of the sky the second it looks across the border if things got hot. I don't imagine Chem artillery would be that devastating because after the first wave people are down in their bunkers.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

For now they still cannot deliver nukes. Until a missile is armed they need bombers

I think that's debatable. There are definitely people who think they can

 

[Blimey]

I think that's debatable. There are definitely people who think they can

The debate will come to an end soon at the rate things are going...we'll all agree they can tip a missile.

 

[holdover]

actually blimey, there are a lot of experts who would agree with what I said. I can't copy and paste a link from my phone, but I'll get back to with them when I get home. Maybe a week.

My information and understanding of the situation is based on military analisis .

 

[ArmedCorgi]

From where I sit the way to go would be to collect the best intelligence you can on locations and then go on the offensive. Hit those areas hard with artillary, cruise missiles with cluster munitions, shit whatever we could. Keep them busy and on the defensive. If their artillery is that much of a threat to Seoul, why would we wait for their attack? Why wouldn't neutralizing it be our first priority or at least coordinate multiple attacks at once all over the country. We could do that.

 

[holdover]

the main problem is the sheer number of targets that must be hit in a short period of time.
Head quarters, command and control targets power grids, artillery guns SAM sites radar sites airfields,bridges ,supply depots, troop concentrations, government buildings,fuel tanks.

Not all of them known either. The expectation that we could cripple them before they can retaliate is just unrealistic. Even in the first gulf war, with more aircraft, it took weeks to degrade saddams forces.and they were sitting ducks in the desert. You can bet that NK after seeing what American sirpower did to them the first time and what they did in the gulf wars have taken steps to protect
themselves as much as possible witth Russian Chinese and Iranian made Sam'

Don't get me wrong, the US will kick the shit out of them, but not in one week, there will be casualties in the south.