If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Best Korea: It is ON. United Nations: No, no it's not "on." It's never been "on." It's off   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 243
    More: Obvious, Korean War, Rodong Sinmun, United Nations General Assembly, U.N. Security Council, North Korea  
•       •       •

23291 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Mar 2013 at 4:28 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-11 05:21:57 PM
It's on like Donkey Kong.
It's on like Charles Bronson.
It's on like the movie Tron.
It's on like Michelle Kwan.
 
2013-03-11 05:22:28 PM
It's not just a refugee crisis that South Korea is really worried about, it's the NK's 5000 hardened artillery positions within firing range of Seoul.  If NK gets hit bombed by the west, even a little, even just the nuke sites, the north will probably start firing shells at Seoul.

How long would it take us to disable Five Thousand long-range artillery pieces, each embedded in its own hardened concrete bunker?  Not hours, days would be the best case, a week would be most accurate.  Getting through hardened concrete takes a direct hit from a large, directed munition.  Drones might help, repeated counter-battery might work, eventually, but one suspects most of the heavy lifting would be done by manned aircraft and laser guided 2,000 lb bombs.  5,000 is a lot of sorties.

Here's the big deal.  How many shots would the NK howitzers get off before being destroyed?  Modern artillery can fire a few rounds a minute, but lets say that each of the 5000 fire just 1 round per minute and are - on average, destroyed after just one hour of firing.

Using that artificially low rate of fire and terribly optimistic rate of destroying their guns, it would still result in 300,000 high explosive and incendiary shells hitting Seoul in the first hour of fighting.   After the first hour of fighting, Seoul would look like Dresden.  If the war came on fast, in response to say, a surprise attack by the west, a good proportion of Seoul's 25 million population would see their last day on earth.

It's not Best Korea's nukes that have everyone in the South worried, it's their half-century old gun tech.  Which unless we have some new technology hidden away that is able to instantly disable 5000 howitzers, the chances of a preemptive strike against the north's nukes is about as close to 0% as it gets.
 
2013-03-11 05:23:49 PM

Eagles409:


OK. Threads over. Everyone go home.
 
2013-03-11 05:24:34 PM

SploogeTime: I say we send Obama and Dennis Rodman, Beyonce and Bill Maher over to settle this.


Why not send our master negotiators? Like John Boehner and Mitch McConnel?
 
2013-03-11 05:24:52 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Looks like it's on to me.  You can even see their lightbulb from space.
 
2013-03-11 05:25:17 PM

Ned Stark: Nope that's the end. North Korea is not party to the NNPT. Attempts to forcibly dismantle its nuclear program are unlawful.


Nobody is making them dismantle anything. They are simply deciding to not do trade with them while they do have a program. It's not unlawful to not sell someone something. Here look. I'm not going to sell you this beer, sue me.

Best Korea made itself an international pariah and has to deal with the consequences of doing so.
 
2013-03-11 05:27:54 PM

Ned Stark: vygramul: JusticeandIndependence: I just want to know who is beating this war drum?

North Korea. Haven't you been paying attention?

False. This current spate of tensions was started by a new round of economic sanctions.


And the economic sanctions just came out of the blue, did they?
 
2013-03-11 05:28:47 PM

KangTheMad: iheartscotch: MaudlinMutantMollusk: EvilEgg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Put up or shut up, tubby

You might feel differently if you lived in Seoul.

They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Except the Korean DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world with thousands of landmines. You would need a ton of engineering vehicles just to not have to go through single file.


That's assuming NK does any sort of ground offensive. They've been much more excited about their nuclear capabilities so it's entirely possible they'd lob missiles all over the place and dare UN forces to stomp all their poor widdle civilians conveniently living next to launch sites a la Hamas.
 
2013-03-11 05:29:45 PM

JK47: China believes that the presence of American forces in the region helps to stabilize what would otherwise be a cauldron of intense and bitter rivalries with historical and ethnic overtones.


I would think China would want us out of there, no?  It would be like inviting a bunch of Soviet troops to hang around in Mexico to keep the cartels under control.

Seems like it would be easy for the US to negotiate an exit from the Korean peninsula with China, as part of an overall plan to reunify the Koreas after deposing Kim.  If it weren't for the requirement to enforce the 1952 ceasefire agreement, we wouldn't need to be there.
 
2013-03-11 05:30:58 PM

Radioactive Ass: iheartscotch: The south wouldn't really need to go through the DMZ until then.

The problem with a Maginot Line is that it tends to point in only one direction and that if the other guy knows it then it's easy to overcome with a little bit of ingenuity.


Agreed; but, the Norks have been trying to get over, under, around or through the DMZ for 50 years. They've gotten close before; but, they don't count on the superior not-starvingness of the south's soldiers.

/ my old boss was stationed in the south during the late 70's. he had plenty of stories about the north's soldiers trying to sneak south.
 
2013-03-11 05:31:38 PM

RandomRandom: It's not just a refugee crisis that South Korea is really worried about, it's the NK's 5000 hardened artillery positions within firing range of Seoul.  If NK gets hit bombed by the west, even a little, even just the nuke sites, the north will probably start firing shells at Seoul.

How long would it take us to disable Five Thousand long-range artillery pieces, each embedded in its own hardened concrete bunker?  Not hours, days would be the best case, a week would be most accurate.  Getting through hardened concrete takes a direct hit from a large, directed munition.  Drones might help, repeated counter-battery might work, eventually, but one suspects most of the heavy lifting would be done by manned aircraft and laser guided 2,000 lb bombs.  5,000 is a lot of sorties.

Here's the big deal.  How many shots would the NK howitzers get off before being destroyed?  Modern artillery can fire a few rounds a minute, but lets say that each of the 5000 fire just 1 round per minute and are - on average, destroyed after just one hour of firing.

Using that artificially low rate of fire and terribly optimistic rate of destroying their guns, it would still result in 300,000 high explosive and incendiary shells hitting Seoul in the first hour of fighting.   After the first hour of fighting, Seoul would look like Dresden.  If the war came on fast, in response to say, a surprise attack by the west, a good proportion of Seoul's 25 million population would see their last day on earth.

It's not Best Korea's nukes that have everyone in the South worried, it's their half-century old gun tech.  Which unless we have some new technology hidden away that is able to instantly disable 5000 howitzers, the chances of a preemptive strike against the north's nukes is about as close to 0% as it gets.


Might be a good reason to use ground-penetrating nuclear weapons.  One assumes they're in clusters, not totally isolated from one another, because of range considerations.

In a few years, we might be well on our way to a system to shoot the shells down with lasers.  (Really.)  That would change things quite a bit--if it could be proven to work reliably.
 
2013-03-11 05:31:45 PM

Ned Stark: Nope that's the end. North Korea is not party to the NNPT. Attempts to forcibly dismantle its nuclear program are unlawful.


That matters only so long as China is interested in propping up Best Korea.

The minute they get pissed off enough to not care anymore, we can bomb the fark out of unilaterally act in the planet's best interest.
 
2013-03-11 05:32:07 PM

Radioactive Ass: Ned Stark: Nope that's the end. North Korea is not party to the NNPT. Attempts to forcibly dismantle its nuclear program are unlawful.

Nobody is making them dismantle anything. They are simply deciding to not do trade with them while they do have a program. It's not unlawful to not sell someone something. Here look. I'm not going to sell you this beer, sue me.

Best Korea made itself an international pariah and has to deal with the consequences of doing so.


This is all going to fall apart once the Best Koreans ally with the Gungans and Kim Jong Un blows up the battle groups with a single well placed shot from his fighter craft.
 
2013-03-11 05:32:12 PM

EvilEgg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Put up or shut up, tubby

You might feel differently if you lived in Seoul.


Or are a US service man. As much as I despise North Korea can we not go to war for at least 10-20 years? Please? I'm tired of attending funerals of friends in the military.
 
2013-03-11 05:34:21 PM
The artillery of Best Korea will be completely nullified when the US purchases and installs 10-15 batteries of these around Seoul.
 
2013-03-11 05:34:49 PM

StaleCoffee: This is all going to fall apart once the Best Koreans ally with the Gungans and Kim Jong Un blows up the battle groups with a single well placed shot from his fighter craft.


Mesa no speksa Korea.
 
2013-03-11 05:36:37 PM

El_Frijole_Blanco: timujin: The U.N. can say it's still valid, but that doesn't mean anything if Best Korea decides to ignore it.

No the UN made it perfectly OK to blow them to hell for firing the first shot and violating the agreement


I'm fairly sure that at this point if they fired the first shot no one would say "boo" if they got blown to hell.
 
2013-03-11 05:39:46 PM

Dr. Goldshnoz: I know it was foolish of me, but I was really hopeful kim jong un would do more than the constant retarded sabre rattling his father was known for.


I am actually beginning to wonder whether that kid is "running" anything at all. We may be looking at the Asian equivalent of a typical Latin American junta, where the "leader" is a puppet, and the military is actually running the whole show.
When your first act in power is to arrange a visit from Dennis Rodman, it kind of tarnishes your supervillian cred, in my eyes.
 
2013-03-11 05:40:30 PM

nickerj1: The artillery of Best Korea will be completely nullified when the US purchases and installs 10-15 batteries of these around Seoul.


One can hope.

Probably would be more than that number, though.
 
2013-03-11 05:41:08 PM

timujin: El_Frijole_Blanco: timujin: The U.N. can say it's still valid, but that doesn't mean anything if Best Korea decides to ignore it.

No the UN made it perfectly OK to blow them to hell for firing the first shot and violating the agreement

I'm fairly sure that at this point if they fired the first shot no one would say "boo" if they got blown to hell.


The Chinese will be annoyed if any of it actually gets splattered on them.
 
2013-03-11 05:42:01 PM
North Korea is like the stupid drunk guys who yells and screams about how he's going to kick everyone's ass, and everyone else is too smart to take him up on it, but they still worry a little because they think he might keep a gun in his car, but there's a pretty good chance he can't even remember where he parked his car.
 
2013-03-11 05:43:51 PM

iheartscotch: KangTheMad: iheartscotch: MaudlinMutantMollusk: EvilEgg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Put up or shut up, tubby

You might feel differently if you lived in Seoul.

They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Except the Korean DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world with thousands of landmines. You would need a ton of engineering vehicles just to not have to go through single file.

Does south not have a navy?

Either way; I know the south has a decent sized Air Force. I imagine taking out all the north's artillery wouldn't take too long for them. Plus, they have us. Once the artillery is gone, we could take out their nuclear facilities with limited effort.

/ The south wouldn't really need to go through the DMZ until then.


They do, the South Korean Navy has roughly 18 amphibious assault craft, allowing for a deployment of roughly 5,000 men, 50 tanks, and some APCs. Per run.

So assuming the South Koreans manage to find a beachhead, they have to hold it long enough for the assault craft to go back out to sea, go back to port, load up another round of troops and tanks, go back, and deploy more forces. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is taking the beachhead and deploying the troops. All the NK's need is a lucky hit with an anti-tank round and the South Koreans need to deploy engineering vehicles to clear the way for more armor to exit the craft. Looking at a topographical map, the best place to deploy an amphibious assault is a 300km round trip from the border.

South Korea does have aerial assault capabilities, which could add another 200ish troops to the battle. Or, more likely, dropping supplies.
 
2013-03-11 05:44:14 PM

nickerj1: these


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2013-03-11 05:45:12 PM

Tyrano Soros: Is this the note-writing, ineffectual UN or the black-helicopter, gun-taking-away strong arm UN?


Yes
 
2013-03-11 05:46:04 PM

KangTheMad: iheartscotch: KangTheMad: iheartscotch: MaudlinMutantMollusk: EvilEgg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Put up or shut up, tubby

You might feel differently if you lived in Seoul.

They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Except the Korean DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world with thousands of landmines. You would need a ton of engineering vehicles just to not have to go through single file.

Does south not have a navy?

Either way; I know the south has a decent sized Air Force. I imagine taking out all the north's artillery wouldn't take too long for them. Plus, they have us. Once the artillery is gone, we could take out their nuclear facilities with limited effort.

/ The south wouldn't really need to go through the DMZ until then.

They do, the South Korean Navy has roughly 18 amphibious assault craft, allowing for a deployment of roughly 5,000 men, 50 tanks, and some APCs. Per run.

So assuming the South Koreans manage to find a beachhead, they have to hold it long enough for the assault craft to go back out to sea, go back to port, load up another round of troops and tanks, go back, and deploy more forces. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is taking the beachhead and deploying the troops. All the NK's need is a lucky hit with an anti-tank round and the South Koreans need to deploy engineering vehicles to clear the way for more armor to exit the craft. Looking at a topographical map, the best place to deploy an amphibious assault is a 300km round trip from the border.

South Korea does have aerial assault capabilities, which could add another 200ish troops to the battle. Or, more likely, dropping supplies.


North Korea has sea mines.

And it doesn't take much to ruin an amphibious assault craft's day. A 120mm mortar would do the trick.
 
2013-03-11 05:48:08 PM

ph0rk: Ned Stark: Nope that's the end. North Korea is not party to the NNPT. Attempts to forcibly dismantle its nuclear program are unlawful.

That matters only so long as China is interested in propping up Best Korea.

The minute they get pissed off enough to not care anymore, we can bomb the fark out of unilaterally act in the planet's best interest.


Yes I agree it would be very easy for the US to overthrow North Korea. The North Korean army would provide no meaningful resistance. The only limiting factor would be how fast a sufficient number Koreans could be killed for terror to overcome national pride and compel compliance. Also perhaps, roads in severe disrepair simply failing under the strain of armored vehicle traffic.

But we were talking about responsibility for instigation not practical military matters.
 
2013-03-11 05:48:57 PM
Dunno which paper tiger to disagree with.
 
2013-03-11 05:51:04 PM

mysticcat: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Seoul brothers


Many moons ago I was in a bookstore in Seoul and saw a book titled "How to Cook Seoul Food."  I still kick myself to this day for not buying it.
 
2013-03-11 05:52:09 PM
But has it been *broughten*?
 
2013-03-11 05:52:53 PM

Tyrano Soros: Is this the note-writing, ineffectual UN or the black-helicopter, gun-taking-away strong arm UN?


That depends on how much tinfoil you're wearing.
 
2013-03-11 05:53:07 PM

KangTheMad: iheartscotch: KangTheMad: iheartscotch: MaudlinMutantMollusk: EvilEgg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Put up or shut up, tubby

You might feel differently if you lived in Seoul.

They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Except the Korean DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world with thousands of landmines. You would need a ton of engineering vehicles just to not have to go through single file.

Does south not have a navy?

Either way; I know the south has a decent sized Air Force. I imagine taking out all the north's artillery wouldn't take too long for them. Plus, they have us. Once the artillery is gone, we could take out their nuclear facilities with limited effort.

/ The south wouldn't really need to go through the DMZ until then.

They do, the South Korean Navy has roughly 18 amphibious assault craft, allowing for a deployment of roughly 5,000 men, 50 tanks, and some APCs. Per run.

So assuming the South Koreans manage to find a beachhead, they have to hold it long enough for the assault craft to go back out to sea, go back to port, load up another round of troops and tanks, go back, and deploy more forces. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is taking the beachhead and deploying the troops. All the NK's need is a lucky hit with an anti-tank round and the South Koreans need to deploy engineering vehicles to clear the way for more armor to exit the craft. Looking at a topographical map, the best place to deploy an amphibious assault is a 300km round trip from the border.

South Korea does have aerial assault capabilities, which could add another 200ish troops to the battle. Or, more likely, dropping supplies.


Yeah; that might be dicey. I imagine we'd give them whatever assistance was required however. I still don't see a reason why they'd have to go north until after taking out the artillery and nuclear facilities.

By then; I imagine most of the north's air force would be gone and I imagine the north would have everything they had on the DMZ. If the south did a landing then; they might be able to take Pyongyang without any bloodshed. Without their dear leader; I imagine the north would fold fast, along factional lines.
 
2013-03-11 05:53:58 PM

JohnAnnArbor: Might be a good reason to use ground-penetrating nuclear weapons. One assumes they're in clusters, not totally isolated from one another, because of range considerations.

In a few years, we might be well on our way to a system to shoot the shells down with lasers. (Really.) That would change things quite a bit--if it could be proven to work reliably.


And that's probably why NK is working so hard on nukes.  They figure that one of these days the west will find a way counter their artillery.  They're probably right.  I can think of a few ways right now, expensive, but potentially workable methods to counter their artillery threat.

The south could build an MLRS type rocket system consisting of (very expensive) inertially guided (not GPS) rockets with thermobaric warheads. The NK is sure to jam the hell out of GPS, so there's no point in going that route.  Inertial guidance is a lot more expensive, it's the sort used in cruise missiles.  It uses an internal map of roads and landmarks and follows those.  Given that the north can't exactly move their gun emplacements around, the routes for each rocket could be pre-programmed.  A small theromobaric rocket might not destroy the gun emplacements, but it would very likely scramble anyone inside.  You'd need enough of them to hit ever emplacement multiple times, and be able to fire them all within minutes of the initiation of hostilities.

Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned.  Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use.  The problem once again is expense.  Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system.  Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending.  Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any leaks.

How much would the military industrial complex charge for each copy of that laser system?  If we're lucky, $10 million a copy.  Multiply by 5000 and you have a half-decade of NASA's budget.  No one wants to pay 50 billion dollars to counter a threat that could dissipate into insolvency or a people's revolution next week, but if I lived in Seoul, I'd damn sure want my government investing in something to counter the artillery threat.
 
2013-03-11 05:54:42 PM

RandomRandom: How long would it take us to disable Five Thousand long-range artillery pieces, each embedded in its own hardened concrete bunker?  Not hours, days would be the best case, a week would be most accurate.  Getting through hardened concrete takes a direct hit from a large, directed munition.  Drones might help, repeated counter-battery might work, eventually, but one suspects most of the heavy lifting would be done by manned aircraft and laser guided 2,000 lb bombs.  5,000 is a lot of sorties.


In 91 the Iraqis felt the same way about their static defenses
 
2013-03-11 05:56:23 PM

jso2897: Dr. Goldshnoz: I know it was foolish of me, but I was really hopeful kim jong un would do more than the constant retarded sabre rattling his father was known for.

I am actually beginning to wonder whether that kid is "running" anything at all. We may be looking at the Asian equivalent of a typical Latin American junta, where the "leader" is a puppet, and the military is actually running the whole show.
When your first act in power is to arrange a visit from Dennis Rodman, it kind of tarnishes your supervillian cred, in my eyes.


meh, I'm sure Lex Luther had to start somewhere, too. Or maybe he had Rodman smuggle a message back to Obama like "help. the generals will kill me if i do anything smart."
 
2013-03-11 05:57:44 PM

RandomRandom: JohnAnnArbor: Might be a good reason to use ground-penetrating nuclear weapons. One assumes they're in clusters, not totally isolated from one another, because of range considerations.

In a few years, we might be well on our way to a system to shoot the shells down with lasers. (Really.) That would change things quite a bit--if it could be proven to work reliably.

And that's probably why NK is working so hard on nukes.  They figure that one of these days the west will find a way counter their artillery.  They're probably right.  I can think of a few ways right now, expensive, but potentially workable methods to counter their artillery threat.

The south could build an MLRS type rocket system consisting of (very expensive) inertially guided (not GPS) rockets with thermobaric warheads. The NK is sure to jam the hell out of GPS, so there's no point in going that route.  Inertial guidance is a lot more expensive, it's the sort used in cruise missiles.  It uses an internal map of roads and landmarks and follows those.  Given that the north can't exactly move their gun emplacements around, the routes for each rocket could be pre-programmed.  A small theromobaric rocket might not destroy the gun emplacements, but it would very likely scramble anyone inside.  You'd need enough of them to hit ever emplacement multiple times, and be able to fire them all within minutes of the initiation of hostilities.

Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned.  Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use.  The problem once again is expense.  Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system.  Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending.  Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...


And we haven't even started talking about all the tunnels, known and unknown, the NKoreans have bored under the DMZ.

*sigh*

What a mess.
 
2013-03-11 05:59:22 PM

SploogeTime: I say we send Obama and Dennis Rodman, Beyonce and Bill Maher over to settle this.


And we can hold Hillary Clinton in reserve.  But only as a last resort, not to be deployed preemptively.
 
2013-03-11 06:00:07 PM
I'm sure its been said 1,000,000 times so far, but I'm pretty sure they can end it without the UN's approval.

/pew! pew! pew!
 
2013-03-11 06:00:20 PM

kumanoki: meat0918: Shrugging Atlas: Be nice if we could just say, "Fair enough" and have the B-2s pay their nuclear facilities a visit.  China would probably thank us at this rate.

China might beat us to the punch.  They could certainly assert themselves as a world power that can "fix" something America hasn't been able too.

I have always wondered why China tolerates DPRK foolishness on it's landmass.


same reason we put up with Mexico's government not being able to deal with the Drug Lords

Cheap Labor
 
2013-03-11 06:03:33 PM

realmolo: You have to wonder if China is saying to itself "We really should kill this guy and put our own guy in there".

The Chinese are evil, but they aren't stupid, and they don't like being associated with stupid.


I also have to wonder if the US has ever suggested it to them behind closed doors.
 
2013-03-11 06:04:33 PM
RandomRandom:
Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned.  Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use.  The problem once again is expense.  Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system.  Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending.  Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...

I know nothing but I wonder about a synchronized cruise missile attack on the artillery positions. They can be exceedingly accurate, of course, and that might be enough to circumvent any hardening of the emplacements; fly it right in the window. At the first sign of trouble, launch them all to strike simultaneously, and hit their exposed missile launch sites too. I guess that I don't know enough about what kinds/sizes of warheads are available.
 
2013-03-11 06:05:37 PM

timujin: Tatterdemalian: timujin: The U.N. can say it's still valid, but that doesn't mean anything if Best Korea decides to ignore it.

It means the international media are going to blame South Korea for any attacks North Korea launches.

/in short, Worst Korea is going to be treated like Israel
//we should just let them all nuke each other, that'd teach them (that both the UN and US can't be trusted to keep any promises at all)

I'm not sure at all how you came to that conclusion.


Occam's Razor: He's stupid on an epic scale
 
2013-03-11 06:07:04 PM

RandomRandom: It uses an internal map of roads and landmarks and follows those.


That's not inertial guidance.  That's image-based terrain recognition.  Old stuff, and cheap to implement.
 
2013-03-11 06:07:11 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: mysticcat: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Seoul brothers

Pyongyang Train! The hippest trip in East Asia. 60 nonstop years across the tracks of your mind, into the exciting world of ... uh ... Pyongyang.


I prefer the Bangkok Train, personally.
 
2013-03-11 06:13:25 PM

LaraAmber: mysticcat: [i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]

Seoul brothers

I didn't realize Best Korea allowed bulls as service animals.


You mean old impotent ones? Yeah neither of those are going to fetch much at auction.
 
2013-03-11 06:14:31 PM

StaleCoffee: Radioactive Ass: Ned Stark: Nope that's the end. North Korea is not party to the NNPT. Attempts to forcibly dismantle its nuclear program are unlawful.

Nobody is making them dismantle anything. They are simply deciding to not do trade with them while they do have a program. It's not unlawful to not sell someone something. Here look. I'm not going to sell you this beer, sue me.

Best Korea made itself an international pariah and has to deal with the consequences of doing so.

This is all going to fall apart once the Best Koreans ally with the Gungans and Kim Jong Un blows up the battle groups with a single well placed shot from his fighter craft.



Yousa think people gonna die?
 
2013-03-11 06:15:02 PM

iheartscotch: KangTheMad: iheartscotch: KangTheMad: iheartscotch: MaudlinMutantMollusk: EvilEgg: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Put up or shut up, tubby

You might feel differently if you lived in Seoul.

They don't seem to be real worried about it, either, from what I've seen

/I don't believe for a minute this situation is any different from the dozen other times Best Korea has screamed and squealed and stomped it's little feet

I agree; the south would tear through the Norks like chilli through an old folks home.

Except the Korean DMZ is the most heavily fortified border in the world with thousands of landmines. You would need a ton of engineering vehicles just to not have to go through single file.

Does south not have a navy?

Either way; I know the south has a decent sized Air Force. I imagine taking out all the north's artillery wouldn't take too long for them. Plus, they have us. Once the artillery is gone, we could take out their nuclear facilities with limited effort.

/ The south wouldn't really need to go through the DMZ until then.

They do, the South Korean Navy has roughly 18 amphibious assault craft, allowing for a deployment of roughly 5,000 men, 50 tanks, and some APCs. Per run.

So assuming the South Koreans manage to find a beachhead, they have to hold it long enough for the assault craft to go back out to sea, go back to port, load up another round of troops and tanks, go back, and deploy more forces. But that isn't the hard part. The hard part is taking the beachhead and deploying the troops. All the NK's need is a lucky hit with an anti-tank round and the South Koreans need to deploy engineering vehicles to clear the way for more armor to exit the craft. Looking at a topographical map, the best place to deploy an amphibious assault is a 300km round trip from the border.

South Korea does have aerial assault capabilities, which could add another 200ish troops to the battle. Or, more likely, dropping supplies.

Yeah; that might be dicey. I imagine we'd give them what ...


Keep in mind that while the NK's have a small airforce and air defence, it's all soviet stuff. Upgraded MiG 29s. And soviet anti-air missile systems. Which means tracked, self propelled, mobile, and cheap to build. Which also means they're in the mountains.

If I was a NK military defense planner, which fortunately I am not, I would have the air defenses set up in tiers. Anti-air cannons near beachheads and main flightpaths to Pyongyang. It doesn't take much to conceal the guns, and although they are useless against airplanes of today, they can really ruin a helicopter's day if it's flying low under the radar, or deploying troops/supplies.

Have the longer range fixed emplacement missile systems set back further in the country, and use decoy radar emplacements, which can be used for targeting. If they go offline, fire up the main radar array. It doesn't take much to fool smart weapons like anti-radiation missiles.

The shorter range missiles can be placed on the north sides of mountains/cliff faces, with the medium range systems south-facing. You take out the medium range system, and get in pursuit of a jet, then you get lit up from behind as you pass the mountain.
 
2013-03-11 06:16:37 PM
That is a funny headline but I'm pretty sure it was on, then off for a while, and now it's back on.
 
2013-03-11 06:18:45 PM

Man On Pink Corner: RandomRandom: It uses an internal map of roads and landmarks and follows those.

That's not inertial guidance.  That's image-based terrain recognition.  Old stuff, and cheap to implement.


Terrcon guidance was a component of the first guidance method used in the original land attack Tomahawk. It was really only used to get "Close" though and was more of a backup system for a more conventional gimbaled gyro type guidance system. It's the addition of GPS that gets it spot on nowadays.
 
2013-03-11 06:20:08 PM

KarmicDisaster: RandomRandom:
Then there's the anti artillary tech you mentioned.  Lasers are in testing, but the Israeli's have missile based system currently in use.  The problem once again is expense.  Each shot of the Israeli systems costs something upwards of $100k and each battery has a very expensive tracking system.  Even if the laser based system were ready today, one imagines that its firing rate would be little higher than the artillery against which it's defending.  Meaning you'd need 5000 individual anti artillery laser systems to counter the NK threat, more if you wanted a backstop for any ...

I know nothing but I wonder about a synchronized cruise missile attack on the artillery positions. They can be exceedingly accurate, of course, and that might be enough to circumvent any hardening of the emplacements; fly it right in the window. At the first sign of trouble, launch them all to strike simultaneously, and hit their exposed missile launch sites too. I guess that I don't know enough about what kinds/sizes of warheads are available.


Sounds feasible to this armchair general. I think it might be cost prohibitive though. Can't we just sail a plague ship into their harbor?
 
2013-03-11 06:27:07 PM

vygramul: realmolo: You have to wonder if China is saying to itself "We really should kill this guy and put our own guy in there".

The Chinese are evil, but they aren't stupid, and they don't like being associated with stupid.

Dunno - they can be slooooow to learn. I mean, seriously, no joke, in 1980, they decided that runners weren't cutting it in their war against Vietnam, and that they should probably look into this "radio" thing everyone keeps talking about.

/Even CHINA lost to Vietnam


Everyone loses to Vietnam. The Mongols lost to Vietnam for gods sake. Vietnam has this book. Whenever they get attacked they open the book and it tells them what to do to defend themselves. Mostly it involves digging lots of holes and putting down pointy sticks.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report