Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Hindustan Times)   Kim Jong-Un: A mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a windtalker wrapped in Scooby-Doo episode wrapped in bacon   ( hindustantimes.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Scooby Doo, bacon  
•       •       •

7678 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 8:50 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-04-05 08:41:03 AM  
Best Korea has told Russia they might want to evacuate their embassy staff. It's in their Best interests, really
 
2013-04-05 08:49:16 AM  
I really hope kim dong fatty goes too far this time.  No people should have to live like that.
 
2013-04-05 08:54:26 AM  
Nuke Nuke, Nuke of GURRRRRLLL, Nuke, Nuke, Nuke of GURRLLLLLLL
 
2013-04-05 08:54:47 AM  
image.blingee.com
 
2013-04-05 08:57:21 AM  
The current crisis, with its nuclear threats and Kim's lurid exhortations to his troops to "break the waists of the crazy enemies and totally cut their windpipes"

You have to watch out for those dangerous gyeok sul waist breaking techniques.
 
2013-04-05 08:58:59 AM  

nekom: I really hope kim dong fatty goes too far this time.  No people should have to live like that.


Its looking like hes going to.

Maybe its the only way North Korea is going to get better, and the govt knows it. They cant just give up communism cold turkey, or simply hand the country over to the south...so they go out in a blaze of glory. The last bastion of hardline communism falls, and in the long run the people end up better off.
 
2013-04-05 09:03:24 AM  
I loved this quote:

North Korea has threatened the United States, saying it is prepared to strike with "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons.

North Korea is also prepared to strike with fatter, heavier leaders.
 
2013-04-05 09:04:18 AM  
I'm not sure "fear" is the right word here. Not until the South Koreans give his threats more than a one-shoulder shrug, anyway.
 
2013-04-05 09:04:24 AM  

Sybarite: The current crisis, with its nuclear threats and Kim's lurid exhortations to his troops to "break the waists of the crazy enemies and totally cut their windpipes"

You have to watch out for those dangerous gyeok sul waist breaking techniques.


En gard, i'll let you try my wu-tang style.
 
2013-04-05 09:04:45 AM  
Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)
 
2013-04-05 09:08:53 AM  
The generals are loading Un onto the missile right now. They are Unloading it.
 
2013-04-05 09:09:58 AM  

somedude210: Best Korea has told Russia they might want to evacuate their embassy staff. It's in their Best interests, really


Same to the British Embassy.  Saying the "North Korean government would be unable to guarantee the safety of embassies and international organizations in the country in the event of conflict from April 10. "
 
2013-04-05 09:11:15 AM  

SlothB77: I loved this quote:

North Korea has threatened the United States, saying it is prepared to strike with "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons.

North Korea is also prepared to strike with fatter, heavier leaders.


Right up there with the Belgian takedown
 
2013-04-05 09:11:45 AM  
 
2013-04-05 09:12:03 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


Little over a million troops, but old Soviet and Chinese equipment. Major fuel issues. They do, however, have a lot of artillery that could be pointed at Seoul. They absolutely can't win, and I'm inclined to believe U.S. intelligence estimates that their capacity to make war could be destroyed in mere hours, but it may not be pretty. And what happens to the ensuing power vacuum, that remains a big unknown. The U.S. will not occupy best Korea, we'll just knock their military down. I suppose worst Korea comes in then? Or China. Who knows.
 
2013-04-05 09:12:05 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


North Korea have a large army - experts disagree as to the moral and capability of it, so it's hard to say how 'good' it might be in a shooting war.
 
2013-04-05 09:15:24 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


The first things we always do is to wipe out their communications, air force and navy, that would happen very quickly. However, they have missiles and could do a lot of damage with those. On the ground, they have tons of tanks and artiliary too. If they choose to fight, that will take a while to subdue. Could be a big mess.
 
2013-04-05 09:15:57 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


Much like the Iraqi Republican Guard, NK has some elite units.  Those will be the ones who surrender in droves first.
 
2013-04-05 09:17:24 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


Regardless of their technology it wouldn't be easy.  N Korea's active military is 1.1M with reserves estimated in the 8M range.  Even if half gave up immediately you're still talking an Army twice the size as the US.
 
2013-04-05 09:19:02 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


It's irresponsible to ever assume a war would be over in days, but barring full scale Chinese assistance (which seems extraordinarily unlikely this time) they cannot fight a long term conventional war. They could assemble millions of riflemen who are likely well trained and dedicated fighters, so they might not collapse outright like the Iraqi army, but their equipment is older than what the Iraqis had in '91 and they have little food, ammo, or repair facilities. They're probably hungry today and certainly would be a week into battle when what few supply trucks they could muster have been eliminated by the vastly superior US/Allied air forces.

There could be significant Allied casualities, as well as SK/NK civilians, but they would pale in comparison to the number of dead NK soldiers at the hands of the USAF and USN.
 
2013-04-05 09:21:55 AM  

bighairyguy: On the ground, they have tons of tanks and artiliary too.


Their tanks are T-55s and similar. We're talking about the worst equipment Saddam had in the Gulf War, which was no match for US technology 22 years ago. US firepower would completely and utterly destroy their army. The only question is how long it would take and how many casualties the NK would inflict while they go down. Would their soldiers fight to the last man and hide in the mountains like the Japanese did in the Pacific, or would they give up just to get a hot meal once they see all their equipment blown to pieces?
 
2013-04-05 09:23:33 AM  
Has anyone bothered to interview his former schoolmates from that private school he attended?
 
2013-04-05 09:25:34 AM  

KarmicDisaster: The generals are loading Un onto the missile right now. They are Unloading it.


upload.wikimedia.org

/someone should shoop Kim's face onto that
 
2013-04-05 09:26:06 AM  

GoodOmens: somedude210: Best Korea has told Russia they might want to evacuate their embassy staff. It's in their Best interests, really

Same to the British Embassy.  Saying the "North Korean government would be unable to guarantee the safety of embassies and international organizations in the country in the event of conflict from April 10. "


April 10?  So, are they telegraphing an official start of hostilities?
Sounds counter productive.
 
2013-04-05 09:27:14 AM  
This armchair general says:
During the first 24 hrs, we would destroy their C&C, their air force, their power "grid", such as it is, any air defenses, and any fixed artillery positions in range of SK. Then with complete air superiority it would be a longer matter of just waiting for any vehicle or troops to move on a road and hitting that, maybe with hitting some fixed positions as they are discovered.  The hunkered down troops would have no way to resupply and no orders and no way to move; I'd just wait them out; they will make a mistake. This phase might take months, but why attack fixed positions, let nature take it's course.
 
2013-04-05 09:28:58 AM  

bighairyguy: The first things we always do is to wipe out their communications, air force and navy, that would happen very quickly. However, they have missiles and could do a lot of damage with those. On the ground, they have tons of tanks and artiliary too. If they choose to fight, that will take a while to subdue. Could be a big mess.


They have basically no fuel though.  That's the thing that makes me think it would be over fairly quickly.  I would expect die-hard NK soldiers to go on fighting for a while, but they'll be hard pressed to muster much more than dismounted infantry (and those soldiers are mostly stunted and/or starving).

WRT their artillery, a lot of their positions are fixed, and are in fact viewable on Google Earth (so you know the US military knows where they are too).  I don't expect that those fixed positions would last very long either---it's just a matter of us not running out of ammo to shoot at them, but between attack planes/helos, drones, cruise missiles, etc., I imagine we could silence most of their artillery reasonably fast.

The bigger concern is mobile missile launchers.  They might not be as easy to track, and some of them have enough range to hit Seoul from anywhere in NK (the few guns that NK has that could hit Seoul have to be stationed right along the DMZ in fairly hittable positions).  We'd want to prioritize taking those things out as quickly as possible.

I would expect a war on the Korean peninsula (barring significant Chinese/Russian intervention in favor of NK, which I think is unlikely) to be very bloody but over quickly.  The North just doesn't have the resources to sustain any kind of conflict.
 
2013-04-05 09:31:29 AM  

nekom: stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)

Little over a million troops, but old Soviet and Chinese equipment. Major fuel issues. They do, however, have a lot of artillery that could be pointed at Seoul. They absolutely can't win, and I'm inclined to believe U.S. intelligence estimates that their capacity to make war could be destroyed in mere hours, but it may not be pretty. And what happens to the ensuing power vacuum, that remains a big unknown. The U.S. will not occupy best Korea, we'll just knock their military down. I suppose worst Korea comes in then? Or China. Who knows.


Korea Disney, Mall of Korea, NASCAR Korea, Sports Arenas World Korea, McDonald's.
 
2013-04-05 09:33:53 AM  

KarmicDisaster: This armchair general says:
During the first 24 hrs, we would destroy their C&C, their air force, their power "grid", such as it is, any air defenses, and any fixed artillery positions in range of SK. Then with complete air superiority it would be a longer matter of just waiting for any vehicle or troops to move on a road and hitting that, maybe with hitting some fixed positions as they are discovered.  The hunkered down troops would have no way to resupply and no orders and no way to move; I'd just wait them out; they will make a mistake. This phase might take months, but why attack fixed positions, let nature take it's course.


Probably the safest course of action for SK and US military as well as SK civilians.  I would add to that though, that we'd want to get all of our assets focused on capturing and/or killing the various generals, Communist party leaders, and Kim himself.  NK's whole "pyramid scheme" is kind of held together by threats and power at the top, so decapitating the regime may facilitate things.
 
2013-04-05 09:34:10 AM  

WegianWarrior: stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)

North Korea have a large army - experts disagree as to the moral and capability of it, so it's hard to say how 'good' it might be in a shooting war.


Morale-wise, the NK army is full od psychos. Raised their entire lives to die for Best leader.

Equipment wise, that's a question. Unless China has been sending them at least 80's era surplus, all NK has are 60's-era junk and whatever they could get smuggled in from Iran.
 
2013-04-05 09:35:22 AM  

TXEric: GoodOmens: somedude210: Best Korea has told Russia they might want to evacuate their embassy staff. It's in their Best interests, really

Same to the British Embassy.  Saying the "North Korean government would be unable to guarantee the safety of embassies and international organizations in the country in the event of conflict from April 10. "

April 10?  So, are they telegraphing an official start of hostilities?
Sounds counter productive.


If I were a betting man I would say they are going to do a missile test on April 9th.
 
2013-04-05 09:35:38 AM  

GoodOmens: stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)

Regardless of their technology it wouldn't be easy.  N Korea's active military is 1.1M with reserves estimated in the 8M range.  Even if half gave up immediately you're still talking an Army twice the size as the US.


the average weight in lbs of the males in this army is about 115.
 
2013-04-05 09:35:41 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)



Given the recent discovery that wars cost money, no Democratic president would want to incurr another 2-3 Trillion under the table. That's best left to Republicans.

Un is actually excited by the Sequester.
 
2013-04-05 09:36:40 AM  

KarmicDisaster: This armchair general says:
During the first 24 hrs, we would destroy their C&C, their air force, their power "grid", such as it is, any air defenses, and any fixed artillery positions in range of SK. Then with complete air superiority it would be a longer matter of just waiting for any vehicle or troops to move on a road and hitting that, maybe with hitting some fixed positions as they are discovered.  The hunkered down troops would have no way to resupply and no orders and no way to move; I'd just wait them out; they will make a mistake. This phase might take months, but why attack fixed positions, let nature take it's course.


This is all dependent on whether China intervenes (as required by their treaty). Unlike last time, China might not want to piss off their #1 debtor, who could use a war powers act to render all their debts to China null and void.
 
2013-04-05 09:36:43 AM  

HMS_Blinkin:
Probably the safest course of action for SK and US military as well as SK civilians.  I would add to that though, that we'd want to get all of our assets focused on capturing and/or killing the various generals, Communist party leaders, and Kim himself.  NK's whole "pyramid scheme" is kind of held together by threats and power at the top, so decapitating the regime may facilitate things.


I'd even go one further, take out the mausoleum of kim il sung, Juche tower, everything like that. Make sure they know that the lie is now finished, time to wake the fark up. That shock isn't going to feel good for many of them, but it's best to get it out of the way early on, make sure they know that the jig is up for good.
 
2013-04-05 09:36:59 AM  
www.hindustantimes.com

"No ya silly fark, we'll get bombed from that direction."
 
2013-04-05 09:38:45 AM  
i1054.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-05 09:38:55 AM  

probesport: Sybarite: The current crisis, with its nuclear threats and Kim's lurid exhortations to his troops to "break the waists of the crazy enemies and totally cut their windpipes"

You have to watch out for those dangerous gyeok sul waist breaking techniques.

En gard, i'll let you try my wu-tang style.


that's nothing to fark with...
 
2013-04-05 09:40:02 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


That's not the problem. The problem is that there is no good outcome for China. A peaceful reunification strengthens the US in a region where China is already sick of playing the underdog. A messy revolution sends waves of poverty stricken refugees into a region of China which is struggling to manage its existing populace. China really doesn't want western mining companies operating in NK. Even if all of those were resolved there's still an ideological question, for China, hanging over US actions in nominally Communist countries.
 
2013-04-05 09:41:27 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Morale-wise, the NK army is full od psychos. Raised their entire lives to die for Best leader.


That's what we're meant to believe, but it's not like anyone has ever interviewed an NK soldier (who wasn't worried about getting executed for saying the wrong thing).  I mean, you might be right, and the propaganda might have totally worked on them, but I think it's also fairly possible that they'd happily surrender the moment their Commissar takes one to the head.

SlothB77: the average weight in lbs of the males in this army is about 115.


And they had to lower the minimum height for males to 5'0".  They're stunted as fark.  I'm amazed they can even lift AKs at this point.

BitwiseShift: Given the recent discovery that wars cost money, no Democratic president would want to incurr another 2-3 Trillion under the table. That's best left to Republicans.


I bet we could shake down Japan/SK for some assistance on that, given how happy they'd be about having NK dealt with.  Also,  we'd save a lot of money if we acted mainly in an air and naval support role for SK, and let them do a lot of the dirty work on the ground.  I'm not saying that we wouldn't have to put any (extra) soldiers into Korea, but it wouldn't be like Iraq where we were nearly going it alone.
 
2013-04-05 09:43:03 AM  

KarmicDisaster: This armchair general says:
During the first 24 hrs, we would destroy their C&C, their air force, their power "grid", such as it is, any air defenses, and any fixed artillery positions in range of SK. Then with complete air superiority it would be a longer matter of just waiting for any vehicle or troops to move on a road and hitting that, maybe with hitting some fixed positions as they are discovered.  The hunkered down troops would have no way to resupply and no orders and no way to move; I'd just wait them out; they will make a mistake. This phase might take months, but why attack fixed positions, let nature take it's course.


I was just thinking we don't have any recent night vision footage of green people running away from their tanks and armored vehicles as they get shredded by an A10.  Can you do some of that, too?
 
2013-04-05 09:51:26 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: it wouldn't be like Iraq where we were nearly going it alone


You ignore the coalition of the willing, such sacrifices made by great nations such as the kingdom of Tonga
 
2013-04-05 09:53:03 AM  

dukeblue219: bighairyguy: On the ground, they have tons of tanks and artiliary too.

Their tanks are T-55s and similar. We're talking about the worst equipment Saddam had in the Gulf War, which was no match for US technology 22 years ago. US firepower would completely and utterly destroy their army. The only question is how long it would take and how many casualties the NK would inflict while they go down. Would their soldiers fight to the last man and hide in the mountains like the Japanese did in the Pacific, or would they give up just to get a hot meal once they see all their equipment blown to pieces?


I think our best strategy would be to carpet-bomb them with Big Macs.
 
2013-04-05 09:54:15 AM  
Came here for the bacon. I was promised bacon.

/nom nom
 
2013-04-05 09:55:04 AM  

nekom: I'd even go one further, take out the mausoleum of kim il sung, Juche tower, everything like that. Make sure they know that the lie is now finished, time to wake the fark up. That shock isn't going to feel good for many of them, but it's best to get it out of the way early on, make sure they know that the jig is up for good.


Id go one further

Stay the fark out of it, he is playing you
He is no threat to the US, never has been, never will be
He is taunting the US because he knows the US is immature as fark and will fall for these tricks.
Grow the fark up and stay the fark out of it, he is an attention whore with no real power, leave him to rot.
Dont Bomb him
Dont Feed him
Dont respond to him
If you do you are puppets to a farkwit, congratulations take your prize
 
2013-04-05 09:57:22 AM  
Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-05 10:00:17 AM  

TV's Vinnie: China might not want to piss off their #1 debtor, who could use a war powers act to render all their debts to China null and void


They have already traded those with other nations, so if you null and void them you are going to piss off half the planet.
 
2013-04-05 10:03:58 AM  

Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:


That graphic is VERY misleading. There's simply NO comparison between the 4,100 tanks the North supposedly has versus the 2,400 the South has. They would likely not face each other because the North doesn't have fuel to run them and if they did, American/Korean airpower would destroy them.

The idea that the North Koreans have more "combat aircraft" than the South is laughable if technically true. The North's most numerous fighter is the MiG-21 and they still have MiG-17's in the inventory. The South and the Americans have F-16's, F-15's, and F-22's which would decimate any force the North could even get off the ground.
 
2013-04-05 10:04:12 AM  

Slartibartfaster: Dont Bomb him
Dont Feed him
Dont respond to him


Which is exactly what the US is doing right now, and why Kim is ratcheting up the ante here.  We're speculating what would happen if NK strikes first.
 
2013-04-05 10:04:23 AM  
A guy from China once told me he'd spent the required time in the army there but had only ever fired 5 shots from a weapon. He asked me how many times I had fired a gun (I've never been in the militar, but I'm from the rural U.S.), and not wanting to make him feel awkward, I lied and said about 200.

If that's the kind of underfunded training most of Best Korea's troops have, I wish them a safe journey across the Styx.
 
2013-04-05 10:05:01 AM  
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-05 10:05:33 AM  

Slartibartfaster: TV's Vinnie: China might not want to piss off their #1 debtor, who could use a war powers act to render all their debts to China null and void

They have already traded those with other nations, so if you null and void them you are going to piss off half the planet.


And your solution is......what? Let Fatty DingDongs get away with nuclear aggression?
 
2013-04-05 10:07:25 AM  

Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:


They should be asking about the  quality of the NK Military. Numbers don't mean much when you're comparing Type 59's and T-62's to M1 Abrams and MIG-21's to F-22's....
 
2013-04-05 10:09:15 AM  

dukeblue219: Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

That graphic is VERY misleading. There's simply NO comparison between the 4,100 tanks the North supposedly has versus the 2,400 the South has. They would likely not face each other because the North doesn't have fuel to run them and if they did, American/Korean airpower would destroy them.

The idea that the North Koreans have more "combat aircraft" than the South is laughable if technically true. The North's most numerous fighter is the MiG-21 and they still have MiG-17's in the inventory. The South and the Americans have F-16's, F-15's, and F-22's which would decimate eliminate any force the North could even get off the ground.


FTFY,  Dont use that word except for its intended purpose.  If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.
 
2013-04-05 10:12:38 AM  
How can we take a guy with Vanilla Ice's haircut seriously?  Can't we just send Sug Knight over there to dangle him over a balcony?  Is that why Rodman was there?
 
2013-04-05 10:12:47 AM  

orclover: FTFY,  Dont use that word except for its intended purpose.  If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.


Merriam-Webster:
dec·i·mate
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number  <choleradecimated the population>
b : to cause great destruction or harm to  <firebombsdecimated the city> <an industry  decimated by recession>
 
2013-04-05 10:15:26 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Slartibartfaster: TV's Vinnie: China might not want to piss off their #1 debtor, who could use a war powers act to render all their debts to China null and void

They have already traded those with other nations, so if you null and void them you are going to piss off half the planet.

And your solution is......what? Let Fatty DingDongs get away with nuclear aggression?


nuclear threats, he has no ability to deliver and if he does others will smack him down
China could stop him with a timeout, if the USA gets involved it will be far more complicated
 
2013-04-05 10:16:13 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: /someone should shoop Kim's face onto that


been there, done that

choosepp.net
YORO!
 
2013-04-05 10:17:35 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: Which is exactly what the US is doing right now


flying the B2 was a juvenile move
 
2013-04-05 10:21:56 AM  

Supracentral: Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

They should be asking about the  quality of the NK Military. Numbers don't mean much when you're comparing Type 59's and T-62's to M1 Abrams and MIG-21's to F-22's....


Very true. It hinted at a bit when giving the number of "serviceable" aircraft they had, but doesn't at all get into the age or anything of the equipment.
 
2013-04-05 10:22:21 AM  

dukeblue219: Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

That graphic is VERY misleading. There's simply NO comparison between the 4,100 tanks the North supposedly has versus the 2,400 the South has. They would likely not face each other because the North doesn't have fuel to run them and if they did, American/Korean airpower would destroy them.

The idea that the North Koreans have more "combat aircraft" than the South is laughable if technically true. The North's most numerous fighter is the MiG-21 and they still have MiG-17's in the inventory. The South and the Americans have F-16's, F-15's, and F-22's which would decimate any force the North could even get off the ground.


Supracentral: Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

They should be asking about the  quality of the NK Military. Numbers don't mean much when you're comparing Type 59's and T-62's to M1 Abrams and MIG-21's to F-22's....


My understanding is that only 2 F-22s were sent over for show.  Don't know how many bombers are available.
 
2013-04-05 10:22:50 AM  

Supracentral: They should be asking about the  quality of the NK Military. Numbers don't mean much when you're comparing Type 59's and T-62's to M1 Abrams and MIG-21's to F-22's....


Hell, NK is still fielding a significant number of T-34s!  Yeah, their quality is crap and due to fuel shortages I doubt the tank drivers and fighter pilots get a lot of actual training time.

Slartibartfaster: flying the B2 was a juvenile move


Spending money on nuclear weapons while your population starves is more juvenile.  What the hell do you want?  These clowns have shown that they won't listen to anything but brute force since Kim Il-Sung died.
 
2013-04-05 10:25:02 AM  

StrikitRich: My understanding is that only 2 F-22s were sent over for show.


Those bad boys have super cruise and we keep a good number of them in the general pacific region.  We could make that 2 turn into a much bigger number in about 6 hours.  That's power projection, something that the US happens to be very good at.
 
2013-04-05 10:25:22 AM  
5th largest army, huh?
America, China, Russia... ? ... NK.

Who is number 4? Mexico? Brazil?
 
2013-04-05 10:25:24 AM  

nekom: I'd even go one further, take out the mausoleum of kim il sung, Juche tower, everything like that. Make sure they know that the lie is now finished, time to wake the fark up. That shock isn't going to feel good for many of them, but it's best to get it out of the way early on, make sure they know that the jig is up for good.


So if the Chinese would take out the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, you would wake up and surrender to Communism?
If that's how it works, why didn't we just send a squadron of bombers to Berlin in December of '41, take out the Reichstag and Brandenburg Gate, and the war would have been over by Christmas.
 
2013-04-05 10:25:58 AM  
ooh! India?
 
2013-04-05 10:27:43 AM  
The Nork military spends most of its time harvesting crops and working in factories, not training to fight. They are so short of food that they have sometimes been ordered to go back to their barracks and sleep more so they aren't as hungry. They have a lot of artillery and could do some damage to Seoul before being destroyed, the variable there is how much of their ammunition is dud, whether the crews are trained or fit enough to service the weapon, and if the pieces themselves are actually functional. There is some question as to if the Norks even HAVE a nuke, much less have figured out how to put it on a missile and they certainly have not tested a functional ballistic nuke - as any engineer knows without testing you don't find all the engineering bugs.

Comparing the Nork military to the South Korea's is a laugh. The South Koreans are making plans to occupy and bring food to the starving population, not worrying too much about actually defeating the Norks because that is a given. The question is whether the Chinese invade to prevent a united free Korea on its border.
 
2013-04-05 10:27:58 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?


India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000
 
2013-04-05 10:28:08 AM  

probesport: Sybarite: The current crisis, with its nuclear threats and Kim's lurid exhortations to his troops to "break the waists of the crazy enemies and totally cut their windpipes"

You have to watch out for those dangerous gyeok sul waist breaking techniques.

En gard, i'll let you try my wu-tang style.



What's it gonna be, Sissy? Which fighting style do you want me to kick your ass in? SISSY Are you kidding me? I taught you all all your moves myself. There's not a style you can bust that I can't defend against. JUSTICE You're no match for my "Shaolin Monk." SISSY Yeah, but I can bury you with my "Crouching Tiger." JUSTICE A little "Venus's--flytrap"? SISSY I'll counter with "Dragon Crane." JUSTICE How about a little "biatch, My Man Ain't Yo Baby's Daddy"? SISSY (beat; smiles) Bring it on.
 
2013-04-05 10:28:26 AM  

orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.


Is that some sort of pet peeve????
 
2013-04-05 10:28:41 AM  
Iron Man is in South Korea now so I'm feeling a little better about the situation.
 
2013-04-05 10:28:52 AM  
I'm going to start dropping this in every NK thread, it's an excellent no-BS writeup on the military capabilities of the DPRK.  It's almost a year old now, but the conclusions reached here can be easily extended to the new hardware/nukes that they've shown they possess, the end result is the same.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-bet we en-rhetoric-and-reality/#introduction

One of the points made in there is that if the DPRK attempts to invade or cross the DMZ, they have to move however many hundreds of thousands of men through 3 well-defined paths that the SK's have had 50 years to map out, fortify, and build defenses around.  They would have to do this in a couple thousand thin-skinned vehicles, and in order to have any chance to overwhelm the enemy they would have to do it all at once, which means that the SK's would hear/see/feel them coming through either OP stations, satellite imagery, or ground sensors.  Also, a bunch of their artillery is hardened shelters, but must be uncovered from those shelters to fire accurately, then brought back in, and so on.

Long story short is that the DPRK has no effective logistical support for a campaign lasting longer than 2 weeks, much less 2 months.  If this turns out to be a shooting war, the regime is effectively finished.
 
2013-04-05 10:29:30 AM  
The most numerous transport aircraft in the North Korean inventory. They have 300 of these. And they have been completely grounded at various times because they don't have the fuel to fly them.upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-05 10:29:47 AM  
My guess is that this will go down like Jonestown x 100k. The whole nation will drink the final batch of Kool-Aid, the military leaders will gun down any who dissent, eliminate as much of their own rank and file as they can without catching a bullet themselves, and then surrender to South Korea in exchange for amnesty from the genocide they committed.
 
2013-04-05 10:30:11 AM  

The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?

India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000


wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.
 
2013-04-05 10:30:22 AM  

SurelyShirley:
So if the Chinese would take out the Washington Monument and Lincoln Memorial, you would wake up and surrender to Communism?
If that's how it works, why didn't we just send a squadron of bombers to Berlin in December of '41, take out the Reichstag and Brandenburg Gate, and the war would have been over by Christmas.


There's a big difference there. Neither the Washington monument nor the Lincoln memorial mean anything to me other than being a part of the history of the nation I happened to get born in. I don't see huge photos of Obama all over the place, nor do I recall seeing any of Bush, Clinton, other Bush, Reagan or Carter in my lifetime (though to be fair, I was only an infant, perhaps I didn't notice the giant Carter photos everywhere). There is no cult of personality here. Sure there are those who believe that the USA is god's gift to the world, and while misguided they are under no pressure to believe that. On the contrary, comedians openly make fun of Obama, as they have done for every POTUS ever.

The entire CULTURE of DPRK, which seems to be solely based on a cult of personality, has got to go.
 
2013-04-05 10:31:54 AM  

LargeCanine: The Nork military spends most of its time harvesting crops and working in factories, not training to fight. They are so short of food that they have sometimes been ordered to go back to their barracks and sleep more so they aren't as hungry. They have a lot of artillery and could do some damage to Seoul before being destroyed, the variable there is how much of their ammunition is dud, whether the crews are trained or fit enough to service the weapon, and if the pieces themselves are actually functional. There is some question as to if the Norks even HAVE a nuke, much less have figured out how to put it on a missile and they certainly have not tested a functional ballistic nuke - as any engineer knows without testing you don't find all the engineering bugs.

Comparing the Nork military to the South Korea's is a laugh. The South Koreans are making plans to occupy and bring food to the starving population, not worrying too much about actually defeating the Norks because that is a given. The question is whether the Chinese invade to prevent a united free Korea on its border.


In the link I posted above, the general assumption is a 25% dud rate.  You're essentially taking away every fourth artillery piece of the ones that are functional enough to accurately and continuously fire.
 
2013-04-05 10:33:51 AM  

nekom: The entire CULTURE of DPRK USA which seems to be solely based on a cult of personality, has got to go

 
2013-04-05 10:34:04 AM  

Comic Book Guy: If this turns out to be a shooting war, the regime is effectively finished.


It can be argued that the regime is already in it's death throes even without military action so long as the rhetoric continues to be effectively ignored (ignored as in not bribing them off with food/supplies/whatever this time as was usually the case).

By essentially "calling their bluff" this time, they've lost their primary bargaining chip.
 
2013-04-05 10:34:34 AM  

The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?

India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000


That's only "Army" though, right, judging from the link.  This list shows the USMC as a separate entity, and that would also indicate that the Navy and USAF are being excluded as well.  Still, that probably only makes the situation worse for NK, since their AF and navy are proportionally much smaller compared to their army.
 
2013-04-05 10:34:50 AM  

stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)


NO THEIR ARMY IS BAD AMERICA IS GOOD. ACTUALLY THEIR ARMY IS BAD TO EVERYONE. THEY ARE A FRIENDLESS DOUCHEBAG POINTING AN AK-47 WITH FOUR ROUNDS IN IT TOWARDS A CROWD OF 194 OTHER PEOPLE. CANNOT WIN.
 
2013-04-05 10:36:25 AM  

I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????


Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?
 
2013-04-05 10:36:26 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.


These numbers are all counting reserves, and this is just personnel (doesn't count hardware, tech, logistics, etc).

Another site, Global Firepower, ranks countries taking all that sort of stuff into account.
 
2013-04-05 10:37:18 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.


Anybody can arm a million soldiers with rifles and say they have the world's biggest army. That says nothing about the relative strengths of each army.
 
2013-04-05 10:38:06 AM  
Best thing to do is air-drop food as far away from the leadership as possible.  Let the soldiers and the small villages be the ones who get fark-tons of food from the US and allies...

Make it interesting.  Spike it with viagra.

That would keep them occupied for a while.  Hopefully not over 4 hours at a stretch.. :)
 
2013-04-05 10:39:00 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Has anyone bothered to interview his former schoolmates from that private school he attended?


I did. Oddly enough he didn't mention who he was at school, so no one knew who he was while he was there.

The interviews went something like this:

Some dude: "What, that fat kid? Head of North Korea? I remember taking a huge dump once. He came in and complained about the smell. I turned him upside down and gave him a swirly before I flushed."

Some chick: "I lost a bet once and had to get him to take his pants off in front of me. For a second there, I thought he was a fat lesbian chick. Seriously... I couldn't find his dick. Then my sorority sisters came in and we all laughed and pointed at his tiny manhood. What is he up to these days?"

Some teacher: "If there was even one kid I thought I'd gotten through to, it was him. I showed him hours and hours of pictures from the Holocaust, videos of KKK members committing atrocities, videos of voter suppression  and videos of media suppression. I think he finally got it. Anyway, what's he up to these days?"
 
2013-04-05 10:40:50 AM  
He's a spoiled, crazy, chubby, stupid, harmless, boring little egomaniac who is being used as a paper tiger by news magazines, websites and governments to get attention and scare people. There, now you don't have to RTFA.
 
2013-04-05 10:41:00 AM  

Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?

India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000

wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.


Nah, we don't need as many troops since we've got the biggest bombs and awesome war machines.  An invasion of North Korea might require a draft.
 
2013-04-05 10:43:31 AM  
That article was strangely informative.  You typically don't see anything that calm in American journ-

hindustantimes.com

-ah.
 
2013-04-05 10:45:38 AM  
It may even be that NK feels like there is nothing to lose by going into full war-mode...  Do nothing and the people are dying of starvation and malnutrition.  Go to war, and at least they have the illusion of being occupied for the good of the country.

It's more likely to happen than we would like to believe.

Stupid gets trumped by desperation.
 
2013-04-05 10:45:52 AM  

metallion: Best thing to do is air-drop food as far away from the leadership as possible.  Let the soldiers and the small villages be the ones who get fark-tons of food from the US and allies...

Make it interesting.  Spike it with viagra.

That would keep them occupied for a while.  Hopefully not over 4 hours at a stretch.. :)


Air drop some hard liquor. Since the country is full of spineless followers maybe giving them some 'liquid courage' will allow them to shake off this little twat. Eh... but then they'll be the free world's problem; on second thought just let them rot.
 
2013-04-05 10:46:52 AM  

orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?


Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?
 
2013-04-05 10:47:37 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: WRT their artillery, a lot of their positions are fixed, and are in fact viewable on Google Earth (so you know the US military knows where they are too). I don't expect that those fixed positions would last very long either---it's just a matter of us not running out of ammo to shoot at them, but between attack planes/helos, drones, cruise missiles, etc., I imagine we could silence most of their artillery reasonably fast.


We would be very unlikely to destroy enough of that artillery fast enough to keep them from devastating Seoul and anything else close to the border.  Many of those fixed positions are in reinforced concrete revetments.  Counter battery may have to hit them a dozen times to knock them out.  Aircraft may be required to destroy many of them.

Not a problem when dealing with a few hundred, but we're talking tens of thousands.  Some estimates put the total at 50,000, with 5,000 hardened tubes within range of Seoul.  Even if you can take out the '1% per hour' that is claimed by the South Korean military, that still results in the total destruction of Seoul.

Just consider the 5,000 Artillery tubes pointed at Seoul.  Firing just 4 times per minute (a low figure), that puts 20,000 explosions into a city of 10 1/2 million within the FIRST MINUTE.   Within the first hour, 1.2 million HE and incendiary shells go into that thriving metropolis.  Yes, there will be a high dud and miss rate, but even if the duds and misses comprise 90% of the shells, Seoul will still be farked.

That's the reason we haven't knocked these idiot's blocks off already.  Because the south put their capital in the wrong damn place.
 
2013-04-05 10:53:23 AM  
I think that Ahmadinejad lost the World Championship of Crazy to Fat Kim this year. He has got to be soooooo pissed.
 
2013-04-05 10:55:05 AM  

Slartibartfaster: HMS_Blinkin: Which is exactly what the US is doing right now

flying the B2 was a juvenile move



Says the guy without any B-2's.......
 
2013-04-05 10:55:20 AM  

Carn: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?

India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000

wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.

Nah, we don't need as many troops since we've got the biggest bombs and awesome war machines.  An invasion of North Korea might require a draft.


Drafts are illegal now. -2/10
 
2013-04-05 10:57:58 AM  

RandomRandom: We would be very unlikely to destroy enough of that artillery fast enough to keep them from devastating Seoul and anything else close to the border.  Many of those fixed positions are in reinforced concrete revetments.  Counter battery may have to hit them a dozen times to knock them out.  Aircraft may be required to destroy many of them.

Not a problem when dealing with a few hundred, but we're talking tens of thousands.  Some estimates put the total at 50,000, with 5,000 hardened tubes within range of Seoul.  Even if you can take out the '1% per hour' that is claimed by the South Korean military, that still results in the total destruction of Seoul.

Just consider the 5,000 Artillery tubes pointed at Seoul.  Firing just 4 times per minute (a low figure), that puts 20,000 explosions into a city of 10 1/2 million within the FIRST MINUTE.   Within the first hour, 1.2 million HE and incendiary shells go into that thriving metropolis.  Yes, there will be a high dud and miss rate, but even if the duds and misses comprise 90% of the shells, Seoul will still be farked.

That's the reason we haven't knocked these idiot's blocks off already.  Because the south put their capital in the wrong damn place.


That's actually a pretty common misconception.  The vast majority of NK guns can't actually reach quite that far, and most of the artillery positions on the NK side of the DMZ are either out of range or too small for the big guns that are needed to hit Seoul.

Google "Bluffer's Guide North Korea Strikes," it's a fascinating rundown of NK positions based on Google Earth image analysis.  I'll quote a relevant part though:

"Contrary to popular belief, these [170 mm Koksan guns] are the only North Korean artillery guns (or MRLS for that matter!) which can reach central Seoul from behind the North Korean Border. Although the system is likely to be employed in a regular mobile artillery manner, they would be rather exposed if deployed sufficiently close to the border to make such a bombardment. There are only 17 HARTS (hardened Artillery Sites, see later) within 55km of central Seoul. "

So, the US just has to focus on a relatively manageable number of artillery locations to protect Seoul.  The rest will take longer to be dealt with, obviously, but are not in such a position to do as much damage.
 
2013-04-05 10:58:08 AM  

ransack.: Drafts are illegal now. -2/10


Ugh. Well I hope they have bottles. I'm NOT drinking out of a can.
 
2013-04-05 10:58:36 AM  

ransack.: Carn: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?

India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000

wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.

Nah, we don't need as many troops since we've got the biggest bombs and awesome war machines.  An invasion of North Korea might require a draft.

Drafts are illegal now. -2/10


what do you mean, illegal?
Are you saying if we instituted one, it would be against our laws?
 
2013-04-05 10:59:28 AM  

I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?


The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.
 
2013-04-05 10:59:34 AM  

RandomRandom: HMS_Blinkin:

That's the reason we haven't knocked these idiot's blocks off already.  Because the south put their capital in the wrong damn place.


THIS. We should have never allowed the 59th Parallel (or whatever damn Parallel it is)  to be the final Border. Should have pushed inland 50 Miles further before we signed the armistice in '53.

Of course, its easy to say that looking back 60 years....who knew at the time?
 
2013-04-05 11:01:09 AM  

hitlersbrain: He's a spoiled, crazy, chubby, stupid, harmless, boring little egomaniac who is being used as a paper tiger by news magazines, websites and governments to get attention and scare people. There, now you don't have to RTFA.


Maybe it is his cry for help. Maybe Rodman's visit reminded him of the good life he experienced in Switzerland and he'd like that for his family.
 
2013-04-05 11:01:55 AM  

metallion: Best thing to do is air-drop food as far away from the leadership as possible.  Let the soldiers and the small villages be the ones who get fark-tons of food from the US and allies...

Make it interesting.  Spike it with viagra.

That would keep them occupied for a while.  Hopefully not over 4 hours at a stretch.. :)


Then the regime says, anyone seen eating the food will be sent to re-education camps, along with their entire families.
 
2013-04-05 11:04:25 AM  
He likes amusement parks and Disney characters. It's like dealing with Michael Jackson.
 
2013-04-05 11:08:48 AM  
I don't mind us posturing a little bit, but, when the day is done, doing nothing seems reasonable.
 
2013-04-05 11:08:55 AM  

Deep Contact: He likes amusement parks and Disney characters. It's like dealing with Michael Jackson.


Depends on the Disney Character.

media.aintitcool.com
 
2013-04-05 11:11:38 AM  

Summa cum loudly: RandomRandom: HMS_Blinkin:

That's the reason we haven't knocked these idiot's blocks off already.  Because the south put their capital in the wrong damn place.

THIS. We should have never allowed the 59th Parallel (or whatever damn Parallel it is)  to be the final Border. Should have pushed inland 50 Miles further before we signed the armistice in '53.

Of course, its easy to say that looking back 60 years....who knew at the time?


Anyone who knew what was really going on in Stalin's Russia.

/which sadly did not seem to include our propaganda-wielding media overlords
//or maybe it did, and the obviously inevitable result was a price they eagerly made the North Koreans pay to bolster their own authority at the expense of the capitalists
 
2013-04-05 11:17:15 AM  

ransack.: Carn: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: ooh! India?

India

Per Global Security:

1 China 1,600,000
2 South Korea 1,240,000
3 United States 1,125,000
4 India 1,120,000
5 North Korea 1,000,000
6 Israel 633,000
7 Pakistan 550,000
8 Russia 415,000
9 Vietnam 410,000
10 Turkey 400,000

wow! Thanks. I would have guessed we were number one (based on spending). I also guessed that Russia was in the top 5. Though the article says that SK has 655,000 (active)  not 1.24M Anyways, thanks.

Nah, we don't need as many troops since we've got the biggest bombs and awesome war machines.  An invasion of North Korea might require a draft.

Drafts are illegal now. -2/10


Active soldiers? That has not mattered since WWII. Missiles, Air strikes, naval artillery barrages and just good old automatic weapons make 'troops' pretty much inconsequential. Like grass to a lawn mower.
 
2013-04-05 11:18:15 AM  

Devo: I don't mind us posturing a little bit, but, when the day is done, doing nothing seems reasonable.


You can't do -nothing- because it sends the message to the world that building nukes is okay. Now, whether or not you agree that sovereign nations should have the right to do whatever, including building nukes, is another issue entirely; this is specifically about US policy on the matter, which is that it is unacceptable.

Doing "nothing" here emboldens the likes of Iran.
 
2013-04-05 11:22:19 AM  
 
2013-04-05 11:23:12 AM  

hitlersbrain: ransack.: Carn: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: 

Active soldiers? That has not mattered since WWII. Missiles, Air strikes, naval artillery barrages and just good old automatic weapons make 'troops' pretty much inconsequential. Like grass to a lawn mower.


Confucius say lawnmower get clogged when grass grow too high...
 
2013-04-05 11:26:09 AM  

The Bestest: Doing "nothing" here emboldens the likes of Iran.


Well doing nothing here is more like "maintaining the choke-hold" than actually doing nothing. The fresh UN sanctions sparked this whole tantrum and the best thing to do once the punishment sparks a tantrum is leave the child be to work it off themselves.

But North Korea's a country, not a child, so instead of closing the door on them, we have to put up missile shields and call up reservists.
 
2013-04-05 11:28:44 AM  

ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.


I'd like to see a citation for that.
 
2013-04-05 11:29:31 AM  

I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.

I'd like to see a citation for that.


The literal meaning part that is, not the horribly emabarrassing outcome....
 
2013-04-05 11:30:58 AM  

I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.

I'd like to see a citation for that.


Wikipedia for decimate

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".
 
2013-04-05 11:34:39 AM  

I'm no expert but...: I'd like to see a citation for that.


The Romans invented it to punish legions that ran away from battle.

The soldiers had to draw lots. 1 in ten of them got a death sentence. The other nine had to beat the tenth one to death.

This left them with and army still at 90% strength and full of soldiers more afraid of their Roman leaders than a bunch of slaves.
 
2013-04-05 11:43:26 AM  

ransack.: I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.

I'd like to see a citation for that.

Wikipedia for decimate

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".


"Unfortunately for the etymological purists, decimate comes from the Medieval Latin word decimatus, which means 'to tithe'. The word was then assigned retrospectively to the Roman practice of punishing every tenth soldier. "

From -> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/does-decimate-mean-destroy - one-tenth/
 
2013-04-05 11:47:11 AM  

I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.

I'd like to see a citation for that.

Wikipedia for decimate

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".

"Unfortunately for the etymological purists, decimate comes from the Medieval Latin word decimatus, which means 'to tithe'. The word was then assigned retrospectively to the Roman practice of punishing every tenth soldier. "

From -> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/does-decimate-mean-destroy - one-tenth/


lol no
 
2013-04-05 11:48:59 AM  

ransack.: I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.

I'd like to see a citation for that.

Wikipedia for decimate

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".

"Unfortunately for the etymological purists, decimate comes from the Medieval Latin word decimatus, which means 'to tithe'. The word was then assigned retrospectively to the Roman practice of punishing every tenth soldier. "

From -> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/does-decimate-mean-destroy - one-tenth/

lol no


That's a healthy bit of embarrassment.  Do you need a break?
 
2013-04-05 11:49:42 AM  

ransack.: I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: ransack.: I'm no expert but...: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

Ok, decimate/decimation as in the Roman was a military punishment where 1 in 10 soldiers was killed by colleagues and a quick look at the OED shows that decimatation was a tithe during Cromwells era but apart from that decimate/decimation has for 200 years plus meant to destroy or kill a large proportion of something. I'm just wondering what your peeve is then?

The literal meaning is to reduce something to 9/10 the size. This would be a horribly embarrassing outcome of a United States attacking North Korea scenario.

I'd like to see a citation for that.

Wikipedia for decimate

Decimation (Latin: decimatio; decem = "ten") was a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers. The word decimation is derived from Latin meaning "removal of a tenth".

"Unfortunately for the etymological purists, decimate comes from the Medieval Latin word decimatus, which means 'to tithe'. The word was then assigned retrospectively to the Roman practice of punishing every tenth soldier. "

From -> http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/09/does-decimate-mean-destroy - one-tenth/

lol no


Why lol no?
 
2013-04-05 11:56:55 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: That's actually a pretty common misconception. The vast majority of NK guns can't actually reach quite that far, and most of the artillery positions on the NK side of the DMZ are either out of range or too small for the big guns that are needed to hit Seoul.


That writeup talks of hits to "central Seoul".  Seoul is a big damn city, over 200 square miles.  The northern part of the city is well within range of much lesser guns.

Fire spreads. Incendiaries may be enough to burn down much of Seoul, depending on environmental conditions, and don't discount WMD.  If the NK military leadership truly know the score, they'll know they're definitely going to lose.  It will just be a matter of how much damage they can inflict on the way out.  Most nations would never dare use bio, chem or nuke weapons, most nations aren't North Korea.  Even shells filled with inert radiological material could deny access to large sections of Seoul, for years.

At a minimum, the northern portion of Seoul would probably look like Stalingrad within the first few hours of fighting.  Depending on environmental factors and whether the north used WMD's, it is well within the realm of possibility that the majority of Seoul could be made unlivable.

The South doesn't want that to happen to their capital city. Who would?  That's largely why North Korea still exists.
 
2013-04-05 11:56:59 AM  

The Bestest: Devo: I don't mind us posturing a little bit, but, when the day is done, doing nothing seems reasonable.

You can't do -nothing- because it sends the message to the world that building nukes is okay. Now, whether or not you agree that sovereign nations should have the right to do whatever, including building nukes, is another issue entirely; this is specifically about US policy on the matter, which is that it is unacceptable.

Doing "nothing" here emboldens the likes of Iran.



My best guess is that no real military action by the US is going to happen. We aren't going to drop any bombs. We aren't going to attack any of their military targets. At most, we might see some sort of blockade. Is sending a message enough for us to go into another war? I'd say that is going to be a tough sell. Better get Colin Powell to do a powerpoint.
 
2013-04-05 12:11:36 PM  
can i try?

seems to be decimate vs eliminate

if you say decimate is remove a tenth.. then the 1 million man army would be come 900,000  still a strong formidable force

if you say decimate is to reduce by a power of ten.  then the 1 million man army is now 100,000  reduced but not destroyed

if you say eliminate, then all the 1 million troops are gone and destroyed.
 
2013-04-05 12:15:56 PM  
You guys should read the Olympus/Ilium pair of science-fiction novels.

Two of the characters have a hangup about proper use of the word "decimate".  One of them is a robot.  Hilarity ensues.
 
2013-04-05 12:15:56 PM  
My Google-Fu is weak; at what percentage attrition is a combat unit typically considered, if not "destroyed", at least "combat ineffective"?

Obviously there's exceptions, like scenarios where there's only survival or annihilation, or when a unit's morale prematurely breaks.  Just looking for the general rule of thumb, and I don't think decimation is it.
 
2013-04-05 12:19:53 PM  
What did Rodman say to that little boy?
 
2013-04-05 12:42:44 PM  

orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?


That's right. We're all going to speak Korean soon anyway.
 
2013-04-05 12:44:56 PM  

nekom: stuhayes2010: Does N Korea have a good army?  Or would this be another Gulf War? (over in days)

Little over a million troops, but old Soviet and Chinese equipment. Major fuel issues. They do, however, have a lot of artillery that could be pointed at Seoul. They absolutely can't win, and I'm inclined to believe U.S. intelligence estimates that their capacity to make war could be destroyed in mere hours, but it may not be pretty. And what happens to the ensuing power vacuum, that remains a big unknown. The U.S. will not occupy best Korea, we'll just knock their military down. I suppose worst Korea comes in then? Or China. Who knows.


terrain and weather is a much bigger factor in Korea Vs. the sandbox.  Any invasion might do well to circumvent the parts of the DMZ that are littered with landmines.  That said it's a big army but not well equipped or battle tested.  I get the feeling that the troops and command have a kind of Internet Tough Guy false sense of ability.
 
2013-04-05 12:45:39 PM  

SurelyShirley: orclover: I'm no expert but...: orclover: FTFY, Dont use that word except for its intended purpose. If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Is that some sort of pet peeve????

Yea it is and its pointless.  As has been proven above the english language has been shiat on so much that original definitions are long forgotten.  But nobody really gives a fark right?

That's right. We're all going to speak Korean soon anyway.


Mao! Diddy Mao!
 
2013-04-05 12:45:55 PM  
I'm glad that no one here is a General in the army. We'd be screwed since any planning would turn into a pointless debate about some mundane word.
 
2013-04-05 12:49:17 PM  

Slartibartfaster: TV's Vinnie: Slartibartfaster: TV's Vinnie: China might not want to piss off their #1 debtor, who could use a war powers act to render all their debts to China null and void

They have already traded those with other nations, so if you null and void them you are going to piss off half the planet.

And your solution is......what? Let Fatty DingDongs get away with nuclear aggression?

nuclear threats, he has no ability to deliver and if he does others will smack him down
China could stop him with a timeout, if the USA gets involved it will be far more complicated


Dude, we invaded Iraq with less evidence! How come Fatso here is getting the kid gloves treatment?

How many more decades are we going to kiss their asses! Instead of sending them free money and food, how about we use that for our own citizens in need???!
 
2013-04-05 12:49:31 PM  
Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun
 
2013-04-05 12:57:43 PM  

Aar1012: I'm glad that no one here is a General in the army. We'd be screwed since any planning would turn into a pointless debate about some mundane word.


You don't understand the complexities of international relations. I NUKE YOU NOW!!! SOON I NUKE YOU!!! OHH YOU SOOOO SCARRRED! YOU GIVE ME GRAIN , I NUKE YOU LATER!!! YOU SHAKING IN YOUR BOOTS OOOOOOHH YOU AFRAID KOREA NUKE. YOU NOT NEED ADMIT. I KNOW YOU AFRAID!!! BEST KOREA SHOW YOU MERCY THIS TIME!
 
2013-04-05 12:58:40 PM  

dukeblue219: Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

That graphic is VERY misleading. There's simply NO comparison between the 4,100 tanks the North supposedly has versus the 2,400 the South has. They would likely not face each other because the North doesn't have fuel to run them and if they did, American/Korean airpower would destroy them.

The idea that the North Koreans have more "combat aircraft" than the South is laughable if technically true. The North's most numerous fighter is the MiG-21 and they still have MiG-17's in the inventory. The South and the Americans have F-16's, F-15's, and F-22's which would decimate any force the North could even get off the ground.


And the large majority of their 1.2 million active troops are starving, sickly, weak, and untrained in anything but marching up and down the square.
 
2013-04-05 01:00:40 PM  
Step 1. Ignore until weapons are fired.
Step2. Remove anything remotely close to a weapon that can reach the border.
Step3. Leave.
 
2013-04-05 01:05:25 PM  
We have many generals with much decorations on chests...  You so scwewed Amewika!
 
2013-04-05 01:11:38 PM  

Detinwolf: Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun


It's almost as if... words can mean more than one thing!

Shocked, SHOCKED I am.
 
2013-04-05 01:17:00 PM  

ransack.: lol no


Languages evolve. As an English-speaker, and I'm guessing a native-speaker at that, this is something of which you should be painfully aware considering the origins of your own language. Stop being a pedant.
 
2013-04-05 01:30:36 PM  

Summa cum loudly: hitlersbrain: ransack.: Carn: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: 

Active soldiers? That has not mattered since WWII. Missiles, Air strikes, naval artillery barrages and just good old automatic weapons make 'troops' pretty much inconsequential. Like grass to a lawn mower.

Confucius say lawnmower get clogged when grass grow too high...


Good luck with that. The tet offensive showed just how worthless numbers are and that was a long time ago.
 
2013-04-05 01:34:54 PM  

Detinwolf: Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun


Dude, you're arguing with a prescriptivist. He thinks it is the job of a tweed-clad English major somewhere to tell the rest of us who actually have things to say how to say them. If you've come to the realization that it is their job to describe the language that actually exists instead, just rejoice in the fact that you're a step ahead on the road to enlightenment and move on.
 
2013-04-05 01:38:02 PM  

namegoeshere: Detinwolf: Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun

It's almost as if... words can mean more than one thing!

Shocked, SHOCKED I am.


Aparently they can even mean the opposite.

Can we get some english majors in here?  This is the ONE countem ONE time in your farking lives that your farking major will mean jack diddle shiat to anybody so make use of it while you can.  This is your moment.
 
2013-04-05 01:41:51 PM  
I thought it meant having a very small significant other.
 
2013-04-05 01:46:10 PM  

orclover: namegoeshere: Detinwolf: Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun

It's almost as if... words can mean more than one thing!

Shocked, SHOCKED I am.

Aparently they can even mean the opposite.


Yes. Imagine my surprise when I looked up "cleave."  To split or sever, especially along natural lines, AND to adhere tightly to. Opposite! This wacky language - you almost have to look at context to figure out what people really mean.
 
2013-04-05 01:48:51 PM  

namegoeshere: ...AND to adhere tightly to.


Insert Firefly reference here.
 
2013-04-05 01:49:26 PM  

italie: Step 1. Ignore until weapons are fired.
Step2. Remove anything remotely close to a weapon that can reach the border.
Step3. Leave.


You missed Steps 1b&c.
- Clean up smouldering remains of Seoul.
- Reboot South Korean economy without its dominant economic centre.

Best case models of the NK artillery assault leave Seoul 'only' as damaged as Sarajevo after the siege.
 
2013-04-05 01:51:42 PM  

bighairyguy: dukeblue219: bighairyguy: On the ground, they have tons of tanks and artiliary too.

Their tanks are T-55s and similar. We're talking about the worst equipment Saddam had in the Gulf War, which was no match for US technology 22 years ago. US firepower would completely and utterly destroy their army. The only question is how long it would take and how many casualties the NK would inflict while they go down. Would their soldiers fight to the last man and hide in the mountains like the Japanese did in the Pacific, or would they give up just to get a hot meal once they see all their equipment blown to pieces?

I think our best strategy would be to carpet-bomb them with Big Macs.


Whoa...Lets not go crazy now.  We want to make peace with them, not kill them with diarrhea.
 
2013-04-05 01:58:07 PM  

Fireproof: Anyone asking about the size of the NK military needs to RTFA:

[i.imgur.com image 650x1071]


Size has little to do with how good the army is.  If they throw away their guns because they don't want to fight, it doesn't matter how large it is.
 
2013-04-05 02:05:00 PM  

orclover: namegoeshere: Detinwolf: Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun

It's almost as if... words can mean more than one thing!

Shocked, SHOCKED I am.

Aparently they can even mean the opposite.

Can we get some english majors in here?  This is the ONE countem ONE time in your farking lives that your farking major will mean jack diddle shiat to anybody so make use of it while you can.  This is your moment.


What do you want? The classic definition is to kill every tenth soldier. The modern definition is to kill 8 or 9 out of ten.
 
2013-04-05 02:06:02 PM  

namegoeshere: orclover: namegoeshere: Detinwolf: Definition of DECIMATE:
1: to select by lot and kill every tenth man of
2: to exact a tax of 10 percent from <poor as a decimated Cavalier - John Dryden>
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number <cholera decimated the population> b : to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession> -
dec·i·ma·tion noun

It's almost as if... words can mean more than one thing!

Shocked, SHOCKED I am.

Aparently they can even mean the opposite.

Yes. Imagine my surprise when I looked up "cleave."  To split or sever, especially along natural lines, AND to adhere tightly to. Opposite! This wacky language - you almost have to look at context to figure out what people really mean.


goddam wittgensteinian..
 
2013-04-05 02:09:18 PM  
Dumb question, but what are the odds NK is not mobilizing its armed forces because it expects to cause disarray with a WMD (chemical and nuclear) and conventional artillery barrage, long enough that it can actually mobilize ground forces while everyone else is staggered and yet to get a response?

Not that it's a good plan -- not saying that.  Just that I vaguely recall some Cold War plans involved "Bolt from the Blue" scenarios where mobilization was either nonexistent or minimal right up until hours before a massive strike that only included units that could immediately strike -- which would be air, artillery, WMD, and "sleeper" units.  Those would, in theory, allow the main ground forces to actually complete mobilization in the chaotic time immediately afterward.

This, of course, would require some serious first strike action, and the use of WMD would have to be just enough to keep the US uncertain as to whether they'd be able to respond in kind -- perhaps just chemical weapons and nukes are ready to go as blackmail?  Might be Fat Boy's only option presented to him as viable.
 
2013-04-05 02:15:26 PM  

Comic Book Guy: I'm going to start dropping this in every NK thread, it's an excellent no-BS writeup on the military capabilities of the DPRK.  It's almost a year old now, but the conclusions reached here can be easily extended to the new hardware/nukes that they've shown they possess, the end result is the same.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-bet we en-rhetoric-and-reality/#introduction

One of the points made in there is that if the DPRK attempts to invade or cross the DMZ, they have to move however many hundreds of thousands of men through 3 well-defined paths that the SK's have had 50 years to map out, fortify, and build defenses around.  They would have to do this in a couple thousand thin-skinned vehicles, and in order to have any chance to overwhelm the enemy they would have to do it all at once, which means that the SK's would hear/see/feel them coming through either OP stations, satellite imagery, or ground sensors.  Also, a bunch of their artillery is hardened shelters, but must be uncovered from those shelters to fire accurately, then brought back in, and so on.

Long story short is that the DPRK has no effective logistical support for a campaign lasting longer than 2 weeks, much less 2 months.  If this turns out to be a shooting war, the regime is effectively finished.


Like zerglings against fortified high ground siege tanks, it will be a spectacular suicide march
 
2013-04-05 02:18:05 PM  

elchupacabra: Dumb question, but what are the odds NK is not mobilizing its armed forces because it expects to cause disarray with a WMD (chemical and nuclear) and conventional artillery barrage, long enough that it can actually mobilize ground forces while everyone else is staggered and yet to get a response?

Not that it's a good plan -- not saying that.  Just that I vaguely recall some Cold War plans involved "Bolt from the Blue" scenarios where mobilization was either nonexistent or minimal right up until hours before a massive strike that only included units that could immediately strike -- which would be air, artillery, WMD, and "sleeper" units.  Those would, in theory, allow the main ground forces to actually complete mobilization in the chaotic time immediately afterward.

This, of course, would require some serious first strike action, and the use of WMD would have to be just enough to keep the US uncertain as to whether they'd be able to respond in kind -- perhaps just chemical weapons and nukes are ready to go as blackmail?  Might be Fat Boy's only option presented to him as viable.


The terror/extortion angle is all I can come up with. There is absolutely no upside for them in all this. Until I see shooting, I'm still assuming they are looking for concessions, food aid, etc.
 
2013-04-05 02:41:01 PM  
Yeah, I'm wondering if they wrote their plans like a crappy Basic script:

10 MAKE THREAT
20 If FOOD=YES THEN GOTO 40
30 THREAT=THREAT+1
40 END

And now their Threat is about to hit 32767.

/yeah, I know, lame metaphor
//NK even know anything more than BASIC?
 
2013-04-05 02:42:02 PM  
DAMMIT.  Bad coding:

10 MAKE THREAT
20 If FOOD=YES THEN GOTO 50
30 THREAT=THREAT+1
40 GOTO 10
50 END

/This is why I didn't do well in college programming courses
 
2013-04-05 03:19:03 PM  

elchupacabra: This, of course, would require some serious first strike action, and the use of WMD would have to be just enough to keep the US uncertain as to whether they'd be able to respond in kind


The US has always been open about their policy of responding to chemical/biological weapons with nukes.
 
2013-04-05 03:32:14 PM  
This whole thing is just making me go "WTF". He's obviously completely batshiat crazy. I'm sure Obama and his generals are alternating between laughing their asses off and drawing up plans to take him out.
 
2013-04-05 03:37:11 PM  

This text is now purple: elchupacabra: This, of course, would require some serious first strike action, and the use of WMD would have to be just enough to keep the US uncertain as to whether they'd be able to respond in kind

The US has always been open about their policy of responding to chemical/biological weapons with nukes.


Yeah, but how fast?  I'm thinking if any plan involves a fait accompli that does not threaten Japan or the US, that is also very quick in resolution, the US might not be able to get a nuclear response up before our own anti-nuke crowd (for whatever reasons) intervene and argue it's too late to respond.  That might be their gamble.  Again, not saying it is a good one....
 
2013-04-05 03:45:47 PM  

Jument: This whole thing is just making me go "WTF". He's obviously completely batshiat crazy. I'm sure Obama and his generals are alternating between laughing their asses off and drawing up plans to take him out.


No, not crazy.  Cornered.

Reports suggest some of his own generals tried to assassinate the little fat man recently.  He needs an artificially created crisis to get his people behind him, just as his father and grandfather did before him.

No amount of external negotiation is going to solve this. Even if we agreed to bi-lateral talks tomorrow, he couldn't tell us what he wants.  What he wants is his own people off his back.  He doesn't have a long term end game.  He's just trying to get past this immediate, internal crisis.

Here's the problem, he's gone to far to exit without at least doing a little damage to the other side.  So he'll probably engage in some sort of limited attack in the very near future.  Sink a boat, shell a village, something.  This raises the possibility of retaliation from the west.  Given the fat man's precarious position, any retaliation may force him into retaliation.  Retaliation for a retaliation quickly evolves into full blown war.

It's a war the north would absolutely lose, but they'd probably take a huge hunk of the South Korean capital with them.
 
2013-04-05 03:52:16 PM  

RandomRandom: Jument: This whole thing is just making me go "WTF". He's obviously completely batshiat crazy. I'm sure Obama and his generals are alternating between laughing their asses off and drawing up plans to take him out.

No, not crazy.  Cornered.

Reports suggest some of his own generals tried to assassinate the little fat man recently.  He needs an artificially created crisis to get his people behind him, just as his father and grandfather did before him.

No amount of external negotiation is going to solve this. Even if we agreed to bi-lateral talks tomorrow, he couldn't tell us what he wants.  What he wants is his own people off his back.  He doesn't have a long term end game.  He's just trying to get past this immediate, internal crisis.

Here's the problem, he's gone to far to exit without at least doing a little damage to the other side.  So he'll probably engage in some sort of limited attack in the very near future.  Sink a boat, shell a village, something.  This raises the possibility of retaliation from the west.  Given the fat man's precarious position, any retaliation may force him into retaliation.  Retaliation for a retaliation quickly evolves into full blown war.

It's a war the north would absolutely lose, but they'd probably take a huge hunk of the South Korean capital with them.


Yeah, and it's not our responsibility to give him "wiggle room".  And we're tired of having done so in the past.
 
2013-04-05 03:52:49 PM  

hitlersbrain: Summa cum loudly: hitlersbrain: ransack.: Carn: Uchiha_Cycliste: The Bestest: Uchiha_Cycliste: 

Active soldiers? That has not mattered since WWII. Missiles, Air strikes, naval artillery barrages and just good old automatic weapons make 'troops' pretty much inconsequential. Like grass to a lawn mower.

Confucius say lawnmower get clogged when grass grow too high...

Good luck with that. The tet offensive showed just how worthless numbers are and that was a long time ago.


Yes, but the Tet Offensive took place when the media was fighting on the same side as the Vietcong. The simultaneous display of force combined with Walter Cronkite delivering his grand "Turning Point" speech, openly declaring the war a total loss and demanding a pullout, is how we were defeated.

Today, the press is so completely in the tank with Obama he would win another Nobel Peace Prize if he accidentally nuked Seoul trying to hit Pyongyang.
 
2013-04-05 03:55:03 PM  
This whole conflict will be over before you stupid farks are finished deliberating "decimate".

Go home.
 
2013-04-05 03:57:38 PM  

dabbletech: This whole conflict will be over before you stupid farks are finished deliberating "decimate".

Go home.


/pistol whipping time
 
2013-04-05 03:58:55 PM  

elchupacabra: dabbletech: This whole conflict will be over before you stupid farks are finished deliberating "decimate".

Go home.

/pistol whipping time


Goddammit so much:

www.reno4x4.com
 
2013-04-05 04:01:11 PM  
The best case scenario is to quietly evacuate seoul and launch a massive simultaneous attack on best korea.       The only other alternative is to wait and hope that the regime falls in a manageable way sometime in the next couple of decades.

chew, discuss..
 
2013-04-05 04:05:00 PM  

Maul555: The best case scenario is to quietly evacuate seoul and launch a massive simultaneous attack on best korea.       The only other alternative is to wait and hope that the regime falls in a manageable way sometime in the next couple of decades.

chew, discuss..


... Quietly?
 
2013-04-05 05:13:12 PM  

elchupacabra: Yeah, and it's not our responsibility to give him "wiggle room". And we're tired of having done so in the past.


Yeah, that's easy to say when you don't live in South Korea.  South Korean's will be the most likely victims of whatever small attack the fat man orders.  South Koreans will die in huge numbers if this turns into a full blown war.

If you and yours lived in Seoul, I don't think you'd be so gung ho about starting full out war with the mini tyrant.  He'd absolutely lose any war, but he could still kill one hell of a lot of innocents on his way out.
 
2013-04-05 05:28:10 PM  

Tatterdemalian: Yes, but the Tet Offensive took place when the media was fighting on the same side as the Vietcong.


Still butthurt? Wow.
 
2013-04-05 05:50:51 PM  

RandomRandom: elchupacabra: Yeah, and it's not our responsibility to give him "wiggle room". And we're tired of having done so in the past.

Yeah, that's easy to say when you don't live in South Korea.  South Korean's will be the most likely victims of whatever small attack the fat man orders.  South Koreans will die in huge numbers if this turns into a full blown war.

If you and yours lived in Seoul, I don't think you'd be so gung ho about starting full out war with the mini tyrant.  He'd absolutely lose any war, but he could still kill one hell of a lot of innocents on his way out.


No family directly, but have friends with family there, so there's that.

Doesn't change the fact that you know the guy's effectively a serial blackmailer, and not just, "give me money or I'll put nekkid pics of you on the Internet", but more like, "Give me money or I'll kill your family.  And oh, by the way, if I get a chance, I'll kill your family anyway".

At some point, you gotta stop the cycle of blackmail.  And gambling that his regime will collapse and somehow magically nothing will happen to South Korea in that time of anarchy, is wishful thinking IMO.
 
2013-04-05 08:57:41 PM  
Kim Jong-Un: A mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a windtalker wrapped in Scooby-Doo episode wrapped in bacon

... and smothered in Secret Sauce.
 
2013-04-05 09:07:24 PM  
A lion doesn't roar before attacking it's prey.
 
2013-04-05 10:34:30 PM  

dukeblue219: orclover: FTFY,  Dont use that word except for its intended purpose.  If all we did was "decimate" their tanks and planes then it would be a laughably ineffective battle.

Merriam-Webster:
dec·i·mate
3a : to reduce drastically especially in number  <choleradecimated the population>
b : to cause great destruction or harm to  <firebombsdecimated the city> <an industry  decimated by recession>


The meanings of words change over time, and the fact that decimate USED TO mean "to destroy 10% of something" doesn't make that its current meaning.

(Directing that more at  orclover than  dukeblue219.)
 
2013-04-05 10:46:19 PM  

RandomRandom: HMS_Blinkin: WRT their artillery, a lot of their positions are fixed, and are in fact viewable on Google Earth (so you know the US military knows where they are too). I don't expect that those fixed positions would last very long either---it's just a matter of us not running out of ammo to shoot at them, but between attack planes/helos, drones, cruise missiles, etc., I imagine we could silence most of their artillery reasonably fast.

We would be very unlikely to destroy enough of that artillery fast enough to keep them from devastating Seoul and anything else close to the border.  Many of those fixed positions are in reinforced concrete revetments.  Counter battery may have to hit them a dozen times to knock them out.  Aircraft may be required to destroy many of them.

Not a problem when dealing with a few hundred, but we're talking tens of thousands.  Some estimates put the total at 50,000, with 5,000 hardened tubes within range of Seoul.  Even if you can take out the '1% per hour' that is claimed by the South Korean military, that still results in the total destruction of Seoul.

Just consider the 5,000 Artillery tubes pointed at Seoul.  Firing just 4 times per minute (a low figure), that puts 20,000 explosions into a city of 10 1/2 million within the FIRST MINUTE.   Within the first hour, 1.2 million HE and incendiary shells go into that thriving metropolis.  Yes, there will be a high dud and miss rate, but even if the duds and misses comprise 90% of the shells, Seoul will still be farked.

That's the reason we haven't knocked these idiot's blocks off already.  Because the south put their capital in the wrong damn place.


I do honestly wonder sometimes why South Korea doesn't move their capital to Pusan.
 
2013-04-05 11:10:43 PM  

ciberido: RandomRandom: HMS_Blinkin: WRT their artillery, a lot of their positions are fixed, and are in fact viewable on Google Earth (so you know the US military knows where they are too). I don't expect that those fixed positions would last very long either---it's just a matter of us not running out of ammo to shoot at them, but between attack planes/helos, drones, cruise missiles, etc., I imagine we could silence most of their artillery reasonably fast.

We would be very unlikely to destroy enough of that artillery fast enough to keep them from devastating Seoul and anything else close to the border.  Many of those fixed positions are in reinforced concrete revetments.  Counter battery may have to hit them a dozen times to knock them out.  Aircraft may be required to destroy many of them.

Not a problem when dealing with a few hundred, but we're talking tens of thousands.  Some estimates put the total at 50,000, with 5,000 hardened tubes within range of Seoul.  Even if you can take out the '1% per hour' that is claimed by the South Korean military, that still results in the total destruction of Seoul.

Just consider the 5,000 Artillery tubes pointed at Seoul.  Firing just 4 times per minute (a low figure), that puts 20,000 explosions into a city of 10 1/2 million within the FIRST MINUTE.   Within the first hour, 1.2 million HE and incendiary shells go into that thriving metropolis.  Yes, there will be a high dud and miss rate, but even if the duds and misses comprise 90% of the shells, Seoul will still be farked.

That's the reason we haven't knocked these idiot's blocks off already.  Because the south put their capital in the wrong damn place.

I do honestly wonder sometimes why South Korea doesn't move their capital to Pusan.


I be willing to bet that the second SK started to move their capital then NK would say its a start-up to attack NK(ie remove the capital form with in range of NK's weapons) and say if its not stopped they will attack.
 
2013-04-06 05:24:10 AM  

TV's Vinnie: How many more decades are we going to kiss their asses! Instead of sending them free money and food, how about we use that for our own citizens in need???!


because socialism is bad !!!

// I am a socialist
 
2013-04-06 09:37:40 AM  

FarkinNortherner: italie: Step 1. Ignore until weapons are fired.
Step2. Remove anything remotely close to a weapon that can reach the border.
Step3. Leave.

You missed Steps 1b&c.
- Clean up smouldering remains of Seoul.
- Reboot South Korean economy without its dominant economic centre.

Best case models of the NK artillery assault leave Seoul 'only' as damaged as Sarajevo after the siege.


I don't disagree, but I think a pre-emptive straike by anyone other than China is going to do far worse to the global community as a whole.

//mostly due to our own stubbornness.
 
Displayed 174 of 174 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report