Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Capable Is The North Korean Military?  
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10571 times:

What is their equipment like? I know they have a huge standing army, but whats their air force/army like? Do they have SSNs? Presume the majority is ex-Soviet equipment. Do they have modern Flankers etc?


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
75 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10546 times:

Who was it that said: "quantity has a quality of it's own" ? Last numbers I saw suggested they had over 1,000,000 plus infantry, plus the other services. Their reserves number in the millions. However, it is thought that they could mount an invasion of the south from a "stand still", i.e., without mobilizing the reserves. Presumbaly the SoKors would get some indication that it's coming, but that's not guaranteed.

From what people who are in a position to know have told me, all of Seoul is vulnerable to NoKor artillery fire, and this with dual-capable (i.e., chemical weapons) artillery rounds.

IMO, Kim Jong Il with a bomb is a disaster. An invasion of the South would be a worst disaster. The carnage would be on a scale not seen since the Rawanda, perhaps even worse.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10530 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 1):
IMO, Kim Jong Il with a bomb is a disaster. An invasion of the South would be a worst disaster. The carnage would be on a scale not seen since the Rwanda, perhaps even worse.

The question is NK crazy enough to think they can win a nuclear war. If so it looks like Los Angeles will be the only place healthy for people of Korean heritage. Until the NK's develop a missile. This will probably spring a whole new arms race in East Asia, Japan might even think of nuking up for deterrence. Leftys are probably thinking we still don't need a nuclear defense shield.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineLurch From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10487 times:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/ <--North Korea"s military under a Magnifying glass!

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 10487 times:

From the South Korean perspective, almost as bad as an invasion would be for the NoKor regime to collapse and leave them to sort out the mess. They are still mindful of the costs involved when the wall collapsed in Germany!


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 10386 times:

Oh please.

The DPRK collapsing would have a short term negative effect, but eliminating the threat of invasion and the need to maintain their military would be a positive effect. Not to mention ending the human cost of broken up families, and the ROK's having to watch their northern neighbors starve for the benefit of the deranged little tard that is their "Dear Leader".

A peaceful collapse of the DPRK is too much to hope for. If it was going to happen, it would have already.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10302 times:

Just two words: Numbers and Rockets.

Numbers of totally intimidated, naive or uninformed soldiers, that would not know what hit them. And thousand of ballistic and artillery rockets that would turn much of South Korea into a moonscape. It would be hard to really win that war, because there's little one could without killing hundred thousands or even millions.

I think the only power that could quickly and thoroughly set an end to this regime is China. They could do it without inflicting such an enormous damage. Resistance would not be very intense ... would similar to Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. NK situation would be desperate and hopeless from the first day on. No allies and no way out. And no reason to attack third countries. Chinese territory would be out of reach quickly ... finally everybody could well live with a North-Korean state modelled on the Chinese state system.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 10296 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 5):
Oh please.

From articles I've read over the years. If I have time, I'll try to dig some up and post the links. Of course, no one is arguing that conflict would be preferable to reunification! However, the SoKors are mindful of the cost of reunification. It would be, well, staggering to say the least.

Quoting Starrion (Reply 5):
A peaceful collapse of the DPRK is too much to hope for. If it was going to happen, it would have already.

That was the great hope until recently. As we have seen throughout the 20th century through the first few years of this one, despots don't go easily. As I recall (and there may be more), the only marxist regime/state that "put it on the line" and held an election was Nicaragua in the '80s. Guess what happened?

There may have been an opportunity to bring Baby Kim to see reason and that would have been to cut off his supply of Johnny Walker Blue Label. Alas, he's probably got a good stock pile laid in!  Wink

[Edited 2006-10-09 22:27:25]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 10284 times:

Here's one to get you started, Starrion. As you can see from this 2002 study (later updated in 2005), the World Bank estimates that Korean unification won't be done on the cheap:

Quote:
The World Bank sounds more realistic when it pegs the overall cost at 5-6 times South Korea's GDP, or $2-3 trillion. Noland notes that between $300-600 billion over ten years would be needed to raise North Korean income levels to 60 percent of the Southern average and to prevent ruinous mass migration from North to South.

http://samvak.tripod.com/pp167.html
Is this preferable to a conflict? Of course! But it is a real concern for the South Koreans.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10176 times:

The most desired would be the following:

Kim Jong Il dies and is replaced by his reportedly more "in-tune-with-the-world" and western educated son. (second son born to mistress and former North Korean Actress).

China comes in and encourages changes in policy that could keep a Socialist society, follow Juche, and open the nation to international trade and information. DPRK would have to keep the national pride high but not risk a drastic change.

If the economy grows enough and creates a positive face, the nation could eventually look at reunification over a 10 to 15 year period. The german reunification was quick. A DPRK and ROK reunification would have to be slow and well planned out. The Korean people have not been an independent unified nation since 1905.

(1910 a Korean royal proclamation announced the annexation by Japan and remained an oppressed colony until WWII.) After WWII, the US and Russia didn't really look at what to do about the Korean peninsula, but when the Soviet started moving in, the US quickly moved in. Russia got everything north of what is now the DMZ, the US controled everything south. This was the first step that eventually led to the Korean War. Kim Il Song asked Stalin for permission to "unify the nation". Stalin didn't care but said, "Okay...but you have to pay for your weapons". (The US gave South Koreans weapons for free...which one is communist/capitalist?) Kim built an army and pushed the US and South Koreans as far south as Pusan before a counter push pushed the North Koreans back to what would become the DMZ.

As for the capability of the DPRK military...
1.2 million active
5 million in reserve (not sure how many of those are volunteer or forced reserve)
There are reportedly tunnels under the DMZ allowing forces to infiltrate the South.
Uncountable number of landmines in DMZ
Enough missles aimed at Seoul to turn it into a moonscape.

But...
3,000,000 or more starving people who would probably put down guns (forced in their hands by the military) if offered a bowl of rice with god kimchi.
Hundreds of North Koreans sneak into China per year. (many disappear into the country and live their life...some are caught and sent back...some make their way through China to other nations like Mongolia)
Many more go to South Korea

Though the DPRK acts strong and is ready for a war at anytime, I think that people outside of Peongyang would like to see food on their table, heat in their stoves, and clothing rather than a gun or nuclear weapons.

[Edited 2006-10-10 05:29:01]


Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10093 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 4):
From the South Korean perspective, almost as bad as an invasion would be for the NoKor regime to collapse and leave them to sort out the mess. They are still mindful of the costs involved when the wall collapsed in Germany!

Current issue of "The Atlantic" has a well-written piece by Robert Kaplan on this very subject. I think this is likelier than a war.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 10045 times:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200610/kaplan-korea

Good article here is a link for others to read. I think I rather have this scenario happen than have the million man army march toward Seoul. If that happened it would be massive death on both sides, with every type of weapon in the ROK, US military option being used. I wonder if those US hating South Korean students would be waiting with open arms for the DPRK Army. I think that attitude will subside after the first conventional/NBC Artillery barrage.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 10029 times:

Thanks for the link, Venus6971. Here's a very revealing quote from this article:

Quote:
No official will say this out loud, but South Korea—along with every other country in the region—has little interest in reunification, unless it were to happen gradually over years or decades. The best outcome would be a South Korean protectorate in much of the North, officially under an international trusteeship, that would keep the two Koreas functionally separate for a significant period of time. This would allow each country time to prepare for a unified Korean state, without the attendant chaos.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9957 times:

Very capable....of internal repression and taking much of the food aid, leaving most of the populace to literally starve.
They even make sure the well fed troops are in camera range of the border and on all those 'Kim's got a little penis' parades and events in the capital.
Since they are not stunted by hunger, like so many of the rest of the population.

But, all those 1000's of artillery tubes in range of Seoul.

For the US, there are no good military options.
You can bet the locations of WMD production and storage are not all well known, though in a straight fight, DPRK military capability would soon unravel, but not before massive civillian and very heavy US military casualties.
Even before the nuclear card is played, assuming they are deployable.

DPRK-the closest anyone has ever got to Orwell's '1984'.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9913 times:

Quoting GDB (Reply 13):
DPRK-the closest anyone has ever got to Orwell's '1984'.

Or 'Animal Farm, but the pigs didn't have access to Johnny Walker Blue Label, did they?

[Edited 2006-10-10 22:29:47]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9903 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 8):
Here's one to get you started, Starrion. As you can see from this 2002 study (later updated in 2005), the World Bank estimates that Korean unification won't be done on the cheap:

Quote:
The World Bank sounds more realistic when it pegs the overall cost at 5-6 times South Korea's GDP, or $2-3 trillion. Noland notes that between $300-600 billion over ten years would be needed to raise North Korean income levels to 60 percent of the Southern average and to prevent ruinous mass migration from North to South.

I'm not disputing that the cost of salvaging the DPRK wouldn't be enormous, but if you asked the average ROK citizen what outcome they would prefer, I bet they would almost all jump at the chance to peacefully re-unite.

Besides, the ROK would hardly bear the cost alone. I bet if the DPRK collapsed and the ROK ended up with the responsibility, there would be plenty of foreign investment and AID that would gladly standup to right the 50 years of abuse that this population has endured.

After all, they can't give ALL the foreign aid to corrupt dictators.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineGreasespot From Canada, joined Apr 2004, 3078 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9892 times:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 9):
3,000,000 or more starving people who would probably put down guns (forced in their hands by the military) if offered a bowl of rice with god kimchi.

Yeah just like the Iraqi's welcomed the American liberators....

Starving or not they have been brainwashed to think of the dear leader as a god......They wil fight hard and furious and it will be a blood bath for all.

GS



Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13168 posts, RR: 78
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9885 times:

Greasport has a point.
Even the Warsaw Pact had it's share of dissidents-came we think of any from North Korea?

Imagine all your TV and radios were fixed to only receive government propagander programming.
DPRK is far more cut off from the outside world than the USSR ever was.

The few South Koreans who have managed to visit the North, find an almost parallel universe-one in which the North won the Korean War.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 9875 times:

Quoting Starrion (Reply 5):
A peaceful collapse of the DPRK is too much to hope for. If it was going to happen, it would have already.

I don't know... there are some who say Stalin was quietly offed by the KGB because he'd gone insane and started talking about first strikes with Soviet H-Bombs and the like. The same fate could befall Kim.

If Kim orders the use of his Bomb, will his Generals... knowing with certainty North Korea's fate from such a decision, blindly follow him, or just stage a coup, or worse?


User currently offlineBroke From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1322 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9743 times:

Even with a more rational leader in North Korea, we would still have to deal with the military hierarchy. The military has become a favored class and having them give up that status in favor of reduced tensions and an improved standard of living for the population as a whole could a different problem with the same outcomes.

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 9720 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6):


I think the only power that could quickly and thoroughly set an end to this regime is China. They could do it without inflicting such an enormous damage. Resistance would not be very intense ... would similar to Invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. NK situation would be desperate and hopeless from the first day on. Noallies and no way out. And no reason to attack third countries. Chinese territory would be out of reach quickly ... finally everybody could well live with a North-Korean state modelled on the Chinese state system.

China values North Korea as a buffer state. They don't want a united Korea ontheir border, because they could be attacked from there. They are bound and determined to get Taiwan someday, and they will have more trouble doing that if they have a potential US-ally on their border. They also don't want a flood of refugees pounding at their door if the government colapses. They don't want to get dragged into a bloody and useless war over what happens to the corpse of North Korea if the regime falls, and they share our fear of those scum having nuclear weapons.

Its probably to much to hope for any kind of smooth transition for North Korea. The place has simply been too oppressed and too closed up for too long. That hellhole makes Cuba and the former East Germany look like model democracies.They don't have the kind of social and human capital that make a chinese-style boom possible. If the government collapses, we will see a repeat of what happened in Albania and Somalia - and it won't get much better for years. It will be a very poor country for decades to come no matter what happens. Maybe 20-30 years of hard work could bring them up to the level of the Phillipeans - and even that is pretty optomistic.

All in all, I doubt any of the major players hopes for anything better that the status quo. The nuclear situation is not as bad as it seems for several reasons.........

1. Kim will not be able to afford many nuclear weapons, and they will be all lower yield fission devices of questionable reliability. His conventional arsenal, particularily short range missiles and artillery, will still be the biggest threat.

2. The closed nature of North Korean society make it difficult for the regime to get the neccesary skills to make a long range missile that can carry a nuclear weapon - it is especially difficult for it to manufacture large numbers of them.Those it does obtain will not be reliable at all. Notice what happened in the last round of missile tests.

3. The guys on top have to know that the world will dispose of them somehow if they nuke anybody or sell nuclear weapons to anybody who then uses them.


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 9702 times:

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 20):
The nuclear situation is not as bad as it seems for several reasons.........
The guys on top have to know that the world will dispose of them somehow if they nuke anybody or sell nuclear weapons to anybody who then uses them.

Sorry, but I can't share your confidence. If they chose to sell the things, most likely the first indication we'll have is when a device is detonated in the U.S. or Europe. This is a regime that used (uses?) it's embassy to sell drugs!



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9668 times:

I think it's odd that the people who are strongly against a pre-emptive strike against North Korea, are those in the US Military.  scratchchin 

The DMZ is roughly 150mi(250km) long, and on that line, the North has amassed:

---------------------------------------

--10,000 artillery pieces. The vast majority are conventional shell and rocket projectiles that are fired by long range, high caliber tubes. The artillery corps has had 50yrs to zero-in their artillery guns to exact points in the South. And we're not just talking airbases and army camps... we're talking about the South Korean presidential palace, the home of the USFK (US Force Korea)general! Television stations, radio towers, cell towers, early warning radar sites, etc... 10,000 tubes opening up at once, could you imagine?

--They have something like 100,000 Spec-Op soldiers. It's well known that there are sleeper cells within South Korea. These cells live ordinary lives, but are trained to conduct sabotage missions during the opening phase of war. Some of these sleeper cells work as civilians on ROK and US bases.

--They have some ungodly amount of infantrymen stationed on the DMZ. We're talking like 30+ divisions, supported by like 10 armored divisions, a whole sh*t load of mobile mech brigades and not to mention something like 3m reservists in the rear.

--They have entire corps level force dedicated to the self defense of Pyongyang.

--They have well over 10,000 AAA/SAM platforms, which are integrated by hardened underground fiber optic lines of communication.

--They have a virtual wall around the coast. They have not forgot the humiliation at Inchon. They learned from it.

--And... most importantly... they have had 52 years to fine-tune their war plans.

---------------------------------------

Everyone likes to underestimate these guys. "Oh they're poor and starving, they won't last a week." or "Pfffff... our air force will go in and kick their ass, just like we did to Saddam." redflag  no 

Now I don't know how a war would go down... but I do know that it wouldn't be the slam dunk for the US/ROK/Japan, as some have suggested. There's a joke in the US Army:

Private Snuffy: "Hey Sarg, why are American soldiers still in Korea?"
Sarg: "Well Snuffy, we're a speed bump."

As twisted as that sounds, it's true. In the event of a war, the 25,000 US soldiers in Korea have some disgusting life expectancy rate, something like 2 days. They are there to die and slow the North down, while hopefully we can get out act together and rush reinforcements.

-UH60


User currently offlineGary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9646 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22):

Informative post, nice to see a situation not being under estimated for a change in favour of the 'we rule, lets kick ass!!!' attitude by some.

I knew the reason nothing has been done about NK is because they would hand out a considerable arse kicking to the person that tried. but I'm surprised to hear they are that well off.

If the north has the ability to kill 25,000 American soldiers in 2 days and could wipe out a good chunk of south korea in a few minutes. I'm surprised they haven't done so already. If they can do all that i would guess the only reason to make a nuke would be to flog it.

I would guess Kim likes being leader more than inevitable weapon of mass destruction being shoved up his backside as the result of an invasion.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 9623 times:

Quoting Gary2880 (Reply 23):
If the north has the ability to kill 25,000 American soldiers in 2 days and could wipe out a good chunk of south korea in a few minutes. I'm surprised they haven't done so already. If they can do all that i would guess the only reason to make a nuke would be to flog it.

What I described above was in regards to only the North... US and ROK forces are no paper tigers, I assure you.

Within the military, the main objection is the tremendous loss of life on both sides. And it begs the question, is the aftermath of a war worth the trouble for the aggressor?

Play the scenario out...

The ROK army is probably in the top 5 best trained armies in the world. I pointed out that the KPA has had 53yrs to perfect their invasion plan, well the ROKs have spent those 53yrs perfecting their defensive lines. The avenues of attack are limited, and any invasion scenario has been played out. We know roughly how the first 48hrs will go down.

The invasion would probably be initiated by both a massive artillery barrage and simultaneous sabotage attacks against "soft" targets by North Korean operatives living in the South. The North relies heavily on Soviet-era military tactics, so we can assume the Alpha level armored and infantry brigades will attempt to make a swift and blunt push into the south. Seoul is only about 40miles south of the DMZ, and will be a major objective for the North. But urban fighting is brutal and the ROK army wouldn't give the city up without a massive fight.

A defensive position offers unique advantages over the offensive invader. Bridges, highways, roads and railways can be demolished or blocked to slow an invasion. The north suffers from a substandard logistical supply line. Any war would need to be swift, the longer it takes, the more likely they would encounter fuel, food and ammo shortages.

And while US forces are both smaller than they have been for quite some time, and tied up in two wars, the US could still deploy numerous divisions that are currently stateside. The key to this, is time. Any type of massive mobilization would require time, and would depend on how far the North has penetrated into the South.

You simply cannot count on European involvement, at least on any meaningful scale. It is a 13,000 mile voyage by sea from England to S.Korea (using the Suez canal). Considering it was a major obstacle for England to project power 8,000 miles away during the Falklands war, it's not unreasonable to believe both France and England would have difficulty deploying a carrier force to Korea. Europe simply does not have the Asian infrastructure to support a massive deployment of military force.

And while involvement of Japan is probable, the involvement of China is uncertain. It would certainly depend on the course the war took, and the level of fierceness both the ROK and US forces fought with. But what is more likely, is China using the distraction of a war in Korea, to make a move against Taiwan. It would certainly be the best moment do so. The US 7th Fleet would be tied up with Korea, and would be unable to sail down the Straight like it did in under President Clinton in '99.

The whole point is, any scenario of war with Korea is full of uncertainties. But what is certain, the lost of life would be numbing. South Korean civilians would suffer greatly. And the idea of losing most of the US 2nd ID is very possible, because they'd definitely fight the invasion down to the last man. And lastly - what if the war stalls? North Korea may only have a few nuclear weapons, but they definitely have a huge stockpile of chemical weapons which are home grown. And what about China? Would they stay out of it? Would they move against Taiwan.

Only fools want a war in Korea. And only fools think it's a slam dunk we could win.

-UH60


25 Post contains images Gary2880 : Thanking, however, For future reference. in the context, England = Britain** British armed forces, not English.
26 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : Duly noted, sir. -UH60
27 Connies4ever : Agree whole heartedly with your strategic assessment. A war on the peninsula could be spun in several ways by China, and I am sure they have a large
28 Lumberton : Agreed. I have yet to meet anyone, of any political persuasion, who thinks that a war on the Korean penninsula would NOT be a catastrophe. There real
29 Lehpron : Pardon the fact that I don't already know, how is anyone so sure NK will attack the US or our interests in other countries? An please, I don't care wh
30 Greasespot : Met in person no....But there are a bunch on this thread who think that way. I know someone who went to NK. She laughed at all the huge higways and n
31 Post contains images Lumberton : I just re-read the thread and can't find anyone advocating war on the penninsula.
32 DL021 : Short term? Perhaps in terms of overall history. It would be decades before they finished rebuilding that house. I think you're being a little optimi
33 PADSpot : Nah, just think 10-20 years ahead. China will be the most powerful country on this planet at that time. Korea would be a threat to China as Mexico is
34 GDB : Agreed that a new Korean war would be short, sharp and utterly devastating even without WMD's. So unlike the UN operation of 1950-53, no extra US cont
35 Bringiton : The problem is with there SPECIAL forces and with the artillery shells , Seole is within range of their artillery shells and the area is 25% of the po
36 LimaNiner : Maybe I'm being naive, but if DPRK launched an invasion of South Korea, I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. launched nuke-armed bombers within the fir
37 Lumberton : I don't think that will happen. The nuclear threshold won't be crossed unless Baby Kim pops one off first, and I'm not even sure that would do it if
38 Post contains images AirRyan : For those of you all thinking that the NoKo's would give the West a run for their money in a military engagement are simply buying into the liberal me
39 Post contains images Boeing4ever : No one is saying the DPRK would give us a run for their money. You are quite correct that if the shit hits the fan, they will be annihalated as a regi
40 Cloudy : I would be very surprised if Taiwan didn't already have nuclear weapons or a way to get them quickly. They certainly have the know how to do it.
41 Lumberton : AFAIK, they may have been a "shadow" participant in the South African program a while back. Who knows?
42 DEVILFISH : Is the other son turning out to be KJI III? Saddens me to see my country referred to in this light, but that is the hard truth. Yes, we still manage
43 AirRyan : Cut off the communications and supplies to the border forces and they will surrender or die trying. The only thing going for the NoKo's would be to h
44 EBJ1248650 : Much has been said about infantry numbers, chemical weapons, rockets and artillery, but what affect would the North Korean Air Force have in a war be
45 Bringiton : It isnt all that well equiped AAMOF i dont think that unless they attack first their AF would even survive a Tomohawk , B-2+F-22 Kick the door down a
46 TeamAmerica : Only if he avoids people altogether, such as a burst over the ocean. Any DPRK strike against South Korea, Japan or anything other than China, would p
47 PADSpot : Woow. A genuine AirRyan pamphlet. You've have been letting us wait for quite a while now, but this is really great. The line between polemics and sat
48 Lumberton : We will have to agree that we disagree here. Any response must have not only the tacit, but public approval of South Korea, Japan, and at least the t
49 Post contains images Boeing4ever : The thing is, a military action will more than likely start with the DPRK firing the first shots. That's a lot of artillery going off in short order,
50 LimaNiner : I think you're missing the point -- even 10-15 hours of shelling would be pretty noticeable in Seoul, wouldn't you think? Yes, technically, the DPRK
51 AerospaceFan : Sadly, I think you may be right. Nothing seems to assure peace, and it makes it very difficult to be optimistic about the future of the Koreas at the
52 Lumberton : AFAIK,they've re-deployed away from the DMZ. Not that there won't be some casualties, but if Baby Kim studiously avoids targeting U.S. forces in any
53 SCEagle : I remember friends telling me about the inprocessing briefing and being given the expected Life Expectancy of the base they'd be going to. Surprising
54 Post contains images TeamAmerica : I'm not sure we disagree at all, and my opinion is subject to change. Yep, here's the horrorshow. If Seoul gets nuked, who would be left to give appr
55 Cloudy : In the case of a nuclear strike by North Korea - there are several possible responses, none of them mutually exclusive - 1. Destroy the regime, occupy
56 Jaws707 : I've read most of this post and have a couple of comments/questions. 1. I am pretty sure that the US would not launch a nuke without North Korea first
57 LimaNiner : I guess I'm being terribly pessimistic, but the way I see it, if DPRK launches an invasion (conventional only), the American troops currently deploye
58 Lumberton : You paint an interesting scenario; very pessimistic indeed. But I would like to offer up some thoughts: -No mention of the 650+thousand South Korean
59 SCEagle : How long would it take to amend their constitution to allow the Self-Defense Force to take offensive action on the Korean peninsula?
60 LimaNiner : Excellent points I hadn't considered. Right. Also, there's hope that China's economic interests will align with the U.S. economic interests more clos
61 Lumberton : Ha! I've always felt that Raul Cedras (Haiti) was one of the smartest people around for taking a similar deal. However, in the case of Baby Kim, when
62 Cloudy : Yes, we would not use a nuclear weapon first, because we have overwhelming conventional superiority. Actually, the general public tends to have an in
63 Bennett123 : Lumberton On that basis, Idi Amin would not have found sanctuary or Bokassa or Baby Doc. It is strange that these thugs always seem to find refuge som
64 Cloudy : That can be done when defending or when conducting a guerrilla war. These operations are more doable by hungry troops with a limited supply system. H
65 HAWK21M : What are the chances of a Korean Reunification...I know its a tough time for that.But whats the Difficulty exactly. regds MEL
66 Art : A lot of well argued contributions regarding the ways in which a conflict might start and unfold. I hope there will not be one. I'm no specialist or s
67 Lumberton : In those cases, the Soviets had huge occupational forces in those countries. There are no comparable Chinese force levels in North Korea. Baby Kim wo
68 Art : IIRC Eastern bloc countries "on exercise" close to Czechoslovakia were tasked to invade the country. I think it would be far easier for China to remo
69 Lumberton : I also remember "ostrogoths"! IMO, it would take an extraordinary event for the Chinese to do this. While not ruling anything out, if the Chinese wer
70 Art : I agree with your storm comment. I guess they have to make a weapon that can be delivered first. Is that "difficult", I wonder? Or is the clever bit
71 LimaNiner : I think the issue is that while China has a potential mess on their front steps, they have less of an incentive (curerntly) to defuse this mess than
72 Bennett123 : Cloudy I think that you miss my point. Seoul is within artilery range of the DMZ. If 1M infantry start moving, then stopping them short of Seoul would
73 Cloudy : The damage would be bad if we didn't take out the artillery quickly - everyone agrees on that. The damage could indeed put them back a long ways, esp
74 Lumberton : Don't forget the millions of South Korean civilians choking the roads in an attempt to evade the conflict. No doubt, any North Korean planner would ta
75 FlyBoeing : Hmmm... My thoughts on the matter are that if tensions are higher than normal, the ROK forces and civilian population are almost certainly ready to pr
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Capable Is The North Korean Military?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Is The U.S.C.G. Considered "Military" posted Sun Nov 12 2006 19:19:37 by UH60FtRucker
How Capable Is Tornado In A "knife Fight"? posted Thu Nov 24 2005 17:09:24 by CHRISBA777ER
How Is The C-17 Balanced? posted Wed Oct 22 2003 04:31:20 by Lehpron
How Long Would The US Have Been Giving Away F4U's posted Sun Oct 8 2006 08:47:57 by L-188
What Is The Latest On Rutan's Space Ship 2? posted Thu Sep 21 2006 02:08:36 by CTR
Why Is The Phantom A Twinseater? posted Thu Aug 10 2006 23:31:58 by TheSonntag
What Is The Deadliest Russian Fighter? posted Thu Jul 27 2006 06:10:51 by ThirtyEcho
What Is The Loudest Jet To Get Lunch Off A Carrier posted Wed Jul 26 2006 20:58:56 by 747400sp
What Is The A400M Airlifter? posted Thu Jul 20 2006 16:57:38 by Mlglaw
Is The B-52 Is One The Best USAF Planes Ever? posted Thu Apr 27 2006 19:30:27 by 747400sp

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format