Because the DPRK is a nation state with a conventional military built along Soviet lines. Didn't work out well for Iraq. The Taliban survived precisely due to be a rag tag guerilla force. It's got no heavy equipment for the US to destroy.
NK vs USA
- Thread starter Diddums
- Start date
Because the DPRK is a nation state with a conventional military built along Soviet lines. Didn't work out well for Iraq. The Taliban survived precisely due to be a rag tag guerilla force. It's got no heavy equipment for the US to destroy.
There is a some key differences between Iraq and NK though - Iraq had mostly shallow bunkers and fighting in open terrain plus lots of political and military upheaval in the periods leading upto the wars. NK has been digging in for several decades with a lot of their equipment buried in deep salt mines, etc. and terrain that favours the defenders even with modern military hardware not to mention continuous focus of their military capabilities. The average Iraqi could relatively easily be dissuaded from fighting while it will be much harder to do the same with NK's population where more will fight patriotically than won't.
We all know the outcome of a US invasion here, NK certainly wont be winning.
The real unknown is if NK can successfully use a nuclear warhead somewhere, I doubt they can achieve bombing Seoul as firstly they don't want to (Unification reasons) and secondly the SKeans are prepared. So maybe they use nuclear weapons to destroy any troop movement by the south or the US. I wouldnt be surprised if the death toll for the Americans is in the 10s of thousands just because of that.
The US would be so war-shy after that, that i'd imagine that's why they haven't steamrolled in recently, saving the US populace's eagerness for when it's most politically valuable.
The real unknown is if NK can successfully use a nuclear warhead somewhere, I doubt they can achieve bombing Seoul as firstly they don't want to (Unification reasons) and secondly the SKeans are prepared. So maybe they use nuclear weapons to destroy any troop movement by the south or the US. I wouldnt be surprised if the death toll for the Americans is in the 10s of thousands just because of that.
The US would be so war-shy after that, that i'd imagine that's why they haven't steamrolled in recently, saving the US populace's eagerness for when it's most politically valuable.
I wonder if they even have the stomach for it now TBH - short of the threat of NK magically being able to bombard the US pacific coast with nukes. Winning in NK is going to be way more costly than many here seem to think.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2008
- Posts
- 1,056
One thing I hadn't thought of until I read it somewhere else recently, is what would happen when NK do reach the point of being able to strike the US with a nuclear warhead. Would they possibly then assume they could invade South Korea without the US getting involved because of a possible nuclear attack on US soil?
I still think that now is the time to hit NK. Every day that passes, the regime gets closer towards nukes. Do i ever think they'd use them as a first strike weapon? No.
You cant leave them alone though. Its like having a guy at the bottom of your road screaming about making a bomb, sooner or later you'll have to deal with it.
To be honest i'm angry its gone on for this long. China warming to the US is playing a huge part in this. Now the US can go into this without fearing massive consequences of angering the sleeping dragon.
You cant leave them alone though. Its like having a guy at the bottom of your road screaming about making a bomb, sooner or later you'll have to deal with it.
To be honest i'm angry its gone on for this long. China warming to the US is playing a huge part in this. Now the US can go into this without fearing massive consequences of angering the sleeping dragon.
I really don't know if NK would use a nuke or not - in Iran's case for instance their ambitions there weren't about using it but the power that would give them as a bargaining chip in the region - hence why Israel are so against it because it would mean they'd have to come to the table with Iran.
NK I dunno - depends a lot on how Kim Jong-Un has adjusted being surrounded by yes men, etc. I think there is potentially the culture there that might breed the grounds for actually using nuclear weapons if they had them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
Kim Jong Un is in an incredibly delicate situation, what can he do:
Strike SK?
-Invites war
-Risks disloyalty from his own troops
Try to Strike the US with a nuke?
-They will fail to successfully nuke and risk China dropping all support which will also result in his own subjects defecting when they have no food and are told to fight an unwinnable war.
-The act will pretty much give Japan, SK and the US to come in and stomp them.
Wait out until he has an effective nuclear weapon?
-A race against time where their relationship with China degrades further, SK gets stronger and US convinces the world more of its need to have a presence in the east.
-Shells, soviet weaponry and machinery degrade and become useless/unreliable.
-NK build up more debt to China and will be devastated next time famine comes round as a result of poor weather
Loyalty and moral of their troops is what will be on my mind if anything breaks out.
Strike SK?
-Invites war
-Risks disloyalty from his own troops
Try to Strike the US with a nuke?
-They will fail to successfully nuke and risk China dropping all support which will also result in his own subjects defecting when they have no food and are told to fight an unwinnable war.
-The act will pretty much give Japan, SK and the US to come in and stomp them.
Wait out until he has an effective nuclear weapon?
-A race against time where their relationship with China degrades further, SK gets stronger and US convinces the world more of its need to have a presence in the east.
-Shells, soviet weaponry and machinery degrade and become useless/unreliable.
-NK build up more debt to China and will be devastated next time famine comes round as a result of poor weather
Loyalty and moral of their troops is what will be on my mind if anything breaks out.
I'm wondering if this "big event" he is promising is going to be a surface rather than underground nuclear test - though that would kind of set the wheels in motion with an event like that. Usually its all bluster but I'm not so sure this time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,259
- Location
- Derby
It would take one nuke to take out a major city in the US for a devastating loss of life. If they can do it is another factor. The chance that they may be able to and have said they intend to use it (Regardless of boxing stance) is grounds to take them out. Obviously they will have to consider all the alternatives.
I would have also thought there have been plans in the works for years to hit them. The US have stealth bombers that can reach NK very quickly and could take out strategic sites with ease.
The US have anti missile tech though, not sure how effective it is, I read somewhere that a Russian Sarmat missile cannot be stopped by anything due to speed and stealth tech. Chances are nothing will happen. Un will speel some ridiculous lie and go and live in a cave for a few months.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,704
- Location
- Surrey
The part that is currently impossible for them is getting the nuke there though. The US has plenty of defences and tons of eyes on NK. I find it hard to believe they can deliver a nuke with that clumsy multi-stage satellite launching rocket, without it being intercepted by the US. Really, they may even have trouble getting it there without hindrance.
The 'big event' was opening a new street in Pyongyang. Everyone was masterfully trolled by Kim Jong Un.
Probably should have checked the latest news before posting lol.
Was interesting in some documentary where an old couple had supposedly been living in a luxury apartment laid on by Kim Jong-Il for 10 years only it was obvious in the video that they weren't familiar with the seats they were sitting on let alone the layout of the apartment and many of the facilities didn't appear to be functional.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,592
North Korean nukes are not that big, their blast radius are smaller then the ones dropped on Japan in WW2. The one tested in 2013 has a blast range of 4.5 miles and they don't have that many.
That said, their latest test is their biggest yet, rumoured to be anything between 20 to 30kt which equals to just under 10 miles.
Still pretty small when you compare them to cities like London and New York.
Last edited:
Yeah:
Estimated effect of their biggest assumed nuke - those at the outer ring would suffer 3rd degree burns.