North Korea

jimjamuk said:
I don't doubt the Chinese losses were high but the UN(US) casualties were also the sorts of numbers we wouldn't put up with in this day and age.

US Troops Statistics:
Source: Dept. of Defense
US Deaths:
Hostile: 33,739
Non-Hostile: 2,835
Total In-Theatre: 36,574
US Wounded in Action - 103,284
Click to expand...

About 9k of those deaths took place during the initial nk only phase. The one where, like I said, the U.S. had no resources. Troops were being sent out with 2 days worth of food and only 3 magazines. They were told to hold against dozens of tanks with no AT weaponry. More of the deaths occurred as a result of war crimes committed by nk against prisoners of war but the times when that happened are unknown so they're just included in the general figure.
Once the U.S. pulled it's finger out, and the un too the casualty rate fell significantly despite the increase in opposition from China and the ussr.
 
Last edited:
DD_KypfW0AALpuY.png:large
 
Nasher said:
Most likely if they actually used it, it would go massively off course.
Click to expand...

It took quite a long time for western countries to perfect high accuracy with them - but then when they had big nuclear payloads you only need so so accuracy :s

I've seen some reports that NK's testing is actually along another path and not just about alternative testing methods, etc. but that they envisage using an ultra high altitude approach to defeat counter measures and while I'm not sure if the physics works using the earth's spinning to assist in range by sending it so far out by the time it returns the target has rotated under the return path (shortening lateral distance).
 
Doesn't even reach Berlin, boring.

Though if they just leave the warhead in space and let it fall on it's own, then that's basically high-tech nuclear terrorism. (though like 50% of the population lives in a tiny 1% area of the planet... so the probability it'd hit something is tiny)
 
Rroff said:
It took quite a long time for western countries to perfect high accuracy with them - but then when they had big nuclear payloads you only need so so accuracy :s

I've seen some reports that NK's testing is actually along another path and not just about alternative testing methods, etc. but that they envisage using an ultra high altitude approach to defeat counter measures and while I'm not sure if the physics works using the earth's spinning to assist in range by sending it so far out by the time it returns the target has rotated under the return path.
Click to expand...

inaccuracy perhaps might work to NK's advantage. ABM systems are essentially about point defence. If the incoming is wild and might come down anywhere, it is likely to be rather more difficult to intercept.. (especially if a high elevation trajectory is used and the warhead is essentially coming straight down)

Re the high trajectory/earth's rotation thing. Surely that would only be an advantage if you were firing west. So while it wouldn't help in striking America, it might help to bring Europe into range.
 
Orionaut said:
Re the high trajectory/earth's rotation thing. Surely that would only be an advantage if you were firing west. So while it wouldn't help in striking America, it might help to bring Europe into range.
Click to expand...

I've not looked into it - just seen a couple of experts making cautionary statements that it could be an overlooked aspect to their program - not sure if for instance there would be a weird and wonderful trajectory over the north pole or something that they might take advantage of.
 
North Korea should be liberated as soon as possible, crazy dictatorship that would no doubt use a nuke based on their previous actions. It seems every country is just leaving the cancer to metastasize to ICBM's and nuclear war.
 
Energize said:
North Korea should be liberated as soon as possible, crazy dictatorship that would no doubt use a nuke based on their previous actions.
Click to expand...

My concern is that despite Kim Jong-un having some degree of Western exposure and education and possibly some at the top having wider experience of the outside world than they'd admit in general the country has more of the pre-WW2/WW2 era use of nukes (and other weapons of mass destruction) perspective than the rest of the world which has largely developed in outlook from that point and hence they might be more likely to actually use the weapons than any other country in the world.
 
Rroff said:
My concern is that despite Kim Jong-un having some degree of Western exposure and education and possibly some at the top having wider experience of the outside world than they'd admit in general the country has more of the pre-WW2/WW2 era use of nukes (and other weapons of mass destruction) perspective than the rest of the world which has largely developed in outlook from that point and hence they might be more likely to actually use the weapons than any other country in the world.
Click to expand...

There weren't any nukes pre-ww2 and during/after ww2 for many years countries only had atomic bombs, North korea claim to have Thermonuclear bombs (hydrogen) considerably more powerful than atom.
 
terley said:
There weren't any nukes pre-ww2 and during/after ww2 for many years countries only had atomic bombs, North korea claim to have Thermonuclear bombs (hydrogen) considerably more powerful than atom.
Click to expand...

I'm talking in respect to their attitude to using weapons that cause that level of widespread destruction - post WW2 most countries have distanced themselves from WMDs and their societies generally have turned against their use, etc. in a kind of "innocence lost" way - while North Korea, out of the countries with significant military capabilities, has been much more isolated from that global progress than any other country in the world really and hence might be more ready to actually use them than we would think from a developed western perspective.
 
Ironically, aren't they pursuing nukes mainly to deter the perceived threat of attack by the west?

They know that a first strike against any country would mean their own destruction.

The only other way I could see them benefiting from nukes would be if they initiated a conventional attack on the south, and threatened to use nukes if the west supported the south. Doesn't seem all that likely tho.

So in effect NK wants its own deterrent to keep its leadership/military safe. Probably like every other nation on Earth actually using their nukes is a lose/lose situation. You would imagine they must know that.
 
FoxEye said:
The only other way I could see them benefiting from nukes would be if they initiated a conventional attack on the south, and threatened to use nukes if the west supported the south. Doesn't seem all that likely tho.
Click to expand...

Many experts believe exactly that - that their development of nukes has been a mixture of at times using it as a bargaining chip for lifting of sanctions or other concessions in return for them "stopping" development but ultimately still pursuing an idealistic long term goal of having a credible deterrence so that "when" they retake the south other nations won't intervene.
 
If there's one thing in the near future I'm concerned about its Nk. More so than any other country.
Its erratic, and might soon have horrendous ability to ruin the world.

It needs nipping out. No one will do anything. If Trump won't, no one will. And it's only going to get worse.
 
FoxEye said:
Ironically, aren't they pursuing nukes mainly to deter the perceived threat of attack by the west?
Click to expand...

Correct, they've only embarked on this to stave off being bullied/attacked/invaded by SK/US. I suspect all they want really is to be left alone and to not have constant nearby posturing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom