North Korea

Meant to stop the press / media reporting on a topic or information that may be sensitive to national security.

Lol, yes national security alert for something that is on the other side of the planet, that'd be the sort of totalitarian instruments shoveling **** around at Number 10 that justifies further recrimination of society as a whole, because knowing about a tin-pot dictator is too close to home for the leadership in this country.
 
Well I've just seen NK articles on both the BBC and CNN news so I don't think anything is being suppressed.
 
BBC News is covering sports...
About 10 or 15 mins ago they were covering the south Korea peace party concert thing and asking people whether they feared war.

Edit: Actually it might have been Sky News. But either way it's UK TV news.
 
U.S. channels quiet as well? I haven't seen any UK news in ages.

I think the diligent Oc'er is preparing, like his American colleague

Bunker boom: North Korea threat has Americans preparing to go underground

I will contribute this to the inevitable spec me a bunker thread the lifetime guarantee looks attractive,

EDIT: it is a pity google earth does not live up to its name with live globe(web cam) coverage, that would cicumvent the D notice

EDIT2:
36150470780_984d744907_o_d.jpg
 
Last edited:
Do you read many fantasy comic's?

Throughout history. Sci-Fi/Fantasy has actually ended up being a rather better predictor of the future than almost any number of Academic/Government think-tanks.

But, Back to topic,

If you think the "Norks" (Not used the term much before, but am happy to use it as an easy identifier) are going to be some sort of easy pushover you are absolutely insane!

A "Boots on Ground", first strike, invasion of NK would be the worst war since the Great one!

"We" might win with overwhelming superiority, but only if "We" are willing to kill millions of people. Are you really happy with that?

Me, I am a "Rightie" If it needs to be done, it needs to be done! 10 million enemy dead! Meh! :p.

I am just not convinced that it actually needs to be done. I am a "Rightie". Therefore, I would prefer a rather more pragmatic solution, I might prefer a somewhat different, and globally less expensive (In both Human and Economic terms) solution.
 
Throughout history. Sci-Fi/Fantasy has actually ended up being a rather better predictor of the future than almost any number of Academic/Government think-tanks.

But, Back to topic,

If you think the "Norks" (Not used the term much before, but am happy to use it as an easy identifier) are going to be some sort of easy pushover you are absolutely insane!

A "Boots on Ground", first strike, invasion of NK would be the worst war since the Great one!

"We" might win with overwhelming superiority, but only if "We" are willing to kill millions of people. Are you really happy with that?

Me, I am a "Rightie" If it needs to be done, it needs to be done! 10 million enemy dead! Meh! :p.

I am just not convinced that it actually needs to be done. I am a "Rightie". Therefore, I would prefer a rather more pragmatic solution, I might prefer a somewhat different, and globally less expensive (In both Human and Economic terms) solution.

I suggest you would best off sticking to reading comic's. You simply have no idea what will happen and your theories are simply laughable.
 
I suggest you would best off sticking to reading comic's. You simply have no idea what will happen and your theories are simply laughable.

I invite you to suggest an alternative scenario.

Do you really think that any sort of conventional military defeat is possible against NK?

The whole country is basically a heavily defended, in depth, military fortification, with millions of determined, fight to the death, defenders. "We" could (At terrible loss) defeat them in absolute terms.

But I really do not believe we could defeat them in any sort of conventional battle terms, really No!
 
I invite you to suggest an alternative scenario.

Do you really think that any sort of conventional military defeat is possible against NK?

The whole country is basically a heavily defended, in depth, military fortification, with millions of determined, fight to the death, defenders. "We" could (At terrible loss) defeat them in absolute terms.

But I really do not believe we could defeat them in any sort of conventional battle terms, really No!

Infrastructure would be devastated within 48 hours, airports, roads, bridges, power station's and anything else of strategic importance would be gone. They have barely enough fuel to move their tanks etc around as it is never mind trying to counter attack a land based force. Their military equipment is out of date, their army is poorly trained and would most likely run at the first sight of any allied invasion (unless the Chinese are helping them). It wouldn't be like Korea in the 50's neither would it be another Vietnam.
 
Infrastructure would be devastated within 48 hours, airports, roads, bridges, power station's and anything else of strategic importance would be gone. They have barely enough fuel to move their tanks etc around as it is never mind trying to counter attack a land based force. Their military equipment is out of date, their army is poorly trained and would most likely run at the first sight of any allied invasion (unless the Chinese are helping them). It wouldn't be like Korea in the 50's neither would it be another Vietnam.

Most likely run?

no.
 
I invite you to suggest an alternative scenario.

Do you really think that any sort of conventional military defeat is possible against NK?

The whole country is basically a heavily defended, in depth, military fortification, with millions of determined, fight to the death, defenders. "We" could (At terrible loss) defeat them in absolute terms.

But I really do not believe we could defeat them in any sort of conventional battle terms, really No!

The NK defences are woefully outdated. Another shock and awe like attack would make quick work of them.

And while NK might have millions of troops, it's unlikely they have the equipment, training or even food to put up an adequate resistance.
 
Infrastructure would be devastated within 48 hours, airports, roads, bridges, power station's and anything else of strategic importance would be gone. They have barely enough fuel to move their tanks etc around as it is never mind trying to counter attack a land based force. Their military equipment is out of date, their army is poorly trained and would most likely run at the first sight of any allied invasion (unless the Chinese are helping them). It wouldn't be like Korea in the 50's neither would it be another Vietnam.

No.

NK have been living under some varying degrees of siege mentality for decades - they've long planned for the eventuality of not relying on major infrastructure if it comes to it and likewise accommodated for the US's superior abilities when it comes to ewar and ability to jam their communications, etc.

Most of their population are born into a military first society and there are many sections that are well drilled and trained - while there might be a percentage that would be less patriotic and more inclined to run etc. they have their own versions of stuff like the Nazi SS designed to prevent that.

Its a common misconception with regard to their ability to supply their army - vast amounts of their resources go into storage (though I wouldn't want to guess at what kind of state the stores are in) which is guarded by loyal forces only the very minimum amount required to keep things running and barely that go to active units - there may also be an aspect to that of ensuring that there can't easily be an armed uprising/coup overthrowing the leaders. While exact numbers aren't known its estimated from analysis of their crude production, supplies smuggled in and imports/exports, etc. that they likely have enough in reserve to supply their army at full strength for 4-6 months of fighting - minus whatever is wasted due to storage conditions.

The NK defences are woefully outdated. Another shock and awe like attack would make quick work of them.

And while NK might have millions of troops, it's unlikely they have the equipment, training or even food to put up an adequate resistance.

Pyongyang has one of the most dense air defence networks in the world even if antiquated that is somewhat offset by the sheer volume of fire they could put up and while their radar systems are old this is a bit of a mixed story as those old (but upgraded) long wavelength systems have some ability to detect stealth aircraft and while they lack sophistication again they can just open up with everything at the vague data they have.

The rest of the country is densely packed valleys which gives a certain amount of natural protection against shock and awe tactics.

They also have quite a bit more in the way of supplies for their army in reserve than is generally believed - they've been sticking **** loads of fuel and ammo, etc. into old salt mines and the likes.


EDIT: Regarding training and so on - even the most drilled and practised soldier doesn't count for anything if they freeze up, etc. the moment bullets start flying for real and NK has relatively few armed forces I believe that have actual combat experience in anything relevant to modern warfare though I'm not 100% on that.
 
Last edited:
The real question is ultimately how many soldiers is the US willing to commit to their own slaughter? Iraq and Afghanistan was seemingly too much for the poor American mothers.
 
The real question is ultimately how many soldiers is the US willing to commit to their own slaughter? Iraq and Afghanistan was seemingly too much for the poor American mothers.

I think it will depend on how much stomach there is for collateral damage - possibly why they are trying to goad NK into acting first.
 
Back
Top Bottom