North Korea

[jjwf]

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.



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.

Yes, every country no matter how much you think doesn't need infrastructure does.

As for Pyongyang been one of the most defend cities in the world means squat when the US & its allies are able to put a missile within a 3 metre radius of where it needs to be, and its doesn't matter how much fire they put up they're likely to down very little of those missiles that's hitting the capital & elsewhere.

There's all manners of available equipment that North Korea will not be able to detect with any of there radars or anything else and as soon as a MML is spotted that's the end of that.

 

[adolf hamster]

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.

thing is, they don't need to win in a straight up fight, they just need to disappear into their tunnels in the jungle and turn it into a war of attrition, use guerilla tactics, and keep enough in reserve that when we eventually tire of the bloodshed (which we will do) that they can pop back up and take control again.

it worked in Vietnam in the days when the Americans were still perfectly prepared to burn down massive areas of forest, use nerve agents and flame-throwers, it worked in Afghanistan both when the Russians invaded and when we invaded, it's worked just about everywhere an under-trained under-equipped military has tried to fight a considerably more powerful opponent.

and what's worse is that we'd be trying to invade a country with nuclear weapons and take them out, i wouldn't expect the Americans to let Washington fall, the Russians let Moscow fall, or us let London fall to an aggressor without resorting to out nuclear armament so i cant see why the North Koreans wouldn't.

 

[Rroff]

Yes, every country no matter how much you think doesn't need infrastructure does.

North Korea has long learned to live without dependencies on their infrastructure and have better fallback/backups out of necessity than many countries which would crumble quickly without their core infrastructure for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...korea-shows-country-turning-solar-power-cope/

As for Pyongyang been one of the most defend cities in the world means squat when the US & its allies are able to put a missile within a 3 metre radius of where it needs to be, and its doesn't matter how much fire they put up they're likely to down very little of those missiles that's hitting the capital & elsewhere.

There's all manners of available equipment that North Korea will not be able to detect with any of there radars or anything else and as soon as a MML is spotted that's the end of that.

This is North Korea - they won't hesitate for instance to use civilians as shields and so on. While their fixed radar systems which are their biggest asset in this regard are relatively vulnerable they have countless mobile platforms and vast numbers of MANPAD type systems. While the US can dismantle their infrastructure and military installations with long range missiles and so on it would be a relatively long winded and systematic process with considerations for collateral damage and nothing like as quick as if they could just volley missiles in indiscriminately.

 

[jjwf]

North Korea has long learned to live without dependencies on their infrastructure and have better fallback/backups out of necessity than many countries which would crumble quickly without their core infrastructure for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...korea-shows-country-turning-solar-power-cope/



This is North Korea - they won't hesitate for instance to use civilians as shields and so on. While their fixed radar systems which are their biggest asset in this regard are relatively vulnerable they have countless mobile platforms and vast numbers of MANPAD type systems. While the US can dismantle their infrastructure and military installations with long range missiles and so on it would be a relatively long winded and systematic process with considerations for collateral damage and nothing like as quick as if they could just volley missiles in indiscriminately.

The fuel & food they have stored is more than likely in a poor state & some of it will not be useable.

As for you insistence that their MANPAD's etc will be safe, rubbish, the allies have been on a continuing development path since the first Iraq war & things are that far advanced mobile radar sites etc can be spotted and taken out within seconds with very little or no collateral damage.

 

[Orionaut]

Yep run, also the general population will not fight, their starving.

According to UN, Average life expectancy NK is around 70, just like everybody else.

Food might be in short supply, but mostly people will still be getting what they need (Socialist paradise Yes! )

And such starving that exists is mainly as a result of the US/UN sanctions siege (something that will not be lost on either Nork propagandists or the general Nork population)

(I hate "Sanctions", It is an utterly barbaric strategy )

However oppressed they might be I would still expect them to resist invasion nevertheless.

Hell, I H8 B'liar with a vengeance, but had the US invaded us to "Liberate" the UK back in the late 90's I'd have fought them simply because it was non of their ******* business...

 

[Rroff]

As for you insistence that their MANPAD's etc will be safe, rubbish, the allies have been on a continuing development path since the first Iraq war & things are that far advanced mobile radar sites etc can be spotted and taken out within seconds with very little or no collateral damage.

MANPADs are fire and forget and they've been producing them since the 90s with numbers likely in the 10s of thousands. They can pop out, shoot, move long before counter fire on that position lands.

For instance:

https://youtu.be/jHhv6f856H0?t=61

 

[jjwf]

MANPADs are fire and forget and they've been producing them since the 90s with numbers likely in the 10s of thousands. They can pop out, shoot, move long before counter fire on that position lands.

Nope no longer, they pop out are spotted before they can fire and hit within seconds of been spotted.

 

[Rroff]

heh you accused people of fantasy comics but that is straight out of video game mechanics - in real war it doesn't work like that except in limited highly idealised circumstances. Sure there are highly advanced systems that can triangulate and put fire automatically on radio and other signal emissions but that only works in very focused situations and not so effective in a broad, moving, battle on terrain with good cover.

 

[Malevolence]

As for you insistence that their MANPAD's etc will be safe, rubbish, the allies have been on a continuing development path since the first Iraq war & things are that far advanced mobile radar sites etc can be spotted and taken out within seconds with very little or no collateral damage.

Nope no longer, they pop out are spotted before they can fire and hit within seconds of been spotted.

You don't know what a MANPAD is do you?

 

[jjwf]

heh you accused people of fantasy comics but that is straight out of video game mechanics - in real war it doesn't work like that except in limited highly idealised circumstances. Sure there are highly advanced systems that can triangulate and put fire automatically on radio and other signal emissions but that only works in very focused situations and not so effective in a broad, moving, battle on terrain with good cover.

Doesn't it? You seem to be a bit behind the times on what can and cannot be done on the battlefield now.

 

[platinum87]

Manpads are anti-air that you can carry yourself...

They are infra-red, and not radar, they cannot be countered with anti-radar systems.

They are also basically useless to shoot down US bombers and fighters anyway

 

[Tefal]

I am right in thinking a manpad is a as misled from shoulder fired launcher liek stinger etc?


how ******* close is a plane that it can detect the lock from the launchers radar, fire a missiles the missile travel time to target all before the guy can get a lock fire and run away?

and how many anti radar missiles do the planes have?

if they have say 8 then I could just send 9 men out couldnt i?

or I could use infra red launchers like the Serbians did to shoot down the stealth fighter.

I just don't see how a fighter plane can engage a large number of ground target quick enough and persistently.

this is asuming no has a manpad that can even hit a modernnplane

 

[Rroff]

Manpads are anti-air that you can carry yourself...

They are infra-red, and not radar, they cannot be countered with anti-radar systems.

They are also basically useless to shoot down US bombers and fighters anyway

Anything loitering on station without high end IR and UV, etc. reduction is gonna be fair game and that will include fighters to a degree - obviously you ain't gonna shoot down something like a B series bomber at the upper 10s of thousands of feet with one.

I don't think the suggestion was countering them with anti-radar but using UAVs, etc. to direct counter fire only works in movies or highly specific missions like assaulting an outpost or compound type scenario.

 

[Orionaut]

9

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.

You, And others, are missing the point.

Of course the USA, UK and just about anybody else in the Nuclear club has the technical capability to "Neutralize" NK.

The problem is that They/We would have to be willing to kill MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO DO SO!

(And also risk the lives of tens of millions of other people)

I don't really think we have the stomach for it at the moment :/

"We" have spent the last 20 years totally failing to defeat ISIS because we are alll collectively terrified of the sight of Blood, Attempting to defeat the "Norks" is so far away from trying to defeat ISIS it might as well be in another galaxy far, far, away...

Oh, and PS

I really do not see why this is our problem.

We are looking at the long drawn out ending of the Korean civil war that began in the aftermath of WW2 and we should never have got involved with in the first place.

Like most UN interventionist crap, If the world had kept its nose out, it would have all been over in 6 weeks and by now everybody would have been a whole lot better off....

 

[Rroff]

I don't really think we have the stomach for it at the moment :/

This is gonna be a big issue I think if NK should force the US's hand - their systems might largely belong to another era but the US is gonna be in a sticky position if NK starts sticking a load of civilians in plain view around their radar installations, etc. which they'd almost certainly do.

 

[Orionaut]

This is gonna be a big issue I think if NK should force the US's hand - their systems might largely belong to another era but the US is gonna be in a sticky position if NK starts sticking a load of civilians in plain view around their radar installations, etc. which they'd almost certainly do.

Nork wont use "Human Shields", when it come to the crunch, they will just fight...

Why do you think that the USA Nuked Japan??

(There are actually several reasons, But I have one in my mind that nobody ever talks about. And actually I think it was the one that was right up at the top of the list )

 

[Tefal]

Nork wont use "Human Shields", when it come to the crunch, they will just fight...

Why do you think that the USA Nuked Japan??

(There are actually several reasons, But I have one in my mind that nobody ever talks about. And actually I think it was the one that was right up at the top of the list )

they wanted a real world test of a nuclear device?

there is no way they could ever simulate the effects if bombing a city.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki let them test each if thier development routes on a real target

 

[Rroff]

Nork wont use "Human Shields", when it come to the crunch, they will just fight...

Why do you think that the USA Nuked Japan??

(There are actually several reasons, But I have one in my mind that nobody ever talks about. And actually I think it was the one that was right up at the top of the list )

I can only go on the claims of defectors, etc. but they claim that NK has a last ditch intention to use westerners as hostages to protect leadership and key sites and also "calling" on patriots to protect Kim and key sites i.e. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-un-as-human-shields-in-New-Year-message.html

And yes it is likely they will fight but they will also use everything they can to try and balance the unevenness of it.

 

[Orionaut]

they wanted a real world test of a nuclear device?

there is no way they could ever simulate the effects if bombing a city.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki let them test each if thier development routes on a real target

That was undoubtedly one of the reasons. And there were others too

But there was another one. And I actually think it might have been the most important one.

The Japanese were training Women and Children to resist the invasion with whatever came to hand (EG Bamboo spears)

Any invading US army wold have faced Millions of women and children who would have fought to the death.

The USA might have won, but the price that they would have paid is that of having hundreds of thousands of GI's who would have had to kill Women and Children, in vast numbers, in close combat, armed only with wooden weapons.

These men would have been ruined for ever!

And this is relevant because....

THAT is what like invading NK would be like!

 

[Tefal]

yup it would break a generation