|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| First, how much military power does NK even have? They don't even have military aircraft. |
Yeah that is a ridiculous response and I should have been balanced and denounced this guy as well.
Look they do represent a credible threat. North Korea's Air Force is decrepit, but that doesn't mean in a small-medium scale conflict they can't be used to do some serious damage.
=====================================
I will indulge in a wild conspiracy theory of my own- Perhaps, not probably, but perhaps, this is a step by the New Kim Regime to purge the hard liners. Take things far and illustrate how much the relationship with China has deteriorated and how they cannot rely on Chinese support in a military conflict as a way to move from a 'Defense First' mindset into one embracing market reforms and a gradual opening to the world. The old guard of the regime may still believe in the heady days of guaranteed Chinese support and when it becomes clear that China is through, perhaps their support will crumble, enabling reformers to rise through the ranks. The appointment of an alleged reformer to the role of Prime Minister and the deterioration in relations with China might be indicators of this, though what I wrote above is pure, wild, and unsubstantiated speculation. But if one wants to reform, one has to get rid of the old guard and to do so, one has to prove that they are utterly devoid of power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Died By Bear
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Location: On the big lake they call Gitche Gumee
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Best case scenario, DPRK coup's out fat boy and opens the border to the South and asks for unification. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| augustine wrote: |
| Lil Kim's just stomping his feet around and trying to establish some cred with his own crew. Unless he's a total idiot, wants to commit suicide, and have his country no longer exist within a matter of hours, he's not going to do anything really significant. |
Are you sure about that? Did you know the reason the majority of NK troops are amassed along the DMZ is to prevent the U.S. from using nukes? Why? Radiation would blow back into South Korea. The U.S. isn't going to risk killing civilians (on either side) unless they absolutely have to. Remember the first Korean war? The U.S. didn't use nukes (though they certainly had the capacity to).
Here's something to think about:
As Koreas face off, risk of accidental war grows
Missile and nuclear tests, threats of possible atomic strikes on the United States and military drills on both sides of the divided Korean peninsula, reflect rather a youthful North Korean leader and newly elected South Korean government both finding their feet at home and testing their strengths.
Yet neither 30-year-old Kim Jong-un, who succeeded his late father just over a year ago, nor South Korea's President Park Geun-hye is seen having much room or appetite to back down.
The risk of miscalculation or mistake sparking accidental conflict may be growing by the day - bringing with it the greatest risk in years of a regional nuclear exchange.
"We have had worrying times before, but this is bad," says Victor Cha, former director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council under President George W. Bush.
"The rhetoric is off the charts. We don't understand this new guy at all," added Cha, who is now a senior adviser at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
"And if the North Koreans move to provoke the South, the South is going to retaliate in a way we haven't seen before."
This month's joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises have sparked outcry from the North and could make for the most dangerous weeks on the peninsula in more than two decades.
"There are number of ways this could go very wrong," says Ken Gause, chief North Korea specialist at the Center for Naval Analyses, a U.S. government-funded research institute that advises the U.S. military among others.
"You have two new governments in North and South Korea that are still finding out where each other's red lines are."
While there is uncertainty over whether North Korea is capable of firing a nuclear device across the border or over the sea at Japan or U.S. Pacific bases, even a conventional conflict could be devastating. Meanwhile, the risk of confrontation with Pyongyang's traditional ally China also worries Washington.
The likely human and economic cost, those with knowledge of events say, was one of the key reasons Washington held back from direct military action against the North Korean nuclear program in the 1990s to stop it completing a nuclear device.
The bottom line, veteran North Korea watchers say, is that the outside world still has little real understanding of what is happening in the secretive authoritarian state.
Satellites and spies may provide basic details of weaponry, but the intentions of those at the top remained very opaque.
"It is basically guesswork," said Mark Fitzpatrick, a one-time North Korea specialist at the U.S. State Department and later deputy head of its nuclear non-proliferation team.
"China and Russia may have a better understanding than us, but I don't believe anyone is truly on top of it," added Fitzpatrick, now a senior analyst at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
How much the North - and Kim Jong-un in particular - understands events outside its borders is also far from clear.
http://news.yahoo.com/koreas-face-off-risk-accidental-war-grows-133444711.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
figshdg
Joined: 01 May 2012
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
Are you sure about that? Did you know the reason the majority of NK troops are amassed along the DMZ is to prevent the U.S. from using nukes? Why? Radiation would blow back into South Korea. The U.S. isn't going to risk killing civilians (on either side) unless they absolutely have to. Remember the first Korean war? The U.S. didn't use nukes (though they certainly had the capacity to). |
How would NK troops along the DMZ prevent the US from using nukes? I can understand that comment if NK was sending civilians to the DMZ.... Also, how does a few people standing in the way at the DMZ stop radiation blowing back into South Korea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is a deterrent. The artillery NK has in range of Seoul can shoot and go underground. Soldiers along the DMZ can go underground in bunkers there, too.
The U.S. has this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bunker_buster
...but if they use it the people of South Korea would suffer so they won't (I hope).
Imagine pollution mixed with yellow dust mixed with nuclear radiation. That would suck.
| Quote: |
| Fallout from any nuclear detonation is increased with proximity to the ground. While a megaton-class yield will inevitably throw up many tons of (newly) radioactive debris, which falls back to the earth as fallout, critics contend that despite their relatively minuscule explosive yield, nuclear bunker busters create more fallout per kiloton yield. Also, because of the subsurface detonation, radioactive debris may contaminate the local groundwater. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuthatch
Joined: 21 Feb 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Did you know the reason the majority of NK troops are amassed along the DMZ is to prevent the U.S. from using nukes? Why? Radiation would blow back into South Korea. |
That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
North Korean troops have no control over what direction radiation blows towards.
| Quote: |
| Just because something is old doesn't mean it is worthless. Jimi Hendrix made music a long time ago on "old" equipment, and it still sounds good to listeners today. |
Music is not the same as technological advances in military capability. Technological advances allow you to do things like fire over the horizon, engage while moving, operate at nighttime, increased penetration against armor, etc. etc.
Did you really just make that argument? Are you that ignorant of military technology?
| Quote: |
Soldiers along the DMZ can go underground in bunkers there, too.
|
And South Korean and US soldiers don't have bunkers and NBC-shelters?
| Quote: |
| The artillery NK has in range of Seoul can shoot and go underground. |
First off, the "artillery in range of Seoul" claim has been debunked and shown to be wildly exaggerated. Second, you do realize that these "underground" sites aren't immune to counter-battery fire or aerial attack, right? They may provide protection and concealment, but they don't not provide total cover (except the hardest sites) against precision munitions.
What, are you imagining its like in the movies where simultaneously 500 pieces pop out of Supervillain's mountain, let off a blast, and then disappear into the Earth?
The US nuclear capability and forces are far more of a deterrent to North Korea using nuclear weapons than vice-versa. Get a clue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| World Traveler wrote: |
| Did you know the reason the majority of NK troops are amassed along the DMZ is to prevent the U.S. from using nukes? Why? Radiation would blow back into South Korea. |
That statement makes no sense whatsoever.
North Korean troops have no control over what direction radiation blows towards. |
The distance between the DMZ and South Korea is much less than the distance between 평양 and South Korea. Think about that for a second. (People closer to the nuclear fallout/spreading source of radiation would be in greater danger.)
The U.S. cannot use nuclear bunker busters against the weapons and troops that can retract into underground concrete bunkers along the DMZ because the result would be disasterous for SK.
How are you (or anyone else) an expert on the artillery range against Seoul? NK has weapons capable of travelling far. Look at the distance between the DMZ and Seoul. It is short. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The distance between the DMZ and South Korea is much less than the distance between 평양 and South Korea. Think about that for a second. (People closer to the nuclear fallout/spreading source of radiation would be in greater danger.)
The U.S. cannot use nuclear bunker busters against the weapons and troops that can retract into underground concrete bunkers along the DMZ because the result would be disasterous for SK.
|
Right, but that has nothing to do with North Korean troops along the DMZ providing deterrence against fallout. Fallout is not variable based on whether or not North Korean soldiers are there.
The proximity of Seoul to the DMZ may deter the use of nuclear weapons by the US, but the proximity of the soldiers does not.
| Quote: |
| How are you (or anyone else) an expert on the artillery range against Seoul? NK has weapons capable of travelling far. Look at the distance between the DMZ and Seoul. It is short. |
Well for one thing I use things like miles or kilometers to describe a weapon's range, not far or short.
Let's look at the three long-range artillery systems the North Koreans have deployed along the DMZ and their ranges.
1)Koksan 170mm, range of 40-60 km about 25-35 miles. The high end figure is for rocket-assisted projectiles, of which North Korea can be expected to have a limited number. This put the northern reaches of Seoul (some of the least dense parts) at its max range. South of the Han is a real stretch and unlikely
2)The M1985 and M1991 MLRS systems. They have a comparable range to the Koksan.
The total number of these systems is thought to be around 700, of which, there are about 400 sites.
In addition there are the glorified Scud ballistic missiles, which easily have the range. Unfortunately their accuracy is rather limited and they have proven to be an ineffective weapon as demonstrated in Desert Storm. 42 were fired into Israel resulting in a whopping two people killed.
Now you may say "How do we know the Nork guns can't fire farther???" Because every nation around the world uses artillery and they all have comparable ranges which are easy to project. Now unless the North Koreans have founds some sort of magical artillery design that no one else in the world has with their 1950s technology, we can be certain about the ranges.
World Traveler, I would highly recommend researching what systems make up the Korean People's Army and their capabilities before making claims and speculating on military action.
| Quote: |
The U.S. cannot use nuclear bunker busters against the weapons and troops that can retract into underground concrete bunkers along the DMZ because the result would be disasterous for SK. |
Fortunately the US has conventional systems that would be able to strike any practical bunker. Also you are able to track incoming fire and determine where its coming from, and pass along those coordinates to friendly artillery or aircraft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
T-J
Joined: 10 Oct 2008
Location: Seoul EunpyungGu Yeonsinnae
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In addition there are the glorified Scud ballistic missiles, which easily have the range. Unfortunately their accuracy is rather limited and they have proven to be an ineffective weapon as demonstrated in Desert Storm. 42 were fired into Israel resulting in a whopping two people killed.
|
That's not a very balanced assessment.
Iraqi SCUDs where fired over a greater distance and where modified to cover that distance. Both affecting their accuracy. They were also fired at areas with lower population densities than Seoul. Also while only two Israeli fatalities occurred, Isreali preparedness factored into that. 4,000 were still left homeless.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fermentation
Joined: 22 Jun 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| They were ineffective in the sense that it gave no strategic or operational advantage to the Iraqis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
| Quote: |
In addition there are the glorified Scud ballistic missiles, which easily have the range. Unfortunately their accuracy is rather limited and they have proven to be an ineffective weapon as demonstrated in Desert Storm. 42 were fired into Israel resulting in a whopping two people killed.
|
That's not a very balanced assessment.
Iraqi SCUDs where fired over a greater distance and where modified to cover that distance. Both affecting their accuracy. They were also fired at areas with lower population densities than Seoul. Also while only two Israeli fatalities occurred, Isreali preparedness factored into that. 4,000 were still left homeless.
|
THIS is how you argue. Thank you T-J. While I disagree with you for the same reason as fermentation below, you make some fair points.
Certainly the greater distance would affect their accuracy, though they have never been too much of a precision weapon. And while Jerusalem is not as dense as Seoul, it is still pretty urbanized. Certainly the chance is higher that you could get something like the barracks, at I believe it was Dhahran were you did get a precision hit on a barracks that killed several dozen. However, the record is that this an exception, not the rule.
You might see something similar in Korea War 2, with NK firing missiles at Japan in an attempt to draw in the Japanese and thereby trigger China's involvement into at promoting a regime-saving ceasefire. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
