North Korea vs. Australia

File: 1492651056289.jpg (592KB, 2626x1898px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 2626x1898px

North Korea's estimated launch range

Australian subs and surface fleet could sink NKs entire navy overnight.

Neither would be capable of pulling off a land invasion of the other.

>>33732079
this is basically it.

And Austrialia has a lot more buying power than NK does, so they can scale up way faster.

>>33732079
North Korea has 70 submarines (20 Romeo class, 40 Sang-O class, 10 midget)

Australia has 6 Collins-class subs

>>33732127
""70"" """"submarines"""""

>>33732127
kek

How many of them are operational? How many of them have any means of defending against let alone locating and attacking an Australian sub or ship?

>>33731914
The RAAF would roflstomp the Nork AF as well. A ground war would be pretty one-sided though I'd imagine.

File: JESUS-LUMINOUS-PRESENCE-GOLD-PICTURE.jpg (9KB, 234x357px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 234x357px

>>33731914

>>33731914
I'd imagine the Aussies could figure out nukes and an ICBM capable of reliably hitting Pyongyang before the Norks could do any major damage, given the population density of Australia and the CEP of their "ICBM"s.

>>33732189
>How many of them are operational?
Probably one or two on a good day

Not sure about the Norks.

>>33731960
kinda an overly hopeful map isnt it? every missile thus far has failed or hit water

>>33731914
Ofc Australia could win. Every major military probably could, except for maybe Canada

>>33732117
>And Austrialia has a lot more buying power than NK does, so they can scale up way faster.
This. The economic aspect of warfare is pretty important.
GDP NK = 12 billion or about $600 per capita
GDP Aus = 1.56 trillion or about $70,000 per capita
The NK military budget is about $6b and they can't really go any higher without their people starving to death [spoiler] even more [/spoiler] whereas our military budget is $32b/year and projected to rise to $60b over the next 10 years even if that outstrips our GDP. In a wartime situation we could go far higher before the population noticed any real change to quality of life.

On the other hand, our economy is overwhelmingly based on services and construction (i.e. the housing bubble). Mining and manufacturing are both under 10% of the GDP.
That level of mining would be enough to supply us with raw materials - iron, aluminium, uranium coal, shale oil, petroleum, LNG, rare earth elements, zinc, copper, nickel - our continent is fucking loaded. BUT as far as I know a lot of the processing e.g. iron ore to steel occurs overseas.
The relatively small manufacturing base concerns me much more. I expect we'd be pretty fucked if we needed to rapidly start pumping out goods for the war effort. At least there's the naval shipyards in SA (thank you Xenophon and your pork barreling) which are well positioned to survive any initial attacks. Same with what remains of Victoria's industry. I know our Bushmasters are manufactured domestically by Thales but I'm not sure what proportion of the rest of our vehicles and aircraft are built here.

Final note, the massive US-Aus radar stations we've got out in the bush are a pretty big asset.

>>33731914
Our defense budget is about double their GDP

>>33734937
>>33734993

What time frame are we talking before Australia has there own nuclear ICBMs spread over their desert?

>>33735077
When hiding behind America's skirts is no longer enough to protect us from China or Indonesia ... assuming we haven't defaulted to sucking China's cock for protection instead.

Personally I'd like to see Australia invest heavily in nuclear power and a domestic aerospace industry so that when/if the time comes we can convert easily. Right now we've really got nothing in either of those industries - the fucking Green's are even trying to shut down the one nuclear reactor we have which is used purely for scientific research and creating isotopes for nuclear medicine.

>>33735180
You're never going to "manpower" Indonesia or China, Australia's best option is to either produce 50-100 land based ICBMs which forces their enemies to produce double that (China only has 250~) to ensure first strike capability.

What was that quote about a Frenchman saying his country was capable of killing twice as many Russians as there were French in existence, there are 25 million Australians you could kill 250 million Chinese with nukes.

>>33734937
Mineral refining and processing can and still is (to a fair degree) done here; it's just that China in particular have been spamming refineries so that they can buy our minerals for cheaper and at the same time undercut us for export prices of highly refined metals.

>>33735180
Australia already has a domestic aerospace industry, and although it being small, it does produce some military hardware such as F-35 components for the JSF program. There is also already some limited military research that happens (Nulka decoys made in Australia)

>>33731914
I see you forgot to factor in the EMUs and the rest of the Outback wildlife.
If the Aussies wrangled as many critters as possible and dropped them over DPRK I could see them walking away with a strategic victory.

>>33735077
Takes about 5 years to build a large reactor, uranium processing facilities are about the same so they could be done in parallel. Most of the rocketry and nuke stuff we'd have to nick from the brits as we helped develop some of it, that's anyone's guess how long it would take to fabricate them though.
We should have gone nuke a long time ago, but the leftists scream their tits off every time

>>33735685
Brits failed their last test, would have to go US.

>>33735697
Unlikely they'd give us the time of day, let along ICBM and nuke tech

>>33735717
In saying that it's extremely unlikely that Australia would ever get nukes.

>>33735738
The upkeep on them is also very expensive, lot of maintenance, extra security and all that to keep them in working order.
Not that we couldn't have a dozen or so, but its really unlikely we'd get that past consecutive governments that don't give a fuck and unlikely to give a fuck tomorrow. Hell at this point its basically ingrained in them to avoid nuclear power despite being the most stable continent on earth and having vast amounts of the shit

>>33735685
>helped develop some of it

Untrue, All Australia did was let the Brits use the weapons range.

Australia without a doubt. Australians are fucking crazy, and you've gotta be one rough cunt to survive in Aussieland. Also norks are manlets who tape rubber leaves to themselves for """"camouflage""""

>>33735791
I've heard that nonetheless makes us eligible to develop nukes under the non-proliferation treaty.

>>33735685
>>33735785
So fucking wish we didn't have this irrational hatred of nuclear power though. Some of the first bills I'd introduce if I ever got the PMship would be to fund a couple of nuclear plants and invest in rocketry/satellites. We've got a lot of world-class STEM grads leaving our unis with no chance of finding a job.

>>33735791
Nah, we co-developed a lot of their first missiles and the nuclear involvement remains classified. Post Malayan insurgency there was talk of getting tac nukes but that petered out.

>>33735893
The removal of 457 visas should go some way to better employment, assuming people don't weedle their way around them.
Not so much unemployment, but a bit of under-employment. I run a small engineering business (mostly telco architecture) but its only about 2/3rds of my income and rest comes from other professional services.

>>33734937
>I know our Bushmasters are manufactured domestically by Thales but I'm not sure what proportion of the rest of our vehicles and aircraft are built here.

You have to remember that as the last of our car manufacturing dies out, Automotive manufacturing in the US won WW2 in the European theater, even though Tigers and Panzers were better then Shermans they could turn out five of them for every Sherman lost, now we have lost all of that.

>>33736170
>Nah, we co-developed a lot of their first missiles and the nuclear involvement remains classified. Post Malayan insurgency there was talk of getting tac nukes but that petered out.

I don't think so mate, the Brits just used the land. Australians paid no part in the development of the missiles or anything to do with nukes.

Australia... a great country but ruined by leftists. Needs to develop more domestic aerospace for high capacity helicopters, and a lot of them

RAN and RAAF would curbstomp their Nork equivalents in the first day - Collins class has 6 × 21-inch (530 mm) bow torpedo tubes for 22 torpedoes, mix of Mark 48 Mod 7 CBASS torpedoes, UGM-84C Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles or 44 Stonefish Mark III mines
That clears the Nork navy and shuts down the harbours.
RAAF currently runs FA-18A/B and -Fs with JDAM JSOW and LGBs with -G Growlers for ECM and E-7A foe AEW&C that will drop MiG15s faster than Kim's soiled panties.
Nork ground forces will eventually get smashed from the air and mopped up by Aus Army -
> and no rush with that part because really weDGAF if they swarm through SouthK while we attrittion them then finish off the survivors as we put ashore at Busan.
If we're really lucky Kim manages to get off his oneshot to nuke all the boongs in Darwin as his last hurrah

>>33736207
>Panzers were better than Shermans

when will this meme end

File: battle drake.png (37KB, 315x285px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 315x285px

>>33732127
The NK fleets can't even get around the peninsular to meet up with one another.

>>33736233
They where joint developments, if you really want to go trudging through declassified doco's theres-
http://guides.naa.gov.au/records-about-south-australia/chapter15/15.4.aspx

Nukes are another matter though, there's always been whispers about them when I was in the military and various bullshit. It did get quite a lot of talk in the 1960's and endless rumours about secret projects.
But, pretty big pinch of salt regarding any of them.
Technically we're nuke capable along with about 5 other countries, but if we did decide to really ramp up things we're fairly hard to sanction if people got the shits about it.

File: 1459038036339_0.jpg (143KB, 819x799px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 819x799px

>>33731960
>No Dong

>>33736370
There was a plan in the late 60s to put a "military research" reactor on Commonwealth land at Jervis Bay so it was Federal not on States land, they even started the hole for the foundations then Gorton was rolled as PM by softcock McMahon who shelved it, then the leftist cocksucker Gough Whitlam came in in 1972 and shut it down, the same as he did for conscription and every other defence program he could.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jervis_Bay_Nuclear_Power_Plant_proposal
All that cheap uranium and easy to become a can of Pu to sort out the Indons and any other gooks

What would an invasion of Australia even look like? it seems like an impossible logistical nightmare to me, we're totally surrounded by sea, much of the coast would be a cunt to land on, and then what? roll an army through an enormous empty land for weeks with no resources?

>>33736566
The strategic keyword is Air-Sea Gap.
You might be able to make a sneaky landing up north somewhere (although a bit harder at the moment while we're busy playing StoptheBoats), maybe even sneak up and roll over Darwin or Perth on a long weekend while everyone's on the piss, but you can't advance past the outer suburbs into the big empty middle bit to get to the next target without building up supplies (which Darwin etc doesn't have as it all gets trucked in from down south), and the RAN/RAAF hook around and sink your second wave and leave you to either starve or get bored until you surrender. Then the Army slowly advances and mops up and cleans up afterwards.
>simples

>>33735607
Also helicopters, but I think he was more talking about the space side of aerospace specifically.

Honestly its embarrassing that New Zealand has a more active space industry that Australia.

>>33734511
Depends on the circumstances - logistics, condition, training, equipment and combined arms are all advantage Australia.

If in a position to exploit that - like an invasion of Australia I give decent odds to the Aussies harrying them enough for a strategic victory, even if not a direct one.

>>33736670
I think even an Australian offensive would result in Australia achieving total air supremacy. Super Hornets are vastly better than MiG-29s and Australian F/A-18As (which have JHMCS, ASRAAM, AIM-120C, etc) are better than all of their MiG-21, etc copies. Our Wedgetails would cover their entire airspace, KC-30As and C-17s would gradually get our forces to a forward deployed location, Growlers would easily jam anything they have, etc. If we were able to wait a few years there'd also be F-35s and P-8s to add to the domination.

army acting personnel for aus looks bretty bad but aus has and probably will use conscription

as for arming the conscripts, how many SLR's do you think are still lying around

>if a nuke lands in my state it'll be a dong 2
>dying to a "dong 2"

>>33734627
They'd buy a dozen Trident II's and rent an Ohio or Vanguard for a month.

>>33736706
Oh with air dominance (which Aus would absolutely have), it completely changes.

But I was talking as JUST land forces - if somehow their AF were neutralized or airspace remained contested. Even 30-1 I give good odds to Australia. NK still fields T55s for fucks sake.

>>33736726
Well my post that you replied to did only / specifically say the RAAF would dominate the DPRK Air Force

>>33736726
Go back to last Aus - Nork punchup
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kapyong
47 vs 1000+ is a 1:40 ratio and that was with .303s and Brens

even if 500000 North Korean soldiers magically teleported to Australia they'd be locked down pretty fast and denied resupply, it would turn into a humanitarian disaster, trying to get indoctrinated fanatics to stop charging the machine guns and surrender before they starve to death and die horribly of infections and disease

>>33736721
>When you get so mad you borrow a nuke sub to glass some norks but its a long weekend and the crew gets shitfaced and wipes Iceland off the globe by mistake

>>33736721
>>33736780
Turn it into a movie where the Aussies get an Ohio class, but the captain is still American and is played by Kelsey Grammer, while the XO is Mel Gibson.

>>33736566
>>33736586
Landing up north and trudging through 4000km of wetland, jungle and picrelated seems almost as promising as invading Russia in winter.

But do they need to do that?
If their goal is Australian resources what's to stop our hypothetical foe (assuming someone more threatening than NK) just bombing the fuck out of Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne? We're an extremely urban nation and I feel that'd either convince our populace to surrender or just cripple our fighting power enough that our enemy could then advance forward over the mines and start taking whatever they want. Even if they don't have aerial superiority to bomb the cities then what's to stop them trying the same trick? Landing up north or out west, taking the mines and ignoring the SE. Wouldn't we have the same supply problems trying to extend our forces N or W to retake the resources?
If they want Australian clay for lebensraum then maybe they do need to the SE coastal fringe, depends how hospitable they consider coastal Qld and WA.
Or could they try a long reacharound and go straight for the cities? I assume we'd spot whoever eventually but would we be able to concentrate our navy enough to stop them?

File: coreadelnorte120116.jpg (123KB, 1404x956px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1404x956px

>>33732189
>>33732138
>>33732127
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking
>The ROKS Cheonan sinking occurred on 26 March 2010, when Cheonan, a Pohang-class corvette of the Republic of Korea Navy, carrying 104 personnel, sank off the country's west coast near Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea, killing 46 seamen. The cause of the sinking remains in dispute, although overwhelming evidence points to North Korea.

File: australia-northern-territory.jpg (480KB, 1000x662px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1000x662px

>>33737678
picrelated

>>33732079
>norks land on australian beaches
>immediately attacked by crocodiles, didgeridoo-wielding abos, and emus
>those who aren't eaten within 24 hours of landing have succombed to snake bits and spider wounds
>norks barely made it a mile inland

Australia's entire ecosystem is its army

>>33737864
>Attacked by abos.
You mean have all the fuel in their army siphoned off for sniffin

>>33731914
The big problem is motive and strategy.

Australia has no real reason to go to war with anyone except the second coming of Emu's.

North Korea has the only goal of getting the damned peninsula back under one Korea.

Both have a purely defense based military.

North Korea
>North only could hold the south for a couple months with all invasion based capability put towards taking the south
>But could defend the shit out of themselves with a near impenetrable border all around
>their navy, air force, and nuclear strike force is a little too weak to take on anyone beyond a direct border
>they are less than capable of long, sustained fighting in the outback and bush

Australia
>Has a capable, long distance, Navy and Air Force
>Decently defend-able territory and no chance of taking it all on without having to cross the nightmare hellscape of the outback
>a very bush capable military that could hold up just fine if forced inland or in a situation in which they can coral them into the outback
>actually have the logistics knowledge to make sustained conflict happen
>an assault on NK would be near suicidal with their defenses

They are really equal fighting forces, that would be equally decimated trying to attack one another.

Whoever is on the defense will have a massive upperhand.