North Korea

>>34813505
American victory, lots of dead gooks. Approximate duration of the war: under a fortnight.

File: 1502314177210.png (300KB, 2518x1024px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 2518x1024px

>>34813505
It'll never happen because China controls North Korea and the US and Chinese have a symbiotic relationship.

>>34813505
A blood bath, north half of Seoul gets damaged by the 50% of non-dud shells that manage to land in the first 15 minutes before the US and SK forces waste the Nork arty. 3 BSTB takes retarded casualties clearing a path through the DMZ mines. 'Merica steam rolls the Norks once through the DMZ.

Vietnam 4.0

File: NK-US FR.png (124KB, 952x1484px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 952x1484px

>>34813522
>Approximate duration of the war: under a fortnight

American victory foreseen? Yes

At what price? to be foreseen.

Most of the cost will be faced by SK.

>>34813529
>Symbiotic
Are you sure about that?
It seems to me that the only reason NK still exists is b/c China is very insecure with their borders and having buffer states alleviates that a bit.
A nuclear NK is not what China wants or needs, especially on that makes them look terrible on the world stage.

>>34813589
They definitely like having NK as a buffer but even the Chinese know shit is about to go down on the Peninsula and they've been building bunkers and moving troops to their border.

I don't want a nuclear exchange or any war in the Korean Peninsula but the thought of NK being slapped by thousands of angry, patriotic missiles makes me rock hard.

It would look like a hundred nuclear explosions going off within an hour of each other, all in North Korea. Maybe they might get one nuke off, and if it's not shot down, either Guam, Alaska, Hawaii, or somewhere in California is going to lose 100K Americans.

Following all of this, the more important question is what does China do. If North Korea acts first, they don't actually have to do anything. If we act first, they have a treaty to uphold. The only problem is that our trade is worth more to them than North Korea's friendship. Moreover, the only real important thing is that there's a buffer between them and South Korea. They don't want our troops on their border. Of course, if it were nuked hard enough, it would be inhospitable to life, and there would be no reason for people to settle there. They'd have an empty wasteland to serve as a buffer zone.

File: 1501380145501.gif (2MB, 250x187px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x187px

Would the US even utilize nukes or stick with regular munitions? Using nukes would seem to be more detrimental than not. Fallout raining on Japan and China. The juice doesn't seem worth the squeeze.

I kinda view NK as a scrawny wierd (possibly handicapped) kid and the USA as a pro MMA (or whatever equivlant) fighter. Everyone knows what the outcome will be and are amused by the idea of watching the fight. After the first couple of punches, everyone's amusement turnes into disgust and ready to call the pro off.
Gif related

>>34813529
>>34813589
it isn't symbiotic, it's parasitic

>>34815005
Probably not unless the little shits used em first against any US territory or ally

>>34815051
My thoughts exactly, China should wake up and see the little leach that is draining it of influence and standing. Cut off the crazy cancer before it spreads to the brain and causes actual problems.

Read a think tank feasibility study a few months ago but I'm damned if I can find it again. It will never happen because it goes against the no first use policy.

US uses 50-65 B61 gravity bombs with the dial a yield set to .1 kiloton. Air burst high enough to not create fallout. Weapons are extremely clean. North Korean nuke program ceases to exist. Estimated real time casualties 200. Long term casualties from radiation in the low thousands.

I saw it linked somewhere like realcleardefense. The author called it the most frightening thing he'd ever read because it made a nuclear first strike not only feasible but a much less risky option than a conventional strike.

>>34815208
.1kt? Why?
For the radiation flash? Or what? For maximum neutron flux you want like 45-50kt.

>>34815263
Big enough to overpressure collapse their underground facilities. Small enough to not be dirty.

>>34813804
I think being verbally hostile towards Kim is the right path right now, the earlier we can provoke Kim to strike first the better because it means he will have limited nuclear capabilities. The longer this shit drags out the worse the eventual conflict will be as Kim gets more and better launchers and warheads.

>>34813551
>>34813581
This is the main problem with going to war with north korea, whether or not the US strikes first it doesn't matter Seoul and most of South Korea is going get pretty heavily wrecked.

File: 1458347170953.png (13KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x200px

>>34813529
This pic hits too close to home.

>>34813505
gulf war 2: gook boogaloo

>>34815387

Pretty much even Fox News Business was having former military folks saying that within the first 3-4 days there could be over 1 Million Civilian losses. Though, I wonder what will happen down the road if something doesn't change now.

>>34815294
But dial a yield doesn't actually change the contents of the physics package, you're still dumping (figurative) tons of fissile material on Nork countryside.
Can you link this article in question?

>>34815559
Hell I just found it. Seems I exaggerated the number of weapons necessary. This has to be a repost though because I read it a couple of months ago.

Ah yes it's from May.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/09/the-scariest-article-i-have-read-in-some-time-nuclear-war-is-becoming-thinkable-especially-on-the-korean-peninsula-2/

>>34815208
If you're gonna nuke someone, you might as well go all the way with the button pushing; not some firecracker that temporarily solves the problem.

>>34815719
There are South Korea's familial feelings and desire not to live next to a radioactive wasteland to consider.

>>34813581

Mother fuckers shouldn't live so close to crazy bastards anyways.

>>34815114

Even then we probably wouldn't.
we have enough ordinance to level NK into a parking lot without even touching our nukes.

>>34815915
When has that stopped us before...

>>34815997
Anytime after 1945.

>>34813505
A significant portion of North Korea will be ejected into orbit.

>>34813505
At any earlier time in the 21st century or later time in the 20th century, it would most likely be a blood bath with Chinks, Ruskies and Norks all fighting on one clusterfucked frontline down the Korean peninsula, ultimately most likely resulting in WWIII, but at this point with both China and Russia getting sick of Kim's shit they'd most likely allow for American/S Korean/Japanese forces to advance atleast to Pyongyang but then take the rest of the country for themselves.

They have iglas on their fucking tanks, a metric fuckton of mig-21's, and more grad launchers than the fucking USSR. Don't underestimate the northern gooks.

lmao dont be so retarded guiz

literally nothing will happen

at best the regime will be killed from the inside

at worst it will be a normal war

no nukes are gonna fly

theres not gonna be millions or hundreds of thousands of civvie casualties

t. australian

File: 5adccb786f39897ddb174c976c39e077181ab23f_hq.jpg (72KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x700px

>>34813522
AMERICAN VICTORY: LOTS OF DEAD GOOKS
APPROXIMATE DURATION OF WAR: UNDER A FORTNIGHT
PROBABILITY OF COMMUNIST CHINESE VICTORY: IMPOSSIBLE!

>>34817907
Mad max soon, m8. Start stocking up on guzzoline. Get ready to start pumping your mom full of babies for that precious milk.

>>34813551
>>34815387
It's a myth that NK can hit Seoul with conventional tube artillery. The only things that can reach it are the Koksan SPG's and their 240mm/300mm MLRS'

ballistic missiles too but most of those would be saved for Japan probably

Gulf war 2 but a little bigger

3 months tops

At this point i whish the war would just start. That way we would stop having 10 of these threads each week

>>34818085
>The only things that can reach it are the Koksan SPG's and their 240mm/300mm MLRS'
That's still like 700+ units

>>34818074
Holy shit, I knew I wasn't the only one that read it in his voice

File: IMG_0747.jpg (68KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x400px

Just thinking about it gets my dick hard

It's Commie crushing time

Remember ROK supporting /k/omrades
It's not about the Korean it's about the roof

File: cap1.jpg (69KB, 747x546px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 747x546px

>>34813505
>actually look like?
It will look sad, I will look on it sadly while its on TV.
I grew up and joined my nations military to continue on the fine tradition of being able to fight lots of nasty civilisation destroying commies, but by the time I was in all the commies had gone. (Except Cuba and some pissant countries no one cares about and how commie China is really another whole other debate)
So I ended up fighting lots of barely literate, great unwashed donkey molesting muslims for years upon years instead. My destiny is unfulfilled :(

>>34815159
Okay chang

File: IMG_5459.jpg (153KB, 504x735px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 504x735px

>>34818217
I feel ya bro

A new Korean war would become the bloodiest war for the U.S. since the Korean war. The U.S. doesn't have enough assets in South Korea to fight, and what we do have there has a chance of being overrun if the Norks strike first.

The Norks would not use their artillery to attack Seoul, as that would be fucking retarded. They would hit SK military bases to provoke a response. A SK army moving upwards into the DMZ would not do well.

NK might also try to leverage the time period they have between an attack they initiate, and the time it takes SK to mobilize their reserves.If they can hurt SK enough in an initial attack, and keep the South fighting for more than a month, it would hammer the economy. If SK is anything like Israel, they can have reservists fight for a month before the economy begins to implode.

Even with all U.S. assets in Asia helping, NK would only be blunted before the few weeks it would take for a U.S. counterattack.The NK army would not do well fighting on the South Korean side of the DMZ but the U.S. would not be able to defeat the North and topple the government without a draft.

I went through army and navy reserve fleet lists and dont think we could ship enough tanks into NK to take their capital. But NK would also not be able to take SKs capital either. They can economically cripple them, however.

>>34818136
Hear hear

What I don't understand is how shit US diplomacy must be that, even with access to almost unlimited stacks of money and an absolutely crushing military advantage, they can't persuade/bribe the Nork leadership to surrender. You'd think we could just work out a deal with Russia and China and offer the Nork command exile in those countries to live out a life of luxury, in exchange for standing down and letting Russia/China/US/SK forces to occupy the North.
The very fact that people are even talking about military conflict is insane. It should be possible to buy the whole fucking country.

>>34818327
Umm... no. It would be over in several days with minimal SK and US casualties, unless the North already has the capability to hit Seoul or Tokyo with WMDs. The conventional conflict is ridiculously one-sided. The US airpower advantage is absolutely crushing.

>>34818327
Also keep in mind that modern SK/US armor would be going up against old Soviet deathtraps.

>>34815005
>>34815114

Nuclear retaliation to nuclear strike isn't probably tactical necessity, it is probably political necessity to retaliate with nukes, just to maintain credibility of nuclear deterrence.

>>34818352

Even if Norks are armed with ancient equipment and starving, they might actually put up a fight, unlike dune coons.

>>34818389
>Even if Norks are armed with ancient equipment and starving, they might actually put up a fight, unlike dune coons.
>implying this would still be a bloodier conflict than fucking Vietnam

Remember when people said Saddam's Republican Guard would "actually put up a fight" too?

File: 18527613_1434451789934574_8861516666779219249_n.jpg (63KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 960x720px

I just have to say this... NK soldiers are not trained to the level SK or other western forces are. Lets be realistic the SK trains with US forces, and the US forces have exp.
Also NK soldiers probably don't know a thing about urban ops... so even if they do attack once they hit a city (after being captivated by a fucking grocery store, or a wendys) they probably wont have a clue what to do or act inside a major city... Also they may have some night vision capabilities but not on our scale along with suppressors, so night fighting is out for them.
What gave them a chance during the first war was China, and since then they have not evolved past 1960 for the most part... so 2017 is going to come rolling in with some serious hurt.

>>34818412

Best Koreans might be bit more brain washed than Iraqis. That is literally one of two big uncertainties when it comes to potential war in Korea, other is how effective missile defenses of Japan and South Korea are.

how is NK's air defense game? Isn't it laughable?

File: IMG_2961.jpg (33KB, 628x676px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 628x676px

>>34813804
>tfw stalker zone in norkland

Im diamond lads, lets nuke the shit out of that commie shithole

>>34818389
"dune coons" in 1991 included legit Iran-Iraq war veterans. They were decimated by a force of mostly green US soldiers. Motivation doesn't really matter nearly as much as technology and training.
In any case, I wouldn't look down on Arabs so much. Yeah, they're far from the world's best fighters. But given how totally outmatched they usually are and how shit the governments that ask them to fight usually are, I don't think it would matter much if you replaced them with John Rambos. Well it would eventually - cause the Rambos would overthrow their own shit governments and probably make sure not to start unwinnable wars. But not in the short term.

>>34818473
North Koreans are certainly more brainwashed than your average Iraqi. That's not uncertain at all.

What is certain is that their training, equipment, and infrastructure are all generally laughable.

The big uncertainty about war in Korea is whether or not China wants to get involved. They are allies with NK and harbor an important trade relationship. Chinese forces have been mobilizing at the border, and for some reason people are thinking that means they're gearing up to fight North Korea, but they're training to deploy into the country in order to hold of an American invasion, if that's what they decide to do.

>>34818527
I wonder what the Chinese would do with the Nork leadership if they got their hands on them. Is it a more appealing prospect than being grabbed by US/SK forces and dying of old age or assassination while on trial for crimes against humanity? If the shit goes down, I wonder if the Nork command would rather surrender to the US/SK, surrender to the Chinese, or die fighting. I guess there's also Russia to consider.

>>34818523
>They were decimated by a force of mostly green US soldiers.
Because of combined arms tactics. Kari was destroyed almost instantly because it was centralized.

I can't wait to jerk off to live 1080p 60 fps footage of nuclear fire swallowing norkland whole. It'll be historic.
A bright future awaits.

>>34818622
Yeah, I'm sure the US government would love to nuke NK, thereby crashing SK's economy and sending SK out of the US orbit because we just used radioactive hell-weapons for little military reason against their next door cousins, when we could easily have beaten them with conventional weapons instead. Great idea.

>>34818658
Fuck off nork-lover. My throbbing member won't rest until norkland is a bubbling field of nuclear slag.

>>34815559

The problem is not the fissile material by itself, the problem is the reaction of the bomb with the dirt below it. Thats what actually creates the fallout.

>>34818085
>The only things that can reach it are the Koksan SPG's and their 240mm/300mm MLRS'

So they can reach it?

Just see how much the world flipped when Sadam started with its SCUDs on Israel, multiply that by 10 on Seoul and you get a political nightmare.

>>34818327

That might be true for maybe the 3-5 days of the war going on, but in the end the whole NATO and asian allies would jump in, in an already controlled zone(so no need for a naval landing to get a beach head and staging area at the start) so the logistic problems should be half solved. Even if the US doesn't get enough in time the SK army would end up in a very concentrated front and maybe slowly losing ground.

Now, the norks live under the soviet doctrine, and that doctrine is dependent on numbers but the US, since the fall of the Berlin wall has both the advantage of quality and quantity, and the norks do know this or they wouldn't stick manpads on their tanks.

So, getting nukes was the most logical thing to do, since their best hope for winning a conventional war is resorting into irregular warfare with 1,2 million supposedly trained, disciplined and loyal soldiers... supposedly, since they can't win a conventional war.

The problem is that their only real solution to "winning" in this scenario is something like the French nuclear strategy, where nuclear answers are supposedly proportional to its employment, so the enemy has to think how much are they willing to lose to nuclear strikes before continuing. This requires both, thermonuclear city-killing devices and tactical nukes for military targets and a total trust that the little lieutenant at the front won't overreact over little things and start sending nukes(either for Pyongyang or Seul), but they are not under any antiballistic missile treaty or anything and I doubt they have early warning capabilities so they can only strike when the bombs start landing which means that they are exposed to nuclear disarmament early on and the US spent 5 decades thinking about ways to destroy the nuclear assets of his enemies.

The only thing really stopping the US for smacking the norks for their attitude is the .0001% possibility that things fail and the ensuring refugee crisis.

>>34819336
It's the bomb components that are transmuted into the worst isotopes. Dirt and air won't contain anything that much long lived fallout.

>>34818225
他妈的你也

>>34818527
>The big uncertainty about war in Korea is whether or not China wants to get involved.

If Kim Dynasty does something stupid, China will probably stand in sidelines, they probably don't like US/Worst Korea curb stomping the Best Korea, but it isn't worth risking war with US. They would prefer to have buffer state between them and US allies, but removing Kim-dynasty by themselves isn't something they are willing to do as well. South Korea isn't probably thrilled about war and re-unification, especially the cost that comes with it. Best option for everyone is that the best Korea stays in line and doesn't escalate anything. Just remains as it is.

>>34818085
Artillery is pretty much what the world fears the most about NK, you can be sure that they upgraded this the most.

>>34818074
>>34818140
Explain pls.

>>34822727
https://youtu.be/GzXAbm55DOE
everyone's favourite giant two hundred year old freedom loving, commie smashing, somewhat confused death machine

>>34818412
And that was a legitimate threat. They were well(ish) equipped and operating on solid Soviet doctrines. It turns out they were trained like shit and suffered Arab Army Syndrome, but that was never a guarantee until they were tested.

Armchair general-ing incoming but let's at least try to look at this objectively.

>assume Norks strike first, conventional warfare
Can the US, on short notice, scramble enough airpower to silence Nork emplacements and launch sites before massive civilian casualties?
Probably not. There will be a window of at least 1-2 days before the USAF can scrape together enough sorties to silence the Nork batteries. Sure the Nork emplacements will be slag after that but that is enough time to inflict a politically-damaging number of civilian and/or military casualties.

>assume Norks strike first, nuclear strike
Can the US detect and knock out a road-mobile ICBM in it's pre-launch stage?
With enough luck it could be detected by spysats, but it would be the military equivalent of finding a camouflaged needle in a haystack the size of New York. Knocking it out before launch would be a even greater obstacle, since that would constitute a first strike against the Norks and would need both a method fast enough and perfect clarity that it was a actual nuke strike and not just a test launch.

Can the missile shield around SK/Japan destroy the incoming nuke before impact?
This is a big Maybe, with a sideorder of probably not. THAAD has no ICBM intercept capability and Aegis systems, assuming they are in the right place at the right time, have a ~50% success rate (if i recall correctly).

Will the US retaliate in kind in case of a nuclear strike on allied soil?
Very high chance of happening. It may not be tactically great but politics would demand it. Like >>34818389 wrote: (it would be a) political necessity to retaliate with nukes, just to maintain credibility of nuclear deterrence.

>>34813505
desert storm....followed by 10/15 year low intensity/humanitarian FUBAR.

>>34823028
ICBM won't be used to strike SK from NK, and if it does it will necessitate a MRBM/IRBM flight profile which is right up THAAD and patriots ally.

Also, US has a large standby force in Korea, and a metric fuckton of forces in the area. The strikes would begin immediately even after a shot out of the blue.

>>34823028
End results are grim whichever method of attack the Norks choose.
Civilian casualties will be high, though a conventional strike will of course have a lesser impact than the nuclear option.

I'm not even going to go into Nork army vs US/SK army since that would come after a strike already occurred, be it conventional or nuclear.

>>34818327
>but the U.S. would not be able to defeat the North and topple the government without a draft.
dumbest shit i've read all day.

>>34823057
If the Norks were to nuke SK yes they would use MRBM/IRBMs, which THAAD could intercept. However if they make good on their promise to strike Guam or Japan that would be with a ICBM of sorts.

A nuke on Japan or Guam would not be a tactical victory for the Norks but it would show the world that the US or it's allies can be hurt, and hurt badly, should other rogue nations have the same idea. Thus achieving a important strategic and political victory. The political backlash in the US from a nuke strike on friendly soil would be on a scale not witnessed since Pearl Harbor, and with the current political landscape it is not so sure the anger would be angled towards the Norks as much as towards internal US politics and politicians, weakening the US even more.

>>34823133
Doesn't the US have military bases on Guam?

>>34823133
They can reach Guam with IRBMs.

Furthermore, if an ICBM target was launched, GBI can splash it.

Such a limited strike would have to fly over a ton of AEGIS ships, and it would be tracked the entire time.

Nothing is certain, but to stay the US "most likely would not" be able to take down a strike from NK is folly, the entire US BMD is built around stopping a strike from an NK nation.

For example, a US ship off the coast of Korea can plink NK missiles in boost phase all day every day.

>>34818341
This

So, if the Norks successfully prove that they have US strike-capable nuclear ICBM tech who's ready for Cuba Crisis 2.0: Korean Boogaloo?

Trump has given a statement that "(his) threat to unleash “fire and fury” on the country was not “tough enough”."

Let's see how Kim reacts to this.

>>34823306

Trump's job as Commander in Chief is to get attention. What he's saying here is that he hasn't effectively communicated our intentions well enough. A lot of people are mocking him for using "North Korean style speech," but what nobody seems interested in asking is why. It's a message that's meant to make a point and our media is completely tone deaf to geopolitical communications these days.

Will norks dun goof first?

>>34823361
Probably not, sadly...

>>34813505

They can equip their artillery with nerve gas. That would be a shit ton of South Korean casualties.

>>34823395
But they are very active recently, nuke tests, missiles every month, won't they lob just one over Japan?

The best outcome for all of this is for the missiles directed at Guam to blow up on the launchpad.

>>34823361
>Will norks dun goof first?
>>34823395
>Probably not, sadly...

That really is going to depend how the United States and Japan react to the threat of missile launches towards Guam, and how North Korea responds to any prospective reaction to the missiles. It's not unlikely the US or Japan will attempt to shoot them down - and not impossible that the US might not just bomb them at their launch sites due to the low probability of interception until they come in range of Guam's THAAD batteries.

>>34823434

Nerve gas is area denial weapon. It is meant to fuck up troop movements. For causing fast casualties conventional explosives are more effective, even if those are less scary.

>>34813804
Why would it go nuclear? There is absolutely no reason a single WMD should go off unless the norks nuke themselves to kill american/ROK forces.

>>34823496
>Why would it go nuclear? There is absolutely no reason a single WMD should go off unless the norks nuke themselves to kill american/ROK forces.

A nuclear first strike is the only practical way to eliminate the threat of large scale civilian casualties south of the 38th parallel. The estimated rate of attrition of North Korea's artillery batteries in a full scale war with counter-battery fire and air strikes is 1% per day.

>>34823456
>due to the low probability of interception until they come in range of Guam's THAAD batteries.

They are vulnerable during boost phase. SM-3 will have a fucking field day. Pure mid course they are hard to hit unless you want to waste a GBI, terminal is all THAAD.

My prediction? The missiles launch and then get splashed on boost.

>>34823549
>They are vulnerable during boost phase. SM-3 will have a fucking field day. Pure mid course they are hard to hit unless you want to waste a GBI, terminal is all THAAD.

The concern there is that with an overland launch, North Korea's ballistic missiles will rapidly out-accelerate even the SM-3s before they can hit.

>>34823561
Even in the dead center of Korea SM3IIA has plenty of range.

You are not out running a lightweight (relativity) sm-3. DT shot can be engaged with sm-6, if the ship is well placed. Normal IRBM total trajectory is in IIAs envelope. Only lofted gets out around the apex, and even then IIA might be able to do it.

>>34823613
>has plenty of range.
Slant range*

That big ass (world's largest mobile) THAAD ground radar in Korea will spot that launch instantly, shit will be tracked the moment is clears horizon. Hell, SBX might be in the area right now, but I'm not sure.

>>34823174
Yes. Quite a few, iirc. It's kind of a strategic point.

>>34813505

I am of the belief that it won't actually get to the point of a "war", but since you asked:

Norks are trained in '60s Cold War era Soviet battle tactics that were obsolete even when Kim Sr. was around. They have zero asymmetrical warfare training, and shitty armor from the late 1960s.

They are trained for the soldiers that America had in the '50s; garands and Shermans. They are in for a nasty, rude awakening should this situation ever devolve into an overnight "war".

Our first move against the North Koreans will be a preemptive set of conventional airstrikes to knock out the artillery pointed at Seoul and then their SAM sites and airbases. Expect B-2 or unconfirmed stealth aircraft deployment. Heavy bombing.

After these strikes are flown through (likely zero U.S. casualties), Marines will walk through the DMZ hip-firing at anything that moves. I don't know about the landmines, so expect minesweeping

North Korean resistance will be mopped up and rolled over, either the Chinese or somebody from sad or socom will assassinate Kim, the Chinese will move in troops from the Yalu to prevent a breakout.

I REALLY don't want a war with the North, a country like the United States with 20 trillion in debt should not be invading random countries. If the Norks actually land and detonate an ICBM, the symbolic nature of this is likely to push us over the edge. it would create a refugee crisis, but it would re-unify the peninsula.

>>34823691
>I REALLY don't want a war with the North

Neither do I. I don't want any war. But this one was a long time coming, and if it comes it will be worthy.

Shits not being healed with time, so if it's time to rip the bandaids and do some surgery, so be it.

>>34823691
As far as NK tactics, they can't really be that out of touch right? Their leadership has studied overseas, they know what's been going on the past few decades and they must have been studying our own conflicts. Surely they'd be working to develop some sort of plan?

>>34823753

Only the supreme leadership and their family has been overseas to my knowledge.

They know about some of what we have, but their tactics are really crude. Whatever the Kims have learned, it hasn't been applied to their military. Remember that the struggle against the "imperialists" is deeply fanatical in nature. Nothing rational and effective comes that kind of shit.

Their strategy consists of poor accuracy, suicide waves and then short-lived guerrilla warfare.

The US has instant air-superiority. The war will be about neutralizing the threat to Seoul and the possibility of a WMD being used.

>>34823523
That's of the rounds that will work and are not expired and without any US air superiority. A nuke that close to the 38 is going to have heavy fallout in SK which makes it completely impractical and will not be allowed by SK. There is also the fact that there is not one place that NK keeps it's artillery so nuclear strikes will not be as effective as precision air strikes.

>>34823471
Haha what the fuck, there's nothing deadlier to large troop formations than VX Gas saturation

>>34823849
>A nuke that close to the 38 is going to have heavy fallout in SK which makes it completely impractical and will not be allowed by SK.

Not if it's an airburst. When detonated at altitude, the radiation pulse does not reach the ground (air is actually pretty good at absorbing radiation). The overpressure and heat are sufficient for artillery suppression, which means that they could be used with negligible long term consequences in the area.

File: nuclear_blast4.jpg (42KB, 596x283px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 596x283px

>>34813529

The us should have absolutely glassed Beijing the moment the chingchongs crossed the Yalu River in 1950, save everyone a whole lot of bullshit today.

>>34816477
So? Saddam had a lot more dangerous equipment verging on 1980s Soviet standards and we fucked him raw in '91 and '03 with minimal casualties, even when he started lobbing rockets at Israeli civvies.

>>34823971
>So? Saddam had a lot more dangerous equipment verging on 1980s Soviet standards and we fucked him raw in '91 and '03 with minimal casualties, even when he started lobbing rockets at Israeli civvies.

In a flat desert plane. We haven't had nearly as easy a time with Afghanistan, and North Korea has a lot more in common with Afghanistan than Iraq, terrain wise.

>>34823798
>Only the supreme leadership and their family has been overseas to my knowledge.
According to the NYT North Korean observers were present at a NATO exercise this year in Europe. They get around when they feel they need to.

File: download.jpg (8KB, 330x153px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 330x153px

>>34818078

No it won't.

File: anti-ballistic-missiles-i-71-638.jpg (72KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 638x479px

>>34823028
>Can the missile shield around SK/Japan destroy the incoming nuke before impact?
>This is a big Maybe, with a sideorder of probably not. THAAD has no ICBM intercept capability and Aegis systems, assuming they are in the right place at the right time, have a ~50% success rate (if i recall correctly).

Now here's my question about ABM reliability. Even if it has a 50% success rate, most tests were with a single missile engaging a target right?

Launch more ABMs.

While the ground based GBI is expensive, I would expect the SM-3 to be much cheaper for the US than a Taepodong-2 would be for North Korea. If a Nork launch is detected I would think the US and allies would launch a clusterfuck of SM-3s followed by a small handful of GBIs. If they've got a 50% hit rate odds are one of them will connect.

I'd say the biggest threat would be the Norks launching an EMP weapon. That could cause widespread destruction over SE Asia or North America if one got through.

>>34823971
I'm assuming that Koreans don't suck quite as much as Arabs.

>>34818327
South Korea does have a military of it's very own you know.

>>34823912
>The us should have absolutely glassed Moscow the moment the Ivans blockaded West Berlin in 1948

FTFY

>>34824452
If only Lemay had more support...

>>34823798
>Only the supreme leadership and their family has been overseas to my knowledge.

The North Korean government has its own diplomatic corps, and routinely sends students to attend schools in Eastern Europe, China and Pakistan. There even exists visa-free travel between NK and Malaysia.

I don't think they'd win a proper ground war with the US and SK, but I'm pretty confident they aren't that out of touch, there's no way they're just going to fight like it's still 1952.

Haven't seen the NK KMS 3 and KMS 4 satellites mentioned much. Maybe much ado about nothing but they just happen to be in perfect orbits to be EMP weapons. We know that Russian nuclear scientists were working with NK on EMP weapons as far back as 2004.

http://www.38north.org/2017/06/wgraham060217/

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/346073-north-korea-just-might-be-able-to-win-a-war-if-it-begins-with-an

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korean-emp-attack-the-dark-possibility-2017-7

>>34824613
>but I'm pretty confident they aren't that out of touch

You should never gamble anything important on people doing the smart thing.

*blocks your path*
>BEIJING (Reuters) - If North Korea launches an attack that threatens the United States then China should stay neutral, but if the United States attacks first and tries to overthrow North Korea's government China will stop them, a Chinese state-run newspaper said on Friday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-china-media-idUSKBN1AR005

>>34824438
Why wouldn't they? They haven't fought an actual war in 6 decades and they are starved, have old, obsolete equipment with very shitty Command &a Control and early Soviet era doctrine

>>34824706
Because of fucking course they would...

>>34824726
Because they have national rather than tribal loyalty, and a lot of them actually believe in what they're doing.

I could be wrong.

I'm expecting the ground campaign to be relatively simple either way, but maybe somewhat harder than in 1991 or 2003.

>>34824029

Except we won't be going in alone, South Korea has an army of 600,000 with 3 million reservists, trained to a much higher standard than the North.

South Korea has been preparing for 60 years to push the North's shit in, they don't even need the US to do it. With the US, and all the high capability assets the US has, the gooks can drive to pyongyang in less than 2 weeks.

>>34824748
Might be more Vietnam-like just with better technology and hopefully more Mechanized units

>>34824778
The problem is the Sorks don't actually want reunification anymore. It will be a massive economic burden to bear the responsibility of dealing with the North post-war

>>34824779
The thing is, we couldn't invade North Vietnam.

If a war breaks out with North Korea, we absolutely will invade them.

So I'm expecting a moderately more messy version of Desert Storm.

>>34818217
My fucking sides.

What was that gameshow called. Funny as hell.

>>34824748
>Because they have national rather than tribal loyalty, and a lot of them actually believe in what they're doing.
A lot of that tribal mentality is born from the fact they've never seen outside of their nations propaganda and never been abroad.

When they're in the field and seeing hundreds of their compatriots and dozens of Soviet-era tanks being shredded by a single group of Abrams, that mentality tends to vanish in a hurry. It's like stacking a thousand Milanese crossbowmen against a Blackhawk running miniguns: They wouldn't understand what they're seeing, they can't respond proportionally, and it might as well be magic killing all their cohorts. The Nork "war-machine" would probably dissolve into complete anarchy within 72 hours.

>>34825027
It could go that way, but it could also go full-on Paraguayan War.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/full/10.1162/ISEC_a_00273

Oppenheimer, i would love your thoughts.

The concept of a low yeild preemptive strike is both appealing and appalling at the same time

>>34825052
I'm of the opinion it would be a massacre with their military taking a shit, the brass catching a private plane to Beijing, and then as the "war" becomes a refugee management program by the UN replete with months of fanatics ambushing aid convoys. Inevitably you're going to get the hardcore infiltrators appearing in Seoul and other places taking hostages and blowing up buildings. I don't think the Norks would launch a nuke at all, mainly because that's one less nuke and there's a good possibility it might be intercepted. Instead, they'll bury one in Pyongyang, wait for Allied troops to arrive, then let it rip. Or alternatively, get a suicide squad to march into downtown Seoul or an airbase.

At any rate, a conventional war is unwinnable and they know it. So it's the punches from the side you have to look out for.

>>34818327

>No be able to ship tank into North Korea

Have you ever heard of...oh you know the road?
Why would you ever want to do a amphibious with tanks?
You know there is a reason Marine exist right?
Have them handle the landing and have Army drive their fatass through land route into North Korea

>>34824706
>>34824739

It's not all bad news. They've also said that it wouldn't be worth responding to if we conducted limited strikes solely against their ballistic missile and nuclear facilities.

>>34825421

Source?

>>34813505
>NK gets vehicle and equipment ready to defend
>all the vehicle becomes dead
>there is not enough fuel to get the shit running

ggwp no re.

>>34825547
It's been a while and I'm trying to find the specific article, but this is related

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2087320/china-not-obliged-defend-n-korea-if-its-attacked-say

File: SHIP_DDG-176_JS_Chokai_Kongo_Class_lg.jpg (127KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1024x768px

So the Japanese have stated they would attempt to intercept any missile strikes on Guam. I'm wondering how feasible that is though, since I don't believe they yet operate any SM-3s. So a midcourse intercept seems impossible for them.

It looks like China's outlook is that they're not interested in protecting North Korea's nuclear program, but they flatly will not permit a decapitation strike against the Kims unless they launch an attack against the United States (I don't know if they include regional allies in that grouping).

File: a magical sammich.jpg (2MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1280px

>>34813505
The final solution to the Nork problem.

>>34824706
Just noticed a very important line in that article.
>said the paper, which does not represent government policy.

>>34813529
Well seeing as china just approved UN sanctions on NK it's looking a lot like if war does breakout China is going to drop them real quick

>>34825687
I'm pretty sure if Kim starts launching missiles at anyone they'll lose any interest in defending him.

What happens if the Norks just decide not to launch the missiles at Guam but instead just autistically screech more?

File: Gaming Couple.jpg (86KB, 520x390px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 520x390px

>>34815415
How many gym bunnies do you owe child support to?

>>34824823
MXC. Read that post in Captain Tennille's voice too?

>>34825647
>yet operate any SM-3s.
Uh....

>>34813505
I imagine it would be Dessert Storm but with more missiles

>NK attacks either SK or another US ally
>US launches a large scale barrage of missiles from every base in range to destroy the NK gun lines
>Quick armored invasion from the SK and Pacific borders of NK

It wouldn't last very long: even if the peasants fight they wouldn't have the rescources for an extensive guerilla campaign

>>34825760
Then these threads continue until they do

File: Right You Are Kenny.jpg (42KB, 500x323px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 500x323px

>>34826306
INDEED.

File: KPA Weapons.jpg (915KB, 1905x1857px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 1905x1857px

NK infograph dump time

>>34826359
They've tested them, I don't think they actually have them operational on their ships.

>>34815948
Do you?

I remember reading about the USA purchasing back bomb stocks from European allies during the Afghanistan & Iraq wars because of the airforce/navy chewing through the stockpiles in no time.

File: Vehicles.jpg (1MB, 2050x2530px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2050x2530px

>>34827046

File: Artillery.jpg (2MB, 1920x3282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x3282px

>>34827077

File: museum.jpg (21KB, 317x321px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 317x321px

>>34827046
SG-43
That's fucking adorable!

>>34827046
>>34827077
>>34827092
What a logistical clusterfuck..

Also, that KN-06 (S-300), that's pretty much the only real threat to the Navy pilots right?

>>34827173
Pretty much, though it's very unlikely they're up to par with modern versions of the system. I doubt NK has the doctrine to prevent them from getting wrecked by SEAD aircraft pretty fucking fast either.

>>34827050
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atago-class_destroyer

>>34813505
>>34813634
>>34815005
>Would the US even utilize nukes
No. Czech'd, but no.

There would be bombs, yes, lots and lots of bombs marked, "MADE IN USA" falling on the unsuspecting heads of morons who thought time stopped in 1975. No nukes unless Trump is a retarded.

>>34815387
>>34815518
>>34818085
>>34818139
>Seoul ruined
No. I don't remember where I put the link, but there was a study done on the actual effectiveness of Nork artillery and the prognosis was on par with Kim shaking an 8-ball that hates him. I've posted several times here and elsewhere about the actual effectiveness of artillery in built up urban areas and I'll tell you right now it isn't very good. Tall buildings don't mix with artillery very well, you need to physically batter them down to effectively hit targets at ground level. That's where all the people are going to be because Seoul does air raid drills and the residents know to bug in ASAP when the sirens come.

>>34818327
>bloodiest war
UH OH, DPRK shill detected!

>SK army moving upwards into the DMZ would not do well.
I got here before laughing, go home Kim.

>>34818389
>>34818412
>>34818473
>>34818527
It's highly unlikely that anyone outside of Nork SOF will put up resistance.

>>34823434
If this happened it would pretty much doom the entire senior leadership to public executions, even the PRC wouldn't hide Kim and friends under house arrest. VX attack on Seoul means unconditional surrender for the DPRK, nothing else would be accepted, it would be just suicidal for them to do that.

At the very least most of the senior leadership could flee the country and go into hiding under a normal loss scenario.

>>34823858
ROK and US forces are prepared so if they tried to use it on the battlefield it really wouldn't be that effective unless everyone in charge was absolutely stupid.

>>34824029
To reiterate what the other anon said: So? An insurgency like that requires local support, that evaporates when we provide humanitarian rations.

Liberal tears and muh chilluns in the American Parliamentary. If a single city gets bombed, there will be black lives matters protests all around the country plus gays and muslims rallying.

>>34818327
>The U.S. doesn't have enough assets in South Korea to fight, and what we do have there has a chance of being overrun if the Norks strike first.

Fucking what, m8y.

You're talking about putting up tiny, poorly trained, poorly supplied, malnourished 5' koreanlets using 60s and 70s military tech against state of the art gear in use by SK and the US. SK has over 5,000,000 reserve personnel and about 600-700k active personnel against a Nork active force only 50% larger and a nearly equal number of reserves.

Not even counting the number of vehicles, but why don't you tell me how many broken-ass Cold War russian knock-off tanks equals a single K2 MBT? How many MiG21s equals a single F-15?

It is INCREDIBLY, incomprehensibly rare for a technologically superior force to be defeated by an technologically inferior force in pitched warfare. If Norks could get a grasp on guerilla tactics I might actually blink an eye at projected losses -- 5 to 6 million man-strong repeat of the Viet Cong? No thanks.

This is completely ignoring the fact that treaties within the pacific region would pull the US in, would pull ANZAC in, would pull NATO support in. Now you're talking about M1 Abrams, F22s and 35s, the American Pacific Fleet...

It's no contest. The war would be over nearly as quickly as the First Gulf War, barring any fuckery from China or Russia.

>>34823644
>SBX
What's preventing the Norks from sinking it with a submarine?

>>34828349
Yeah, I reread what I wrote and its pretty unclear.

But I don't completely believe the propaganda about the Norks. Up to the 80's their economy was bigger than the Souths. The mass starvation ended in the 90's. People in the military now have never known a hungry North. The pics of prison camps look like collective farms like the soviets used to have. Their missiles don't fall into the Sea of Japan, they're being shot down by the U.S. navy.

There is a lot of propaganda surrounding the Norks. But also a lot of mines, hardened bunkers, and a government at full militarization.

If they struck first, and fought their "ideal" war, SK would bleed white. The reservists would be joining units already in the middle of fighting. A U.S. counterattack would be at least a few weeks away. Maybe even a few months.

>>34813522
>Approximate duration of the war: under a fortnight.
They've been brainwashed for decades and literally half of the population is in either an active military service, reserve, or some paramilitary. Unless you nuke the whole fucking country into a glowing glass desert it's going to be a hundred years of high level insurgency.

File: 1431034325317.jpg (213KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1920x1080px

>>34823496
>unless the norks nuke themselves to kill american/ROK forces

Here comes the snow

North Korea is just a stepping stone to a larger conflict in the East as far as I'm concerned, whatever the outcome, China won't be happy.

>>34819516
Seoul would be irrelevant after 3-5 days nukes or not, any nuclear weapons use by the DPRK 5 days into fighting would be against military forces and/or longer distance targets

>>34818225
He's referring to NK, which is basically like a boil on China's Asian foreign policy

So would we see any surpluss German WWII weapons? Would they have old caches from Soviet stock lying around?

>>34823905
You're retarded, the radiation released by the reaction is not the radiation anyone worries about, it's the fallout.

>>34829136
He was probably talking about neutron activation, which produces most of the fallout, but without activation of the soil you produce less fallout. Hence you're the retard

File: Mach_effect_sequence.svg.png (16KB, 250x320px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x320px

>>34829136
No, he's right, because fallout is bits of dirt and dust sucked up through the fireball, irradiated, then spread upward in a wide plume. Airburst weapons do not draw up a huge dust plume, and so generate much less fallout.
And there is no reason not to airburst, ground bursts lose mach stem fx, line of sight for heat flash and reject most of the energy up and away.

>>34828630
> the missiles are being shot down
No they aren't. This would be a big deal if it was true, the Norks would sperg out and the US would be boasting about it. But the simple, sad truth is ABM systems are mostly ineffective against ICBMs and only partly effective against IRBMs. If the US tried to intercept the Nork tests, everyone would see it, and they would eventually miss one and be humiliated. Better to just leave the tests alone and not publicly expose the ABM systems to undue scrutiny, because they're basically working as intended but try explaining that to Joe Taxpayer who thinks he's getting an invincible shield.
Joe Taxpayer believes in megadeaths, MAD and nuclear winter for fucks sakes.

>>34829363
Best bait I've seen in years.

>>34823028
You forget SK has a huge modern army. They also have tons of artillery dialed in on MI's static positions. As soon as the Norks start shelling the capital, they're going to receive counter battery fire from munitions and equipment without a 50% fail rate.

File: 1501780163723.jpg (80KB, 766x960px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 766x960px

>>34829590
This is true, but if the norks are firing gas/anthrax from the get go it's a moot point. The Sorks aren't willing to trade millions of educated, motivated, valuable starcraft champions for some ungrateful peasants only skilled in long-since-automated tasks like tilling rice fields.

>>34825709
That paper is known to be the unofficial heart and soul of the chink government, apparently they have this 'the things the chink government actually thinks but doesn't openly state'- status according to the Dutch paper I read

File: 1502003610909.jpg (176KB, 1022x688px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1022x688px

>>34829386
It's not bait or a joke, THAAD is only designed to intercept IRBMs and SRBMs. AEGIS SM3 can hit ICBM trajectories but is not yet deployed on any land platforms. And of course, all this assumes the Nork launch(es) are even in range to intercept.

>>34823434
Doesn't the US have a standing policy that any use of NBC weapons against it's allies will result in the US using NBC weapons of their own?

As in, if the Norks were to gas Worst Korea, then the US would have ''legal'' reason to nuke Pyongyang off the face of the earth?

>>34830193
I'm pretty sure Aegis Ashore is operational in Romania actually. Not that that helps Japan.

>>34815934
If they didn't live there you'd be facing an ever bigger NK

File: Knipsel.jpg (90KB, 917x731px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 917x731px

>>34824452
>>34823912
So much this. Up until 1953, they had at least a 10:1 numerical advantage in nuclear weapons.

>>34813505
Why can't they just do some power play with the chinese if things get really hot; basically let china have that Southern Chinese Sea area they want (the west can compensate the states in that region financially) in return for non-interventioning in NK

>>34823523
>The estimated rate of attrition of North Korea's artillery batteries in a full scale war with counter-battery fire and air strikes is 1% per day.
Like hell it is, gimme a source on that. You're looking at a massive decapitation strike that has the goal op wiping out a majority of the NK artillery force - air raids, counterbattery fire and long range missiles. That's all going to be executed on extremely well spotted positions, with the Norks at a massive technological disadvantage. I'd be surprised if they had 20% of their arty left after a week.

>>34825163
Its an article that presents an option that most people would rather not believe exists.
The authors are technically correct (the best kind of correct), but the reality of choosing such an option, (the consequences) are just as bad as almost any other option.

>>34815719
This. It'd remove all the threat out of nuclear deterence and MAD strategies.

>>34815915
They'd prefer a radioactive wasteland to it's current occupants though.

>>34818484
Just about everyone's AA is laughable once you park an American carrier group or two next to it. It then quickly becomes a pile of rubble.

>>34818513
>Yeah, they're far from the world's best fighters
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
tl;dr Arabs suck at warfare.

>>34815208
>no first use policy.
The US doesnt have a NFU.

>>34828681
>Iraq

>>34815559
>>34815263
The key is being able to deliver overpressure to destroy the target while not letting the fireball touch the ground.

>>34823028
Why would NK even open with a conventional-only assault? It'd be both at the same time.
Nork batteries have been mapped quite clearly, and there's plenty of US forces stationed there. Also, the worlds second biggest air force (US Navy) is already moving there with the 3rd carrier group. Combine that with the SK counterbattry fire and their own air force, and you'd be looking at 80-90% of batteries silenced within 24 hourse. Any Nork commander firing after that is committing suicide by JDAM. Any number of civilian casualties will be more motivation to invade.

The US will never admit to being able to destroy an ICBM during pre-launch, and they'll probably never do it, because that would be considered a first strike.
Can an ICBM be intercepted? Probably. We're not dealing with current Russian/Chinese tech here.

I'd agree with you though: any nuclear launch would result in the US bombing the ever loving shit out of Best Korea.

>>34819584
The soil provides something for the vaporized components to condense around.

>>34823182
>Furthermore, if an ICBM target was launched, GBI can splash it.
Only if it was heading to a target inside the US.

>Such a limited strike would have to fly over a ton of AEGIS ships, and it would be tracked the entire time.

It is doubtful that AEGIS would be able to hit them at midcourse.

>Nothing is certain, but to stay the US "most likely would not" be able to take down a strike from NK is folly, the entire US BMD is built around stopping a strike from an NK nation.
Its probably a coin toss.

>For example, a US ship off the coast of Korea can plink NK missiles in boost phase all day every day.
Probably not.

>>34823133
A nuke on Japan or Guam is the end of NK as we know it. There are no rogue nations to support, there is no political victory to be had when your country is a nuclear wasteland. The backlash wouldn't be towards the politicians, just like it was with Pearl Harbor: all of the anger would be directed towards North Korea, in NBC form.

>>34823361
No. They have no motivation to. It'll probably be a US decapitation strike that reopens te conflict.

>>34823496
This. The Norks will never start the war. They'll never be able to use a missile during the war, which leaves only the mildly terrifying option of a nuclear landmine.

>>34828552
Probably a set of boomers with enough nukes to make North Korea glow for a few days after first strike.

>>34823691
>Expect B-2 or unconfirmed stealth aircraft deployment. Heavy bombing.
I'd expect B-52's and other big lifters once the SAMs are confirmed down.

>>34823753
>>34824613
This implies that leadership of the NK army is a meritocracy, which it isn't. Expect completely outdated tactics that hinge on artillery and air support, which is going to be shot within hours of first engagement.

>>34830492
>The Norks will never start the war.
This type of thinking is exemplary of ignorance.

>>34827092
Thats a lot of firepower

>>34825163
Been looking for this link, thank

File: 1502288545953.gif (1007KB, 500x250px) Image search: [Google]

1007KB, 500x250px

>>34830410
Yeah I was being stupid, but thanks for explaining, neutron activated soil / dust is the issue. But thanks anyway anon, have a you for the road.

>>34830557
>neutron activated soil / dust is the issue.
Not exactly.

>>34828630
>If they struck first, and fought their "ideal" war, SK would bleed white.
No. They have a rough numerical superiority, but the Norks are at a huge technological disadvantage. A US counterattack would be hours away, especially since they're already preparing, and have prepared ever since the war got cold.

>>34829082
As far as we know, there is no surplus WW2 German stuff there anymore, and most of the Soviet surplus has been replaced by indigenous production. Juche and all that.

>>34829635
>This is true, but if the norks are firing gas/anthrax from the get go it's a moot point
Once this happens, SK and the US have carte blanche to fire everything they have in the NBC triangle.

>>34830519
What motivation do the guys in charge have? Nothing. There is nothing to be gained for them by starting a war. All they're doing is Juche at it's extreme: make sure you've got nukes & ICBMs, make sure everybody knows you do, and make sure you regime doesn't crumble because the US wants it to.

They've got a suicide vest on, and a big red button in their hands. No sane person would push that button, especially if negotiating would improve your position, like it has every single time.

>>34830627
No one would start a nuclear war intentionally. A nuclear war would start after a series of missteps, miscalculations, and mistakes.
Your assumption that the DPRK will always interpret US moves correctly, and would never make a poor decision implies a perfect world that does not exist.

The reality is that your opponent does not see a situation as you do, and while you may look and see a clear option that doesn't involve nuclear weapons, he may not.

His intelligence may be faulty. He may be mirroring.
There is real world precedent for this. In 1983, NATO was running what they viewed as a relatively mundane command post exercise.
What the Soviets saw were the unmistakable signs of an impending first strike.

>>34830610
> gives the US carte Blanche
Yeah but the Norks are very explicit about their intentions if a war starts, "burn south Korea". The whole reason we're in this pickle is because the Norks have very little to lose so deterrence is of questionable value.
And besides whatever we do to the Norks, the Sorks will have to clean up.

>>34830610
>US have carte blanche to fire everything they have in the NBC triangle.
Yeah? At what?

Every day brings more heat.

What a time to be alive.

The Norks know that if they make the first move, then they are utterly fucked every which way from sunday. There's alot of chatter and "my cock is bigger than your cock", but in the end nothing is really gonna happen.

File: 1501633972896.jpg (497KB, 2000x2671px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 2000x2671px

>>34827092
fuck, can't they keep anything secret?...pic not rel...fuck, why not...pic related.

>>34830610
Would Nork war trophies even be that valuable?

They're literally just copies of Soviet and Western shit after all.


Maybe that'd raise the value of any actually legitimate relics they have?

Enough talk about nukes.

NK does have a stockpile of chemical and possibly biologic weapons theyve been working on since the last war. I don't know how much they have or how they could deliver them(scuds?) but I see their use as far more likely than an outright nuke attack. They have signed several, but not all of, the treaties against such weapons its true.

Thoughts?

File: 82257773.jpg (206KB, 712x624px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 712x624px

>>34813505
North korea has a second army. plus some serios allies including syria.

>>34813529
surprise
china cut NK loose
they claimed neutrality so long as America doesn't pop off first

File: wtf 1.png (88KB, 253x224px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 253x224px

>>34831010
believing the chinks

>>34818341
Giving North Korea money and aid over and over is why we're in this situation you blithering idiot

>>34813505
I just saw an FA/18 fly over San Francisco. Not common here.

launching an operation without the navy will be a mistake

>>34813505
China pushing your shit in back to pearl harbor

>>34831077
they cut ties with them back in 2013, /k/omrade
maybe the chinks realized that the Norks are a liability and not benefit

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1492503772600.jpg (337KB, 1532x1022px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1532x1022px

>>34823057
Large standby force? The 22000 plus pogs there will be maybe a speed bump for the massed NK forces. They are meant to slow NK for days until reinforcements arrive. I don't see why a marine expeditionary force isn't landing in SK already. Shits getting real.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_1485089267583m.jpg (113KB, 1024x672px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x672px

>>34823677
>>34823677
I saw an interesting Vice video last night on world flash points. There is a huge American base on Guam and over 120,000 Americans live there.

>>34815934
they have been training and equipping for a nork invasion ever since the murricans checked out.

i would be surprised if they couldn't stand their ground.

>>34831010
but trump wants to. he clearly stated the us will act first. so chinks basically said they go into war. or something like it.

>>34830521
fighter jets would eat them for breakfast without effective aa.

>>34833305
The ROKArmy is 500,000 strong, very well equipped, well trained, and (for conscripts) well motivated. They will be doing the majority of the fighting on the ground. To deploy more ground troops would just destabilise the situation.
Fun Fact: The Russians have been digging in along the Russian-Nork border and have ~100,000 troops in the area too, having reassigned 50,000 to the Far East Military District.

>>34813581
ooo usa so big stronk scary! badass!

>>34833540
Pretty much.

File: a10-firing.jpg (357KB, 1415x640px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 1415x640px

>>34818154

Convenient "the BOYS" sign in the background.

>>34833502
t. Kim Jong

File: 1492737575522.png (1MB, 800x851px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x851px

>>34830301
>I'd be surprised if they had 20% of their arty left after a day.

FTFY

File: 1455243119276.gif (726KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

726KB, 300x168px

>>34835685
>this was a thing

>>34816365
This. A united Korea is starting to make more and more sense for everyone

>>34818327
this guy knows

the norks have millions of active soldiers and millions more they can call on in a draft, and shit tons of old, reliable soviety style weapons and ammunition. US forces in the entire pacific theater barely make a quarter of a million, and only 35k in South Korea. Between all the troops and artillery they'd overrun us to the outskirts of Seoul. Hundreds of thousands of south korean civies would die.

What would turn things around after their initial assault is our air and sea power. Our navy might have some initial issues with their subs but afterward would pound nork positions into dust. Our air power would be quickly brought to bear, attacking their artillery and armor but also known missile sites, rail/roads/bridges, ports, communications infrastructure, industrial facilities, etc. The Norks on the front lines would be without logistical and intelligence support, pounded from air and sea. Still, their massive numbers would be difficult; I don't think we would be able to push them back into their territory until all our actives/reservists/guard and our treaty allies were brought to bear. After that we would make progress (esp with a SK draft and a possible draft for the US and its allies) but how much would really depend on whether China jumps in with the Norks. If they don't a united Korea is a foregone conclusion.

File: 1501532623770.jpg (1MB, 2126x2640px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2126x2640px

>>34836989

Human waves of Norks?

>We should have power armor for this shit.

>>34836989
People thought the Gulf War would be a slugfest as well and look how that turned out.

Also

>old, reliable soviety style

Didn't like a quarter of the shells they lobbed at one of Worst Korea's islands a couple years back end up being duds? Reliable my ass.

>>34837080
in the numbers they'll be lobbing them, even a 75% detonation rate will be catastrophic.

>>34837126
I'm not saying they can't destroy some shit, i'm saying calling something reliable because the Soviets made it is a horrible meme. Especially with fucking North Korean maintenance. Half their fucking tanks are probably gonna break down the first time they try and drive them more than a couple miles because they've been sitting in a yard for the past 40 years.

>>34837080
Koreans are infintely better at warfare than arabs.

6 year old children are better at warfare than arabs.

We thought Iraq was going to be a slugfest because Bush Senior spent the whole Desert Shield shilling up their prestige as a fighting force.

>>34837187
I'm not sure why you're assuming Kim's troops are better trained than the Arabs. Yeah, the Arabs are terrible, that doesn't make NK's troops any good. The stories visitors have told about their behavior are not encouraging.

>>34837215
They may not necessarily be better trained, but fanaticism plays a part in the war. This is a nation that has spent 60 years under the thumb of a dictatorship; the Iraqis under Saddam sure as hell weren't going to risk their lives with the same sort of determination the Koreans will, not that so soon after the Iran-Iraq war.

The Norks haven't had that that disssolussion yet; the scars of the Korean War have been healed, the terrible outcome for the Norks prior to the Chinese intervention mostly forgotten. You can bet that this will be a repeat of of the Pacific campaign, where dozens of Norks will die just to smoke one American soldier.

This is made especially troublesome when American Modern media is factored in. They won't give a shit about the favourable ratio. How long did it take for news outlets to turn on the Iraq war? how long will it take with this hypothetical war?

If there is to be war, there will have to be a near total media blackout to get the job done right.

>>34837302
The technological parity and level of training between Japanese WW2 and American WW2 soldiers is far closer than what exists between American and ROK soldiers and NK "soldiers". The Japanese weren't savages, that's a misconception, they knew how to fight.

File: 1499910200887.jpg (114KB, 854x859px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 854x859px

>>34837080
Persian Gulf the Iraqis sat there and took a huge air campaign for months before ground forces went in. The War also occurred on a level desert plain with no defensible terrain features at all.
Korea is densely vegetated and very mountainous.
And the Norks saw what restraint did for Saddam, they know and have stated they will not wait to be declawed by allied air power, they will use everything they have from day 1.
That means dozens of SRBMs, guns and IRBMs flinging metric tons of nerve agents, chlorine, sulfur mustards and anthrax. And radiological byproducts of refining and enriching uranium. Right from the start.
Even if we shot down or bombed on the ground every ICBM, no point defence system could deal with that weight of fire. And based on past performance, SK could expect to attrit 5-10% of the Nork batteries per hour. That is an exceptional rate of attrition. Much better than the Gulf War. And it's still too slow.
Plus they likely have buried some nukes too, as landmines. It would be insane not to because this is the easiest "delivery" option that has been available from day 1.
The nukes don't exist in a vacuum and no matter how it plays out the SKs are looking at six figure civilian casualties and six figure military casualties at least. More likely millions.
Just to liberate useless peasants who can only do things long since automated? To spend potentially decades fighting insurrection in the mountains?
It's not happening. This is not Saddam 2'

>>34828681
>They've been brainwashed for decades and literally half of the population is in either an active military service, reserve, or some paramilitary
This. Apparently the SK government doesn't even like Nork refugees living together because they're so hard to deprogram to begin with and doubly so when they can reinforce each others' delusions.

>>34833305
>The 22000 plus pogs there will be maybe a speed bump for the massed NK forces.
You are severely underestimating the technological disparity between the two combatants, and you're forgetting the SK army.

>>34835685
I don't think they can mobilise that last 20% within a week, and if the artillery isn't operational, it might not get shot.

>>34836989
>Between all the troops and artillery they'd overrun us to the outskirts of Seoul.
No. South Korean forces are well-trained, a lot better than the Norks, with lots more experience in modern warfare. Not only that, but the technological difference is massive. You'd be looking at T-34's going up against modern k1 and K2 tanks. Not only that, but the North doesn't have an economy or supply system to even initiate a full-scale war with all of it's reserves. There's simply not enough food to run the country as is, nevermind during a complete assault on Worst Korea. How many of those reserves are properly trained, anyways?

They'd be outgunned, and probably wouldn't even advance beyond the 38th if they wanted to. There's a carrier group there already, the South wouldn't even need to wait on US air raids. The US might not even need to mobilise ground troops if it's just the Norks. However, if China does jump in, you're looking at yet another major conflict, and yes, the US would need to both mobilise and draft at that point.

>>34837126
>implying South Korea isn't completely prepared for this
Guess what, counterbattery fire will be a bitch.

>>34838288
The second the Norks use chemical/biological weapons, the US will respond in kind, and the only thing they have readily available in the NBC is nukes. At that point, SK casualties don't matter anymore, because the propaganda war is won, the physical war is won, and NK is a nuclear wasteland.

You are also severely overestimating the amount of casualties caused by ineffective artillery (NK) against a well-prepared enemy (SK).

>>34838569
I'm aware that if the Norks go full NBC they will be hit back in kind. But the whole reason this scare is so alarming is the Norks are not necessarily rational actors.
They have nothing to lose, by this point war has broken out which implies a preemptive nuclear strike by the US and the Norks are going to lose. Yet their only chance is to make good on their threats to the South Koreans, gassing a border town and issuing an ultimatum like "withdraw from the DMZ or Seoul is next".
I'm not overestimating shit, if the Norks just plink away with ancient guns and a hilarious dud rate they'll just lose.
The Norks know this, WMDs are their only hope, and if it backfires and they get glassed well fuck it everyone in the regime would have died either way.
We are seriously considering that nuclear deterrence is not sufficient to contain the Nork threat, why would chemical/biological deterrence be sufficient too?

>>34815387
the only artillery the norks have that can actually hit the outskirts of seoul might get off a shot or two before the cruise missiles cheeki breeki their shit. Biggest threat is if they decide to use gas to do more than blow up some evacuated apartments.

I just want to see four SSGNs mag dump simultaneously and stealth aircraft drop fire on norks with impunity, is that too much to ask?

>>34838742
Imagine the view from a Nork patrol boat.
> be innabote for glorious Kim Jong Un
> area_clear.jpeg
> blue water, far as the eye can see
> see bubbles on surface, off bow
>BOOOOM
> suddenly, ocean asplodes
>1500m away, a rocket bigger than my beautiful DPRK Pindong flies out the sea, then another from the other direction
> and another and another
> huge rockets are coming out of the sea all around
> this is it, the Americans are here
> FIRE
> Ensign Ping valiantly mans the rusty DShK on the prow and fires at the undersea foe
> more rockets surge skyward, one close aboard gouts steam and smoke, ensign ping disappears in the cloud
> faint smell of mamas steamed rat broth
> all is quiet, clouds of smoke all around
> no sign of ensign ping, but he must have seen off the American submarines because DShK is empty
> radio beeps
CONGRATULATIONS, OFFICER OF PINDONG. YOU ARE NOW RANKING OFFICER OF THE REMAINING DPRK. DO YOU SURRENDER? SINCERELY, USS ALABAMA

File: 1494028647988.jpg (68KB, 680x671px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 680x671px

>>34839131