|
Interesting. Thank you for the posts and links mediadave.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I'unno, a human wave tactic of 2 million schmucks and an artillery barrage (Even if 75% of it shits itself to death) on your capital would probably be somewhat inconvenient. And if ten years down the track something pops the ROK's military capabilities like an enormous economic crunch (Which, y'know, with China's economy on borrowed time as-is...) or sommat, it might be just enough to sue for peace. I know human wave tactics are popular amongst third world maoism lovers on these forums, but they became obsolete with the invention of the machine gun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
ugh its Troika posted:I know human wave tactics are popular amongst third world maoism lovers on these forums, but they became obsolete with the invention of the machine gun. Artillery and proper ground attack aircraft have been the largest players in that area. In the Iran-Iraq wars there were some pretty successful uses of massed attacks that the Iraqis ended up halting by concentrating artillery on the area, then sending in attack helicopters and jets to rocket and bomb whatever was still moving. Also minefields. Not many people are willing to keep moving forward when the world starts exploding around them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Forget machine guns or whatever. The sheer terrain of Korea makes a million man human wave attack to Seoul from the north rather difficult to actually move. And that's before you consider all the things like defenses that can be dropped into place to clog up the mountain passes and major low elevation routes in that general direction further than they "naturally" are. Then you got the rivers in the way and all the rest. You'd basically be funneled into coming up along the Han River valley towards Seoul, and mostly along the north bank as the river crossings would probably be blocked and defended quite heavily.
fishmech fucked around with this message at 02:49 on Jul 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Yeah, if South Korea is anything like Taiwan then they've been preparing for an invasion for half a century now and numbers don't mean as much as they used to as demonstrated by the Gulf War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Forget machine guns or whatever. The sheer terrain of Korea makes a million man human wave attack to Seoul from the north rather difficult to actually move. And that's before you consider all the things like defenses that can be dropped into place to clog up the mountain passes and major low elevation routes in that general direction further than they "naturally" are. Then you got the rivers in the way and all the rest. You'd basically be funneled into coming up along the Han River valley towards Seoul, and mostly along the north bank as the river crossings would probably be blocked and defended quite heavily. Plus, as you know, they don't have enough food to send their infantry on a forced march south.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
I thought North Korea had tunnels to Seoul.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Telephones posted:I thought North Korea had tunnels to Seoul. No, North Korea did not successfully build 25 mile tunnels that crossed under the big rivers that flow near the western edge of the DMZ and a bunch of existing underground infrastructure to actually enter Seoul. They have built many tunnels that cross under the DMZ and the border in general, but the DMZ and border is never closer than about 15 miles to any part of Seoul, and when it's that close the border is int he middle of the confluence of two large rivers. North Korea's longest tunnel found to have actually crossed under the border and DMZ extended about 2 miles at the time of being discovered, and had its outlet about 25 miles from Seoul. Their purpose is mainly to sneak individuals or small groups into South Korea for espionage and sabotage operations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, North Korea did not successfully build 25 mile tunnels that crossed under the big rivers that flow near the western edge of the DMZ and a bunch of existing underground infrastructure to actually enter Seoul. They have built many tunnels that cross under the DMZ and the border in general, but the DMZ and border is never closer than about 15 miles to any part of Seoul, and when it's that close the border is int he middle of the confluence of two large rivers. And bombs
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Burt Sexual posted:And bombs The size of bomb they can fit through those can't do much damage. Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer filled rental truck packed a lot more punch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The size of bomb they can fit through those can't do much damage. Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer filled rental truck packed a lot more punch. It was all in one piece.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Moon pledges to raise the defense budget from 2.4% of GDP to 2.9% http://m.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170718000936#cb
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The size of bomb they can fit through those can't do much damage. Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer filled rental truck packed a lot more punch. You're joking, right? Even a man-sized tunnel allows the transport of a lot of explosives. Some were large enough for trucks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Moon pledges to raise the defense budget from 2.4% of GDP to 2.9% It's supposed to be 3% you cheap rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The size of bomb they can fit through those can't do much damage. Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer filled rental truck packed a lot more punch. Pretty sure they could fit a nuke down a tunnel
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
maskenfreiheit posted:Pretty sure they could fit a nuke down a tunnel I rather doubt it, with their current nuclear technology and tunnel sizes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I rather doubt it, with their current nuclear technology and tunnel sizes. Given North Korea has tested 5 times over 11 years, how many more years and/or tests will it be before you are satisfied that North Korea has a nuclear weapon?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Given North Korea has tested 5 times over 11 years, how many more years and/or tests will it be before you are satisfied that North Korea has a nuclear weapon? You misunderstand what he wrote. He's not saying that NK doesn't have nuclear arms or the ability to set off a nuke. Fishmech is arguing that NK is not capable of producing a nuclear device small enough to fit through the tunnels they still have under the DMZ. I don't know if that's the case or not, personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You misunderstand what he wrote. He's not saying that NK doesn't have nuclear arms or the ability to set off a nuke. Fishmech is arguing that NK is not capable of producing a nuclear device small enough to fit through the tunnels they still have under the DMZ. I know, I was meaning nuclear weapon as in a deployable nuclear weapon. There's absolutely no reason to still be asserting after 5 tests that North Korea does not have a deployable nuclear weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:36
|
|
|
Deployable? Yes. Deployable through a small underground tunnel with dubious entrance/exit sizes? Questionable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
mediadave posted:I know, I was meaning nuclear weapon as in a deployable nuclear weapon. Are you under some sort of ludicrous misconception that "deployable weapon" automatically means "something a soldier or two can smuggle through a tunnel barely large enough for a man"? North Korea had built larger tunnels in the past that could fit smaller military vehicles, that'd be much plausible, but South Korea hasn't detected any that large recently even with a lot of looking for them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Are you under some sort of ludicrous misconception that "deployable weapon" automatically means "something a soldier or two can smuggle through a tunnel barely large enough for a man"? Any nuclear warhead that can go on top of a scud can (with perhaps some difficulty) be moved through a tunnel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Are you under some sort of ludicrous misconception that "deployable weapon" automatically means "something a soldier or two can smuggle through a tunnel barely large enough for a man"? Everything I know about North Korea I learned from watching Die Another Day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Any nuclear warhead that can go on top of a scud can (with perhaps some difficulty) be moved through a tunnel. They don't have one of those. They would surely be showing it off if they did. Right now if they wanted to deploy a nuke they would probably using one of their larger bombers or perhaps even land-based delivery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:They don't have one of those. They would surely be showing it off if they did. They have:  I understand that you won't believe anything they say or any images they release, which is why I ask, how many more tests and/or years before you do believe?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
mediadave posted:They have: That's not showing a working device, and that also haven't been talking them up, including after their last successful nuclear test with came several months after that. So you know, how about they actually show a working one with the associated equipment, for instance? You're free to believe North Korea is sneaking nukes into Seoul through tunnels right now if you want, it's just not true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Not one knows for certain (and may never know), but it does seem the last test does indicate it could have been a more compact warhead or at least on the way to one. The last test was 20-30 KT which is getting into post-Little Boy territory.
Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Jul 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Why would getting a nuke through a tunnel matter in the least? If they're small enough to fit through a tunnel, they're small enough to put on some kind of missile or will be soon, and why put it in a static tunnel where you can't know if the tunnel's been found when you can hide it on a mobile launcher that could be just about anywhere and can be moved easily if necessary? The North isn't going to use nukes offensively, they're a revenge weapon should the South or the U.S. ever attack and until that moment, they simply function as a threat-in-being, just like Bismark and the German fleet did during WW2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
Azathoth posted:Why would getting a nuke through a tunnel matter in the least? If they're small enough to fit through a tunnel, they're small enough to put on some kind of missile or will be soon, and why put it in a static tunnel where you can't know if the tunnel's been found when you can hide it on a mobile launcher that could be just about anywhere and can be moved easily if necessary? Because people want to be scared of the tunnels North Korea digs for their spies, which haven't been a serious threat for moving motorized equipment for quite some time. Largely due to a combination of lack of funds/equipment to spend on making big ones combined with more intense South Korean monitoring for tunnels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Because people want to be scared of the tunnels North Korea digs for their spies, which haven't been a serious threat for moving motorized equipment for quite some time. Largely due to a combination of lack of funds/equipment to spend on making big ones combined with more intense South Korean monitoring for tunnels. Yeah, no poo poo. The North having an ICBM on a mobile launcher they could literally hide in any barn is way loving scarier than their ability to dig a bigass tunnel past the static DMZ defenses. Hell, I'd be more concerned about them getting something they could launch from one of their diesel-electric submarines than from their ability to make a bigass tunnel in the hope that the South and the U.S. hadn't found the exit and mined or zeroed in an artillery piece just waiting for a seismic sensor to register something coming down the tunnel. Are people in this thread seriously considering the possibility of the North making some kind of massive human wave attack via a network of previously-undiscovered underground tunnels, popping up a couple divisions in the heart of Seoul without anyone being the wiser and/or using their nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity to clear out defenders for their invasion? That's the vibe I'm getting, and if so, holy crap you are dumber than a sack of hammers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
I'm not. I just realize that the ability to put even a few thousand troops in the areas north of Seoul could create a lot of trouble tactically and give a North Korean offensive a significant advantage for a few days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I'm not. I just realize that the ability to put even a few thousand troops in the areas north of Seoul could create a lot of trouble tactically and give a North Korean offensive a significant advantage for a few days. Until they get the poo poo bombed out of them within 24 hours. I have a feeling that if a war were to start, the US and South Korea aren't going to gently caress around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Mozi posted:Everything I know about North Korea I learned from watching Die Another Day. Rodman and Kim switched places after doing that dna replacement thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I'm not. I just realize that the ability to put even a few thousand troops in the areas north of Seoul could create a lot of trouble tactically and give a North Korean offensive a significant advantage for a few days. This is also like the #1 contingency the South Korean military and US troops in Korea train for. You might as well act like Soviet/East German troops going through the Fulda Gap would be a game changer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is also like the #1 contingency the South Korean military and US troops in Korea train for. You might as well act like Soviet/East German troops going through the Fulda Gap would be a game changer. Not what I trained for, but please: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:I'm not. I just realize that the ability to put even a few thousand troops in the areas north of Seoul could create a lot of trouble tactically and give a North Korean offensive a significant advantage for a few days. A North Korean offensive is pretty deep into the category of "not happening", though. And sending a bunch of foot infantry through tunnels into the midst of enemy territory with no vehicles, artillery, anti-aircraft weaponry, or air support doesn't exactly sound like the height of strategy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
And of course, it runs into the problem that any open invasion of South Korea or serious attack on civilian military targets will trigger a war that inevitably results in the very rapid destruction of the Kim dynasty and death or arrest of its leaders. At that point you may as well drop nukes because you're losing from step one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Not what I trained for, but please: Thank u for ur service :USA:
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Not what I trained for, but please: So what did you train for then? An all air war? South Korea invading the North without provoking a response from the north?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
fishmech posted:That's not showing a working device, and that also haven't been talking them up, including after their last successful nuclear test with came several months after that. I'm not really sure what you are wanting to see...just something like this?  A complete warhead shows us a lot less than what they've shown us already. If North Korea did show a complete warhead, how would you even know there was anything in it? I mean, it's been 5 tests and 11 years. People believe Israel has deployable nuclear weapons with no images and no certified tests, people believe Pakistan and India have deployable nuclear weapons (and neither of those have shown 'a working one with the associated equipment'). I think it's long past time to assume that North Korea does too. fishmech posted:You're free to believe North Korea is sneaking nukes into Seoul through tunnels right now if you want, it's just not true. Oh yeah, this isn't happening. The nukes, along with the rest of their military at this point, are defensive/deterrent. mediadave fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jul 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 08:16
|
|