North Korea fires two more missiles

[Yootopia]

What I'm trying to say is that even with American advanced technologies, warfare in North Korea will still be balanced for both sides.

No, it won't be, the North Koreans will get absolutely caned just like the Vietnamese and Iraqis, but you don't have a military government, so a long war far from home for dubious reasons will cause an absolute shitstorm politically.

[Letat]

Here is an interesting site on how a Second Korean War may go http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm.

I can't speak to a lot of the specifics in the article, but the claim that the DPRK has 100 Hydrogen bombs and ICBMs to deploy them with suggests to me that the author was somewhat prone to exaggeration, given that their nuclear arsenal is suspected to comprise - at most - around 10 warheads. I'm inclined to believe that the RoK and US would fare significantly better in a hypothetical conventional conflict between north and south.

[JarVik]

The technology for both nukes and CBM/ICBM is half a century old. Any country with a modest level of economy and technological cabability can build them IF they want to.

This is not true the technology itself may be old but the process of building nuclear warheads and a reliable delivery system is extremely difficult and complex. We[the US] have a hard enough time building brand new NASA rockets that can go to the moon (something that we personally have already done). Building a reliable launch/delivery system and "efficiently" enriching nuclear materials from scratch with no prior expirience is, from a technological perspective, very impressive

Nuclear warheads come in 3 basic flavours: 1) Uranium 235 Gun device, main stumbling block for production is producing nearly pure 235U from a minable Uranium source which are only about 0.7% 235 U (Banks of lots of supercentrifuges to seperate 235U from 238U). This was the device used on Hiroshima if your curious. Its much heavier and less powerful than 2) Plutonium implosian device (Nagasaki), which probably due to it being much lighter is the choice for warheads. Requires nuclear reactor(s) and reprocessing of spent fuel to extract Pu. However not just any spent fuel will do as you will under normal circumstances as again you need the right isotopes of Pu. If you have too much of I think 240Pu it puts a big damper on the neutron reaction and you get a fizzile. The construction of #2 is more complicated than #1) This is what NK is thought to have built (a few #2s). 3) H-bombs which use #2 as the detonator to generate the heat and pressure needed for fusion reactions.These are generally a three stage affair: fission-Fusion-fission. Way more complicated to build and vastly more powerful. Beyound NK ability without perfect blueprints and other infastructure they likely are incapable of producing.

Building #1 or #2 is not easy but much of the expensive work that went into the Manhatten project is available in public resources. While the devil is certainly in the details for the remainder, they do not have to re-invent the wheel just the hub.

I totally aggree that building a reliable ICBM or to earth-orbit & beyound veichile is beyound them, but a launch veichle that can hit Japan 30% of the time is not anywhere near as hard to do, and to most people, is as scary as one that hits 100% of the time and gets the city you aimed at as opposed to the forest next door. These (NK) are weapons of threat mostly. I aggree to graduate to serious and reliable military hardware would take alot more money and tech than N.K or most 2nd world countries have. Theat is cheaper and almost as good.

I still think that a minimal project producing a few weapons and a medium range delivery system that potentially might hit the target aimed at is not impossible for most nations to build. Certainly nothing that rivals US stratigic resources, but that is not needed. I'm not saying any banna republic can do it, just those with a decent economy and technologic industry. That excludes just about all of Africa and Central America and quite a few other areas, but most European and N+S. American and several Asian nations could easiliy do it.

If the economies of the rest of the world continue to advance both monatarily and technologically the list of nations that can't build these things is only going to get smaller. I will probably remain in our interests to not make them want to build such things.

[Grays Harbor]

Here is an interesting site on how a Second Korean War may go http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm.

Before anyone says anything, no I am not Kim Jong-Il, nor do I endorse North Korea as it is, but I believe that their socialist idea, Juche, is certainly good in theory. I just wanted to clear all that up real quick.

You're just jealous of DPRKian advanced Juche state where no one lacks for food or the basic things in life.

lol. I wish!

good "in theory"? who cares? alot of things have been good "in theory" throughout history, only to dismally fail when that one unpredictable, People, is tossed into the equation. Anybody who believes that KJI is looking out for anybody's welfare other than his own is deluding themselves. he has managed to get enough people with guns to agree with him, and they keep the rest of the sheep in line.

Also, believing how an NK-US/SK war would come out based on an NK website is not the best method.

[Buzzelli]

Did onyone hear about how Japan was sopossed to fire a missile at the U.S. I think about 2 Holloweens ago.

[Allanea]

I have a suggestion: before you advocate was against someone, why don't you visit their country 1st? Or, at least get to know "the enemy". In 2001, I already had the pleasure of knowing several muslims, a few of Iraqi origin...this gave me perspective during the National Insanity of 2001-2009.

I am sure that people visiting Germany during the 30's said much the same about the German people, that they were just peachy keen, and we all know how well that turned out.

Godwin Alert! Godwin Alert!

[Belriel]

Even better:

Better yet:


Dick Cheney is prepared to turn the moon around at a moment's notice.

[Conserative Morality]

Even better:

Better yet:


Dick Cheney is prepared to turn the moon around at a moment's notice.

NOT THE FACE! NOT THE FACE!

[Grays Harbor]

+1 for the Star Wars references

[Dyakovo]

Yeah this isn't no Iraq, we will not be fighting some Taliban. They will not be setting up road side bombs, they will have specially trained soldiers waiting for US invasion. I hope we are prepared to take heavy casualties if we ever do go to war. Because we will be at war with another Governed country, not its local militia.

Heavy casualties? With a military sorely lacking fuel, still using T-55's and AK-47's? It might work as a guerrilla force, but there's no way in hell that, in conventional warfare, such a poorly equipped force could beat the USA in open combat.

Nothing wrong with the AK-47, it's a very reliable weapon.

[Southwest Europe (Ancient)]

Even better:

Better yet:


Dick Cheney is prepared to turn the moon around at a moment's notice.

I was going to best you on that, could'nt find a pic of anti-matter bomb though

[Galloism]

I was going to best you on that, could'nt find a pic of anti-matter bomb though

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah this isn't no Iraq, we will not be fighting some Taliban. They will not be setting up road side bombs, they will have specially trained soldiers waiting for US invasion. I hope we are prepared to take heavy casualties if we ever do go to war. Because we will be at war with another Governed country, not its local militia.

Heavy casualties? With a military sorely lacking fuel, still using T-55's and AK-47's? It might work as a guerrilla force, but there's no way in hell that, in conventional warfare, such a poorly equipped force could beat the USA in open combat.

Nothing wrong with the AK-47, it's a very reliable weapon.

Inaccurate, Cartridge is too heavy and powerful, gun itself is too heavy. Not a BAD Assault Rifle, but there's a reason the AK-74 was created.

[Yootopia]

*blahblahguns*

Aye aye still going to fuck a man up though.

[Conserative Morality]

*blahblahguns*

Aye aye still going to fuck a man up though.

Hehe. Won't argue with that.

[Delta Vega]

Here is an interesting site on how a Second Korean War may go http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm.

Thanks for the laugh. that is the funniest shit I've read in years. I'm not even where to begin ripping it. I will need about a week since just about every sentence in there is pure bullshit.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Just dick waving from the DPR. They're hopeless.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Here is an interesting site on how a Second Korean War may go http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm.

Hahaha. Yeah, right.

The only thing that would make the DPR even remotely threatening is nuclear weapons. They wouldn't stand a chance against the US in a conventional war.

[Mt Id]

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

I love how it goes on and on about the NK fighting spirit and then points out that most of the NKs, once forced into a fighting situation in which they were hopelessly outnumbered, killed themselves. Some fight they gave, eh?

[Belriel]

Yeah this isn't no Iraq, we will not be fighting some Taliban. They will not be setting up road side bombs, they will have specially trained soldiers waiting for US invasion. I hope we are prepared to take heavy casualties if we ever do go to war. Because we will be at war with another Governed country, not its local militia.

Wait..huh? Hasn't the problem with fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. been because the enemy was NOT made up of specially trained soldiers of a governed country and thus fighting those types of enemies wasn't what American soldiers had been trained for? If anything, the military of the United State is better suited to fight an enemy like North Korea. The extra training in counter-insurgency may just be a bonus in efficiency.

[Cameroi]

interesting perhaps, but china, south korea, and japan have more to be concerned about this then pretty much anyone else.

the point is, how far can they send them and actually expect to hit anything reasonably close, like in the same country or even part of the world, they were aiming at?

of course we all live in one world now, one that doesn't seem to like new players. one in which existing players are interdependent more then they would like to appear to be. those with supposedly opposing ideological postures especially.

[Secruss]

"of course we all live in one world now, one that doesn't seem to like new players. one in which existing players are interdependent more then they would like to appear to be. those with supposedly opposing ideological postures especially."

We call those "Back door deals".

Just like that whole "Cold War" thing.

[Leocardia]

Armor aren't worth their weight in scrap if you can't protect them from air attack. No one believes the North Koreans have an air force capable of enforcing air superiority, and while their fixed defenses in North Korea itself may be formidable, they're still fixed. North Korean armored columns would be subject to immediate and unceasing attacks as soon as they were across the border.

In fact, any sort of conventional invasion without air cover will be destroyed. Modern armies simply cannot stand up to sustained air assault. My guess is that the North Koreans would rely on their special forces for any offensive moves outside of their own country, while the rest of the army uses the fortifications and defensive infrastructure in their own country to hold out. It'd probably end with whoever winds up in charge of the DPRK's forces (it being a reasonable assumption that Kim Jong Il's death could trigger some sort of crisis which leads to war on the peninsula) negotiating a peace with the USA and South Korea that basically restores the status quo antebellum except with a different dictator above the 38th parallel.

/armchairstrategist off

Besides a land assault by the North Koreans, the army will most likely be stationing themselves in the capitol city, while letting their special forces perform their offensive capabilities in South Korea. The North has no fighting chance in air superiority or naval muscles, but their ground forces are enough to give American forces a brutal fight. Even though the North still carry old Soviet weapons, those same weapons are what the American armor systems are having trouble trying to develop a protection system against the munitions. Iran is currently giving out RPG-7s to Iraqi insurgency, though very few in numbers, that have capabilities of exploding inside a humvee after penetrating its armor. The US defense companies still have problems making a better armor for the humvee still.

Not only that, US forces are not trained in mountainous climates. Only certain types of aircrafts can reach the altitudes in where North Korean defensive rocket sites will be located. We can send a load of bombers to bomb the region, but our high-tech fighters will have trouble fighting against low-tech, low-altitude flying planes that the North Koreans currently operate, especially in such a high altitude, mountain range... Only our bombers will be able to get through, but even still... That would leave our bombers vulnerable for defensive retaliation.

[Naturality]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1cli4hS3_U

Need to let off it. So what they are testing some rockets/bombs. What right do all these nuclear ready countries (esp the US) have telling other countries they cant?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/ ... TE=DEFAULT

Better watch yourselves thinking you can just go in and have a walk in the park.

Israel ain't even on the list... although they are powered.

[Skeelzania]

@Leocardia

Good points, although I'm skeptical about the trouble that mountainous terrain will pose for the United States, especially when it comes to airpower. Topography wise, the Korean peninsula isn't nearly as extreme as Afghanistan, and we've been hitting targets there pretty regularly for some years now. And not just with heavy strategic bombers such as the B-52 (which will almost certainly be paying visits to the DPRK in the event of war), but smaller fighter-bombers. Even if the North Koreans were to establish antiaircraft weapons on high peaks or terrain (very little of which approaches the elevation of Afghanistan), they would still have to lug their weapons into place. Without air superiority it would be difficult for them to do so without being preemptively attacked. I am skeptical that "low-tech, low-altitude" fighter aircraft the North employs will be able to seriously challenge American fighters. Our planes aren't going to be shooting theirs down in dogfights like in the last war, but with missiles from miles away. Our fighters were built to counter the best the rest of the world could throw at us, and presumably did not lose the capability to destroy older generation aircraft. The DMZ has been a hotspot for sixty-plus years now, the American military knew that a second war there was possible, and would make sure that our aircraft could operate in such a theater and establish air supremacy.

That is really the entire thrust of my supposition: that without air superiority or even adequate air defense south of the Demilitarized Zone, a conventional North Korean invasion is waiting to be destroyed. There are only 30,000 American forces in South Korea, compared to something like 260,000 active-service South Koreans. It will not be up to the Americans to slug it out with North Koreans on the ground; our greatest means of support for the South Koreans would be the deployment of air and naval power to the battlefield. The North Koreans simply cannot challenge us on either count. They will be able to do much damage, and allied victory will by no means be easy, but faced with American airpower the North Korean army will only be destroyed the longer it stays in South Korea, away from their fixed air defenses.

The United States will not be fighting a ground war in Korea; the South Koreans will be fighting the ground war. The United States role will be to provide the overwhelming air supremacy that enables modern armies to destroy one another without having to engage in total battles of attrition.