PDA

View Full Version : War in Korea



Praxus
29 Aug 03,, 22:04
How do you think a war in Korea would unfold and what would we need to bring to Theater to throw them back across the DMZ and destroy their military in short order?

Personally I think the North Korean military is pathetic. Their newest tank is the T-62 with a 115 mm gun. With the newest ERA it only has an RHA rating of around 700 on the frontal turret armor and the ERA is irrelivent against APFSDS rounds. A 115mm HEAT round will only penetrate around 500mm RHA and the steel penetrators in their Discarding Sabot rounds don't do much better at even 750 meters.

Sixteen Hundred of their three thousand five hundred tanks are T-55 tanks with only a 100mm gun and the armor is extremly thin armor. Including ERA it only has about 600mm RHA rating.

Well you know my feeling:-D

Stinger
29 Aug 03,, 22:08
It'll be a slaughter house just trying to get thru the minefields.

Bill
29 Aug 03,, 23:58
I would not want to be a North Korean if war happens...

Officer of Engineers
30 Aug 03,, 04:27
Larry Bond did an excellent treatment of the subject concerning a North Korean surprised attack. I strongly suggest Rising Phoenix as an excellent fictionalized version (meaning it ain't a dry read for those of us who reads FMs and write FMs for a living).

This being said, a current NK attack would not a surprised attack. Despite the large number of motor vehs in its inventory, any NKPA attack would be a foot race. We have not seen any large scale NKPA engr exercises, trying to breach those minefields. We do have evidence of those large tunnels, estimated to be 7 to 22 under the DMZ. Their effectiveness, however, is highly doubtful due to large scale oxygen consumption by both animal and vehicle and the resulting toxins they produce.

This leaves the traditional method of mine clearance - guns. And here is where it gets dicy. The NKPA got enough guns to either blast through the DMZ or hit soft targets (example Seoul) but not both.

If the NKs blast their way through the DMZ, then it's a foot race. There's going to be too much cratering for any vehicle to past through.

Praxus
30 Aug 03,, 04:35
Well if what you say is true they are gonna get chewed up by Cluster Bombs, Artillery, MRLS Rockets, and ATACMS.

Heavy Mech Divisions from South Korea will advance on the North Koreans and they will get totaly butchered.

Officer of Engineers
30 Aug 03,, 04:37
We've discussed this issue before, the only manouver force worth its weight is the US 2ID. The SK div are too static to manouver in time.

Praxus
30 Aug 03,, 04:47
Would it even matter if the South Korean divisions can't manouver quickly?

If it is a straight out Infantry advance they won't stand a chance.

Officer of Engineers
30 Aug 03,, 04:53
The way I see it is that they'll breach the DMZ through both sheer firepower and manpower and then, they'll die at the hands of the SKs at Seoul or by the 2ID anywhere else. The reason being is that the SKs had always anticipated Seoul to be a OPOBJ and hence have stocked that city. Anywhere else, you have foot soldiers going against the mechanized American 2ID, guess who do I bet on.

TNP
30 Aug 03,, 15:49
There's no prospect for a war in Korea.
SKs wont support the US in a strike against them.
And the US cant afford to win or loose. If the US wins,
it will unleash mushroom clouds, if it looses, bye bye US foriegn policy.
Unless the US purposefully wants to collapse, it wont attack NK.
(or Iran in a year or two).

The thing is, once a third world country develops nukes, the whole
reason for them is detterence against bigger powers. So they dont
get attacked.

If I were NK, I would just start reducing the amount of forces and armies.
Start feeding the people instead of feeding the soldiers, because the
threat of war for them is pretty much over. No country can afford
to attack them now. Might as well take advantage of that and start
to develop as a nation, and not keep spending on military.
The same I would say for my own country Pakistan.

Praxus
30 Aug 03,, 16:23
Please Think Again!

You can't just hide an ICBM, people are going to know where it is.

ZFBoxcar
30 Aug 03,, 16:50
maybe they will just do what they did in the last Bond movie and blast the DMZ from space with a sattelite weapon :D .

TNP
30 Aug 03,, 20:01
Please Think Again!

You can't just hide an ICBM, people are going to know where it is.


NK doesnt need ICBMs to target American cities.
There is a 90% chance that nukes can be smuggled inside
America. In my opinion, ballistic missiles are just for show.
They are for paper realities and armchair analysis.

The ground reality is that nukes dont need missiles or delivery
systems to reach their destination. All they need is a container
on a cargo ship, from a 3rd party destination. And they can be shipped
anywhere in the world, like you would a book from Amazon.com.

Praxus
30 Aug 03,, 20:16
NK doesnt need ICBMs to target American cities.
There is a 90% chance that nukes can be smuggled inside
America. In my opinion, ballistic missiles are just for show.
They are for paper realities and armchair analysis.

The ground reality is that nukes dont need missiles or delivery
systems to reach their destination. All they need is a container
on a cargo ship, from a 3rd party destination. And they can be shipped
anywhere in the world, like you would a book from Amazon.com.

What prof do you have?

How do they get it to China(these nukes are not small like the ones we have, they would be as big as the ones we droped at Nagisaki). They would have to be transported in large trucks and go through Chinese security which would check for suspecious things(they don't trust the North Koreans obviously).

Now after this you have to bring it to a major port in China. Now they have to manage to smuggle it onto the ship using a car or something inside a container. Now the nuke has to go undetected and undamaged from the port in China to the one in the US(which now has systems to check for radiation). Then someone in the United States pre-planted there will have to smuggle the container off the ship, sneak it into downtown of the city and then detonate it without anyone stoping them.

It is not as easy as you think.

TNP
30 Aug 03,, 20:32
NK doesnt need ICBMs to target American cities.
There is a 90% chance that nukes can be smuggled inside
America. In my opinion, ballistic missiles are just for show.
They are for paper realities and armchair analysis.

The ground reality is that nukes dont need missiles or delivery
systems to reach their destination. All they need is a container
on a cargo ship, from a 3rd party destination. And they can be shipped
anywhere in the world, like you would a book from Amazon.com.

What prof do you have?

How do they get it to China(these nukes are not small like the ones we have, they would be as big as the ones we droped at Nagisaki). They would have to be transported in large trucks and go through Chinese security which would check for suspecious things(they don't trust the North Koreans obviously).

Now after this you have to bring it to a major port in China. Now they have to manage to smuggle it onto the ship using a car or something inside a container. Now the nuke has to go undetected and undamaged from the port in China to the one in the US(which now has systems to check for radiation). Then someone in the United States pre-planted there will have to smuggle the container off the ship, sneak it into downtown of the city and then detonate it without anyone stoping them.

It is not as easy as you think.


What makes you think they have to go through China?

And even if they go through China, you think as if they will
travel in military trucks or something? They can travel by sea
through busy Shanghai ports with other trade goods, where no one will
check them. With a contact which will be waiting for them, then
upon reciept, will forward them with cargo destined to the UK or
something. And another contact could take them and forward them
to NY.

There was a report in the US, I think it was prepared by the State Dept.
or something a while back which said that there is a 90% chance
of a successful smuggling nukes inside the US.

And remember, miniturizing of nukes isnt that hard. Pakistan did it.

Praxus
30 Aug 03,, 21:15
This is all assuming they have nuclear weapons. For all we know they maybe full of shit. Until they test one I am going to doughtful.

They understand that if they fight a conventional war against the US and lose the consaquences will be smaller but if they detonate a nuke in the United States their entire country is going to disapear. I dought even Kim Jong Ill is that crazy.

Officer of Engineers
31 Aug 03,, 03:29
First off, the Pak nuke program is over 20 years old with some estimates of functional nukes back in the late 90s. Thus, they have more than ten years in tyring to minaturize these things.

Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Paks had succeeded in minaturizing a nuke. Everything that has presented thus far has been speculation. We know that the Paks have nukes and they have a missile capable of carrying a 250kg warhead. We have no evidence that they've managed to fit one inside that missile. Does not mean that the Paks haven't done it but we've seen no evidence of it.

Given the same application of data to the NK situation. No, they have not managed to minaturize anything.

bigross86
31 Aug 03,, 06:34
In all ports and harbors where containers enter the US (especially NY) Every single container from the Middle East and other suspicous areas are opened up and inspected. I know cuz my friends container got a thorough search and wasnt released for about 2 months after the three month voyage to NY

ChrisF202
31 Aug 03,, 22:08
In all ports and harbors where containers enter the US (especially NY) Every single container from the Middle East and other suspicous areas are opened up and inspected. I know cuz my friends container got a thorough search and wasnt released for about 2 months after the three month voyage to NY
And some ports are whoefully lacking in searches and security

Officer of Engineers
01 Sep 03,, 00:38
Halifax 1918, the munition transport Mont Blanc caught fire and the resulting explosion of over 2500 tonnes of munition levelled over 25% of the port and killed at least 1600 people.

Sometimes, you don't need to get close and you don't need nukes. The only saving grace is that 2500 tonnes of explosives are damned expensive and not even OBL could afford it. Doesn't mean no one else couldn't.

Bill
01 Sep 03,, 04:45
Blowing up a super tanker with oh, 300,000 gallons of refined petroleoum in port could kill thousands.

In Texas a similar explosion happened, took out half the town.

Officer of Engineers
01 Sep 03,, 04:59
Believe Al Qeida did try that with that French tanker in Yemen. Set it ablaze but did not explode. Such tankers obviously have their own safety systems.

History is full of examples of such industrial accidents that killed 1000s but terrorist efforts to duplicate has rare success thus far.

bigross86
01 Sep 03,, 11:58
Blowing up a super tanker with oh, 300,000 gallons of refined petroleoum in port could kill thousands.

In Texas a similar explosion happened, took out half the town.

The sailors sealed off the fire, but they didn't know that the stuff created it's own oxygen.

ChrisF202
01 Sep 03,, 14:37
Dident something happen at the Port of Dover, England the other day? They found guns and bombs in a van i think.

bigross86
01 Sep 03,, 15:06
Didn't hear anything...

TopHatter
04 Sep 03,, 17:30
Speaking of Larry Bond novels, in Cauldron, a Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) carrier was blown up just outside of Gdansk harbor. Even at some distance away, it cause massive damage and casulties to the port. Just a novel, but still demonstrates the sheer power of such an event, and no nukes were needed.
Personally, one of my biggest concerns about a Korean War would the DPRK's long-range artillery that can make Seoul a slaughterhouse of non-combatants. On the other hand, there would hardly be ANY country, probably not even China that would support the NKs and it's a UN resolution or something like that, that all member-nations must support South Korea in case of an attack.

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 17:42
Personally, one of my biggest concerns about a Korean War would the DPRK's long-range artillery that can make Seoul a slaughterhouse of non-combatants. On the other hand, there would hardly be ANY country, probably not even China that would support the NKs and it's a UN resolution or something like that, that all member-nations must support South Korea in case of an attack.

They have enough artillery to break through the mine fields and some of the defenses around Seoul or they have enough to hit soft targets. As OE guy said they don't have enough to do both.

So if they just attack with artillery on soft targets they can't advance because the targets wouldn't have been softend and if they hit military targets and don't advance with their military their military is gonna be stuck in a real piss poor posistion. They will be on the defensive in the begining of the war instead of the offensive.

If they use chemical weapons on Seoul the US is gonna go nuclear almost immediatly. Whipping out most like in North Korea.

Stinger
04 Sep 03,, 18:38
Originally posted by Praxus
If they use chemical weapons on Seoul the US is gonna go nuclear almost immediatly. Whipping out most like in North Korea. I doubt it... we'd likely piss and moan but I doubt we'd actually get authority to nuke the bastards

TopHatter
04 Sep 03,, 18:45
Agreed Stinger. The use of nuclear weapons has never been taken lightly (Unless you've read about the suggestions for Downfall, the invasion of Japan. There was talk of using atomic weapons to basically plow the field for the ground troops. This probably was before the term "radioactive" was understood by the brass!).

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 18:56
What you think the threat during the first gulf war was a bluff?

Think again.

If they use any type of WMD we will go nuclear, there aint a dought. The best option would be to use low yeild Neutron Bombs over KPA military bases and use higher yeild bombs(250-500 kt) at dug in bunkers and major cities.

The multiple detination of 10 warheads near Pyongyang will cause a firestorm over 500 sqaure miles. Anything within this area as flamable or more so then rubber will catch on fire. Anything that didn't die from the blast and fall out will most likely die from lung damage by the smoke.

I would only use neutron bombs near the DMZ so no fallout get's near Seoul.

Officer of Engineers
04 Sep 03,, 19:03
Praxus,

You have a severe misunderstanding of neutron weapons. It is still a nuke albeit one with far less blast radius for a weapon of equivlent weight. It's kill aspect is the fall out. It's that the neutron radiation has a relatively small lifespan. You still need NBC suits and you ain't buying a new house at ground zero for another 100 years or so.

There will be fallout in Seoul no matter what kind of nuke is used.

TopHatter
04 Sep 03,, 19:17
Oh I have no doubt that if WMD is used that the US will respond in kind. That has always been the position of the United States. "Mutually Assured Destruction" and all that.

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 19:19
MAD was a Cold War thing, in a war against North Korea the only country with assured destruction would be North Korea.

TopHatter
04 Sep 03,, 19:26
Geez, I need to clear out the cobwebs in my head! :) Actually, what I should have clarified was that the principle of MAD would be employed: "If you use WMD on our soldiers, we will use them on yours".
Naturally, it would be North Korea facing destruction, although their ballistic missile program worries me.

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 20:18
Yah you get it now:D

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 22:20
What about the South invading the North? Is it feasible/possible?

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 22:27
Sure they could if they called up their reserves. Wouldn't hurt to have US air support.

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 22:36
So what's to stop them if we leave?

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 23:01
We want them to have control of North Korea, what are you talking about?

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:02
Praxus, in seconding what the Colonel has stated, i would point out that the other term for a nuetron bomb is 'enhanced radiation device'.

enhanced radiation should tell you something of it's effects.

Stinger
04 Sep 03,, 23:06
I don't know Snipe the last time actually listened to an NCO talk about nukes, he was trying to convince me you could see a nuke explode, and as long as you did what he said, live to tell about it. Of course there were other things to hate about NBC training. :D

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:11
"I don't know Snipe the last time actually listened to an NCO talk about nukes, he was trying to convince me you could see a nuke explode, and as long as you did what he said, live to tell about it."

If you 'saw' a nuke explode, you might live, but it's the last thing you'd ever see. Retina's are not made to withstand the flash effect of a thermonuclear device.


"Of course there were other things to hate about NBC training. "

What, you didn't like the warm and comfy MOPP suits?

Or was it the lovely exposure to CS in the gas chamber?

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 23:12
Isn't there a checklist for nukes?

Step 1: Launch nuke
Step 2: Bend over
Step 3: Kiss ass goodbye

Stinger
04 Sep 03,, 23:16
Originally posted by M21Sniper
"I don't know Snipe the last time actually listened to an NCO talk about nukes, he was trying to convince me you could see a nuke explode, and as long as you did what he said, live to tell about it."

If you 'saw' a nuke explode, you might live, but it's the last thing you'd ever see. Retina's are not made to withstand the flash effect of a thermonuclear device.


"Of course there were other things to hate about NBC training. "

What, you didn't like the warm and comfy MOPP suits?

Or was it the lovely exposure to CS in the gas chamber? There were me and about four other guys who just kinda stood there when the Drill Sergeant said "nuke" or whatever ... we were told we were dead.... It took all my restraint (plus fear of swift and painful death) not to laugh out loud.

Mopp gear sucked during BT (July) but the mask was nice made a great pillow on the buttstock of my M-16 during those long chem drills during FTX's...

CS gas.... nope that just sucked all around, no redeming qualities whatsoever.

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 23:21
I heard that in the IDF you do excersise for 15 minutes with the gas mask on and then take it off...

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:22
"CS gas.... nope that just sucked all around, no redeming qualities whatsoever."

Well, unless you use it on the enemy. ;)

CS is GREAT for breaking contact. :)

bigross86
04 Sep 03,, 23:23
Although I find the water cannon is fun for demenstrations. Fun to watch everybody slipping around.

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 23:47
Praxus,

You have a severe misunderstanding of neutron weapons. It is still a nuke albeit one with far less blast radius for a weapon of equivlent weight. It's kill aspect is the fall out. It's that the neutron radiation has a relatively small lifespan. You still need NBC suits and you ain't buying a new house at ground zero for another 100 years or so.

There will be fallout in Seoul no matter what kind of nuke is used.

I think you are mixing up Enhanced Radiation with Salting Nuclear Weapons...

There are three types of nuclear weapons that I am aware of which are Salting, Enhanced Radiation, and regular Nuclear Weapons.

Salting will have cobalt or other types of materials around it which when a detonation happens the substance turns into a very radioactive isotope. Depending on how long you want the effects to last determines the material.

The Enhanced Radiation weapons have no neutron sheild which allows the neutron radiation to escape during a detonation. The yeild is very small and it would normally be detonated at least 1km high to have 10 sqaure km kill zone. In other words the fall out would be next to nothing.

Of course our troops would wear NBC suites because they aren't gonna risk it, because the radiation created by the bomb can cause elements on the ground to turn radioactive.


Most really radioactive isotops will not last 100 years, just a few days.

Bill
04 Sep 03,, 23:54
"Where did I state in my post that they were anything else?"

I don't know that you did, i was only pointing out that the ER effect of nuetron devices is quite lethal indeed.

BTW, i think the 'few days' is more like a few years...

Praxus
04 Sep 03,, 23:57
Re-read my post I edited it.

Officer of Engineers
05 Sep 03,, 01:33
Praxus,

You're still talking physical particles that still must conform to the laws of physics. The particles carrying the radioactivity will still be subject to wind and other weather elements (which is why you hope for rain right after a detonation).

And it's years. Nobody is moving back to Cherynoble anytime soon.

Bill
05 Sep 03,, 04:26
MOPP suits do not protect against radiation, btw....the mask only keeps you from breathing in most contaminants, and the suit will keep irradiated particles off your skin, but emmiting particles will go right through the chemical/charcoal liner of a MOPP suit.

bigross86
05 Sep 03,, 09:01
Unless the laws of physics cease to exist in your kitchen...

Praxus
05 Sep 03,, 20:50
Praxus,

You're still talking physical particles that still must conform to the laws of physics. The particles carrying the radioactivity will still be subject to wind and other weather elements (which is why you hope for rain right after a detonation).

And it's years. Nobody is moving back to Cherynoble anytime soon.

Yes of course that is true but there will be significantly less fall out then even the around 12kt nukes detonated over Heroshima and Nagisaki(sp?).

People live in in Nagisaki today(in fact it is a thriving city) and that was a surface detonation with a larger yeild weapon. Where a Neutron Bomb is being detonated 1000 meters high and it is less then 1/4th the yeild of the bomb droped on Nagisaki. Minimum ammounts of fall out will come from such a blast. The Neutron bomb was built to deter massed amored invasion through the Fulda Gap and so we could go in and sweep up what's left after the detonations. The blast is confined to just a few hundred meters.

Most of the isotops are very short lived(few seconds to a few minutes) and the ones that last relitivly long(like a couple years) would be spread out in the wind and not have as much effect because the density of the particles of so low.

I am by no means saying there will be no fall out I am just thinking you are overexagerating it. Now of course South Koreans are gonna die from radiation poisining, of course some of them are gonna die from cancer caused by it, but there aren't gonna be thousands of casulties from neutron bomb detonations like 30-70 miles away.

Officer of Engineers
06 Sep 03,, 04:07
Praxus,

Unfortunately you're wrong about Fulda Gap.

1st, the neutron bomb is an AF idea, not an army idea and one, thank god, that we didn't develop enough for deployment.

Therefore, there was never any doctrine development about their usage.

Second, the Soviets already found a counter. They surrounded their entrenched CPs with 1 metre of water all around. Yes, water is a great shield.

BTW, I never said anything about the casualties in Seoul. I am just challenging your assertion that Seoul won't suffer.

Bill
06 Sep 03,, 08:52
I do think that the Central European front was the driving issue that led to the concept of the Nuetron bomb, whether anyone ever bothered to write any doctrine on it's use or not, it is ideally suited(as far as a nuclear weapon goes), to the task.

I would point out however that anyone in an armored vehicle(provided it is NBC filtered and remains buttoned up), would be mostly unnafected by shortterm fallout.

Thick steel and auminum(though much less than steel) armor plating also makes for a nice radiation shield.

Never knew that about the Russkie CP's. Thanx for that tidbit Colonel.

Praxus
06 Sep 03,, 15:33
BTW, I never said anything about the casualties in Seoul. I am just challenging your assertion that Seoul won't suffer.

There would hardly be any(relitivly speaking, compared to an all out assault on Seoul by the North Koreans) because the weapons are going to be detonated at least 20 miles to 100 miles away from the DMZ that is over 60-140 miles away from Seoul.

Oh and over 400 Neutron Bombs were built during the Reagan Administration.


Thick steel and auminum(though much less than steel) armor plating also makes for a nice radiation shield.

This is exactly what the Neutron Bomb was meant to counter. Neutron radiation can pass through armor at 10 km from the blast zone and still deliver a lethal dose of radiation(600 bq). They will die a couple days later but they will still die.

Gamma Rays could be stoped by tank armour this is exactly the reason they built the Neutron Bomb.

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 03,, 05:45
Like I said, a birdbrain idea.

Then again, birdbrains and bellycrawlers don't talk all that much. The problem with any nuke, especially ERW, is that they're show stoppers for both sides. You cannot use the same piece of mud even if it's not glowing flourecent green. 40 tons of dead steel make a very impressive road block.

Bill
07 Sep 03,, 06:37
Especially a whole corps of dead in the mud tanks...

Didn't know that about the Nuetron radiation passing through steel. So much for the usefulness of US Army NBC training....

ChrisF202
07 Sep 03,, 14:17
Where/what is the Fudla Gap?

Praxus
07 Sep 03,, 14:47
It's a gap in the mountains in East Germany, it was pretty much the only way the Russian could move all their 179 divisions into Europe.

Stinger
07 Sep 03,, 16:10
Originally posted by M21Sniper
Especially a whole corps of dead in the mud tanks...

Didn't know that about the Nuetron radiation passing through steel. So much for the usefulness of US Army NBC training.... "NUKE!!! drop and cover your balls" yes I always considered it very useful....

Bill
07 Sep 03,, 19:35
Helmet facing the blast, forefingers in ears and hands covering eyes. Mouth open.

What, that didn't make you feel safe Stinger?

LOL....go figure. ;)

Praxus
07 Sep 03,, 20:19
Even worst after the people die in a tank, the bomb creates shortlived radiatioactive isotops in the armor(2-3 days). Making the vehicle worthless for a few days.


The neutron flux can induce significant amounts of short lived secondary radioactivity in the environment in the high flux region near the burst point. The alloy steels used in armor can develop radioactivity that is dangerous for 24-48 hours. If a tank exposed to a 1 kt neutron bomb at 690 m (the effective range for immediate crew incapacitation) is immediately occupied by a new crew, they will receive a lethal dose of radiation within 24 hours.

bigross86
07 Sep 03,, 20:50
Which means that even after dropping a nuke on Arab land, we'd have to wait a week or two before we could capture the spoils? On the other side, more enemy troops would climb in and die, so it's worth it.

Speaking of which, I was speaking with some friends and the Yasin attack came up. Someone mentioned nuking them, and the subject evolved into MAD. Is there any way that Israel would be able to trigger a chain of events that would actually lead to MAD?

Officer of Engineers
08 Sep 03,, 06:10
Originally posted by Praxus
Even worst after the people die in a tank, the bomb creates shortlived radiatioactive isotops in the armor(2-3 days). Making the vehicle worthless for a few days.

The vehicle is worthless, period. The crews would die at their post, meaning the thing was still running and for two days straight, at the very least, it would have run out of gas or the engine has stalled or the brakes had burned out.

Plus, you've got to find lead coffins for the gruesome detail of getting the bodies out of the vehicle.

Add to this that Soviet doctrine would replace the entire tank with in the first place and you've got one big parking lot that no one is going near.

Bill
08 Sep 03,, 19:54
Sure, anyone with nukes could start a doomsday scenario, which is why we try to stop people like the DPRK and Irag from developing them to begin with.

bigross86
08 Sep 03,, 22:14
Yeah, but who could launch a nuke on Israel if they launched?

Bill
14 Sep 03,, 00:53
Of the nuclear powers that would even consider it, (besides the Russkies) Pakistan is in range i think.

Of course, so could any of the ME states, if they had any.

Officer of Engineers
14 Sep 03,, 06:12
Saudi Arabia bought several batteries of DF-2s from the Chinese, rumoured to be filled with VX, Sarin, or mustard gas. Don't know if they're still operational since these were liquid fueled stuff and the Saudis ain't known for maintenance. Thing probably would blow up on the ground.

Bill
14 Sep 03,, 06:55
I wouldn't want to be anywhere near an obsolete, russian designed, liquid fueled, Saudi BM when launched.

A mile away would be very amusing though...

bigross86
14 Sep 03,, 12:08
I would laugh really hard. I can imagine it now: They get ready to launch the missile and instead of a succesful launch they hear this massive fart of all the gas escaping...

Officer of Engineers
15 Sep 03,, 02:01
Not everybody is as incompetent as the Saudis. The Yemenis just got a shipment of SCUDs from North Korea and both Syria and Iran were long recipiant of SCUD technology and a very active bio/chem program.

Bill
15 Sep 03,, 22:32
"Not everybody is as incompetent as the Saudis."

LOL, it would not speak well of mankind in general if we were!

TopHatter
16 Sep 03,, 02:49
Makes it kinda funny that the Saudis bought all that hardware from the US and probably has to have foreign contractors maintain it all for them.

Officer of Engineers
16 Sep 03,, 04:07
Or rusting in the desert. Saw more than a few M109s that was clogged with sand. And the rust suggest more than a few years sitting idle.

Bill
16 Sep 03,, 07:47
Hey, it's their money, lol.

Ironduke
23 Oct 03,, 00:48
-bump-

s_qwert63
23 Oct 03,, 01:34
Praxus if you consider the North Korean military to be pathetic, you are mislead... very mislead...
conscripts serve up to 10 years in their military!
their military machine is very flexible and very tactially advanced.
and if the only military analysis you can put up is the M1 Abrams vs. the T62, then it is quite pathetic, war is not about who has better tanks...

and the south koreans don't stand a chance against the north, look at what happened in 1950... they got slaughetered. completely p-zoned...

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 01:47
Squirt, your military knowledge rivals that of Saddam Hussien.

I try not to say things like this, but would you just shut up and listen for a while- you might learn something.

DPRK has two areas of strength.

Vast amounts of Infantry and Artillery.

Neither will save them from the absolutely brutal tactical air that will be rolling over their heads 24 hours a day that will anhilate their LOC, C4i and their deployed forces in the field.

US Army MLRS units will close the few viable invasion routes with DPICM cluster mines, and stop the mechanized attack, leaving only infantry to advance.

They will be chopped to pieces by the US units in country.

Further, the United States feeds the people of North Korea with free food aid.

If those shipments stop, the entire population starves.
In case of war, those shipments stop....end of story for the whole population of DPRK.

ONE thing has kept the DPRK alive to this point, and that is the massive number of arty pieces arrayed along the DMZ threatening the civilian population of Seoul.

You are right the war would be over quickly, but you are bass-ackwards in your conclusion of who would win. This is not 1950.

TopHatter
23 Oct 03,, 16:33
Regarding that matter of food in the DPRK:
I just wonder how much food the NK army has. What is their daily ration? Would they even have enough to support full-time combat operations? Stores of consumables tend to evaporate into thin air during wartime. The NK army would be starving after just a few weeks, to say nothing of the already-starving population

Officer of Engineers
23 Oct 03,, 16:45
In 2001-2002, they had a one month exercise, involving over 100,000 troops.

TopHatter
23 Oct 03,, 16:52
Geez louise...that would me that the army is well-fed or at least has huge stocks of food, while the population starves. Not exactly a new thing I know but still disgusting.

Colonel,
Even with these large reserves of food, how would you see transportation of these supplies being interdicted by airpower? Would the NK army resort to using thousands of their troops are human pack-mules? Would this be practical?

Officer of Engineers
23 Oct 03,, 17:07
Don't be too impress. It was their 1st big exercise in about three-five years. Before the famine, they had one just about once a year or every two years. So, it has significantly dropped.

The NKPA follows the Soviet model. Their armies don't get resupplied. They get rebuilt. Once an army is exhausted, it gets replaced by a new army while the exhausted army is withdrawn or at the very least, get out of the way.

As I stated before, the NKPA has enough guns to either blast a way through the DMZ or hit Seoul but not both. If they use their guns to blast a path through the DMZ, the resulting cratering would essentially restrict them to foot infantry. Another words, minced meat for any manouver force.

However, there's only one manouver force worth its salt and that's the US 2ID. And there in lies the problem for the US. That's only one force and you're going to have at least two, if not four leakage.

The 2ID might have to allow the NKPA to regroup before they can hit them on mass but that would go against military thinking.

In either case, Seoul will be threatened either way. If the NKPA choose the DMZ route, then they could march on Seoul, even by foot. I think that they will die there but it would be a nail biting experience.

Bill
23 Oct 03,, 17:26
I don't doubt they'd get to Seoul- or at least close to it, but one paralell that we can draw to 1950 here is that siezing Seoul will not the war win. The S. Koreans are not the French. ;)

I figure the 82d airborne and the(grrrr) Stryker Bde would be in country once it became apparent the DPRK was massing for an attack anyway, or at worst shortly therearfter. Throw in the USMC and there won't be anything for the DPRK to do....blocked in front by the USA, blocked from retreat by the USMC.

Stinger
23 Oct 03,, 17:38
Originally posted by M21Sniper
I figure the 82d airborne and the(grrrr) Stryker Bde Hurts don't it.

Bill
24 Oct 03,, 01:30
It does. :(

Praxus
24 Oct 03,, 01:41
At least it would show how follish this light armoured vehicle idea is. Top bad people will have to die to show these ass holes.

I wonder what would happen to that Infantry when large ammounts of B-52/B1B/B2 bombers are droping 80 bombs a piece. I would hate to be the guys moving up across the DMZ. You would be waiste deep in dead courpses.

Officer of Engineers
24 Oct 03,, 03:41
Originally posted by Praxus
At least it would show how follish this light armoured vehicle idea is. Top bad people will have to die to show these ass holes.

I don't think it will. At least not in the amounts you're thinking about. I have complete faith in the Sgts to make the Strykers work regardless of the limitations.

TopHatter
24 Oct 03,, 14:52
Agreed Colonel. I'm very interested in finding out how Stryker does in the field. My own personal "jury" is still out on this one, but I'm optimistic about it.
On the other hand, the whole thing could fall flat on it's face. I just hope it's not accompanied by US casulties :mad:

Praxus
24 Oct 03,, 20:19
I don't think it will. At least not in the amounts you're thinking about. I have complete faith in the Sgts to make the Strykers work regardless of the limitations.

Yah they will do amazing things to win the battle and then the Beurocrats in Washington will hail it as a success for the Stryker bgd.