NK. Omitting the rhetoric....

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.

Mean while, any number of other countries around would love to see America fall.

Russia and China both could be helping NK to that end.

a reply to: lordcomac

Russia and China will not let the US do a pre-strike on NK. NK coul have early warning support and other intelligence support from Russia and China.

A few months ago Russia sent a few train loads of air defence systems to the NK border. These system could be given to NK. If that is the case the US would have a hard time conducting air strikes. Russian air defence system will own The US 4th gen fighters over NK.

I also notice that people compare NK to Iraq. But NK is nothing like Iraq when i comes to terrain and topografi. This effects flight paths for cruisemissiels and bomb runs making them much more predictable. Iraq was basically flat and most targets were accesable from all directions, this not the case when it comes to NK.

a reply to: nwtrucker
What we need all along the DMZ and in Seoul are CRAM's and THEL systems. Most of what NK will shoot over is long range artillery and Surface to Surface missiles from MLRS's . I think THAAD is more for those multi stage high altitude ballistic missiles.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.

I don't know, I am beginning to think "unlike the world has ever seen" Is being thrown around a bit much, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big, and Pearl Harbor was not exactly small.

a reply to: Gothmog

i'm not claiming it would be difficult to smash north korea but nukes equalize things and makes the general population hesitant to support preventive military action, if the government saw major support from the people i have no doubt our military would have acted regardless of the risk involved.

originally posted by: kurthall
I don't know, I am beginning to think "unlike the world has ever seen" Is being thrown around a bit much, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty big, and Pearl Harbor was not exactly small.

Ya don't need 'pretty big' to come up with "unlike the world has ever seen".

Imagine a carpet of low-yield thermonuclear weapons armed to detonate one kilometer above the deck. The people on the ground would feel nothing but tremendous heat for a fraction of a second before they virtually disintegrated where they stood. If you were looking down from orbit, it would be like looking down into the sun. If you looked at it the week after, the damage would appear somewhat comparable to the Tunguska Event. Worse, because everything would thoroughly burn ... but on a scale smaller than the TE (say 50 miles X 150 miles).

"Pretty big" happens if we take out China in the same stroke. Biblical ... if we take out Pakistan too.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A quick thought on this tete-a tete between the two, it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.

I think the nation most at risk is North Korea. The US seems determined to attack NK come hell or high water. You can almost smell a false flag coming.

a reply to: Gothmog

Why does everyone proclaim nukes ? If it is , it will be low yield tactical and delivered precise to limit the collateral damage.

"Nukes" are useless in mountainous terrain, except to destroy whats in one valley. NK is filled with thousands of valleys. And If you think conventional warfare is easy in the mountains see Afghanistan. A few Hillbilly Mujahideen have kept the uS at bay for almost twenty years now.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A quick thought on this tete-a tete between the two, it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.

I think the nation most at risk is North Korea. The US seems determined to attack NK come hell or high water. You can almost smell a false flag coming.

Along the lines of, NK test missile fired in vicinity of US fleet, declared act of war, US response 'heavy'.

TRUMP: "On my orders, airstrikes have begun on offensive missile sites in NK."

The false flag smell remains the same, it will stink this time too.

Every now and then I check flightradar24.com to see if there's anything in North Korea's airspace. Usually there isn't, but today I found one domestic airline, out of Russia, cut through North Korea on the way to Shanghai.

I understand no US airlines are allowed anywhere near North Korean airspace but I thought no one else's were allowed either due to the sanctions.

Not only that, who in their right mind would want to fly over North Korea with the risk of WW3 breaking out at any moment?

I have screenshots but am having trouble uploading them.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Massive troop levels as well. The troops could be disrupted fairly easily by air assets, one would think. The big issue is the missiles. That falls back to the THAAD systems.

With the enormous amount of fatalities that cluster bombs and bunker busting bombs can generate, I also think a large contingent of ground troops have become much less effective than they have in the past. IMO, a large heat signature of ground troops creates a large and easy target for air support. It would certainly deplete the morale of those troops who would survive such a devastating attack.

Weapon technology is not what it was like back during the Vietnam era. You have to wonder what type of weapon technology the U.S. has that could immobilize a country's weapon systems. I would think the U.S. military would have engaged in immobilizing weapon research and testing as a number one priority. I wouldn't be surprised if U.S. generals are itching to try some of this new defense technology with North Korea. We know the U.S. has been experimenting with laser weapons, microwave weapons, and electrical pulse stun weapons.

The U.S. has known for years the vulnerability of South Korea being overwhelmed by ground troop and weapons attack from North Korea. I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. has weapons in positioned in South Korea to counter such an attack. I guess time will tell if our tax dollars have been put to good use. For the military to say American's can sleep easy if North Korea tries to launch an attack, sounds like they're quite confident they have technology that can squelch any attack North Korea could launch at the U.S. or their allies.

Lets just hope they're just not over confident in the accuracy of U.S. defenses.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: nwtrucker

I very much doubt that the number of THAADS would in any way be sufficient considering NK's stockpile. Further more, a big part of Seoul is within artillery range and that is unstoppable.

It would or will be a very bloody encounter.

P

Sorry about the delay. Had to work. The THAADS are likely to be backed up by Patriot missiles, yes? I'd guess they'd use the Patriots on the lesser missiles and the THAADS on any nuke missiles-likely already known. site-wise and GPS'd into the overall system.(?)

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.

That makes sense.

China has already said that if NK strikes, they're on their own....

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: nwtrucker

Add in NK's huge number of subs

What , the few rust buckets that the Chinese purchased from the Russians they had left over from pre-Cold War ? Then China donated them to NK because they would cost too much to redo like they did with the WW2 aircraft carriers. They sure do look pretty with the new paint job . Diesel though. Easily tracked and taken out.

Old military axiom: Honor the threat.

www.globalfirepower.com...

76 'rust buckets' vs a what(?) half dozen U.S. boats that are capable of taking out ICBMs in the initial boost phase??

That 'could' very well be overconfidence....

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: nwtrucker
Attacking NK will take some massive coordination, and a lot of precision bombs.

It can be done with little fallout to SK, but if it isn't done in a perfect manner, SK will surely suffer.

NK will indeed require a massive first strike, unlike any the world has ever seen.

The USAF turned Iraq into the world's only million hole golf course in no time whatsoever....

Funny you should say that it's almost the same problem. Iraq had the capability to hit most of the middle east and the plan had to be made to prevent that. The battle plan set up a new military doctrine.

Mobile armies almost always defeat static defenses; control of the air and the airwaves is crucial; "synchronization" of air, land and sea forces multiplies the attacker's natural advantages; force should be concentrated on the opponent's weakness; success should be exploited and failure abandoned; and planners should identify the "center of gravity" of the opposing force, determine how best to neutralize it, and plan backwards from that point.

If planed correctly with the correct forces North Korea will have their command and control gone before they know what happened.

Iraq didn't have nukes....

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

My understanding was SK 'suspended' the deployment of the THAADS.

Who told you that?

SK will do whatever its US overlords tell it to. THADD missile systems are just the latest thorn on the Asian continent in the Chinese underbelly.

Imagine China emplacing its own anti missile 'defense' systems in Baja, "California"?

Multiple links available:

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: nwtrucker
What we need all along the DMZ and in Seoul are CRAM's and THEL systems. Most of what NK will shoot over is long range artillery and Surface to Surface missiles from MLRS's . I think THAAD is more for those multi stage high altitude ballistic missiles.

Would Patriots also be used??

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: nwtrucker
A quick thought on this tete-a tete between the two, it strikes that the nation that is at most risk is SK.

I think the nation most at risk is North Korea. The US seems determined to attack NK come hell or high water. You can almost smell a false flag coming.

The only problem I can see with a 'False Flag' event by the U.S. is it would be an obvious statement to the North Koreans that it would 'probably' force them to preempt. Too big a 'heads up' , in other words.

a reply to: WeRpeons


Agreed. We should never have let those 'diplomat' bastards split Korea and Vietnam up in the first place!!

I HOPE the follow through contingency is ready when CHINA decides THEY need North Korea's minerals...and land.