North Korea’s Military Strength. No Pushovers!

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by nenothtu
 

oh, my friend, i didn't argue landed objects can be protected versus all kinds of radiation (protective earthing, thick walls with radiation shielding ), but that doesn't work so well for missiles and aircrafts


True enough, but we have to make the distinction between the ionizing radiation that Earth walls, thick concrete, lead, etc shields from and the EMP radiation that is guarded against by entirely different means. An aircraft or missile, as you mention, can be shielded from the effects of EMP while still being wide open to the effects of gamma rays. In that case, the electronics are protected, but any people aboard are in serious trouble.

I can recall a time when all of the US C+C aircraft electronics had vacuum tubes in them rather than transistors or ICs, and I believe the Russians were doing the same at that time, even though transistors had taken over the non-military market, and mass use of ICs wasn't far in the future. It was good for the electronics, but not so much for the people manning the electronics had the balloon ever gone up.

I never quite understood what the purpose was of having operational electronics, if there was no one alive there to operate them. Ground crews were in better shape, because they could be shielded by 2 meter thick bunker walls against the ionizing radiation, as well as having their electronics shielded. The main problem regarding the electronics then was the external antennae, which could have led a killer charge straight in to the electronics, so a lot of vacuum tubes were used there as well.

The main problem with the vacuum tubes was that they were bulky, making the equipment less portable.

Missiles can be hardened against EMP, and since they are not manned by organisms, the ionizing radiation isn't such a problem. Aircraft, on the other hand, just as you say have a different set of problems to overcome in the event of a nuclear exchange. The best strategy is not to be within reach of the ionizing radiation. So, in the case of aircraft, their very mobility is the key to crew survival against gamma radiation. Ground crews were of course not that mobile, and were sitting ducks, hence the thick bunker walls as protection.

As you observe, it was two different worlds of troubles.




posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Now let’s forget the electronic systems/equipment for a moment which would be rendered almost useless with an EMP.


OK let's put this HEMP or EMP crap to bed already. Nobody is buying it not even the Koreans. It seems the US defense industry has been doing a brisk job purchasing hardened electronics for the past 40 or more years. They're in everything. Tanks, Fighter Aircraft, Subs, Aircraft carriers, Missiles and rockets. We designed them that way to fight WW III against the Soviets. Did you think you were the first to think about that possibility?


No you can't put 'EMP crap' to bed! Though military equipment is designed to be resistant, it is NOT repeat NOT impervious to EMP. EMP protection rests on attention to detail. Minor changes in design, incorrect maintenance procedures, poorly fitting parts, loose debris, moisture, and ordinary dirt can cause elaborate EMP protections to be totally circumvented.

In other words any amount of 'hardening' is not 100% effective. At least not yet, although Allium Arsinide (GaAS), being used nowadays is virtually opaque to the wavelengths that can interfere with the proper function except at close range. At such close range, the user of the equipment would most likely be dead anyways, due to the exposure to intense gamma rays.

Fabricating with GaAs components is prohibitively expensive, and very hard to do. But GaAs technology is in its infancy where achieving 100% immunity is concerned. However, I agree that sooner than later the EMP option will become redundant due to advances in this field.
edit on 1-12-2010 by OrionHunterX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
How is the USA military ranked in the top five and not the Afghans or the Vietnamese?



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



I never quite understood what the purpose was of having operational electronics, if there was no one alive there to operate them.

as Chernobyl showed, some humans are very stable against strong radiation + aircraft can be lead, after crew's death, by program in offline mode or remote control.



The main problem regarding the electronics then was the external antennae, which could have led a killer charge straight in to the electronics, so a lot of vacuum tubes were used there as well. The main problem with the vacuum tubes was that they were bulky, making the equipment less portable.

say truly, ground fortification doesn't need to use vacuum valves like aircraft does: wires can be constructed to kill sudden current's spikes

edit on 1-12-2010 by SarK0Y because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SarK0Y

as Chernobyl showed, some humans are very stable against strong radiation + aircraft can be lead, after crew's death, by program in offline mode or remote control.


True enough, but why not START with remote control or pre-programming, rather than risk killing the crew off? Best practice was to just not be close enough for the gamma burst to get the crew. If the plane was that close, the shock wave was likely to knock it out of the sky anyhow.



say truly, ground fortification doesn't need to use vacuum valves like aircraft does: wires can be constructed to kill sudden current's spikes



Yes, but you still had to put the fuse in the final meter of antenna lead, and still harden the internal electronics against the EMP spike. Vacuum tubes were one of the ways to do that, used in combination with other means for redundancy. Redundancy was all the rage, because someone realized that the middle of a hot war was not the best time to let your communications get fried, and the weakest link is the strongest part of the chain.

Also, ground fortifications are stationary targets, much more likely to encounter close hits of the type that could conceivably overcome precautionary measures.


edit on 2010/12/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tyrone
How is the USA military ranked in the top five and not the Afghans or the Vietnamese?




Both have defended themselves in an invasion against a world power.

The Vietnamese against the US { With massive assistance from Both China and Soviets} and Afghanistan against the Soviets { With assistance from the US/West} and US. Neither can eradicate the US or Russia, however the US and Russia could if it was wanted could eradicate them with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons for total extermination.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


The most physically fit soldiers who have never fought a single battle, killed a man, or seen war...



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Tyrone
How is the USA military ranked in the top five and not the Afghans or the Vietnamese?

Both have defended themselves in an invasion against a world power.

The Vietnamese against the US { With massive assistance from Both China and Soviets} and Afghanistan against the Soviets { With assistance from the US/West} and US.


And Afghanistan Taliban against the US / ISAF troops {With massive assistance from Pakistan's Army along with its adjunct the notorious ISI WITH THE BILLIONS IN FUNDS DISHED OUT TO THEM BY THE US OF A!!}

THIS BLOODYWELL SUCKS! AND HOW! AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOLLARS BEING USED TO KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS!



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 



And Afghanistan Taliban against the US / ISAF troops {With massive assistance from Pakistan's Army along with its adjunct the notorious ISI WITH THE BILLIONS IN FUNDS DISHED OUT TO THEM BY THE US OF A!!}

THIS BLOODYWELL SUCKS! AND HOW! AMERICAN TAXPAYERS DOLLARS BEING USED TO KILL AMERICAN SOLDIERS!


Stop living in the 70s.

The purpose of many of the programs funded by the CIA were to fund and support groups in resistance to the USSR - those programs are a factor to consider when looking at the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rebellions among its member states.

Many of those programs were never shut-down properly following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The plug was pulled before they had wrapped up these programs - which were designed to heavily influence the political climate of these regions.

We pulled the plug on the CIA without regard for what they were doing, and now have to pay the consequences - which includes fighting some of the very groups we helped place into power twenty to thirty years ago.

And we are poised to make the same mistakes, again, if we allow individuals with your outlook to get their way. I'm not going to say that everything we are doing now is perfect and will not end up being a mistake 20 years down the line - but new mistakes are always more fun and interesting than the same, old mistake, now aren't they.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



True enough, but why not START with remote control or pre-programming, rather than risk killing the crew off? Best practice was to just not be close enough for the gamma burst to get the crew. If the plane was that close, the shock wave was likely to knock it out of the sky anyhow.

heh, Amicus, every way has own (+/-)es

1. programmed mode is too restricted by "brainful" reactions to current situation. in other words, no quite effective ES'es are developed so far, moreover, effective ES needs more powerful electronics than state-of-the-art is actually.
2. remote control needs permanent two-way connections with control centre, it makes possible to detect aircraft with passive radar(aircraft itself is transmitter).
------------------
in short, for practice, combinational schemes have been used




Yes, but you still had to put the fuse in the final meter of antenna lead,

external receptors of fortification can be isolated against internal computers of base not only with fuses, but i'm agreed that external automatics really needs to be based upon vacuum valves



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 


What I don't understand at all is that we have had stealth planes for the last 15-20 years, why don't we have stealth nuclear weapons? Or at the very least stealth missiles. If we do have secret weapons like high powered lasers or stealth missiles of any kind then surely we could just tactically and indiscriminately nuke the whole country and just turn the whole place into an inferno. Do it all at the same time so that there is no chance of retaliation. That simple if they become a threat warn the other governments to get out and level the place. The hell with them the whole world's been afraid of NK for long enough!



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
After the start of a war NK will be starving within 30 days.
They don't have food to feed there people now much less a army on the move.

The first target the US will hit is there roads and rail system .
Stop the flow of food and supplies and you stop there army.
I don't care how well trained they are.

In the first gulf war the US aircraft stopped the resupply of Iraqi troops on the front line.
The iraqi troop did not want to fight they wanted something to eat and there were a lot of white flags flying.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


In all honesty, having a no-holds-bar reenactment of Operation Rolling Thunder and other attempts to destroy the Ho Chi Mihn Trail is probably not the best strategy for dealing with North Korea. Disseminate vaccines to South Korea and use bio-weapons. Most expedient way to deal with them. Maybe we'll have some spill-over into China for some unexpected bang-for-the-buck.

It doesn't even have to be a lethal bio-weapon - just a debilitating one that gives us massive political leverage as an extremely isolated nation is attempting to deal with a pandemic.


Stop the flow of food and supplies and you stop there army.
I don't care how well trained they are.


There won't be much waiting for them in North Korea. They'll be given an assault rifle and told: "Your clothing and rations is on the other side of the border. Go get it."

An invasion of the south would be heavily centered around what resources could be seized from the South.


In the first gulf war the US aircraft stopped the resupply of Iraqi troops on the front line.
The iraqi troop did not want to fight they wanted something to eat and there were a lot of white flags flying.


It also helped that the people generally disliked their dictator. North Korea is a little bit of a different cookie. The people there love him - at least publicly. How far the smiles go is anyone's guess, but I imagine they go a bit farther than Saddam's.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
There won't be much waiting for them in North Korea. They'll be given an assault rifle and told: "Your clothing and rations is on the other side of the border. Go get it."

An invasion of the south would be heavily centered around what resources could be seized from the South.

Spot on! Part of their tactics where supplies are concerned is to capture the enemy's logistics nodes using surprise and deception. There would be little need for securing lines of communications for logistic back up for troops that have either infiltrated into South Korean territory or effected deep penetration by conventional means.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
South Korea vs North Korea, a few numbers:


Combat Aircraft


North Korea - 582

H-5 / Il-28 "Beagle" - 80
Q-5 "Fantan" - 40
Su-7 "Fitter" - 18
Su-25 "Frogfoot" - 40
Shenyang J-5 "Fresco" - 107
Shenyang J-6 "Farmer"- 100
MiG-21 "Fishbed" / Chengdu J-7 - 101
MiG-23 "Flogger" - 66
MiG-29 "Fulcrum" - 30


South Korea - 456

F-15 Strike Eagle - 49
F-16 Fighting Falcon - 169
F-4 Phantom II - 68
F-5 Tiger II - 170


Tanks


North Korea - 5100

Pokpung-ho - 300
Type 59 - 1000
T-55 - 2000
T-62 - 800
Chonma-ho - 1000


South Korea - 2429

K1 - 1027
K1A1 - 484
K2 - 3
T-80U - 33
T-80UK - 2
M48A3/M48A3K - 380
M48A5/M48A5K - 500


Helicopters equipped with anti-tank missiles


North Korea - 39

Mi-24 "Hind" - 24
Mi-8 "Hip" - 15


South Korea - 152

AH-1F Cobra - 90
MD500 Defender - 50
Bo105CBS - 12

edit on 11-6-2011 by kondor because: type error



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I think if the US attacked the DPRK, the DPRK would respond my levelling S. Korea, and then by sinking Japan. And the US would be the cause of all those deaths. And, the DPRK is allies with Russia and China, which individually are matches for the US, and together, much more powerful. A US attack on the DPRK would be the US starting WW3. I think.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
sounds like some of you ppl are talking like you been in war >.> you gotta realize the info on iraq and afghanistan war. its not really a war when ppl hide as cibilians and kill everyone in sight and have a corrputed mmilitary jfss



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Whatever happens the UK must stay out of this.
Second line.



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Sorry but North Korea IS a push-over.

- They don't train their tanks or their planes (they don't have enough gas)
- They don't have enough gas to sustain any kind of invasion/real fight
- Their air force is 1950
- Their tanks are 1960
- They don't even train much the troops themselves (not enough food)
- Their missiles are 1950s by US standards

The only things they've got...
- Their morale
- Their artillery on Seoul
- Their chemical weapons
- China

North Korea can kill tens of thousands in Seoul... maybe hundreds of thousands with chemical weapons.

But guess what, other than that, they cannot defeat South Korea, not a chance in hell.
edit on 20-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by minute2midnight
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 



Tunnels are nothing more than tombs. You don't need to go into a tunnel to fight the enemy, you just need to keep him from coming out. Eventually, he'll starve to death.


You are very wrong...North Korea has actually tunneled INTO South Korea. I know this because i'm here, and was here from 06-08 also. We even have a tour that takes us to see the tunnels that have been found, and its a tunnel large enough to move vehicles through. These tunnels are not new, and were found quite a while ago, however who is to say there aren't more?

And as for all the hype about America and South Korea crushing the North...we will have many difficulties. If a war started, the only warning the south would have is the first artillery shell falling, and they will continue to fall for days. You see...NK has shells already aimed at military bases, both U.S. and ROK, therefore we will take a massive blow before we even get to our weapons and vehicles. It's sad but some of us over here joke about how we are just a 'speed bump' to slow them down until reinforcements come in.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
22
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join