North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer?

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

For starters that jpeg uses some of the most recent goofy pictures of NK buffonery.
Makes me not want to read it at all. How can it be taken seriously?

The B-2s are not there, neither are the F-22s.
The warship quantity should re-written as 47 "warboats".
They are barely worth mentioning as they will all dissapear in the first 10 days if things got real bad.
700 fighters? Total bullshit.
Even if you wittled that down to 300, most of them are 1960s technology.
Some left over from the original war and I'd venture that all of them are dependent on ground control during combat.
They still use MiG-17s. You see more of those in airshows than you do in someones military.
That jpeg is meant to impress complete laymen.

I didn't mean it to do more than just give a ball park comparison, which I think it did nicely. Sorry it doesn't do it for you.

Alvin Walton · 04-10-2013, 12:12 PM

Meh......their air force and navy are not the concern anyways AFAIC.

Nukes
Chemical weapons
Their large artillery force.
Their large mobile infantry.

Those are the four things I would be worried about most.

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

...
If North korea has 700 fighter jets then my name is Alice Cooper.
...

From the Library of Congress Document I linked earlier (p.252 actual 291 acrobat reader)

Quote:

the [North Korean]air force has about 110,000 airmen and is equipped with an aging fleet of more than 1,600 aircraft that includes about 780 fighters, 80 bombers, 300 helicopters, 300 An–2 biplanes, and more than 100 support craft. About 70 percent of the fixed-wing aircraft are first- and second-
generation Soviet-made fighters and bombers, including MiG–15,
–17, –19, and –21 fighters and Il–28 fighter-bombers. The air force
also has many third- and fourth-generation Soviet-made aircraft such
as MiG–23 and MiG–29 fighters and Su–25 ground attack aircraft.

Among its rotor-wing fleet are a significant number of Mi–2s, Mi–4s, Mi–8s, Mi–17s, and Hughes–500 multirole helicopters.

Can I call you Alice now?
(I understand they aren't a threat per se because they are aging, and their pilots get an average of 20 hours flying time a year, just numbers that would have to be shot down)

Chico23231 · 04-10-2013, 12:16 PM

North Korea may have some military numbers, but they couldnt logistically support a war. Fuel and food are expensive. Alot of their vehicles are old too, arent they?

Alvin Walton · 04-10-2013, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

From the Library of Congress Document I linked earlier (p.252 actual 291 acrobat reader)

Can I call you Alice now?
(I understand they aren't a threat per se because they are aging, and their pilots get an average of 20 hours flying time a year, just numbers that would have to be shot down)

Good researching.

How many of them are operational?
Cause if they cant fly then they are just lawn ornaments.
If you look at them on Google earth, thats what they appear to be.

And I find it amusing that you would bother to list the AN-2s.

Alvin Walton · 04-10-2013, 12:26 PM

Phear the mighty AN-2.
160 MPH top speed.

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chico23231

North Korea may have some military numbers, but they couldnt logistically support a war. Fuel and food are expensive. Alot of their vehicles are old too, arent they?

This is why I fear a land war. IF they were to fire off a ton of missiles, then make a dash to SK's front line stocks, the initiative would allow them, most likely to get the needed supplies like fuel and food to keep their military going. I know they don't have a lot of supplies, but EVERY thing in that country is earmarked first and foremost for the military, and they would burn through their supplies in an all out push to get to SK's back stocks. Wouldn't shock me if they have several tunnels that the South hasn't found, (they found 4 across the length of the DMZ), which would allow troops to start behind the frontlines.

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Phear the mighty AN-2.
160 MPH top speed.

lol

for the record, I just took the words right off the page, and only so that I could call you Alice :cheeky-sm

Alvin Walton · 04-10-2013, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chico23231

North Korea may have some military numbers, but they couldnt logistically support a war. Fuel and food are expensive. Alot of their vehicles are old too, arent they?

If they massed quickly and pushed south before we got organized I think they could take Seoul.
They wouldnt be able to keep it but it would be messed us very very badly and set the world on its ear.
A lot of Americans (military) and south Koreans would be dead.
Say good bye to the KIA factory.

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

If they massed quickly and pushed south before we got organized I think they could take Seoul.
They wouldnt be able to keep it but it would be messed us very very badly and set the world on its ear.
A lot of Americans (military) and south Koreans would be dead.
Say good bye to the KIA factory.

Forget KIA, where would we get our new Samsung Galaxy S5's from!!! (maybe Apple is prodding NK? hmmm)

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Meh......their air force and navy are not the concern anyways AFAIC.

Nukes
Chemical weapons
Their large artillery force.
Their large mobile infantry.

Those are the four things I would be worried about most.

I agree, and I might put chemical ahead of nukes, because I could see them more likely using them inside SK, then what nukes they do have.

Alvin Walton · 04-10-2013, 12:51 PM

Yep....if the chemical wepaons are artillary capable then just shoot them en masse....wait an hour and invade.

Chico23231 · 04-10-2013, 01:01 PM

Would we use nuclear weapons if they invaded SK?

CRedskinsRule · 04-10-2013, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Would we use nuclear weapons if they invaded SK?

no way Obama would authorize nukes for anything less than an attack on the US

Chico23231 · 04-10-2013, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

no way Obama would authorize nukes for anything less than an attack on the US

What if they really had Godzilla?

Hopefully if not nuclear weapons, Obama could launch Mothra

04-10-2013, 12:12 PM	#152
Alvin Walton Pro Bowl Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Holland, Michigan Posts: 5,741	Re: North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer? Meh......their air force and navy are not the concern anyways AFAIC. Nukes Chemical weapons Their large artillery force. Their large mobile infantry. Those are the four things I would be worried about most. __________________ REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968

04-10-2013, 12:16 PM	#154
Chico23231 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 20,119	Re: North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer? North Korea may have some military numbers, but they couldnt logistically support a war. Fuel and food are expensive. Alot of their vehicles are old too, arent they?

04-10-2013, 12:26 PM	#156
Alvin Walton Pro Bowl Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Holland, Michigan Posts: 5,741	Re: North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer? Phear the mighty AN-2. 160 MPH top speed. __________________ REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968

04-10-2013, 12:51 PM	#162
Alvin Walton Pro Bowl Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Holland, Michigan Posts: 5,741	Re: North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer? Yep....if the chemical wepaons are artillary capable then just shoot them en masse....wait an hour and invade. __________________ REDSKINS FAN SINCE 1968

04-10-2013, 01:01 PM	#163
Chico23231 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 20,119	Re: North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer? Would we use nuclear weapons if they invaded SK?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

North Korea: Threat or Blackmailer?

Debating with the enemy