North Korea Invades the United States

Jebus said:
Then again, the entire concept of main battle tanks is an entire generation behind what modern warfare is.

I'm sorry but you are going to have to elaborate on that one, I'm not just granting it to you except you can tell me exactly how. And don't just give me "drones" because they don't render MBT's useless, specially a T-90 with the capability of blinding it's sensors and driving their hellfires to the ground.
 
Man Gonzales sure is grumpy. guess that vote on the Falklands really got to him.

The days of Symmetrical warfare are gone. Tanks have reached the end of their technological tree as we know them. A T-90 ain't gonna stop a 30 pound white hot copper dart burning a hole in the side of it. and that only costs a couple hundred to build.

My $80,000 shoulder mounter rocket can dump on your multimillion dollar tank.

Deal with it.
 
TheGM said:
A T-90 ain't gonna stop a 30 pound white hot copper dart burning a hole in the side of it.

The Kontakt-5 armor on the T-90 is made specifically to defeat uranium APFSDS rounds, not to mention you don't need to stop it with armor when you can mess up the enemy tank's rangefinders with laser dazzlers.

TheGM said:
My $80,000 shoulder mounter rocket can dump on your multimillion dollar tank.

So did a soviet cheaply made RPG-7 to NATO tanks and NATO's LAW's to soviet tanks in the middle of cold war, but that didn't rendered them useless back then. Heck, german Panzerfausts could blow up an IS2 russian tank in WWII, and *that* didn't stop tanks from being used.

So, you point being?

And if you are talking about a shoulder fired ATGM then again the warning system on the T-90 would detect being painted by a laser and make the rocket hit the ground with the dazzlers.
 
The F35 and F22 were hilarious boondoggles (planes that can't fly in the rain :toot:), but I'm still placing my bets on America if North Korea does go full retard.
 
Gonzalez said:
Crni Vuk said:
You really believe NK has ANY chance at all in an conventional warefare against the US? And next you tell us you believe in Santa ;)

This is a perfect example of how all those TV shows portraying the US military as the most powerful, technological, invincible force in the world that is able to sway away anyone who dares face them sells.

Let me ask you a question, do you really believe the US has the most technologically advanced military in the world?

If you thought yes, then you'd be surprised to know that the russians have a main battle tank that is an entire generation beyond of anything the US has in it's arsenal. Spending billions in projects like the F-35 fiasco, a fighter that by the was has been plenty promoted in TV shows as the definitive fighter of the future, does not automatically make you the most powerful military force in the planet.

Do you actually know what North Korea has in it's arsenal? I don't, I don't pretend to know, and I'm even sure that people in the pentagon are not 100% sure of exactly what they have either since the entire North Korea is an information black hole. But at least I don't automatically assume things based on what other people tell me, I like to form my own opinions as well, I like to doubt and question things that are presented to me, like the undisputable fact of the US military absolute badass invincibility.
What actually has this all to do with North Korea?

Do they posses the Russian wondertanks? Did I said the US military is THE biggest force in the world - but there are NO doubts about their capabilities as they are one of the most advanced military forces.

Maybe if we would be talking here about Israel which has an military which as far as technology goes is very similar to the US. But its North Korea. They could not even stand 24 Ours without support from Russia or China. And it is not very likely that they would get any in war. there simply is nothing either China or Russian can gain from them. Those times are over when it was more important to get some nation to use the political system you want. Now its about money and resources. And NK has neither of those.

I might not know what the NK has in their arsenal. But considering the fact that the nation has only limited trading in the last 60 years I have serious doubts that they posses more military power then lets say the Iraq.

Lets be realistic here.
 
Gonzalez said:
TheGM said:
A T-90 ain't gonna stop a 30 pound white hot copper dart burning a hole in the side of it.

The Kontakt-5 armor on the T-90 is made specifically to defeat uranium APFSDS rounds, not to mention you don't need to stop it with armor when you can mess up the enemy tank's rangefinders with laser dazzlers.

TheGM said:
My $80,000 shoulder mounter rocket can dump on your multimillion dollar tank.

So did a soviet cheaply made RPG-7 to NATO tanks and NATO's LAW's to soviet tanks in the middle of cold war, but that didn't rendered them useless back then. Heck, german Panzerfausts could blow up an IS2 russian tank in WWII, and *that* didn't stop tanks from being used.

So, you point being?

And if you are talking about a shoulder fired ATGM then again the warning system on the T-90 would detect being painted by a laser and make the rocket hit the ground with the dazzlers.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about you, then should stop trying to reply to it.
 
/cough
Swedish airforce superior to American airforce
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1029-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-135.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saeLqdKYlY4

To be precise, Red Flag exercises, JAS 39 Gripen (Gryphon/Griffin) downed F-15, F-16 and F-18s with no losses, and even in certain aspects technologically superior to the F-22. Not bad for a itty-bitty country with no major economical resources to spend on military equipment.
So North Korea could and probably would surprise quite a bit if cold "war" got hot and IF their R&D departments are up to speed despite sanctions.

Now, I know that we weren't talking about airplanes, but air support is quite essential for warfare, thus my little addition. (Plus the swedish airplanes can start from small and bumpy roads as well, as shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQtnugT6A4
Ignore the language, it is just to show how bloody good we can do things.)

Now... why am I up this late? I have early mornings and stumbled upon this darn thread. :P
 
TheGM said:
If you have no idea what I'm talking about you, then should stop trying to reply to it.

And if you have no idea what rhetoric is then you should stop posting here and pretty much anywhere else.

The only shoulder fired anti tank weapon that can cost $80.000 is an ATGM, wich stands or anti tank guided missile, usually laser guided, older ones like a TOW are wire guided, in any case the Konat-5 armor can take it, plus if it's laser guided the T-90 can mess with it's guiding system preventing it to hit in the first place. In any case I wasn't really asking you what it was, not to mention that if it was actually anything else in the first place you failed to provide any info on what it might be other than the price, so, why don't you give me some technical data on this $80.000 piece of equipment and I'll tell you if the T-90's armor and defense systems can take it.

Crni Vuk said:
What actually has this all to do with North Korea

It has more to do with your santa comment I quoted wich I found to be patronizing as hell.

Crni Vuk said:
Did I said the US military is THE biggest force in the world

No, but the way you put it made suspect you implied it.

I have serious doubts that they posses more military power then lets say the Iraq

The iraqi army in the first gulf was was a formidable force, the cunning and careful use of superior technology coupled with the tactics and training to use it from the US, decimated that force. The terrain also played an important role, pitting tanks designed for the short ranges of a central european theatre in a dessert theatre they were not designed for against tanks that had twice the firing range.

In the second gulf war the iraqi military was the remains of that decimated and crippled force, and the US knew this pretty well.

Now if you have a force like the original iraqi one, change the terrain to a mountain one rather than dessert, where long ranges no longer matter, and have an enemy that had plenty of time to prepare against the tactics and technology used by the US, then you stand a pretty good chance of, even if not winning the war, then causing some serious damage. Not to mention that the NK's can always go asymmetrical and use their few resources wisely.

Also, most troops from the first gulf war will tell you that the training and tactics had more to do with victory than technology was. Saying things like that if the US were given the iraqi tanks and the iraqis the US tanks then the result would have still meant a victory for the US.

Now, imagine someone attacking an helicopter with bows and arrows, you can either laugh at their pitiful attempt, or you can recognize the danger of someone having the guts of attacking an helicopter with bows and and arrows.

So considering all that, I don't see the NK being a threat to the SK/US alliance in the south being a totally impossible scenario, even if unlikely.
 
Lord God Emperor Of The Old Dominion

Lord God Emperor Of The Old Dominion




Cimmerian Nights said:
...MacArthur.., he had the combination of strategy and god-complex necessary to beat NK on the battlefield and fill the cult-messiah role too. Presidents feel threatened ...



There still existed a leader cult for MacArthur into the 1960's.


Jamestown, Williamsburg, Luray Caverns, D.C. and the Smithsonians, one other possible pilgrimage for public school kids was a trip to the MacArthur Museum.

First run Star Trek was preempted to show the Tidewater media drain field a documentary of General Doug.

We had already seen this tribute at school!

Run away from our loose canon!

America talks freedom of the individual out one side while servicing leader cults, the Fuhrer Principle, out the other! :lol:

What ever gratifies us the 'first-est with the most-est'!

The spurious wants/needs of our Patriot Sunshine can consecrate/illuminate a founding father or burn the same as a mob rule fashion fascist.

In an era of mass communication that seems to speak only in single syllables, no time/money for context.

Short answers only!

When it comes to cabbages and kings,

hold onto your tails,

we swing both ways! ;)




4too
 
Why fight eachother, Kim is the badguy in this thread?

These maniac dictators has to go...first that Assad guy in Syria then this Kim guy. I mean...Kim actually thinks nuking a small island and threatening the US and the world with "cut their throats" will establish him as a world power.

US diplomatic powerhouse in North Korea seems to be Dennis Rodman.
 
Matthews said:
Not bad for a itty-bitty country with no major economical resources to spend on military equipment.

Sweden is #9 when it comes to global military exports. The industry grew over 300% in the past decade.

Gonzalez said:
The iraqi army in the first gulf was was a formidable force, the cunning and careful use of superior technology coupled with the tactics and training to use it from the US, decimated that force. The terrain also played an important role, pitting tanks designed for the short ranges of a central european theatre in a dessert theatre they were not designed for against tanks that had twice the firing range.

In the second gulf war the iraqi military was the remains of that decimated and crippled force, and the US knew this pretty well.

Now if you have a force like the original iraqi one, change the terrain to a mountain one rather than dessert, where long ranges no longer matter, and have an enemy that had plenty of time to prepare against the tactics and technology used by the US, then you stand a pretty good chance of, even if not winning the war, then causing some serious damage. Not to mention that the NK's can always go asymmetrical and use their few resources wisely.

Also, most troops from the first gulf war will tell you that the training and tactics had more to do with victory than technology was. Saying things like that if the US were given the iraqi tanks and the iraqis the US tanks then the result would have still meant a victory for the US.

Now, imagine someone attacking an helicopter with bows and arrows, you can either laugh at their pitiful attempt, or you can recognize the danger of someone having the guts of attacking an helicopter with bows and and arrows.

So considering all that, I don't see the NK being a threat to the SK/US alliance in the south being a totally impossible scenario, even if unlikely.

The truth can be even worse.

In August 2003 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published the first of what later
became annual reports to congress on the progress of FCS. This report explained, “The Army
believes that nontraditional fighting tactics coupled with an extensive information network will
compensate for the loss of size and armor mass by utilizing information superiority and
synchronized operations to see, engage, and destroy the enemy before the enemy detects the
future forces.”

But what is to become of this force if it engages against a robust enemy force which had its own
versions of UAVs that could detect US Forces; has precision fired weapons that are as lethal as
ours; has the capability to employ electromagnetic devices that jam radio signals; or that
possesses the ability to shoot down the satellites upon which the entire information system
depends? As stunning as it may seem, this question was answered – and subsequently ignored –
in the fall of 2002 when the Army conducted a simulation exercise against what was termed
“enhanced enemy threat” and the results were catastrophic for the FCS system.
In an interview with Larz Welo, a former employee of Advanced Systems Technology (AST)
who participated as a member of the opposition force, he told me the exercise (using the Janus
simulation system) was designed to examine what might happen if an FCS organization fought
against a well equipped, modern force. Mr. Welo worked for AST from 2001 to 2003 and took
part in over 100 Janus simulations using various FCS scenarios. The vast majority of the
scenarios were against foes using inferior technology with average to poor equipment – like the
Iraqi enemy we faced in Desert Storm and OIF I. Unsurprisingly, during those engagements
FCS won every engagement – every engagement. But when matched against an enemy force
that had the same or better technology, the FCS force was routed.

According to Mr. Welo, there were three iterations of the experiment. The “Blue Force” (the US
side) was composed of an FCS Brigade Combat Team (FBCT) equipped with all the threshold
capabilities expected to be fielded in the 2016 timeframe. The “Red Force” – the enemy force –
was a larger force than Blue, and primarily composed of “legacy” forces, which means they were
outfitted with current or old equipment. It also, however, included a number of “enhanced”
forces composed of expected future capabilities including advanced tanks, artillery and APC
platforms, as well as UAS and anti-aircraft systems currently under development in various
countries. In the first run of the simulation, the Red force “played very cautiously,” but still
rendered Blue force combat ineffective “before they were even halfway to their objective,” Mr.
Welo recalled. The next iteration, however, proved catastrophic for Blue:

“In the second run, the Red commander decided to be very aggressive. First, we waited until the
air was full of Blue Force UAVs, ground attack jets, and other aviation assets. We had
previously deployed our anti-air assets but up until that point had kept them turned off. We then
simultaneously turned them all on to overwhelm Blue’s ability to counter them and destroyed
virtually all of the Blue air assets within 5 minutes. Next we launched all of our UAVs.
Although many were shot down by Blue, we had more UAVs than they did missiles. We then
massed all our legacy and enhanced forces in the area together in a massive armored spear-head
attack and charged at the assembly area with about two battalions. The Global Hawk (used by
the Blue Force) continued to fly so that blue forces could use precision fires to destroy many of
our elements while they were still out of direct fire range. But Red had precision fires of their
own and the surviving Red UAVs identified the most critical elements of the Blue force, which
we then engaged with artillery and guided missiles (ATGM) from the tanks.

“When the charge came within 4 km of the Blue forces,” he continued, “the (Red) tanks began to
engage with direct fire and it was like shooting fish in a barrel. When Blue attempted to
maneuver away, their signature reduction was neutralized and they were immediately shot.
Their Active Protection System was unable to help them against the tank’s ATGMs (guided
missiles) and Sabots (tank main gun rounds). Blue suffered unbelievable casualties and the run
was ended.” As previously mentioned, though this exercise was conducted in support of what’s
known in the Acquisition world as “Milestone B” – which determines if the system is valid and
is funded to the next level – no changes were made to either the mix of platforms nor to the
concepts behind FCS. Mr. Welo provided a possible explanation as to why this might be.

“The green suiters (uniformed members of the Army) that were in charge of the gamers were
split in their opinion on the implications of the results,” he explained. “Those who participated
in my Red camp said we should run more simulations against an enhanced threat because of the
possibility that in the future this could become a real-world disaster, and those that fought with
the Blue camp argued that the simulation data and parameters were flawed and that the USA
would not be this outmatched any time within the next 50 years. The “neutral” green suiters
seemed puzzled at the power of the enhanced threat, and seemed to believe that the result was
unlikely to ever happen in real life and not a scenario that was very profitable.”

Of course, North Korea is far from being an enhanced threat. This is a reply aimed at the lulzdrones posts.
 
Well, Tagz, to be fair, a scenario like that is unlikely unless the US ever goes to war versus a militarily unified EU, the China-in-50-years (if it doesn't collapse before then), or does an invasion of Russia. It would be pointless to plan and equip for an eventuality like that when the US defense budget is currently already giganticly large, and a lot of equipment becomes outdated after five years or so anyway.
 
Gonzalez said:
Again. There is NO chance in hell that the NK has even a DECENT chance at winning IN THE FIELD against the US forces today which would probably attack with the the full force of the NATO which would one way or another probably involve european nations. In the case NK is so stupid to attack first.

The US military is still capable of delivering very deady strikes and to destroy even strong enemy forces. Russia? China? No clue! But we are NOT talking about Russia anyway and I have no reason why you mention one of the biggest nations here which is one of the few out there that can actually compete with the US compared to an nation that is barelly better then Cuba as far the military and civilians go.

Again, they dont even have the resources to keep their infrastructure going. I am sure they have bunkers full of artillery, kalashnikovs and full with other weapons from the 50s and 60s.

But this isnt the 50s anymore. Their people are starving. A lot. The power of the NK was already back then questionable and without the help of 1 million chinese men we would not even have NK today.

We are talking here about an traditional warefare which would last 1 day and it would be either surrender or fighting a fight like we see them now in Afghanistan and the Iraq.

Seriously. guys. Its NK. Not the Sovietunion we are talking about here.
 
zegh8578 said:
As was mentioned before, you must take into consideration how profoundly brain-washed they are. Sure, many individuals will want to escape, defect, etc, but the majority are likely to be die-hard patriotic, and launch themselves against the enemy like insane heroes, and kick that rice back in their faces.

Literally too many people are trying to escape the country despite the fact that the chances of them getting killed or deported back are much higher than actually escaping. Insane? Or simply tired of the oppression?

All North Koreans are poor, and the non-elite (even those in Pyongyang) are starving on the streets. It's pretty damn hard to worship a leader whilst not even getting enough bread to live through the day. There's no industry because people take apart factories to get a small amount of food.

I'd say that the only reason why North Korea is still alive is because their people are too tired and oppressed to fight back. The only threat - the soldiers - can be wiped out with missiles. And if they choose to sit in their bunkers, then so be it. You cannot invade South Korea without climbing out of shelter first.
 
Tagaziel said:
Matthews said:
Not bad for a itty-bitty country with no major economical resources to spend on military equipment.

Sweden is #9 when it comes to global military exports. The industry grew over 300% in the past decade.

Exports, meaning that others buy our planes. Not meaning that we got the necessary resources to have a shitload of planes at our disposal.
 
@Crni Vuk

There. There you go again. And then you tell me you didn't say that the us armed forces are invincible. Ok, now you are telling me that maybe Russia or China "may stand a chance" but that they are pretty much invincible for the rest of the world.

Besides you are making a lot of assumptions to support you theory "They would have the full force of NATO... we are talking only about traditional warfare" And by the way, when you say "traditional" you mean conventional and non asymmetrical, because that's making a LOT of assumptions on how NK strategy would work. Why would they refuse to use guerilla tactics if they are so technologically inferior? Plus with the military resources they have, if used wisely, they can cause far more damage than a few talibans with IED's. Plus there is no reason to think they won't use unconventional tactics when they invest in unconventional weapons like human torpedoes.

In Vietnam war the US faced both conventional AND unconventional forces. They were there for over 10 years, having minimal losses compared to the opposition, and the technological superiority they enjoyed was ridiculous. Yet they lost the war.

Could NK win a war and reunify Korea? I don't know, probably not, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, I don't assume things as if they had already happened.
 
Gonzalez said:
Could NK win a war and reunify Korea? I don't know, probably not, but I'd give them the benefit of the doubt, I don't assume things as if they had already happened.
Absolutely not.
 
I'm not going to pretend I know everything about NK's capabilities but if they are so starving and weak couldn't if the US got truly tired of their antics couldn't they just blockade NK and watch them die? or if they really piss the US off couldn't the US just glass the place with enough missiles to "parking lot" the place? I don't pretend to know everything about NK but it seems like they lack any real capabilities to deal with any kind of larger military. and even if they could fend off the US/SK alliance what about US/SK's allies because i doubt many like NK and some countries could join just to get rid of them.
 
To give an answer of why brute force does not always wins, many people seem to forget that war is a bit more complex than a simple math of having the best/biggest guns or just having more resources.

Here is a video that shows two different cases of weak vs strong, they are not a perfect blueprint aplyable to every single case, but it serves to illustrate the point.

Embed was deactivated by user so you'll have to watch it in youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqtiRpHjUwY
 
go on believe in your "North Korean" force. I am not going to convince you from anything.

Military and history is my hobby. And I just see the situation realistic.

The NK has as far as military power goes no chance against the US.

occupation is a completely different matter here and I am not even talking about that.
 
Back
Top