Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Attrition Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What Really Scares The Chinese
SYSOP    2/28/2013 5:54:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5
WarNerd       3/9/2013 1:55:20 AM
OK, I just verified it again, it is Military photos.net, Planeman is who you want to research (You may have to register, not a problem), I found it on page two of his many posts. Title is North Korea strikes. Take your time to absorb what he has to say, it is in depth.
Wow. That’s a lot of good work there.
 
Thanks a bunch.
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       3/11/2013 12:43:59 AM



OK, I just verified it again, it is Military photos.net, Planeman is who you want to research (You may have to register, not a problem), I found it on page two of his many posts. Title is North Korea strikes. Take your time to absorb what he has to say, it is in depth.

Wow. That’s a lot of good work there.

 

Thanks a bunch.

If  Planeman has this much information imagine what the South Koreans have and their plans for a response. He really puts to shame all the media experts who claim Seoul would be devestated.

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       3/11/2013 3:54:09 AM
If  Planeman has this much information imagine what the South Koreans have and their plans for a response. He really puts to shame all the media experts who claim Seoul would be devestated.
Devastation is relative. Even if every system only gets off one attack there are going to be a couple thousand new craters.
 
More realistic would be to assume that NK will open the attack, and will not launch the attack if the entire SK and US Air Force is stacked up on the SK side of the border to take out the positions as soon as they open fire. Let’s say that they get 20 minutes of firing and relocating before the weapons are taken out, say 50 rounds per gun, 6 salvoes per MRL, and 2 shots from each missile system. That’s a LOT of damage!
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/11/2013 7:31:37 AM
And don't forget there's every potential for chemical munitions to be deployed. 
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       3/11/2013 4:37:10 PM

 
(Sarcasm and intentional grammar mistakes/on)
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    Post fail...2nd try   3/11/2013 4:38:44 PM
Don't forget WarNerd...SK haz there majic blimps to block all them big gunz. And theyz can shoot down only the kemical warheads based on tha speed of teh rockets. ;)
 
(Sarcasm and intentional grammar mistakes/on)
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       3/11/2013 8:57:17 PM



If  Planeman has this much information imagine what the South Koreans have and their plans for a response. He really puts to shame all the media experts who claim Seoul would be devestated.

Devastation is relative. Even if every system only gets off one attack there are going to be a couple thousand new craters.

 

More realistic would be to assume that NK will open the attack, and will not launch the attack if the entire SK and US Air Force is stacked up on the SK side of the border to take out the positions as soon as they open fire. Let’s say that they get 20 minutes of firing and relocating before the weapons are taken out, say 50 rounds per gun, 6 salvoes per MRL, and 2 shots from each missile system. That’s a LOT of damage!

I suspect South Korea to have much of its artillery up on the border and specificaly targeted against each individual known site in the north. Remember the South does not have to fire 55 kilometers to reach the arty sites, only 5  K at most I would also guess that many of these units are immediate response units with a commander who has authority to immediatly retaliate. 20 minutes? 10 minutes? I don't know. (the US has such units at the DMZ)  But the blowback would be devestating to the north. I believe the MRLS of the north are not within range of Seoul, not to mention the Patriot batteries the south has. An arty attack from the north might hurt Seoul with a very few thousand deaths, (pop 10 mil?) but not devastate it by any means.
Another thing to think about would be prior increase in tensions that would lead to an attack. North Korea has to move units to forward operating locations before any attack. This is readily identifiable by the south and would increase readiness. Then there could be the preemptive attack by the south. Lots of possibilities, most not favorable to the north.

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       3/11/2013 11:46:54 PM
I think the reality is likely somewhere in the middle - if the conclusion from the research posted on the other site is that there's 'surprisingly' little ordnance that DPRK forces could dump on Seoul then I would suggest that if it is the case it would be a pretty big oversight for a nation that has had complete freedom to place its artillery where it pleases - the North Korean military can't possibly have overlooked the fact that any visible emplacements and batteries are likely to be hit very rapidly so another plausible reason for the notable absence of the 'promised' volume of artillery pieces and launchers is that they are presently concealed for their own protection. 
 
Seoul has thousands of emergency shelters but I'm fairly sure I read that gas masks have never been issued to the general civilian population - that should be remedied imv; once the situation escalates to full-out war, it is FINAL and FATAL for the North Korean Generals and the Kim dynasty - is it really out of the question to suppose that chemical munitions are likely to be used as part of the initial assault - especially given that the capability to deliver them will diminish very rapidly from that point on?  I think you have to look at the North Koreans as having a "cold war" mentality, full-escalation quite plausibly means full-commitment even if that raises the prospect of the nation riding into a nuclear sunset c.o. the US.
 
I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to equate "levels" of escalation with those seen in recent conflicts, including Iraq and Syria - the brinksmanship might well have a real foundation that is required (from their point of view) to act as a deterrent. Similarly, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that should full-scale war break out that use of chemical weapons etc will necessarily be controlled by central-dictat - it might well be officers on the ground making these decisions firmly in the belief that the end of the world will soon come to pass - the ideological fervor of annihilation is a key feature of daily life.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       3/12/2013 10:16:24 PM


I think the reality is likely somewhere in the middle - if the conclusion from the research posted on the other site is that there's 'surprisingly' little ordnance that DPRK forces could dump on Seoul then I would suggest that if it is the case it would be a pretty big oversight for a nation that has had complete freedom to place its artillery where it pleases - the North Korean military can't possibly have overlooked the fact that any visible emplacements and batteries are likely to be hit very rapidly so another plausible reason for the notable absence of the 'promised' volume of artillery pieces and launchers is that they are presently concealed for their own protection. 

 

Seoul has thousands of emergency shelters but I'm fairly sure I read that gas masks have never been issued to the general civilian population - that should be remedied imv; once the situation escalates to full-out war, it is FINAL and FATAL for the North Korean Generals and the Kim dynasty - is it really out of the question to suppose that chemical munitions are likely to be used as part of the initial assault - especially given that the capability to deliver them will diminish very rapidly from that point on?  I think you have to look at the North Koreans as having a "cold war" mentality, full-escalation quite plausibly means full-commitment even if that raises the prospect of the nation riding into a nuclear sunset c.o. the US.

 

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to equate "levels" of escalation with those seen in recent conflicts, including Iraq and Syria - the brinksmanship might well have a real foundation that is required (from their point of view) to act as a deterrent. Similarly, I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that should full-scale war break out that use of chemical weapons etc will necessarily be controlled by central-dictat - it might well be officers on the ground making these decisions firmly in the belief that the end of the world will soon come to pass - the ideological fervor of annihilation is a key feature of daily life.

 


Many possibilities, most very unfavorable to the north. It would be suicide for the north to use chemical weapons. I doubt a nation (or its leader) knowing full well in advance it would end in its own destruction would start a war

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics