The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 9    Average: 2.8/5]
28 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 8895
Rating: 2.8
Category:
Date: 04/16/13 04:48 PM

28 Responses to Visualizing North Korea`s Conventional Arms [Pic+]

  1. Profile photo of Tiredofnicks
    Tiredofnicks Male 30-39
    5097 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 4:57 pm
    Link: Visualizing North Korea`s Conventional Arms - An estimate of the millitary might of the North Korean armed forces.
  2. Profile photo of Gerry1of1
    Gerry1of1 Male 50-59
    36860 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Well, they kicked our butts the last time so don`t underestimate them.
  3. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:14 pm
    No wonder their people are starving.
  4. Profile photo of SmagBoy1
    SmagBoy1 Male 40-49
    4432 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:22 pm
    I believe that this study fails spectacularly to understand the nuclear capability of the United States and how quickly Pyongyang can be erased from the surface of the planet. And sometimes difficult decisions must be made like that when a madman threatens to start lobbing artillery at civilians. I`m tired of all of this ticky tacky bullpoo putting our resources and soldiers on the ground for decades at a time. If credibly attacked, we have the capability to completely and entirely eliminate the threat. And North Korea may need to be reminded of that.
  5. Profile photo of auburnjunky
    auburnjunky Male 30-39
    10339 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:27 pm
    I wanna see one of these for the US armed forces!
  6. Profile photo of Squrlz4Sale
    Squrlz4Sale Male 40-49
    6230 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:29 pm
    I`m sorry, but this is a bit of a joke. How many screens of silhouettes of MiG-17 fighters do I have to scroll past, every one of which would be absolutely defenseless against modern fire-and-forget missiles? How many screens of antiquated tanks do I have to scroll past, every one of which would be chewed up and spit out by our A-10 Warthogs?

    I worry about what NK`s artillery would do to Seoul. I worry about NK nukes being carried by ship into a harbor. I DON`T worry about NK`s Air Force or tanks, no matter how many little silhouettes are lined up in a row in an attempt to make them look formidable.
  7. Profile photo of g3n3r1k
    g3n3r1k Male 18-29
    250 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:45 pm
    None of this is really a threat in comparison to the US. Almost everything listed is defunct or can be heavily countered. The MiG-29 for example, which although could maybe be considered a threat to the aging F-16, would be easy prey to F-22.
  8. Profile photo of VikingGuy
    VikingGuy Male 18-29
    2160 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    DPRK quality is fairly awful, or it was anyways. I´ve held a TT-33 clone made there and have to say it was rough as it got with extremely poor materials used in building it, needless to say neither me nor the owner dared to shoot it for fear of our hands. Reminded me of the Khybar pass copies I´ve seen people show off at exhibitions a few times.

    Also while impressively large, their military is fairly far behind when it comes to technology, logistics, supplies and so on. Numbers aren`t everything, though not saying they couldn`t cause havoc if they eventually do snap and go off on a rampage.
  9. Profile photo of Talcho
    Talcho Male 18-29
    49 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 6:02 pm
    Awesome! Someone made a printable score card!
  10. Profile photo of piperfawn
    piperfawn Male 30-39
    4916 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 6:22 pm
    SmagBoy1 if USA use nuke,well good luck guys, you have just awaked the sleeping dragon and the icy bear. You can`t attack NK with nuke without repercussions i think. No one want that someone trow toxic waste on his backyard.
  11. Profile photo of MelCervini
    MelCervini Female 50-59
    2252 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 6:26 pm
    has anyone crunched the personnel numbers on these figures? Do they even HAVE that many to run all the tanks/planes/ships AND have ground troops? :B
  12. Profile photo of FoolsPrussia
    FoolsPrussia Male 30-39
    3446 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 6:38 pm
    "Do they even HAVE that many to run all the tanks/planes/ships AND have ground troops?"

    North Korea has the largest reserve army in the world.
  13. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14654 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 7:08 pm
    "Awesome! Someone made a printable score card!"

    This is why I despair for America. Sometimes I regret that it`s been so long since you fought a domestic war. The world would be a better place if you had a respect for the damage that war results in.
  14. Profile photo of goaliejerry
    goaliejerry Male 30-39
    4017 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    Well that was unnecessary.
  15. Profile photo of Canoas
    Canoas Male 18-29
    427 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 7:31 pm
    "I believe that this study fails spectacularly to understand the nuclear capability of the United States and how quickly Pyongyang can be erased from the surface of the planet."
    Don`t think the use of an a-bomb will go unnoticed. If an a-bomb is used chances are it`ll set off WW3. Think about it, if the US is willing to wipe off a country with nuclear weapons then how safe will everyone else feel? Not very, which means other countries now have reason to fear the US, possibly resulting in further usage of nukes.
    The only way a nuke can be "safely" used is with the unanimous consent of the UN.
  16. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 7:37 pm
    @Gerry1: China kicked the UN`s butt, by sending over 1,000,000 troops at us.

    NK nearly won the war in the opening move, but the USA slugged their way out of the corner and proceeded to "mop the floor" with NK`s face... until China jumped over the top rope with an illegal maneuver! Luckily Canada was there to save the day...

    I know quite a bit about "The Forgotten War"...

    3,500+ Battle Tanks is 4X what Saddam had? Maybe 5X. Saddam had about 100 combat aircraft and few SP Artillery. NK has 4,400 of those!

    So what if they`re old? The cannons still work and a 100MM round is going to hurt! Unless you`re in an M1 Abrams, then it`ll just bounce off..
    But not everyone is so fortunate as to ride around in an M1 Abrams...
  17. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 8:11 pm
    For some reason I`m not particularly scared.
  18. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 8:43 pm
    @OldOllie: Nukes are not an option.
    NK is betting that the USA would never use them unless NK dropped one first.

    @Canoas is correct, it would take a UN Decision to allow the USA to nuke North Korea... I honestly wouldn`t bet the farm on that happening.

    If We (Canada is USA`s #1 Ally, no matter what!) did nuke them? It would be "tactical nukes" on "military targets" (NOT cities!) which hopefully would wipe out ALL NK`s nukes and chemical weapons... otherwise things would get really ugly, really fast.
  19. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 9:02 pm
    Well that link locked up my Firefox hard, wouldn`t load.
  20. Profile photo of OldOllie
    OldOllie Male 60-69
    15841 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 9:41 pm
    5Cats, I think tactical nuclear artillery shells would be most appropriate to knock out their artillery if they so much as fire a single round into Seoul. I also think we could use mid-range nukes like Pershing IIs to take out their military sites. And I wouldn`t lose a minute`s sleep if we dropped one right in the middle of their next missile parade in downtown Pyongyang.

    And Canoas, the UN doesn`t have the moral authority to referee a kockroach fight.
  21. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17514 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 9:53 pm
    Ollie: I don`t think we would need to use nukes, the bombs we have now are so precise and can penetrate even deep bunkers. They wouldn`t even dare send up their planes, unless they are suicidal. After their radar stations were destroyed and they were `radar blind`, we could drop bombs on them at will. After that sort of treatment for a few weeks, like we did to Iraq, what is left of most of their military would surrender.

    Air Supremacy is the key to all present and future wars. Yes, we`ll still need boots on the ground, but those troops will be far safer than in past wars.
  22. Profile photo of 5Cats
    5Cats Male 50-59
    33134 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 10:14 pm
    @OldOllie: True, but I think the "no first use" rule applies. The USA`d need South Korea, Japan, Russia and China to give the "OK" and, in that order, they`d say NO!

    UNLESS North Korea nuked something first...
    Perhaps in the Bay of Tonkin...
    A small South Korean Military ship, blown up by a nuke, out there on the water, away from all the collateral damage...

    (Note: that is the LAST thing NK would do, but would be an excellent "false flag attack" to give the USA the excuse. And they`ve used it before! It`ll work the second time too!)
  23. Profile photo of Fwoggie2
    Fwoggie2 Male 30-39
    1803 posts
    April 16, 2013 at 11:32 pm
    Hmm. I hope the USAF has seriously stocked up on its bomb inventory, because that`s a shedload of stuff to blow up.
  24. Profile photo of Nickel2
    Nickel2 Male 50-59
    5879 posts
    April 17, 2013 at 12:37 am
    If they spent a tenth of that lot on developing the country and it`s people, they wouldn`t need that much hardware. The graphic does look a bit like 50`s wallpaper patterns.
  25. Profile photo of Draculya
    Draculya Male 40-49
    14654 posts
    April 17, 2013 at 1:12 am
    "Hmm. I hope the USAF has seriously stocked up on its bomb inventory, because that`s a shedload of stuff to blow up."

    The idea isn`t to destroy the entire military, but to neutralise them by decapitating the regime. The backup plan is to destroy.

    US strategic doctrine against massed soviet forces in simultaneous air and sea battle (conventional synchronous warfare) is well developed, but it is unlikely to succeed without significant military losses and civilian collateral damage.

    The problem is not winning the war, but winning the peace and paying for the war and rebuilding. I think the only viable military option is to blanket nuke the country and rebuild DPRK as its infrastructure is less costly than that of the south. This was Maggie`s choice when dealing with Chinese aggression towards Hong Kong.

    At this point the best solution is to work with China to restabilise the Peninsula.

    Peace is always preferable to genocide.
  26. Profile photo of Atrayu4u
    Atrayu4u Female 18-29
    1478 posts
    April 17, 2013 at 1:24 am
    I don`t understand why some of it is in orange. To break up the monotony of all those black icons?
  27. Profile photo of Kalimata
    Kalimata Male 30-39
    661 posts
    April 17, 2013 at 8:07 am
    What is so funny about this is that there will never be a new "Korean War", this is a joke, a bad one at that.

    Nobody in the global defense, intelligence or diplomatic community was surprised about the new bomb test, or the new missile test, or the ramping up of rhetoric.

    What people are forgetting is that this is a very identifiable, and oft repeated pattern of North Korean behavior, what they consider "diplomacy". Especially with the 100 b-day of The Great Leader this year this was expected, not some wild and crazy talk. Just look at what happened in 2006, and 2009. Same gig.

    Another key point the National Post neglected to mention, fuel. North Korea does not have the required petroleum to sustain combat actions for much longer than 4 months, maybe 6. The soldiers are conscripts, and their pilots barely get 14 hours a year flight time due to lack of resources.

    Besides North Korea would not attack it`s #1 source of inte
  28. Profile photo of LordJim
    LordJim Male 60-69
    7068 posts
    April 17, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    How much of that kit is in combat condition, or even functional? Even if functional, how much of it could be maintained for more than a few days in action?

    There is no way the US would use a nuclear first strike.

Leave a Reply