Time to build the bomb shelter? WW3 discussion thread

[red_elk]

And btw, do you think NK has not mobile SAMs and AA? Add to that fixed SAM sites near the frontier which may have enough range to cover until Seoul airspace. NK have inverted lots of resources in getting modern air defenses.

If we can trust wiki, in addition to old Soviet-made stuff, they possess Buk SAMs which are quite capable, but short-range (~30 km max)
Also Igla manpads, which are dangerous for helicopters and ground attack aircraft.
It looks like there are no reliable data about their real capabilities though.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

They also produce some home brew systems like the very long range KN-06 which is a copy of the S-300. Dont know how good copy it is though.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Good idea, since it has been unsupported nonsense every time and hasn't convinced anyone of anything other than the obvious fact that you don't understand the subject at hand.

i am not here to convince anybody mate. That is not possible when audience is already convinced. But I have supported and reasoned every bit of my arguments, you otoh continue applying tactics that worked in the gulf war which do not apply in this totally different scenery.

 

[red_elk]

If they have something close to S-300, their air defense is way more advanced than Iraq or Serbia had at the time of conflict.
I also read that Russia exported anti-ship missiles to them in 90-s - the kind of weapons which USSR didn't provide to Vietnam during their war, to avoid escalation.

 

[Akka]

But I have supported and reasoned every bit of my arguments

No you haven't.
You are taking for granted that the NK army can somehow roll through the SK defense and capture Seoul in a matter of hours, and have yet to provide a convincing argument about it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Hint from the gulf war: what did the coallition armies do just before launching the troops against iraqi defensive lines?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Obliterate the Iraqi army's Command and Control/communications?

 

[Akka]

Hint from the gulf war: what did the coallition armies do just before launching the troops against iraqi defensive lines?

Used their massive technological advantage to disrupt the workings, command, logistics, movement abilities and morale of the Iraqi army ? Because I don't really see how any of that is on the table for the NK army against the SK one considering THEY are the ones lacking technology.

 

[Kyriakos]

Very unlikely is less than 25%?? What crazy world do you live in?

Grimdark is the new black.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

i am not here to convince anybody mate. That is not possible when audience is already convinced. But I have supported and reasoned every bit of my arguments, you otoh continue applying tactics that worked in the gulf war which do not apply in this totally different scenery.

The "totally different scenery" has already been pointed out as different in ways that are uniformly unfavorable to North Korea.

There is a gigantic difference in the military capabilities of South Korea v Kuwait. That does not cut in favor of North Korea faring better.

North Korea is on the wrong side of a greater technology gap than Iraq was. At the time of the first gulf war Iraq was actually a pretty modern and very substantial military force.

Deployment of US forces to Kuwait was delayed because of logistics and diplomacy. North Korea would be facing US air power within minutes of launching their invasion.

There is absolutely nothing in this "different scenery" to suggest that there would be any reason to expect such desperate times that the desperate measure of nuclear weapons would even occur to anyone.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The most obvious difference is that US-KOR would be at the defensive to begin with. In Gulf war Iraq had already taken Kuwait and was defending. In the scenery we are speaking about war just started and NK first move is an attempt to break through SK lines and take Seoul. The rest of the differences have been already mentioned in my previous posts, most important one being time to soften enemy forces. In iraq, coallition had a month and a half, in Korea it would be near to zero. I dont think US have been in a similar situation since... Well since Korea war.

About the hint, the answer is artillery barrage. Coallition launched a formidable artillery attack that totally crippled the iraqi front line in a matter of minutes. In korea we may see the ROK front line under the most intense artillery fire ever seen. Under such circumstances i find a breakthrough very possible.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Iraqis had limited resources and less than a year to prepare. South Koreans have had US support and multiple decades.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The most obvious difference is that US-KOR would be at the defensive to begin with. In Gulf war Iraq had already taken Kuwait and was defending. In the scenery we are speaking about war just started and NK first move is an attempt to break through SK lines and take Seoul. The rest of the differences have been already mentioned in my previous posts, most important one being time to soften enemy forces. In iraq, coallition had a month and a half, in Korea it would be near to zero. I dont think US have been in a similar situation since... Well since Korea war.

About the hint, the answer is artillery barrage. Coallition launched a formidable artillery attack that totally crippled the iraqi front line in a matter of minutes. In korea we may see the ROK front line under the most intense artillery fire ever seen. Under such circumstances i find a breakthrough very possible.

I disagree with this "coalition launched a formidable artillery attack" part. AFAIK by the time the coalition put actual boots on the ground there was no Iraqi front line to be crippled. Air assault had pretty well ended the ground war before it even started and reduced it to a mop up operation.

Meanwhile, this "first move" you are talking about; "an attempt to break through South Korean lines" is a pipe dream. You are talking about an assault on defenses that have been dug in there for over half a century, have vastly superior technology, and will be supported by absolutely withering air cover cutting the attacking troops to pieces as soon as they break cover. Your "most intense artillery fire ever seen" is going to last hours, at best, before the guns are silenced by a combination of return artillery fire, missile fire, and bombing.

The reason North Korea is so het up on developing nuclear weapons is because in a conventional weapon war they have absolutely no chance, and they know it. I don't understand why you don't seem to know it, but you seem to be pretty much the only one that doesn't.

 

[Commodore]

I guess the real reason nobody has kicked NK regime's ass yet is that no-one really wants to deal with the aftermath that would include 25 million starving North Koreans.

That may very well be the case. I don't think anyone is really willing to deal with the inevitable humanitarian crisis that would be. Especially since blame for that crisis would be placed squarely on the shoulders of whoever topples the North Korean regime and no one wants to take that hit to their international reputation.

And btw, do you think NK has not mobile SAMs and AA? Add to that fixed SAM sites near the frontier which may have enough range to cover until Seoul airspace. NK have inverted lots of resources in getting modern air defenses.

Their air defenses aren't all that modern. Their most numerous SAM is the S-75 Dvina which first came into service in the Soviet Union in 1957. That's a very antiquated piece of equipment to use, especially since aircraft and the countermeasures they use have advanced significantly since then and there is no indication that North Korea has modernized those missiles to keep up. For reference, the US developed effective countermeasures for the S-75 Dvina in 1965. So those missiles haven't been a significant threat to our air force for over half a century now. Their most modern air defense system overall is the KN-06, which is just the North Korean version of the Chinese S-300. The S-300 first entered service in 1978. So North Korea's most modern air defense system is using technology from 1978. That, and the KN-06 may not have even entered active service yet since as of April 2016, the North Korean military was still conducting test launches of the KN-06.

 

[astrallite]

The "totally different scenery" has already been pointed out as different in ways that are uniformly unfavorable to North Korea.

There is a gigantic difference in the military capabilities of South Korea v Kuwait. That does not cut in favor of North Korea faring better.

North Korea is on the wrong side of a greater technology gap than Iraq was. At the time of the first gulf war Iraq was actually a pretty modern and very substantial military force.

Deployment of US forces to Kuwait was delayed because of logistics and diplomacy. North Korea would be facing US air power within minutes of launching their invasion.

There is absolutely nothing in this "different scenery" to suggest that there would be any reason to expect such desperate times that the desperate measure of nuclear weapons would even occur to anyone.

There's a big difference in the will to fight defending the state among Iraqis and North Koreans. Iraqi was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society held together by a strongman. Americans faced little resistance from the Iraqis who fractured into their various ethnic enclaves upon dissolution of the Baathist super state, whereas North Korea is a homogenous ethostate where the singular religion is devotion to their leader. Overwhelming American airpower didn't help the U.S. in the Korea war where they were pushed back behind the 38th parallel from an army with limited anti-air and anti-tank abilities but singular will to repel the enemy. We already know from the previous conflict in this area that a technological gap can easily be made up by will-power.

 

[Synobun]

There's a big difference in the will to fight among Iraqis and North Koreans. Iraqi was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society held together by a strongman. Americans faced little resistance from the Iraqis in either war, whereas North Korea is a homogenous ethostate where the singular religion is devotion to their leader. Overwhelming American airpower didn't help the U.S. in the Korea war where they were pushed back behind the 38th parallel from an army with limited anti-air and anti-tank abilities but singular will to repel the enemy. We already know from the previous conflict in this area that a technological gap can easily be made up by will-power.

I would hazard a guess that western military hardware and projection has slightly improved over where we were at in the 50s.

 

[astrallite]

I would hazard a guess that western military hardware and projection has slightly improved over where we were at in the 50s.

The United States dropped more bombs in Korea than the total amount of bombs dropped by all combatants in WW2. They had total air dominance and it wasn't enough to overcome the fact that people can hide their movements in the mountains using the cover of night and camo techniques to avoid aerial spotting, and used that advantage to quickly encircle ground forces. The actual problem is conventional munitions aren't very good at destroying quadrillion ton physical barriers like mountains, which is why MacArthur pushed for the use of tactical nukes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The United States dropped more bombs in Korea than the total amount of bombs dropped by all combatants in WW2. They had total air dominance and it wasn't enough to overcome the fact that people can hide their movements in the mountains and in the dark, and used that advantage to quickly encircle ground forces. The actual problem is conventional munitions aren't very good at destroying quadrillion ton physical barriers like mountains, which is why MacArthur pushed for the use of tactical nukes.

If you are banking on sneaking through mountains in the dark to offset modern military equipment there is a simple description of you.

Dead.

 

[astrallite]

If you are banking on sneaking through mountains in the dark to offset modern military equipment there is a simple description of you.

Dead.

There aren't actually that many bunker buster bombs in the air force inventory, and production is quite slow. I don't quite think it would be that effective in trying to stop an army of hundreds of thousands with them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There aren't actually that many bunker buster bombs in the air force inventory, and production is quite slow. I don't quite think it would be that effective in trying to stop an army of hundreds of thousands with them.

If they are in bunkers they are already stopped. Unless they have sufficient will power to move the bunkers with telekinesis.