Time to build the bomb shelter? WW3 discussion thread

[Akka]

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.

God, this is so much BS...
1) Actually, overwhelming airpower did help quite a bit, hence the 20 to 1 or so casualties ratio.
2) NK at the time was, surprising as may be, the richer and more modern country compared to SK, and had a trained and battle-hardened army with good hardware, coming straight from WW2.
3) NK was still pushed back to the Chinese border (though the fight was difficult).
4) It took China itself to enter the war ("unofficially") with literally millions of soldiers, to bring the frontline back to the starting line.
5) The technological gap by then was small, the technological gap today is huge.
6) Your comparison with Iraq is weird. You were the one saying it took quite a bit of time for the Coalition to bomb the Iraqi lines into submission with massive airpower, and now you claim that NK could magically obliterate the SK line with a short (if intense) artillery barrage ?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I think you are confussing posters there, Akka. Anyway, a concentrated and intense artillery barrage some hours may be way worse way that a month and a half of air attacks sparsed around a whole country.

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.



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.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...cks-north-korea-beware-kims-air-defense-20207

“They used to produce the S-75 themselves—and those could have received some significant upgrades. In addition to them, since early the 2010s they are fielding an indigenous modern SAM system which is called KN-06 by South Korea and the U.S.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Designer Raytheon, Hughes, and RCA
Designed 1969
Unit cost About US$2–3 million[2]
Produced 1976

 

[Commodore]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...cks-north-korea-beware-kims-air-defense-20207


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

Do you even read your links before posting them?

Better yet, did you even read my post before responding to it? I have to ask because it really seems like you haven't done your research at all and I really don't want to have to point out why what you have posted is, yet again, completely wrong.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I have posted nothing since i have not your divine authority, mein general. Only linked an article which specifically contradicts your previous post, sir.

 

[Commodore]

I have posted nothing since i have not your divine authority, mein general. Only linked an article which specifically contradicts your previous post, sir.

Did you read the Wikipedia page that you linked to?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Yes, i didnt confuse systems, dont worry. But since you suggested that the s-300 is obsolete because it dates back to the 70s it is relevant to point out that the closest american equivalent currently in service is about as old.

 

[Commodore]

Yes, i didnt confuse systems, dont worry. But since you suggested that the s-300 is obsolete because it dates back to the 70s it is relevant to point out that the closest american equivalent currently in service is about as old.

See, I find it very hard to believe you read the article in light of this statement right here. If you did, you'd know that the US currently uses the MIM-104F which was a huge modernization of the system. That modernization was completed in 2000, with additional upgrades taking place in 2012 and 2014. The assessment of those upgrades is that they significantly improved the performance of the system in nearly every way.

Long story short, we are not using an air defense system from the late 60s and 70s. We are using an air defense system that utilizes technology that is between 3 and 17 years old. By all accounts, there is no indication North Korea undertook any such modernization when designing their KN-06. It is pretty much just a direct copy of the Chinese S-300, which means they are using technology that is between 39 and 50 years old.

Seriously, those details about the MIM-104 came straight from the Wiki. All I did was skim it and I picked those details out. So either you really didn't read it, or you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts to make your point appear valid. Which is it? And I'm not even going to address the other article you linked because that comes from a blog, and I, personally, do not accept blogs as credible sources of information. Especially when I have information that I know to be accurate that contradicts said blog.

 

[Kyriakos]

There is no issue some more rivers of blood can't solve :/

(general comment, not directed to any poster)

 

[Thorgalaeg]

@Commodore, I know you dont accept anything contradicting your views. If anything that blog comes from a think tank which if biased is biased towards your side. To bad, i tried to find something you woukd like and failed.

And tell me, why you assume that, while Patriot has been modernized, KN-06 designed and built a few years ago is an exact copy from the original soviet S-300 model from 1978 with not modernization at all? What kind of indications are you looking for? A Kim Jon press release published in the NYT?

Your posts are nothing but a bunch of continuous assumptions and calls to a self-conferred authority. Which is not acceptable in an internet discussion forum, sorry.

 

[red_elk]

The S-300 first entered service in 1978. So North Korea's most modern air defense system is using technology from 1978.

The year it entered to service doesn't mean much. Russia uses S-300 too, and latest upgraded versions of it has 400 km range and hypersonic missiles. NK version is most likely less modern, but we can't deduce they use 40 year old technology just out of its name.

 

[Commodore]

And tell me, why you assume that, while Patriot has been modernized, KN-06 designed and built a few years ago is an exact copy from the original soviet S-300 model from 1978 with not modernization at all?

Because they don't have the technology or resources to engage in such a modernization program. China has modernized their S-300s, but again, there are no indications they shared this technology with North Korea.

If anything that blog comes from a think tank which if biased is biased towards your side.

And that think tank is greatly overestimating North Korea's air defense capability. They are also underestimating our ability to dismantle enemy air defenses to ensure air superiority.

What kind of indications are you looking for? A Kim Jon press release published in the NYT?

Well, intelligence reports that contradict the ones I saw would be a good start. The last time I had access to that information was 2013 and I doubt North Korea has been able to make any significant improvements to their military capabilities in four years.

Your posts are nothing but a bunch of continuous assumptions and calls to a self-conferred authority. Which is not acceptable in an internet discussion forum, sorry.

So you're just abandoning reality now? Ah hell, maybe I'm getting senile in my old age and I have been just making baseless assumptions. Don't worry we'll get an impartial third party to sort this out.

Someone, anyone, please read through the exchange between Thorgalaeg (It goes all the way back to the first page of the thread) and myself and please give us your opinion on which one of us has just been making baseless assumptions and which one has been actually backing their argument up with evidence?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Your own home-made evidence you mean.

 

[Commodore]

Your own home-made evidence you mean.

Oh, then you should be able to easily elaborate on precisely what is "home made" (which I assume you are trying to imply that I just made it all up) in the evidence I presented.

If so, now's your chance to make me look like a lying fool.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Oh, then you should be able to easily elaborate on precisely what is "home made" (which I assume you are trying to imply that I just made it all up) in the evidence I presented.

If so, now's your chance to make me look like a lying fool.

The ones like "a friend told me NK troops are poorly trained".

 

[Commodore]

The ones like "a friend told me NK troops are poorly trained".

No, it was more like "a subject matter expert that I worked with gave me a detailed analysis and provided the reports to back up what she was saying told me North Korean troops are poorly trained".

Also, that's just you not believing what I'm saying, which you are certainly within your rights to do, but that doesn't mean I made it up or that I'm wrong. Try again.

 

[Commodore]

God, this is so much BS...
1) Actually, overwhelming airpower did help quite a bit, hence the 20 to 1 or so casualties ratio.
2) NK at the time was, surprising as may be, the richer and more modern country compared to SK, and had a trained and battle-hardened army with good hardware, coming straight from WW2.
3) NK was still pushed back to the Chinese border (though the fight was difficult).
4) It took China itself to enter the war ("unofficially") with literally millions of soldiers, to bring the frontline back to the starting line.
5) The technological gap by then was small, the technological gap today is huge.
6) Your comparison with Iraq is weird. You were the one saying it took quite a bit of time for the Coalition to bomb the Iraqi lines into submission with massive airpower, and now you claim that NK could magically obliterate the SK line with a short (if intense) artillery barrage ?

You forgot that modern-day North Korea also can't even afford to run regular training exercises due to constant fuel and critical supply shortages. Yet this military that has constant supply shortages in peacetime conditions is supposedly going to pull off this miracle offensive that will break through South Korean lines and occupy Seoul in a matter of hours according to some posters here.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

No, it was more like "a subject matter expert that I worked with gave me a detailed analysis and provided the reports to back up what she was saying told me North Korean troops are poorly trained".

Also, that's just you not believing what I'm saying, which you are certainly within your rights to do, but that doesn't mean I made it up or that I'm wrong. Try again.

By not means it is indicative you are right or you are not fabricating it either. The ones who agree with you may take your word as true while it fits his own views, but the rest wont. So an extremely weak argument for asserting such general and fundamental fact about NK army. OTOH I assumed nothing but argued an objective fact, that all NKeans have to serve ten years of compulsory military service. That has been the tonic along all the thread.

 

[Commodore]

OTOH I assumed nothing but argued an objective fact, that all NKeans have to serve ten years of compulsory military service.

Ah, but you did make an assumption. You assumed that ten years made them well-trained. Time in service is no indicator of how well-trained a soldier is.

That was just one minor detail in your entire interaction in this thread though. Your main point that North Korea could achieve a breakthrough to Seoul in a matter of hours was solely based on assumptions and when you were confronted by more than one poster with evidence as to why those assumptions were wrong, you just kept repeating yourself over and over again. And when you were finally pressed to elaborate on your main point, you just repeated your main point again and started making snide little comments.

 

[Kyriakos]

Poorly trained or not, there is also the factor of those koreans fighting in/for their homeland. It does play a role if it comes to actual invasion, though it seems no one is examining whether - if things come to an impeding mass air strike by the US - N.Korea could use nukes to erase the S.Korean equally concentrated army as well.
Good job by Trump, de-escalating conflicts and not causing more wars.

 

[Commodore]

N.Korea could use nukes to erase the S.Korean equally concentrated army as well.

Maybe. They'd have to find a reliable delivery system for their nukes though, which they have so far been unable to do what with their missiles exploding on the launch pad and all. I mean, I guess they could go all suicide bomber with them if they really had to...