NKorea threatens SKorea with nuclear war

Jimbuna · 12-13-10, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Don't say we haven't invaded Libya because they don't have oil... they do!

Actually that's a very good point

TLAM Strike · 12-13-10, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Better start stocking up on rice for my curries then...there could soon be a shortage

Don't worry most of your rice probably comes from South East Asia and the only people threatening war on that region are some of the crackpots hanging around outside the VA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

So what are you waiting for?

Well because Libya as you may or may not be aware is located in a desert, and not just any desert but the Sahara. Sahara is the Arabic word for 'desert', which should tell you a lot since the Arabs came from another desert. So when they walked out of their desert and found the Sahara they said "damn now this is a desert!"

... and damn it we are tired of fighting in deserts!! and these deserts have women who dress in bedsheets and they don't serve booze there! The moment they find oil in a tropically refreshing place with hot women and those drinks with the little umbrella in them we are so going to invade them!

Dowly · 12-13-10, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

... and damn it we are tired of fighting in deserts!! and these deserts have women who dress in bedsheets and they don't serve booze there! The moment they find oil in a tropically refreshing place with hot women and those drinks with the little umbrella in them we are so going to invade them!

Gerald · 12-13-10, 06:05 PM

Interesting talk,

vienna · 12-13-10, 06:45 PM

Regarding Libya, if an attack on Libya were to be launched by the US, NATO, or any other western-leaning power, Israel would undoubtedly be the main victim of the aftermath. Islamic nations like Iran would use the attacks as an excuse to launch "reprisals" against Israel since they cannot attack the western powers directly. Add to this the likelyhood of a possible oil embargo by the exporting arab nations and there are few upsides to the situation. Still, I would very much enjoy seeing Gaddafi receive what has long been coming.

As far as North Korea goes, when the invasion of Iraq started, an anti-war co-worker of mine at the time argued why the U.S. was fighting a war against Saddam and not Kim Jong-Il. I asked her what country was directly on North Korea's northern border. She actually had to look it up on Google since she had no idea. When she saw it was China, she then asked what that had to do with not invading NK. I then had to breifly explain the history of the Korean War and the intervention by China when NK was being knocked back on its heels. China may not particularly like Kim and his madness, but they like even less the idea of a unified Korea with a western (U.S.) leading government directly on its border. China also likes having the NK sideshow to distract the rest of the world from its own actions.

Don't discount NK's ability to deliver firepower to the South. Although they are still lacking in intercontinental strike capability, they are very up to date on short range missile technology. NK is very adept at reverse-engineering weapon systems in general and missile systems in particular. They now provide client countries and groups like Hamas, etc. with knock-offs of some newer missiles. They don't need a big ICBM to reach South Korea, just a good long range cruise missle and they have a lot of those on hand.

But again, as with Gaddafi, I would love to see someone drop a nice U.S. cruise missile on Kim's pompadour..

TLAM Strike · 12-13-10, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

Regarding Libya, if an attack on Libya were to be launched by the US, NATO, or any other western-leaning power, Israel would undoubtedly be the main victim of the aftermath. Islamic nations like Iran would use the attacks as an excuse to launch "reprisals" against Israel since they cannot attack the western powers directly. Add to this the likelyhood of a possible oil embargo by the exporting arab nations and there are few upsides to the situation. Still, I would very much enjoy seeing Gaddafi receive what has long been coming.

Such reprisals would just give the Israelis an excuse to clean house across the region. The Arab militaries in the region have advanced in capabilities very little since the 1980s, except for Egypt and Saudi. They have picked up a couple fancy missiles here or there but they have very little to stop the IAF from just bombing them at will.

Based on those Wikileaks cables Saudi wants to see a lot of these terrorist groups in the region gone and Iran dealt with, so they might talk a lot but not do anything.

Quote:

Don't discount NK's ability to deliver firepower to the South. Although they are still lacking in intercontinental strike capability, they are very up to date on short range missile technology. NK is very adept at reverse-engineering weapon systems in general and missile systems in particular. They now provide client countries and groups like Hamas, etc. with knock-offs of some newer missiles. They don't need a big ICBM to reach South Korea, just a good long range cruise missle and they have a lot of those on hand.

North Korean's cruise missiles are decades obsolete. Their best indigenous cruise missile is the KN-01, but it just a turbojet powered silkworm with a range of only 100 km. Some PRC missiles they might be armed with (like the HY-2) have a range of 200 km, but those are still just silkworms with better engines. If your a middle east group like Hamas want cruise missiles you got to deal with Iran, which is building copies of Chinese missiles (except for the Ra'ad which is a North Korean type super silkworm).

My friends and I were just discussing this in how Iran's semi-submersibles came from North Korea armed with 324mm torpedoes instead of a light ASM like the C-701. Simply North Korea has no SSMs smaller than a Silkworm (which is huge for a ASM).

Castout · 12-13-10, 07:33 PM

Another day without nuclear war . . . . . .

"WHAT'S THE HOLD UP?"

Oberon · 12-13-10, 07:40 PM

Barry needs to get onto Hu, then the US can put their nukes in the ROK, China can put theirs in the DPRK...and we can have a nuclear war by proxy.
The Korean problem is solved, China gets to nuke America, America gets to nuke China, the internet gets lots of mushroom cloud pictures, rolling news gets in depth interviews with charred corpses, everybody wins!

Castout · 12-13-10, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

Barry needs to get onto Hu, then the US can put their nukes in the ROK, China can put theirs in the DPRK...and we can have a nuclear war by proxy.
The Korean problem is solved, China gets to nuke America, America gets to nuke China, the internet gets lots of mushroom cloud pictures, rolling news gets in depth interviews with charred corpses, everybody wins!

Quote:

The Korean problem is solved

Exactly there's no Korean problem if there was no Korea peninsula

yubba · 12-13-10, 09:10 PM

Soooo, anybody got a bomb shelter they ain't use-ing.

the_tyrant · 12-13-10, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Such reprisals would just give the Israelis an excuse to clean house across the region. The Arab militaries in the region have advanced in capabilities very little since the 1980s, except for Egypt and Saudi. They have picked up a couple fancy missiles here or there but they have very little to stop the IAF from just bombing them at will.

Based on those Wikileaks cables Saudi wants to see a lot of these terrorist groups in the region gone and Iran dealt with, so they might talk a lot but not do anything.

North Korean's cruise missiles are decades obsolete. Their best indigenous cruise missile is the KN-01, but it just a turbojet powered silkworm with a range of only 100 km. Some PRC missiles they might be armed with (like the HY-2) have a range of 200 km, but those are still just silkworms with better engines. If your a middle east group like Hamas want cruise missiles you got to deal with Iran, which is building copies of Chinese missiles (except for the Ra'ad which is a North Korean type super silkworm).

My friends and I were just discussing this in how Iran's semi-submersibles came from North Korea armed with 324mm torpedoes instead of a light ASM like the C-701. Simply North Korea has no SSMs smaller than a Silkworm (which is huge for a ASM).

North Korea can simply put a small nuclear warhead in a gun round and fire it a far as possible towards the south.

TLAM Strike · 12-13-10, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

North Korea can simply put a small nuclear warhead in a gun round and fire it a far as possible towards the south.

No they can't. The bombs North Korea tested are huge. Like the bombs we dropped on Japan. They can't fit in any normal sized gun. They are even too big to put on a rocket. The only way they could deliver them would be by medium bomber like a Il-28 'BEAGLE'.

EDIT: Also the poorly made bomb they got wouldn't do much damage. The 2nd test they made was in the 2 kT range (By design the bomb should have been in the 20 kT range). 2 kT is sufficient to destroy a single hardened target or a moderately sided installation; for example it could mostly destroy the ROKN base at Inchon, a major airbase like at Cheonan, but it is not going to obliterate all of Seoul. Sounds great for a tactical weapon but the bombs they tested were meant to be strategic weapons.

the_tyrant · 12-13-10, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

No they can't. The bombs North Korea tested are huge. Like the bombs we dropped on Japan. They can't fit in any normal sized gun. They are even too big to put on a rocket. The only way they could deliver them would be by medium bomber like a Il-28 'BEAGLE'.

No suitcase nukes yet?
But nuclear Kamikaze attacks are still possible right?

TLAM Strike · 12-13-10, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_tyrant

No suitcase nukes yet?
But nuclear Kamikaze attacks are still possible right?

(Check my edited post)

Yea no suitcase nukes. They are decades away from anything close to that. What they have is like the bombs we had in the 1940s:

^Yea that big...

About all they could rely on would be a old subsonic Beagle with a huge payload strapped to one wing. Or maybe a small sub like a Sang-O with its entire bow replaced with a nuclear bomb (even then it would need to sail in to the base at Inchon to do anything.) A buddy of mine suggested they could tunnel under Seoul to deliver, that is sufficiently crazy to work.

12-13-10, 06:05 PM	#4
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Interesting talk, __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

12-13-10, 07:33 PM	#7
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	Another day without nuclear war . . . . . . "WHAT'S THE HOLD UP?" __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/

12-13-10, 06:45 PM	#5
vienna Navy Seal Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Anywhere but the here & now... Posts: 7,718 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Regarding Libya, if an attack on Libya were to be launched by the US, NATO, or any other western-leaning power, Israel would undoubtedly be the main victim of the aftermath. Islamic nations like Iran would use the attacks as an excuse to launch "reprisals" against Israel since they cannot attack the western powers directly. Add to this the likelyhood of a possible oil embargo by the exporting arab nations and there are few upsides to the situation. Still, I would very much enjoy seeing Gaddafi receive what has long been coming. As far as North Korea goes, when the invasion of Iraq started, an anti-war co-worker of mine at the time argued why the U.S. was fighting a war against Saddam and not Kim Jong-Il. I asked her what country was directly on North Korea's northern border. She actually had to look it up on Google since she had no idea. When she saw it was China, she then asked what that had to do with not invading NK. I then had to breifly explain the history of the Korean War and the intervention by China when NK was being knocked back on its heels. China may not particularly like Kim and his madness, but they like even less the idea of a unified Korea with a western (U.S.) leading government directly on its border. China also likes having the NK sideshow to distract the rest of the world from its own actions. Don't discount NK's ability to deliver firepower to the South. Although they are still lacking in intercontinental strike capability, they are very up to date on short range missile technology. NK is very adept at reverse-engineering weapon systems in general and missile systems in particular. They now provide client countries and groups like Hamas, etc. with knock-offs of some newer missiles. They don't need a big ICBM to reach South Korea, just a good long range cruise missle and they have a lot of those on hand. But again, as with Gaddafi, I would love to see someone drop a nice U.S. cruise missile on Kim's pompadour..

12-13-10, 07:40 PM	#8
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Barry needs to get onto Hu, then the US can put their nukes in the ROK, China can put theirs in the DPRK...and we can have a nuclear war by proxy. The Korean problem is solved, China gets to nuke America, America gets to nuke China, the internet gets lots of mushroom cloud pictures, rolling news gets in depth interviews with charred corpses, everybody wins!

12-13-10, 09:10 PM	#10
yubba Admiral Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: in a neighborhood near you Posts: 2,478 Downloads: 293 Uploads: 2	Soooo, anybody got a bomb shelter they ain't use-ing.