Danger-Mouse Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 But as I've said China are as likely to use nuclear weapons as the uk are, the US need to tread careful. Are we really that red button handy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchman Posted March 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 if china goes seriously to war ...their economy will start to collapse.............they have soooo much forex invested abroad...they would loose access to it..........if the **** kicks off in NK they will moan and moan ...but will do nothing...except slllliidde in after it is all over....a deal that will be done before it happens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Are we really that red button handy? Yes, funnily enough I did a open university course to top up, being a specialist I fulfilled the course requirements and could choose any two modules to make points up, I chose basic philosophy and prescriptions of nuclear warfare. We have designed our weapons to be sub strategic, our stance is more aggressive than any other nuclear armed country, there is a white paper that explains this. We stated heads over if the Iraqi regime (during the invasion) used chemical weapons we would retaliate with our sub strategic nuclear capability. Russia and the US have a agreement we don't sign up to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Yes, funnily enough I did a open university course to top up, being a specialist I fulfilled the course requirements and could choose any two modules to make points up, I chose basic philosophy and prescriptions of nuclear warfare. We have designed our weapons to be sub strategic, our stance is more aggressive than any other nuclear armed country, there is a white paper that explains this. We stated heads over if the Iraqi regime (during the invasion) used chemical weapons we would retaliate with our sub strategic nuclear capability. Russia and the US have a agreement we don't sign up to. Unusual mix of topics, or perhaps not. Thanks for the reply, very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 (edited) Assumption ...... the mother of all f ups ! As they say. I really would not want to bet either way tbh. Let's be real USA if they pulled all the stops out and showed a total disregard for civilian life would 100 % anihalate NK But how would they go about. I struggle to see how they could manage it without it being a total bloodbath. I doubt they would risk an invasion as they could not get there troops on the ground fast enough. Imagine say the first 50000 US troops land on NK soil only to be met by 1.2 million and god knows how many millions of reserve NK troops. The US boys and girls wouldn't stand a chance in hell. I doubt the US would want to send fighters and bombers in as NK has a massive amount of mobile surface to air missle systems along with all sorts of modern Wepon systems And as so far as navel fleet is concerned yes the usa has the biggest fleet in the world. But NK has just about more subs than anyone else. Yes there old but ships are notoriously easy to sink as long as you can get a shot it in. Personally I think there only real option would be to hit hard and hit first. Which has got to mean a small tac nuke ? What do you rekon ?? Edited March 19, 2017 by stevo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Unusual mix of topics, or perhaps not. Thanks for the reply, very interesting. Very interesting topics, funnily I was topping up on my MSc toxicology, so the chemical weaponry was of more interest. Talking about North Korea I know exactly why two people were used to kill that chap with VX. There's a misguided thought it's hard to make, it's not, it's easy, just very dangerous to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saddler Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 What do you rekon ?? Even at the end of my three year War Studies degree the smart money for WW3 type scenarios & more major regime changes of a hard target was based on cyber attacks. Two decades on, the infrastructure to enable cyber attack is more widespread.... Add in a suitable EMP strike and the majority of NK's modern response capacity is fried. The average NK citizen is desperate for regime change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 Assumption ...... the mother of all f ups ! As they say. I really would not want to bet either way tbh. Let's be real USA if they pulled all the stops out and showed a total disregard for civilian life would 100 % anihalate NK But how would they go about. I struggle to see how they could manage it without it being a total bloodbath. I doubt they would risk an invasion as they could not get there troops on the ground fast enough. Imagine say the first 50000 US troops land on NK soil only to be met by 1.2 million and god knows how many millions of reserve NK troops. The US boys and girls wouldn't stand a chance in hell. I doubt the US would want to send fighters and bombers in as NK has a massive amount of mobile surface to air missle systems along with all sorts of modern Wepon systems And as so far as navel fleet is concerned yes the usa has the biggest fleet in the world. But NK has just about more subs than anyone else. Yes there old but ships are notoriously easy to sink as long as you can get a shot it in. Personally I think there only real option would be to hit hard and hit first. Which has got to mean a small tac nuke ? What do you rekon ?? The simplest option would be for the USA to block off their oil supply. NK uses significant amounts but produces zero barrels and doesn't appear to have significant reserves (unlike the US and China who have reserves around the 20 billion barrels mark). Without oil NK's huge forces would be relatively useless and it wouldn't take that long for the entire country to grind to a halt. Even at the end of my three year War Studies degree the smart money for WW3 type scenarios & more major regime changes of a hard target was based on cyber attacks. Two decades on, the infrastructure to enable cyber attack is more widespread.... . A very good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 The simplest option would be for the USA to block off their oil supply. NK uses significant amounts but produces zero barrels and doesn't appear to have significant reserves (unlike the US and China who have reserves around the 20 billion barrels mark). Without oil NK's huge forces would be relatively useless and it wouldn't take that long for the entire country to grind to a halt. Yep I see where your going with that and sounds logical. 👍 With regards cyber warfare. I've just been reading an article from the past few weeks so it's fare to say it's current. But it reckons NK is up there with the best when it come to cyber warefare shenanigans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OJW Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 A news provider researched what would happen if NK hit the button against the USA. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/korea-bomba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeadWasp Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 There's an easy way to reduce the effect of cyber warfare - that's to stop connecting critical systems to the internet. Any utility firm, bank, power station or other, that lazily controls it's systems from the front room of an 'on-call' operator's house is bordering on negligent. It is so slack, but economical. How valuable is your system? It isn't just a question of attacking software or firmware with other code - certain navies , most notably the Russian, have the assets to cut/tap subsea cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted March 19, 2017 Report Share Posted March 19, 2017 I'd say the US could strategically bomb north Korea back to the stone age without having to put a single boot on the ground if they so wished. I couldn't see China getting involved military wise either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Right now it is the US which is illegally bombing and interfering in 7 different conflicts all of which it either literally started or caused. You need to study the history of why there even is a North and South Korea that's right, good ole US land of the Free and home of Demon-ocracy, having murdered millions of them what choice do they have but to build up a defence mechanism and what choice does the West have indeed, but to continue lying and protecting the preposterous myth that everyone else is out to start wars whilst they only want to have 700 military bases all around the world including encircling Iran/Korea/Russia and all of ME in order to protect our way of life. If you can't see through the deceptions and media complicity of our generation's dumbing down don't blame NK or anyone else for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 IF NK has nukes then they may just be safe from US's insatiable need to murder ad infinitum. If they haven't then there's a chance of yet more casualties on both sides which will simply enflame our world in more and more wars for our children to enjoy. Thanks murica. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stevo Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Right now it is the US which is illegally bombing and interfering in 7 different conflicts all of which it either literally started or caused. You need to study the history of why there even is a North and South Korea that's right, good ole US land of the Free and home of Demon-ocracy, having murdered millions of them what choice do they have but to build up a defence mechanism and what choice does the West have indeed, but to continue lying and protecting the preposterous myth that everyone else is out to start wars whilst they only want to have 700 military bases all around the world including encircling Iran/Korea/Russia and all of ME in order to protect our way of life. If you can't see through the deceptions and media complicity of our generation's dumbing down don't blame NK or anyone else for that matter. Some very good points and well put 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 That didn't take long Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big bad lindz Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) He's the Asian version of Sturgeon = totally believes in their own hype! Dangerous, borderline insane, UmpaLumpa lookalike. The Korean bloke's a wrong 'un too! Unlike Kim whatever little krankie has nukes that work, based on the Clyde. Oh ! I forgot she does not want them there so maybe she will start trade negations with north Korea and sell them to Kim ?? Edited March 20, 2017 by big bad lindz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-wheel-drive Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 The way that I see it America Russia China all have enough nuclear missiles to in affect destroy the civilized world but why would they want to do that its only small countries with nutters in charge like NK Isreal and England that are stupid enough to think that using them is a real option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Bu Le Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Unlike Kim whatever little krankie has nukes that work, based on the Clyde. Oh ! I forgot she does not want them there so maybe she will start trade negations with north Korea and sell them to Kim ?? Dare say wee Jimmy would if she could but fortunately they are not hers, bit like the North Sea oil really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big bad lindz Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) Dare say wee Jimmy would if she could but fortunately they are not hers, bit like the North Sea oil really. She wont see it that way (heaven forbid)I think she would sell her soul for independence, if she had one Edited March 20, 2017 by big bad lindz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clakk Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 (edited) I think having read all the points raised and knowing where Kyska is coming from about our nuclear "defence" policy it,l be an E.M.P strike and a shower of cruise missiles and drones that return N.K to the stone age from the medieval period they currently inhabit .So no American boots on the ground,Then China will move in a peacekeeping force that will alter N.K forever into a "Chinese province" a la Tibet. Trouble is Kim Jong fruit bat only needs to get 1 or 2 Nukes off at China/America/Japan for this "plan" to turn to WW3 and then its a big fat? Edited March 20, 2017 by clakk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cookoff013 Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 i`ve been fascinated by N.K for years..... i used to have updates at work about whats going on in Nk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 I believe the policy of containment will continue. The deployment of THAAD will further isolate NK. The trouble with numbers and stats is they have very little correlation to effectiveness. The Iraqi military was the fifth biggest standing army in the World pre gulf war. They were rendered ineffective and decimated by standoff munitions way before troops crossed the border. Modern capability means massed troops are good for parades and despots ego's, nothing else. I feel very sorry for the population who have endured the tender ministration of the NK regime while the rest of the World has looked the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Kim is a fruit loop but as others have said he is a puppet. China negotiate with them as no one else will or can wield the clout they have. Very limited trade with other nations means they generally bow to Chinese say so. America using the language usually reserved for badly behaved children is better than the previous decades of action regardless of cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddoakley Posted March 20, 2017 Report Share Posted March 20, 2017 Manpower no argument but they're dwarfed in every other category of force. N. Korea vs USA LAND SYSTEMS - Tank value includes Main Battle Tanks, light tanks and tank destroyers, either wheeled or tracked. AFV value includes Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs) and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFVs). NK Tanks: 4,200 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 4,100 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 2,250 Towed-Artillery: 4,300 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 2,400 USA Tanks: 8,848 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 41,062 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 1,934 Towed-Artillery: 1,299 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 1,331 AIR POWER - Includes both fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft from all branches of service. NK Total Aircraft: 944 Fighters/Interceptors: 458 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 572 Transport Aircraft: 100 Trainer Aircraft: 169 Helicopters: 202 USA Total Aircraft: 13,444 Fighters/Interceptors: 2,308 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 2,785 Transport Aircraft: 5,739 Trainer Aircraft: 2,771 Helicopters: 6,084 Attack Helicopters: 957 NAVAL POWER - Aircraft Carrier value includes dedicated "helicopter carrier" vessels. Total naval strength includes all known auxiliaries as well. NK Total Naval Strength: 967 Aircraft Carriers: 0 Frigates: 3 Destroyers: 0 Corvettes: 2 Submarines: 70 Coastal Defense Craft: 211 Mine Warfare: 23 Attack Helicopters: 20 USA Total Naval Strength: 415 Aircraft Carriers: 19 Frigates: 6 Destroyers: 62 Corvettes: 0 Submarines: 75 Coastal Defense Craft: 13 Mine Warfare: 11 NK Defense Budget: $7,500,000,000 Active Frontline Personnel: 700,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 4,500,000 USA Defense Budget: $581,000,000,000 Active Frontline Personnel: 1,400,000 Active Reserve Personnel: 1,100,000 "Top trump" cards?? Lol. I hope I'm not the only one to remember those. Edd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.