North Korea tested nuclear bomb ,again.

north korea realised its cannot maintain parity and equal military against south korea and america so asymetric response was with nukes ,
tactical and inter-kontinental.

tactical of small range woud crush south army ,and longrangeos ones will keep amerika away. norths army would survive in underground tunnes ready to take over ,and march on command.

this pace was accelerated especially after amerikan invasion of south iraq in 1991,where big conventional army was destroyed.
noth korean military planers were very smart.

They need a hell of a lot of warheads to put on their theater missiles, there are PAC-3 batteries and other anti-missile systems all over the place. Those will not be Taepo-dongs, they’ll be Musudans and the other SRBMs.

Because it makes no sense to develop a warhead for a missile that has about a 50% chance of getting off the launch pad. Then there’s the issue of accuracy…a 2-4 kiloton warhead mated to a horribly inaccurate missile system isn’t going to do anything impressive.

The best uses for these weapons aren’t fitted to missiles…

No no you think it wrongs ,this is good for its tactical balistic missiles that can cover south korea ,missiles of scud type- small range, without using too much nuklear fuel and heavy warhead ,thus making them too short range.

up to 5 kt is great for crushing large army formations of south korea and not destroy your troops close within that hiding in tunnels.

And because north knowes it can only win if renders usa impotents with military unable to use its power because of amerikan fear of nukes, unlike it was in 50s, so investing into 50 taepodongos is worth it ,even with 50% chanse ,but it will get better for sure.

About tests why would korea not test a warhead that weight enough for its icbm taepodong.

Because it makes no sense to develop a warhead for a missile that has about a 50% chance of getting off the launch pad. Then there’s the issue of accuracy…a 2-4 kiloton warhead mated to a horribly inaccurate missile system isn’t going to do anything impressive.

The best uses for these weapons aren’t fitted to missiles…

Even with all sorts of best possible counter attack scenarios from SK sides, civilian casualties would be massive. Now I dont know if any of these scenarios have considered a possible pre-emptive strike on NK, but I dont know how realistic that really is. And if NK opens the front, well we could all imagine a few thousand shells and a few hundred missiles falling into the cities right at the start. Almost Unimaginable.

Absolutely. A horrifying prospect.

I think that if there is another Korean war (& I fervently hope there isn’t, for the sake of the Koreans) that it would end with N. Korea ceasing to exist as an organised state, & probably being handed over to S. Korea to integrate (probably gradually, perhaps with some international – including Chinese – supervision for a while), once acceptable arrangements (probably including a fair degree of demilitarisation) had been made with China. But I also think that the S. Korea which took over would be mourning hundreds of thousands of casualties, with much of its capital in ruins.

May be is time to ask China to get the backyard in order. I don’t think S. Korea, USA, Japan or Russia are able to influence the “Dear Leader”.

Vikrasehman,

there’s little there I can argue with. Note that all my posts assume a North Korean attack, because although I consider that very unlikely indeed (why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?), I am absolutely certain that there will be no attack the other way.

Unfortunately, another poster appears to believe in absolute N. Korean superiority in everything. 🙁 I’ve been trying to persuade him that this is unrealistic, but I don’t think I’ve made any impact.

Just one quibble: any estimate of the rate of destruction of N. Korean artillery should assume that a large proportion of S. Korean heavy artillery is tasked with counter-battery fire. Aircraft are not the S. Koreans only weapons.

True. Why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs? And I assume, no one knows that better than the ‘dear leader’.:)

Even with all sorts of best possible counter attack scenarios from SK sides, civilian casualties would be massive. Now I dont know if any of these scenarios have considered a possible pre-emptive strike on NK, but I dont know how realistic that really is. And if NK opens the front, well we could all imagine a few thousand shells and a few hundred missiles falling into the cities right at the start. Almost Unimaginable.

Vikrasehman,

there’s little there I can argue with. Note that all my posts assume a North Korean attack, because although I consider that very unlikely indeed (why kill the goose that lays the golden eggs?), I am absolutely certain that there will be no attack the other way.

Unfortunately, another poster appears to believe in absolute N. Korean superiority in everything. 🙁 I’ve been trying to persuade him that this is unrealistic, but I don’t think I’ve made any impact.

Just one quibble: any estimate of the rate of destruction of N. Korean artillery should assume that a large proportion of S. Korean heavy artillery is tasked with counter-battery fire. Aircraft are not the S. Koreans only weapons.

No, but S. Korea also has thousands of artillery pieces. Those N. Korean “artillery pieces” include rocket launchers & mortars. On the same basis, S. Korea has 11000, a lot of them better than anything the north has, & with far better target location abilities.

Swerve, I dont think one can really question the conventional superiority of S.Korean forces over those of N.Korean. Heck, NK probably does not even have enough fuel reserves for a longish term conventional war??? But I think, its the civilian side of the matters which poses the real challenge for the SK side.

We all know ‘dear leader’ and his unpredictability as well his attitude towards his own population. From that I think its somewhat safe to assume that he won’t have too much of a moral dilemma vis-a-vis his own civic population when he looks at the ‘greater good’. In a non-nuclear war, all the ‘dear leader’ has to do is to target Seoul and any other near by civilian population centres with his artillery pieces and missiles some laden with non-conventional bio/chem weapons. Civilian casualties would be in hundreds of thousands considering the close vicinity of Seoul to DMZ. If I remember correctly, one of the studies estimated the number of around at least one hundred thousands provided that US/SK AFs can destroy most artillery pieces & missiles within first four (?) days which would required around 4000 sorties per day. Now with US being busy in two different countries, can you imagine that sort of sortie rate? Other studies have estimated much higher casualty figures. Now is SK willing to accept that? And are they willing to accept the same sort of damage on NK side in return?

I think the ‘dear leader’ recognises the above mentioned, and his nukes are more US oriented (insurance policy) rather than SK.

No, but S. Korea also has thousands of artillery pieces. Those N. Korean “artillery pieces” include rocket launchers & mortars. On the same basis, S. Korea has 11000, a lot of them better than anything the north has, & with far better target location abilities.

What is this obsession with the USA? A new Korean war would mainly be a war between the two Koreas. Over 95% of the ground troops, tanks, & artillery in S. Korea are Korean, & 85% of the combat aircraft (though that would change as US aircraft from Japan & the US navy joined in).

BTW, your estimate of the rounds which can be fired in an hour suggest a sustained rate of fire at the upper limit of what manufacturers advertise can be achieved for modern guns, with loading aids. I suspect the actual rate would be considerably lower, & not only because some of the guns would be put out of action.

IIRC, N. Korea has 15,000 artillery pieces, and can lay down a barrage of 500,000 rounds in a 1 hour period, across the DMZ. I don’t think the U.S. has enough planes to locate and destroy 15,000 artillery pieces within a 1 hour period.

that was deadly serious :diablo:
on other hand ,north korea has been preparing 50 years for this war, thay say they are 2 koreas one on surface and another undergorund.
tactical nukes would totaly destroy any heavy massing of troops ,terrain is useless for tanks ,planes will be destroyed on the ground ,and smaller troops will be decimated by special forces and guerilla tactics.

Doing it again, I see.

N. Korea probably has very few nuclear weapons. It also has . Detonating one on S. Korean soil would be suicide for N. Korea. The USA has far more tactical nuclear weapons, & more accurate & reliable delivery systems.

N. Korea has been preparing with diminishing resources, for many years. Most of their hardware is fit only for museums. Their sub-DMZ tunnels are mostly pretty well mapped (seriously: it’s hard to hide a tunnel for long from anyone with decent equipment, & S. Korea has the best). The entrances to their bunkers are mapped. Their underground artillery emplacements are mapped. And PGMs can hit the entrances accurately, nowadays. Expect a rain of rockets, GPS-guided bombs, guided shells, etc. on all those precisely located targets, & demolition charges above tunnels.

“Special forces” more numerous than most peoples armies, in a country with desperately few resources, are not that special. Tough & as physically fit as their diet allows, I expect, but very poorly equipped.

Guerilla tactics don’t work on a crowded battlefield, with barriers (minefields, barbed wire, etc) everywhere. They don’t work very well in countryside which is hostile to you.

You have consistently assumed that North Koreans are invincible supermen, & South Koreans hapless blunderers. Bizarre. Ah well, this is the last you’ll hear from me. I don’t see any point in reading any more of your nonsense.

You need to improve your grip on reality. I’ve never even been to the USA, & I’ve just been accused on another thread of consistent anti-Americanism. :diablo:

And in case you hadn’t noticed – N. Korea has no way of getting a nuclear weapon there.

that was deadly serious :diablo:
on other hand ,north korea has been preparing 50 years for this war, thay say they are 2 koreas one on surface and another undergorund.
tactical nukes would totaly destroy any heavy massing of troops ,terrain is useless for tanks ,planes will be destroyed on the ground ,and smaller troops will be decimated by special forces and guerilla tactics.

You need to improve your grip on reality. I’ve never even been to the USA, & I’ve just been accused on another thread of consistent anti-Americanism. :diablo:

And in case you hadn’t noticed – N. Korea has no way of getting a nuclear weapon there.

How many tactical nukes do you think N. Korea has?
And what do you think would happen if it used even one?.

:diablo:

swerve i think youre wrong ,and read post number 28 about that.:diablo:
besides tactical nukes falling around it would make it a complete useless ‘victory’ …
those planes have to take off and prepare and spyes would help north make preemptive strikes and destroy aircraft on ground with tactical missiles (this asymetric response nobody accounts for from north ,to nullify air component of americas cariers and south)
therefor losing their only advantage…planes have to take off ,land ,refuel ,rearm etc..you know..:rolleyes:

besides,it would be atomic hell on whole peninsulay. nobody would win.

Post no 28 is irrelevant to the military capabilities of South Korea. If attacked, it would fight back. Post no. 28 does not say it would not.

How many tactical nukes do you think N. Korea has? And what do you think would happen if it used even one? N. Korea would be dismantled, without any objections by S. Koreans, China, or Russia. The last two would complain only about fallout.

N. Korean tactical missiles could attack S. Korean airfields (though note that unless they use chemical weapons, it would take a lot of missiles to put even one airfield out of operation), but not US carriers. They have no way of targeting the carriers. Also, S. Korea (& US forces in S. Korea) also has tactical missiles – and better ones, with better targeting information, & has some SAMs capable of shooting down those tactical missiles, with many more being introduced into service. Contrary to what you say, the N. Korean “asymmetric response” is recognised, & countermeasures have been taken, & are being improved.

As for saboteurs – do you think S. Korean bases are unguarded?

You are assuming that every N. Korean move will succeed, & that N. Korea can successfully counter anything S. Korea or the USA does. That is silly. Very silly.

If you are sticky for “exact” numbers, I don’t have. In fact our Indian Govt also don’t have the “exact” numbers.

To be helpful to your research, it is more than 20,000 farmers commited suicide. In lingo here it is 20,000+++

Indian gvernment? i thought we were discussing about N.Korea. So anybody can pull any figure and say anything? How can u say it is more than 20000? Just dont pull figures if u cant back it up.

swerve i think youre wrong ,and read post number 28 about that.:diablo:
besides tactical nukes falling around it would make it a complete useless ‘victory’ …
those planes have to take off and prepare and spyes would help north make preemptive strikes and destroy aircraft on ground with tactical missiles (this asymetric response nobody accounts for from north ,to nullify air component of americas cariers and south)
therefor losing their only advantage…planes have to take off ,land ,refuel ,rearm etc..you know..:rolleyes:

besides,it would be atomic hell on whole peninsulay. nobody would win.

Few things…

The war on korean peninsulla was possible and almost certain ,but now its impossible…
Amerrika nkows it cant win in war, …

You’re ignoring a large number of things, & the most important is this –

South Korea.

The USA does not need to win a war in Korea, or occupy an inch of the country. South Korea can do that. The USA need only supply aircraft & replace used up munitions.

It’s clear that you do not understand the purpose of the US troops in S. Korea. Their main role is to provide some dead American soldiers, to guarantee US help to S. Korea. They provide only a small part of the strength of the ground forces. Even in air forces, the ROKAF is much stronger than the US forces in Korea.

A new Korean war would destroy N. Korea as a state. Without foreign aid, the country would starve, & freeze in winter – and a war would cut off supplies. Its armed forces would rapidly be reduced to hungry infantry.

Just a question.

The other day, I was listening to a report on CNN (I think it was by Barbara Star???), who said (quoting Pentagon sources) that pentagon is not over worried about North Korean nukes for the time being. They know that (for the time being) NK could only rely on its fighters to deliver a bomb (and seeing the state of its AF its not all that much of a pressing threat) and that it would take NK years to develop a nuclear warhead that could be employed on a missile.

So, that was NK. But if so, why is there so much hoo haa about Iran, considering the state of their AF and missile development (NK is much better placed vis-a-vis missile development than Iran). Fear mongering??? To stop Iran even before they get the capability for obvious reasons, i.e. easier to deal with them now than it would be once they get a few kg of enriched uranium?

Few things…

The war on korean peninsulla was possible and almost certain ,but now its impossible…
Amerrika nkows it cant win in war, country is militirised, almost fanatised, unlike other occupied countries korea does trade and bought weapons from different dealers on open and black markets,and has plenty, the terrain is very limiting for use of armour and airforces power, its great for defence and gerrila warfare.

the usa is already overstreched by war in 2 fronts, therefore not many forces to atack ,and by ocupiing korea amrika would finish encircliment of russia and make exellent forward base for limiting china expansion so korea would not be politicaly easy to atack also..
Now they try to limit and downsize korean threat ,and mistakingly sends great message to other countries ,if you dont want to be harrasead by usa, get some nukes.:cool:

About tests why would korea not test a warhead that weight enough for its icbm taepodong.first test was limiting because it was too small explosion on such small warhead ,but this succeded on warhead no higher then 3-400kg ,exelent for tacticala nukes too.
thats thes fuss was made so early untill amerikans realised they powerless ,and now they turning another cover story.
Belive me when iran does the same youll be hearing same story from great satan:p:D