Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Phryxis wrote:Simply remind them that there is no Starcraft allowed in the DPRK. Instant zealots.

Given how much those Star Craft tv feeds creep the hell out of me, that's a good point.

I don't mean to imply that there would be an Iraq-like insurgency, I more mean to point out that being able to kick the crap out of people militarily doesn't result in immediate goodness. That's why I add the "starve to death" angle. Even if the populace was happy to capitulate, something totally miserable would occur that could not be destroyed with precision smartbombs.

Oh, cool, sorry I misread. I agree entirely. What would follow up in the wake of an attack would be utterly horrific.

I know China is terrified of the idea of millions of North Korean refugees coming across the border.

Meh, I'd be somewhat surprised if the DPRK could do much to the South if the US was involved in force. We win open combat immediately and decisively. It's more a problem of us having no real answers after that.

The South Koreans alone would destroy the North. The US would simply make it quicker. That speed is very important, when every day the NK army remains functioning there's artillery rounds dropping on Seoul.

US involvement would also make it a cleaner war, with less infrastructure damage. Which would make the following recovery that much more practical. But it would only go so far in minimising the damage.

Really, the only option for the rest of us is to stand back and hope North Korea does something to suddenly become a lot more sane, before they do something to provoke a war.

sebster wrote:
US involvement would also make it a cleaner war, with less infrastructure damage. Which would make the following recovery that much more practical. But it would only go so far in minimising the damage.

Exactly. Its important to remember that during Desert Storm, after a 4 week bombing campaign, coalition forces only managed to destroy about 40% of the Iraqi ground forces. That's a really large number, but not large enough to stop the bombardment of Seoul; especially when you include the fact that the majority of successful strikes were on mobilized formations in Kuwait.

Phryxis wrote:It seems to me that there are elements of truth to both sides of this devolving debate.

The primary lesson of Iraq is that the US military is just wonderful at winning large scale armed conflicts. I have no doubt we'd do that same thing to the DPRK. Day two they'd have three tanks and a broken down Mig 21 left.

And then they'd start sending out "national glory brigades" of bomb-jacket clad children, or half their country would starve to death, and we'd all be wondering "wait, why were we doing this again? I didn't want to blow up kids..."

The reason not to attack the DPRK isn't because we wouldn't win, or because they have nukes. We would win immediately, I doubt they'd have the wherewithal to use them.

The reason to not attack the DPRK is because doing so would help absolutely nobody involved. The possibility of nuclear deployment is miniscule, but just turns "nobody wins" into "everybody TOTALLY loses."

Because, let's be honest.. If the DPRK set off a nuke ANYWHERE it would not stop the US, and it WOULD make us forget all about our fancy, high-minded ideals for long enough to kill everyone in that country.

Which, AGAIN, not good for anybody involved.

Hear, hear.

On the same day that the DPRK attack RoK and the same day that the gazillion euro bailout was announced for Ireland, look who was in Ireland for a visit....
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/11/23/00017.asp

p.s. Too bad Palin isn't smart enough to memorize the actual names of the Koreas. If she was she wouldn't have to worry about confusing north and south (although she would still need to know which is a u.s. ally).

The South Korea of the time was a corrupt dictatorship, with little support from the population. This is wholly different to South Korea today. At the same time, North Korea has become a much weaker foe, more insane, and no longer able to rely on supplies from the USSR. In fact, much of North Koreas equipment is still stuff supplied by the USSR and China, and is many decades old.

The complicating factor is the devestation that could be inflicted on Seoul.

Sebster, I'm going to assume you simply skimmed my post and missed out the two qualifiers I added on. Y'know, the bits where I said,

This isn't to imply that it would be repeated

and

As I said, 'this isn't to imply that it would be repeated'. You seem to have this habit of ignoring the main point I was making, which, to clarify, was 'underestimation of their military capabilities is a fatal flaw'. These people have nuclear weapons. You don't seem to have processed this fact, let alone responded to the second point I made, about how nuclear weapons will pretty much screw up any kind of conventional assault by S. Korea.

I'll think you'll find having read those that you and I are not necessarily at odds on that. My point was against underestimation in ANY military situation, especially one with nuclear weapons complicating things.

Out of how many bombs? They have a handful at most. They're not going to be launching them off at US military groups in the hope they'll be lucky enough that it is on target and that it gets through US defences. No, they're going to be launched at big, easy targets - US cities.

Really? I would disagree on target priorities there, as well as delivery system capabilities. Last I heard, N. Korea didn't have the range to be hitting America directly.

Um, people can travel to North Korea. This stuff is hardly secret.

What, so all the tourists are allowed into North Korean Nuclear facilities? You seem to be reading my counterarguments, and ignoring the argument I was arguing against. The result being your responses don't quite match to the points I'm making....

Being cautious is nice but when a toddler fights a heavyweight champion there really is only one outcome.

Being cautious is essential in a situation with nuclear weaponry involved. This was my point. I have never stated that N. Korea would win a conventional war. Simply that underestimating your foe is stupid, and due to the complicating factors, and minimal chance of N. Korea going bull-gak crazy and wanting to go out with a bang, you guys will not invade. Too much potential risk for too little gain.

sebster, I'm actually surprised at you. You usually pick your points of debate better than that. Long day?

Fighting a toddler is potentially dangerous if the toddler has a gun.

Melissia wrote:Fighting a toddler is potentially dangerous if the toddler has a gun.

Hey, that was what I was gonna say! Anyhow, this!

Just because the US most likely would steamroll over the North doesn't make it worth it.

Ketara wrote:Sebster, I'm going to assume you simply skimmed my post and missed out the two qualifiers I added on. Y'know, the bits where I said,

No, I read it. I took the general impression from your post you think the US and SK are likely considerably more powerful, but you urge caution thinking it is possible that we might understimate their military capabilities. I believe that the only accurate assessment of NK military capabilities is an utterly scathing one, that recognises that their's is a poorly fed, poorly supplied army incapable of engaging in conventional war with a remotely functional modern military.

I'll think you'll find having read those that you and I are not necessarily at odds on that. My point was against underestimation in ANY military situation, especially one with nuclear weapons complicating things.

The presence of nuclear weapons and the number of conventional weapons capable of striking Seoul means war would have a horrific toll. But it would not change the likely winner.

Really? I would disagree on target priorities there, as well as delivery system capabilities. Last I heard, N. Korea didn't have the range to be hitting America directly.

Sorry, I meant SK cities. Of course, they're not capable of striking US cities, their ability to strike Japan is pretty dubious. But the targets would be cities, not military units.

What, so all the tourists are allowed into North Korean Nuclear facilities? You seem to be reading my counterarguments, and ignoring the argument I was arguing against. The result being your responses don't quite match to the points I'm making....

Do you?

chaosOxomega wrote;
"Besides that, the reports from more than a few intelligence services are all suggesting that morale within the military is lower than its been in years, dissent is rapidly spreading, and in some cases is in the open, and that doesn't even begin to account for the people, especially in southern N. Korea, who would do anything to get the hell out of there."

He wasn't talking about nuclear facilities, but about morale in the army and general population, and about the number of people attempting to leave. Which has been observed by regular civilians travelling there.

Being cautious is essential in a situation with nuclear weaponry involved. This was my point. I have never stated that N. Korea would win a conventional war. Simply that underestimating your foe is stupid, and due to the complicating factors, and minimal chance of N. Korea going bull-gak crazy and wanting to go out with a bang, you guys will not invade. Too much potential risk for too little gain.

But that wasn't your only point, you said 'First off the bat, you're assuming the South Koreans will have the North Koreans on enough of a run that you guys can just come in to mop up, and would only need 10, 000 men. Again, you're underestimating the foe.'

There is only way to take that, and that is that you believe NK could possibly have some kind of fighting chance.

sebster, I'm actually surprised at you. You usually pick your points of debate better than that. Long day?

I did make that mistake in putting US instead of SK. But the rest of it was pretty solid, I think you might have lost track of your own argument, or failed to see how it came across. It really did read like you were claiming NK was capable of, well, anything other than killing a load of South Koreans before being utterly smashed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Fighting a toddler is potentially dangerous if the toddler has a gun.

Which is a cute play on the analogy but it needs to be more than cute to be relevant, it needs to actually relate back to the original point. In the context of the metaphor, North Korea does not have a gun, it cannot inflict a crippling strike on any of the other players. Think of it more as a toddler with an open pot of paint sitting on your new carpet - it could really make a mess of things and the situation needs to be treated seriously, but lets not go getting silly.

Phryxis wrote:Which, AGAIN, not good for anybody involved.

Munitions companies will probably do alright....

There is only way to take that, and that is that you believe NK could possibly have some kind of fighting chance.

In the context of this debate, it's worth noting that the crew of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier is about 5,500 people, and a single aircraft carrier is pretty much more military force projection than DPRK has.

The US does not need very many people or weapons systems to destroy any military in open combat. The problem is that we need LOTS of people to then stand around and try to figure out how to build a new power station, and then we don't know where all the wire went, and wait, where's the million dollars in cash we had to bribe the local warlord, it was just sitting right there, and oh noes...

Hey, that's an idea, the DPRK using a nuclear warhead on a torpedo to sink a US carrier. THAT'D hurt, even if it wouldn't win them the war. Considering the Cheonan incident, they evidently have working submarines. I guess they don't have the tech to place a nuke in a torpedo yet though?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Hey, that's an idea, the DPRK using a nuclear warhead on a torpedo to sink a US carrier. THAT'D hurt, even if it wouldn't win them the war. Considering the Cheonan incident, they evidently have working submarines. I guess they don't have the tech to place a nuke in a torpedo yet though?

Thats actually not a bad point. NK could use subs as a deliver system for nukes. Would be dangerous, and they would still lose the war, but they could do it.

Phryxis wrote:The US does not need very many people or weapons systems to destroy any military in open combat. The problem is that we need LOTS of people to then stand around and try to figure out how to build a new power station, and then we don't know where all the wire went, and wait, where's the million dollars in cash we had to bribe the local warlord, it was just sitting right there, and oh noes...

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you entirely that after the open conflict it'd be a nightmare. NK is almost subsistance level as it is with infrastructure pretty much on the edge of collapse, so if you get the kind of devestation fighting is likely to bring, you end up with a humanitarian nightmare.

I was only arguing against the idea that NK might offer some kind of conventional military assistance. They certainly would not.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Hey, that's an idea, the DPRK using a nuclear warhead on a torpedo to sink a US carrier. THAT'D hurt, even if it wouldn't win them the war. Considering the Cheonan incident, they evidently have working submarines. I guess they don't have the tech to place a nuke in a torpedo yet though?

From what I've heard of the waters in the region and the limitations of sonar and the like, it would actually be possible for a diesel sub to move past the protective cordon of a sub group. Even something as low-tech as a NK sub.

But deploying a nuke by torpedo is a whole other kind of tech. Given NK's complete failure in lauching guided missiles at moderate range, I think it's pretty speculative to think they can do it by sub. But I am certainly no expert on either sonar, or delivering nukes by sub.

Even something as low-tech as a NK sub.

This is true, some of the comparitively ancient diesel subs are actually quite stealthy when running on battries.

By comparison, a nuclear sub always has the acoustic overhead of the reactor, so they're actually less stealthy.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if our forces were able to use active sonar and just hunt their subs down. Normally when there's a degree of parity in technology, you can't just go around pinging, but the DPRK might be sufficiently disadvantaged that we could just hunt them down.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Hey, that's an idea, the DPRK using a nuclear warhead on a torpedo to sink a US carrier. THAT'D hurt, even if it wouldn't win them the war. Considering the Cheonan incident, they evidently have working submarines. I guess they don't have the tech to place a nuke in a torpedo yet though?

What I would be more worried about would be a N. Korean SOF team working one into S. Korea and hitting a major population center.

N. Korea doesn't have the means to place their nukes on Missile, Torpedoes, Artillery Shells yet. Thankfully. But I wouldn't for a minute think that they aren't trying.

djones520 wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Hey, that's an idea, the DPRK using a nuclear warhead on a torpedo to sink a US carrier. THAT'D hurt, even if it wouldn't win them the war. Considering the Cheonan incident, they evidently have working submarines. I guess they don't have the tech to place a nuke in a torpedo yet though?

What I would be more worried about would be a N. Korean SOF team working one into S. Korea and hitting a major population center.

N. Korea doesn't have the means to place their nukes on Missile, Torpedoes, Artillery Shells yet. Thankfully. But I wouldn't for a minute think that they aren't trying.

And that's really the thing, isn't it? Everyone thought they were ages away from producing nuclear weapons, and they scared the crap out of everyone. If they could build nukes even though everyone sanctioned them they obviously have some good scientists. Either that or they bought the schematics from someone. Either way, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to imagine the NKoreans either creating or buying some sort of nuclear delivery system, would it?

Well, really the thing is people assuming that a given thing cannot happen despite the absence of data.

You might not believe that NK can launch nuclear missiles at Seoul, but you don't know that they can't. The distinction is incredibly important.

Why would North Korea want to blow up Seoul?

Leverage and bitterness.

dogma wrote:Leverage and bitterness.

And general run of the mill crazy.

People like Jong Il don't need reasons.

djones520 wrote:And general run of the mill crazy.

People like Jong Il don't need reasons.

Of course he needs reasons and I'm sure he has one to give right now. It's just a question of if they'll be sane/logical reasons. I hearby declare the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be real, is NK's arch enemy and lives in Seoul.

I was standing on that very spot on tour in SoKor not more than two months ago.

Kilkrazy wrote:Why would North Korea want to blow up Seoul?

Because the south has Seoul, and is super-bad.

No, that's wrong. Plutonium and Uranium were both used extensively in the US nuclear weapons program. Notably, Little Boy used uranium exclusively.

Right, but the two weapons tested by N. Korea were plutonium based. Uranium based weapons are extremely unstable and hard to design safely. Getting a usable uranium weapon is far easier than a plutonium weapon, getting a usable uranium weapon that doesn't blow up in your face when you don't want it to isn't.

Actually, they're quite comparable and the North Korean terrain is far more favorable to defensive warfare.

There's also that giant mine field in the way.

While you are correct about the terrain, no, the military of North Korea is hardly comparable with that of Iraq. Equipment and training differences aside, the one key element that put the Iraqi military above the N. Koreans is that the Iraqis were a veteran, well-seasoned, experienced force. The North Koreans, to my knowledge, have not engaged in any real military action in some 50 years (aside from isolated incidents such as torpedoing south korean warships or shelling civilian population centers every 2-3 years). For the most part, the South Koreans are a conscript force, about as green as they come. The South Koreans at least have been able to engage in multinational training, and have sent forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as being involved in previous conflicts (like Vietnam).

Where are you getting this information about open dissent in the ranks and poor morale?

Thats public knowledge. Have a look around for statements made by visitors/defectors.

All advantages are unreliable. You should look into the success rate of US air strikes on entrenched positions. They aren't very high.

All advantages are unreliable. You should look into the success rate of larger armies fighting the US. They aren't very high.

The same logic goes both ways.

Using 50-year-old data in the course of making an argument regarding military and political matters is a very bad idea.

So its okay for Ketara to use 50-year-old data in the course of making an argument, but I'm not allowed to use the same 50-year-old data to counter it? I see how this works.

Most nuclear weapons don't detonate within range of those types of systems, so using them in this argument is foolish. One effective weapons system does not imply other effective weapons systems.

CIWS and AEGIS(which I dont use as an example, because I have my doubts as to its effectiveness) are in place to defend against attempts like this. Phalanx CIWS has an effective radius of about 4km, as shown previously, the (believed) output of N. Korean warheads has a radius of half that, meaning that in order for a nuclear warhead to have the max. effect, it would have to enter within striking distance of the LAST DITCH air defense system we have in place. If AEGIS is as good as they say, then its doubtful that CIWS would even come into play.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with my point, which is, US intelligence is not omniscient. Relying on whatever newspaper report you've read as being absolute hand on heart gospel strikes me as....well, a little silly if I'm honest.

Perception is reality. Information is never perfect, and even generals and the people responsible for making national policy have incomplete information. You use the information that is available to you, extrapolate and make predictions, and then you make contingencies. Granted, a General will (hopefully) have access to more information than I do, but considering that more than one general (among them CSAF Norton Schwartz) has come out and said that the US has the capability to handle the situation militarily if need be, I would assume that they are either A) about as well-informed as I am (which would be sad indeed), or B) have better information than I do which leads them to the same conclusion (much more likely).

As I said, 'this isn't to imply that it would be repeated'. You seem to have this habit of ignoring the main point I was making, which, to clarify, was 'underestimation of their military capabilities is a fatal flaw'. These people have nuclear weapons. You don't seem to have processed this fact, let alone responded to the second point I made, about how nuclear weapons will pretty much screw up any kind of conventional assault by S. Korea.

A nuclear weapon is only as good as its delivery system. Thats the point you seem to be missing. A nuke is a threat to nobody if it can't be used to strike the target. Pakistan has nuclear weapons. Am I worried about them dropping one on a US city? No, no I'm not. Why? Because they have no capability to deliver it. In fact, I'm more afraid of them handing off the weapon to a terrorist organization that sticks it on a cargo ship and sails into an American harbor. Ditto North Korea. In that case, its almost better that military forces get hit. Its a bloody sacrifice, but better people that know full well what they are getting themselves into than the unsuspecting public at large that are not prepared to handle that situation, not to mention the previously mentioned economic impact that might otherwise result.

1. You are underestimating everything to do with N. Korea.
2. You are quite cold blooded about the deaths of many, many American soldiers, over a backwater Asian country. This is not necessarily a bad trait in a higher level general, and doesn't bother me particularly as a War Studies student. What does is how you'll quite happily commit them to death in a scenario in which there is absolutely no gain for the US.
3. You ignore just how catastrophic a dozen nuclear weapons dropping across the Korean peninsula would be, in terms of fallout, radiation, and actual deaths. The nuclear weapons are not necessarily limited to just N. Korea, as has been pointed out several times now, by me and other posters.

1. Perhaps I am, but logic and historical analogues indicate that I am not.
2. Fact: North Korea has nuclear weapons. Their use against American military forces is about as likely as their use against a civilian target (most likely as part of some deal with a terrorist organization). Decision sciences and engineering indicates that the better of the two outcomes is their use against military forces. In any case, the probability of either event occuring is miniscule. What is your risk tolerance?
3. I'm only concerned about actual deaths. Depending on the location of their use, fallout and radiation will have a minimal impact due to the geographic and atmospheric features of the Korean Peninsula. Most of the fallout would be contained to the area which any such weapon was used, and the residual would scatter into the ocean (which would probably suck if you like eating fish, but otherwise would not seriously impact anyone), barring any anomolous weather patterns. Use outside of the Korean peninsula, as I have TRIED EXPLAINING TO YOU, is minimal to non-existent. As has been pointed out several times now, by me and other posters, the N. Koreans are playing with big bombs. They do not have any known platform in their inventory that could move such a weapon, let alone employ it accurately. In the off chance they somehow managed to develop an ICBM capable of striking with any degree of accuracy and hauling such a large payload, we would know about the attempt well in advance of any such launch.

That reads as being pretty in favour of the US starting hostilities. If you disagree, you need to be far more careful with how you write, as that is how it reads.

Well, my bad. But 'we' in this case refers to a lot of different people considering how many have actually been involved in the hostilities and the proceedings over the years.

Sure. That's fine. As I said though, they only need to get lucky once.....you have to be lucky all the time.

No, you only have to be lucky about 10 times, as thats about all they have to throw at us.

Ketara wrote:
EDIT: Ah, a little digging reveals you be an Engineering student with aspirations of joining the US air force. So not quite the lofty position you'd have me believe with that statement.

Things have changed a bit in recent times

Not a general yet though, but one doesn't need to be to be in a position of authority.

I agree with everything said there. I simply postulate that the US would never risk that miniscule chance(be it 0.000001% or lower) of the N. Koreans going out in a blaze of glory, as there's nothing in it for them, and far too much to lose for everyone involved.

You mean like how during Gulf War 1 the US didn't risk the miniscule chance of the Iraqis going out in a blaze of glory by dispersing chemical and biological agents (and at some point it was still believed that they possessed nuclear capability) all over there own positions in a vain attempt to take us down too? Yeah, for a War Studies student you seem to be missing a lot of the history that suggests otherwise.

I don't mean to imply that there would be an Iraq-like insurgency, I more mean to point out that being able to kick the crap out of people militarily doesn't result in immediate goodness. That's why I add the "starve to death" angle. Even if the populace was happy to capitulate, something totally miserable would occur that could not be destroyed with precision smartbombs.

Reunification is solely a South Korean issue. The international community will most certainly offer up whatever aid it can, like in any such famine or natural disaster type situation, but this is something that the South Koreans have been preparing for for many, many years.

Exactly. Its important to remember that during Desert Storm, after a 4 week bombing campaign, coalition forces only managed to destroy about 40% of the Iraqi ground forces. That's a really large number, but not large enough to stop the bombardment of Seoul; especially when you include the fact that the majority of successful strikes were on mobilized formations in Kuwait.

Yeah, but the remaining 60% (largely)surrendered, which is what counts. Besides that, the 40% that was eliminated were the 'elite' Iraqi units and those units on the front line. Most of the remaining 60% were in reserve or not in high priority areas. You don't need to destroy 100% of the North Korean army to stop them from bombing Seoul, probably more like 10%, if that much. In any case, Artillery pieces have a limited range, they are also rather big and obvious (for the most part). The US has 2 F-16 squadrons and an A-10 squadron in place already, positioned and briefed to strike the known arty positions almost immediately. Yeah, Seoul will most likely still take a heavy hit, but the arty won't last too much longer. If the combined Korean and US air assets don't eliminate the arty, its only a 20 mile drive into N. Korean territory to neutralize the position by land. Granted, its a contested 20 mile drive, but 20 miles in a day is hardly unheard of.

What, so all the tourists are allowed into North Korean Nuclear facilities? You seem to be reading my counterarguments, and ignoring the argument I was arguing against. The result being your responses don't quite match to the points I'm making....

You dont need to visit a nuclear facility to figure out that the Korean military is suffering from low morale and dissent. Keep your arguments straight, rather than trying to use one to prove another unrelated one.

Being cautious is essential in a situation with nuclear weaponry involved. This was my point. I have never stated that N. Korea would win a conventional war. Simply that underestimating your foe is stupid, and due to the complicating factors, and minimal chance of N. Korea going bull-gak crazy and wanting to go out with a bang, you guys will not invade. Too much potential risk for too little gain.

The problem is that that is a completely illogical argument. Simply making the guarantee that there is one less "rogue" state with nuclear weapons running around is gain enough. And as you said, there is a minimal chance of such an event occurring. If everyone used your reasoning when making big decisions... well, damnit, there probably wouldn't be any wars at all (as ironic as that sounds)!

The US does not need very many people or weapons systems to destroy any military in open combat. The problem is that we need LOTS of people to then stand around and try to figure out how to build a new power station, and then we don't know where all the wire went, and wait, where's the million dollars in cash we had to bribe the local warlord, it was just sitting right there, and oh noes...

Again, SK's problem. They have an entire branch of government bureaucracy dedicated to resolving that problem alone. Hopefully, that bureaucracies solution isn't to let the US handle it, thats not our place or our responsibility. Again, if there are hostilities on the peninsula, its when the North/South decide its time, we are only there to support our allies.

Hey, that's an idea, the DPRK using a nuclear warhead on a torpedo to sink a US carrier. THAT'D hurt, even if it wouldn't win them the war. Considering the Cheonan incident, they evidently have working submarines. I guess they don't have the tech to place a nuke in a torpedo yet though?

Unlikely. From what I have seen, they couldn't even get a warhead on the submarine (way too small...). If they did have that kind of capability, I'm sure they would have tried it already, given that we have a carrier in the area at the moment.

N. Korea doesn't have the means to place their nukes on Missile, Torpedoes, Artillery Shells yet. Thankfully. But I wouldn't for a minute think that they aren't trying.

All the more reason why this needs to be wrapped up sooner rather than later.

And that's really the thing, isn't it? Everyone thought they were ages away from producing nuclear weapons, and they scared the crap out of everyone. If they could build nukes even though everyone sanctioned them they obviously have some good scientists. Either that or they bought the schematics from someone. Either way, it wouldn't be too far-fetched to imagine the NKoreans either creating or buying some sort of nuclear delivery system, would it?

Building nuclear weapons (of the type used by the koreans) isn't all that difficult in the grand scheme of things. The hard part is acquiring the materials needed. Miniaturizing them for practical use is a different matter entirely (and is what took the manhattan project years to figure out, and even they didn't get them down to as small a size as they would be 10-20 years down the road).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Right, but the two weapons tested by N. Korea were plutonium based. Uranium based weapons are extremely unstable and hard to design safely. Getting a usable uranium weapon is far easier than a plutonium weapon, getting a usable uranium weapon that doesn't blow up in your face when you don't want it to isn't.

No, certain types of uranium weapons are extremely unstable. U-238 gun-type weapons are both highly stable, and incredibly easy to build.

Regardless, the relative difficulty of designing uranium weapons does not indicate that designing them is impossible. As such, there is no reason to conclude that a uranium facility in North Korea is not related to nuclear weapons. It may be, or it may not be, but to say that it can't be is simply incorrect.

chaos0xomega wrote:
While you are correct about the terrain, no, the military of North Korea is hardly comparable with that of Iraq. Equipment and training differences aside, the one key element that put the Iraqi military above the N. Koreans is that the Iraqis were a veteran, well-seasoned, experienced force.

No, that's also false. The majority of the Iraqi army at the the time of Desert Storm was composed of conscripts taken after the Iran-Iraq war. Hence the high rate of surrender outside the Republican Guard.

You're assuming that the Iraqi military was structured in a way that is similar to the US military. This is a poor assumption.

By contrast, the DPRK armed forces, while composed of conscripts, have been so conditioned by the amount of time that North Korea has been as it is that they can be regarded as quasi-professional. North Korea also has a massive militia, roughly 3.5 million people.

Structurally the two armed services are very different, they are comparable in the sense that they each use similar technologies (old Soviet hardware). If anything the North Korean force is superior due to more extensive training, and superior numbers vis a vis the militia.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Thats public knowledge. Have a look around for statements made by visitors/defectors.

Oh, right, the same old unreliable information sources.

You can't pronounce the testimony from those sources as fact. There is considerable pressure for defectors to state something other than the truth. Not to mention that negatives are always more pronounced among individuals that opt out of an organization.

chaos0xomega wrote:
All advantages are unreliable. You should look into the success rate of larger armies fighting the US. They aren't very high.

The same logic goes both ways.

Yes it does.

The purpose of that argument is to introduce uncertainty. I'm not arguing from a position of certainty, so that's fine for me. You are, so it isn't for you.

chaos0xomega wrote:
So its okay for Ketara to use 50-year-old data in the course of making an argument, but I'm not allowed to use the same 50-year-old data to counter it? I see how this works.

Why would you make that assumption? I'm responding to you, not Ketara.

chaos0xomega wrote:
CIWS and AEGIS(which I dont use as an example, because I have my doubts as to its effectiveness) are in place to defend against attempts like this.

No, CIWS has nothing at all to do with nuclear attacks; especially air-burst detonations. AEGIS is relevant to them, so your doubts regarding its effectiveness should meter your feelings regarding a US invasion of North Korea.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Phalanx CIWS has an effective radius of about 4km, as shown previously, the (believed) output of N. Korean warheads has a radius of half that, meaning that in order for a nuclear warhead to have the max. effect, it would have to enter within striking distance of the LAST DITCH air defense system we have in place. If AEGIS is as good as they say, then its doubtful that CIWS would even come into play.

No, CIWS has an effective linear range of about 3.6km, which is indicative of its effective range when targeting objects with a flight path that is not ballistic; basically cruise and anti-ship missiles. Against ballistic projectiles it is far less effective, due both to a curved path of intercept (its difficult to make two ballistic projectiles hit on another reliably), and range reduction due to gravity.

You have to consider the vertical ballistic range of a CIWS system relative to detonation altitude when hypothesizing about its effectiveness against nuclear attacks that aren't made using cruise missiles.