If North Korea go to war

Gazzaputt

DonDaddyD wrote:

Still think the North is just postering: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22011207

Baiting is more like it.

Baiting to be wiped off the face of the planet!

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

If there is a War in the East then those incredibly strong Eastern currencies will start to faulter and Western currencies will been as more valuable. All I'm saying is that Un Kim-Jong may actually help end the global recession and save our economy...

Or alternatively cause instability in an economic region we rely on for our prosperity. If a conflict begins in North Korea, China and South Korea will have to deal with millions of North Korean refugees trying to get across the borders. Having said that if we get the whole thing done with and out of the way it might be better for local Asian markets, financial markets in particular don't flourish on instability...

SteppenHerring

I take back my Apple/Samsung theory. I now think that Kim Jong Un has found out that his barber lives in South Korea.

rjsterry

Kim Jong Un

Tombliboo Un

edhornby

you do know that Kim Jon Un went to school in Germany and Switzerland ? he may be agressive and a bit dim but he won't be so utterly brainwashed that he thinks the country is invincible - how much he knows about weapon capability is debatable tho....

BigJimmyB

suzyb wrote:

nah I hope England do get involved. Would be funny seeing you lot get your arses kicked in a war because us Scots, Welsh and Irish aren't there to back you up

Like any of you England-subsidised to$$ers would be any use to us anyway....

gabriel959

People here are diminishing the threat of a full scale war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world, albeit technologically not at the level of South Korea. Any war in between the two Koreas won't be as easily and quickly resolved as some claim.

Kieran_Burns

I think this educated analysis gives a good summary:

http://world.time.com/2013/04/03/poker- ... he-stakes/

First, they manufacture a crisis. They behave pretty much like they’re behaving now. They drive tensions high. And sooner or later, the international community and the major players begin to feel unwell and tense and insecure. At that point, North Koreans suggest to start negotiations, and they extract aid and other concessions in exchange for their willingness to return to the status quo. So, they first manufacture a crisis, and then they get paid for resolving the crisis. This approach, these tactics have worked perfectly well for many, many years, but recently it’s losing its efficiency, because the outside world, above all the United States, have finally learned how it usually works with North Korea, and they are not really rushing with money and concessions. And this is what North Korea wants above all: money and concessions from the outside world. So, obviously, it’s quite possible that the North Korean decision makers decided to go really seriously loud this time.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/04/03/poker- ... z2PPAkO3qW

bails87

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

mtb-idle

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

LOL, that's what I was thinking.

Perhaps that should have read "war with North Korea, which possesses the biggest army in North Korea"

mtb-idle

or as Bill Hicks (RIP) once said

"yeah, but there's a real big drop-off after the first three. Like I'm the fifth biggest army in the world"

gabriel959

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

No, it is larger than those ....

"As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

il_principe

I suspect the little fat dictator has just watched the latest remake of Red Dawn and though, hang on...

The Rookie

gabriel959 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

No, it is larger than those ....

"As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

You clearly missed

Active personnel 1,106,000 (ranked 5th)[2] (2010)

Difference between 'army' (or in this case 'military') and adding in a stack of hypothetical reserves which they may or may not be able to mobilise, equip, feed or otherwise use in a meaningful way.

Big_Paul

The Beginner wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

No, it is larger than those ....

"As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

You clearly missed

Active personnel 1,106,000 (ranked 5th)[2] (2010)

Difference between 'army' (or in this case 'military') and adding in a stack of hypothetical reserves which they may or may not be able to mobilise, equip, feed or otherwise use in a meaningful way.

You don't have to be a genius to wield an AK-47, plenty of kids do it in Africa, and the USSR in WW2 and the VC in Vietnam proved that if you have enough cannon fodder, you can still do ok regardless of the logistics.

gabriel959

The Beginner wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

No, it is larger than those ....

"As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

You clearly missed

Active personnel 1,106,000 (ranked 5th)[2] (2010)

Difference between 'army' (or in this case 'military') and adding in a stack of hypothetical reserves which they may or may not be able to mobilise, equip, feed or otherwise use in a meaningful way.

No, I didn't. I counted the official figures which as you say they might not be able to equip, feed or use, but that is just speculation. For that matter they might not be able to do that to their active army as until only a few years ago there were severe cases of malnutrition and food shortages in North Korea.

pangolin

If we are going on wikipedia's "available for service" then the UK has a military numbering 28,636,463.

edit: But we're not, so I will quietly slink off. Bye!

EKE_38BPM

Big_Paul wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

No, it is larger than those ....

"As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

You clearly missed

Active personnel 1,106,000 (ranked 5th)[2] (2010)

Difference between 'army' (or in this case 'military') and adding in a stack of hypothetical reserves which they may or may not be able to mobilise, equip, feed or otherwise use in a meaningful way.

You don't have to be a genius to wield an AK-47, plenty of kids do it in Africa, and the USSR in WW2 and the VC in Vietnam proved that if you have enough cannon fodder, you can still do ok regardless of the logistics.

The AK-47 didn't exist during WWII.

gabriel959

No, their available for service is 12,933,972. I was quoting all the army personnel, including the paramilitary organisations.

EKE_38BPM

All of this talk of numbers is pretty meaningless. If it takes 15 administrators for each person actually dealing death then that force is less efficient than an opponent which only needs 10 REMFs for each warrior.
Also how good are the warriors and their equipment? If North Korea has a massive infantary with AKs and the Yanks stick a couple of cruise missiles in their barracks then their numbers are next to useless.

Much like Iran's "Stealth Fighter"or their fleet of Ekranoplans, I think much of North Korea's actions are for internal propaganda, but they need to show this stuff and we see it and react. The administration can then show us reacting and say to their people, "See, they're scared of us."

rjsterry

Anyone else spot that piece about the poorly photoshopped images published by NK of their army practising a beach assault.

corriebee1

This one? Amazing!

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/north-koreans-send-photoshop-army-into-battle-20130328-2gvmp.html

jimmypippa

DonDaddyD wrote:

If North Korea goes to war with South Korea and America will it destablise the economy in the East and inadvertently trigger a recovery in the West?

War is a terrible thing, however, it looks like North Korea want to go to war irrespective of the intentions of any other Country. So if it does happen clearly there will be dreadful loses, but, are there any gains?

I could see Japan, Russia and China getting involved. I hope England stays out of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-21999193

A lot has been said before.

North Korea almost certainly doesn't have the capability to launch a nuclear missile or even to carry a nuclear bomb- assuming that the DPRK airforce didn't get shot out of the sky. Maybe they could use a ship or submarine to deliver one to destroy a coastal city, but even if it did, then it will have shot its bolt as it has maybe one or two nuclear warheads (not working weapons) in total.

It does have about 8,000 artillery pieces within range of Seoul, and some of those are probably capable of firing chemical weapons (or possibly biological weapons).

The civilian casualties could be huge. As to the other part of the question - it would cause massive disruption and and damage the UK and US economies and especially the German economy.

Manufacturing is still important - especially to the German economy, and there are a lot of exports to the Far East.

High tech companies exporting into that area would be hit, shares would tumble and the loss of confidence by exporters would lead to them using less goods and services in the West, knocking on to the rest of the economy./ Similarly, importers would be hit and prices would rise, which again would not be very good.

Gold and pawnbrokers would probably do well though. Maybe payday loan companies due to the increased layoffs.

Defence companies would also get a boost as munitions would need to be replaced. As would construction companies and decontamination specialists trying to rebuild Seoul - but this is the broken window fallacy

jimmypippa

Headhuunter wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

If there is a War in the East then those incredibly strong Eastern currencies will start to faulter and Western currencies will been as more valuable. All I'm saying is that Un Kim-Jong may actually help end the global recession and save our economy...

Or alternatively cause instability in an economic region we rely on for our prosperity. If a conflict begins in North Korea, China and South Korea will have to deal with millions of North Korean refugees trying to get across the borders. Having said that if we get the whole thing done with and out of the way it might be better for local Asian markets, financial markets in particular don't flourish on instability...

Or this^^

Big_Paul

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Big_Paul wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

war with North Korea, which posseses the biggest army in the world

The biggest if you don't count India, China and the USA....

No, it is larger than those ....

"As of 2013, with 9,495,000 active, reserve, and paramilitary personnel, it is the largest military organization on earth"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People%27s_Army

You clearly missed

Active personnel 1,106,000 (ranked 5th)[2] (2010)

Difference between 'army' (or in this case 'military') and adding in a stack of hypothetical reserves which they may or may not be able to mobilise, equip, feed or otherwise use in a meaningful way.

You don't have to be a genius to wield an AK-47, plenty of kids do it in Africa, and the USSR in WW2 and the VC in Vietnam proved that if you have enough cannon fodder, you can still do ok regardless of the logistics.

The AK-47 didn't exist during WWII.

I know it didn't, I was making a different point entirely, that the Sovs sent plenty of untrained, unequipped suckers into the sights of the Wehrmacht, they took incredible losses but still pushed the Germans back through weight of numbers.

jimmypippa

Big_Paul wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Big_Paul wrote:

You don't have to be a genius to wield an AK-47, plenty of kids do it in Africa, and the USSR in WW2 and the VC in Vietnam proved that if you have enough cannon fodder, you can still do ok regardless of the logistics.

The AK-47 didn't exist during WWII.

I know it didn't, I was making a different point entirely, that the Sovs sent plenty of untrained, unequipped suckers into the sights of the Wehrmacht, they took incredible losses but still pushed the Germans back through weight of numbers.

Also in the (last) Korean war.

In some battles the Soviets sent in more troops than rifles - the unarmed troops were supposed to scavenge weapons from their dead comrades.

However the balance has probably tipped more against these tactics - if one remembers the first Iraq war.

EKE_38BPM

Big_Paul wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Big_Paul wrote:

You don't have to be a genius to wield an AK-47, plenty of kids do it in Africa, and the USSR in WW2 and the VC in Vietnam proved that if you have enough cannon fodder, you can still do ok regardless of the logistics.

The AK-47 didn't exist during WWII.

I know it didn't, I was making a different point entirely, that the Sovs sent plenty of untrained, unequipped suckers into the sights of the Wehrmacht, they took incredible losses but still pushed the Germans back through weight of numbers.

You were factually incorrect. I was just clearing that up.
It could be argued that the VC had pretty good logistics. They needed food (mainly rice) to feed their warriors so they made villagers grow it for them or just took it. Weaponary mostly came in from abroad but was well distributed along the HCM Trail. Their distribution network was slow to transport materiel (as it was often carried by people or animals), but swift to react to developments.
The VC were also passionate warriors who believed in what they were fighting for, the Yanks were massively disillusioned and maybe that passion gave the VC a mental edge which resulted in the desire to fight harder.
My next door neighbour's father-in-law still talks passionately and with obvious pride about his service for the VC. The Yanks I've spoken to feel very differently, more of a "just doing a job" mentality and I'm sure we could all ride faster if we were sufficiently motivated, either positively (that person you fancy has promised you a bunk up if you can beat your PB) or negatively (Sharktopus has mated with the entire zombie army and they are chasing you down with a desire to feast on your brain).

The Rookie

jimmypippa wrote:

In some battles the Soviets sent in more troops than rifles - the unarmed troops were supposed to scavenge weapons from their dead comrades.

That was very early on, and failed, later on the Soviets had superior armoured capability with massively superior numbers and also had greater numbers of ground attack aircraft to go with the numbers of troops, so hardly just a lots of people with small arms running to their slaughter......

Ironically that was the tactic used in the Korean war that failed.

Kursk "The Soviets massed some 1,300,000 men, 3,600 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces, and 2,792 aircraft"

DonDaddyD

How unlikely is it looking today?

cyclingprop

Do you mean war, or battle? They didn't finish the last one.