www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

parts that are italicized are mine

North Korea is one of the few nations that can engage in a total war with the United States.

North Korea has made it clear that it will strike all US targets with all means, if the US mounted military attacks on North Korea.

First, total war is North Korea's avowed strategy in case of US preemptive attacks. The US war on Iraq shows that the US can and will mount preemptive strikes in clear violation of international laws, and the United Nations is powerless to stop the US. Backfire

If the US mounts a preemptive strike on North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear plants, North Korea will retaliate with weapons of mass destruction: North Korea will mount strategic nuclear attacks on the US targets.

North Korea does not regard South Korea its main enemy because South Korea is a client state of the United States and has no ability or power to act independent of the US. North Korea's war plan is not for invading South Korea but for destroying the US.

North Korea has annual production capacity for 200,000 AK automatic guns, 3,000 heavy guns, 200 battle tanks, 400 armored cars and amphibious crafts. North Korea makes its own submarines, landing drafts, high-speed missile-boats, and other types of warships. But based on outdated desgins.

North Korea's military is organized into several independent, totally integrated and self-sufficient fighting units, that are ready for action at any time.

the main cause of Iraq's defeat was the low moral of its soldiers. Well some say that Saddam told them to give up.

In September 1996, a North Korean submarine got stranded at Kangrung, South Korea, and its crew abandoned the ship. Eleven of the crew committed suicide and the rest fought to the last man except one who was captured. In June 1998, another submarine got caught in fishing nets at Sokcho and its crew killed themselves. Such is the fighting spirit of North Korean soldiers.

North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world.

They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours.

Gen. Thomas A Schwartz, a former US army commander in Korea, stated that the US army in Korea would be destroyed in less than three hours

T-62s - have 155 mm guns and can travel as fast as 60 km per hour. The US main tanks - M1A - have 120 mm guns and cannot travel faster than 55 km per hour. North Korean tanks have skins 700 mm thick and TOW-II is the only anti-tank missile in the US arsenal that can penetrate this armored skin. Yes but the T-62 has proven a liablity to the Iraqi's against the M1A1, and what good is speed if your gun won't work while you are at top speed, thus the T-62. See I can be objective

On December 17, 1994, a wha-sung missile brought down an American OH-58C spy helicopter which strayed north of the DMZ.

The US army has A-10 attack planes to counter North Korea's mechanized units. In case of war, the skies over Korea will be filled with fighters in close dog-fights and the A-10s would be ineffective. I question that, the US will eventually win the skies from N.korea. Over time mind you and if the whole country isn't nuked out. Also if the fighters on the American and S.Korean side survive the initial wave of N.Korea's wrath.

The attackers will be aided by SU-25 attack planes and attack helicopters. Same for them, unless N.Korea attack with a huge pouring of CAP.

North Korea's army runs on company-size units. Tunnel warfare is conducted by independent company-size units. Tunnel entrances are built to withstand US chemical and biological attacks. Tunnels run zig-zag and have seals, air-purification units, and safe places for the troops to rest. It is believed that North Korea has built about 20 large tunnels near the DMZ. A large tunnel can transport 15,000 troops per hour across the DMZ and place them behind the US troops. I've heard reports that some can acutally fit tanks in them to cross the border.

North Korea has the largest special forces, 120,000 troops, in the world. Dirty bombs in the US, Japan, Canada, Europe?

These troops will be tasked to attack US military installations in Korea, Japan, Okinawa and Guam Them too.

How good are North Korea's special forces? In September 1996, a North Korean submarine was stranded near Kang-nung and the crew were forced to abandon the ship and land on South Korea. The sub had two special forces agents who had finished a mission in South Korea and were picked up by the sub before the sub ran into a rock. The two men fought off an army of South Korean troops and remained at large for 50 days, during which they killed 11 of the pursuers.


North Korea has operational fleets of ICBM and intermediate-range missiles equipped with nuclear warheads. From Scuds to Tae Pong 2's that could attack Pearle Harbour, and possibly as far as San Diego.

an expert on Kim Jong Il's war plans, has recently confirmed that North Korea has more than 100 nukes including hydrogen bombs even I don't believe that.

The B-61 Mod 11 is the main bunker buster in the US arsenal. A recent test showed that this buster could penetrate only 6 meters of rock. The latest GBU-28 laser-guided bunker-buster can penetrate to 30m. North Korean bunkers have at least 80 m of top-cover of solid rocks. North Korea has many false caves that emit heats that will misdirect unwary GBU-28/37 and BKU-113 bunker-busters.

SA-5 missiles have an effective range of 250 km. SA-5 missiles can hit enemy planes flying over the middle of South Korea.[b] But that dosen't mean they are effective.

These are mostly manually operated and thus not subject to electronic warfare. [b]But woefully inaccurate.

Sea Battles[b] N.K's biggest faux paux.

[b]In addition, Russia has developed the anti-carrier missile, "jun-gal", I'd bet that is a Stynx, or silkworm copy, if you can please give info.

A carrier is protected by a shield of 6 Aegis destroyers and nuclear attack submarines. An Aegis destroyer has an AN/SPY-1 high-capacity radar system that can track more than 100 targets at the same time. An Aegis can fire about 20 anti-missile missiles at the same time. Thus, a career force can track a total of 600 targets at a time and fire 120 anti-missile missiles at the same time. The anti-missile missiles have about 50% success under ideal conditions. In actual battle situations, the hit rate will be much lower and the best estimate is that the Aegis shield can intercept at most 55 incoming missiles. Therefore, a volley of about 60 missiles and rockets will penetrate the Aegis shield and hit the career.

North Korea has a large supply of mines. North Korean submarines are small but they are equipped with 8km rocket launchers and 70km anti-ship missiles, and they could do some serious damage to US careers.. Remember Trpitz, how many ships needed to destroy a docked ship. I mean US sonars would pick up that sub in a instant it's so loud.

North Korea's fighter planes are ill-equipped for air-to-air combats at long distances. but they can hold their own in close-quarter air combats. MiG-21 fighters from Bongchun and US F-15 from Ohsan would meet in less than 5 min, assuming they took off at about the same time. In about 5 min, hundreds of MiG21s and F-15s would be swirling in the skies over Korea. Ground-to-air missiles and air-to-air missiles would have hard time telling friends from foes. F-15Es are equipped with a radar system that lock on at 180 km for large objects and 90 km for small objects. Sidewinder missiles have an effective range of 16km, AMRAAM missiles of 50km, and Sparrow of 55km. He doesn't want to say it but the US could win this one.

North Korea sent 25 pilots to Syria during the 3rd Arab-Israeli war of 1966, Firstly 1967 and secondly to tell you the truth the Israeli's litterally destroyed those Arab forces.

North Korea trains about 100 hackers a year and has computer virus battalions in place. These hackers are capable of interrupting US communication networks. Very important could disable markets in the west causing havoc, deleting bank accounts and general wealth to make the American public wish they would have though twice about this war.

In general, Western experts tend to underestimate North Korea's military strength True!

Well, after reading that it makes you think. But what I am sure of is this N.K has much more than just one nuke, at least ten. She has to have at least that many to say that is a nuke power. Another thing is that they have extensive underground network of everything from aircraft to wheat. N.K policy is to destroy the enemies will to fight. Millions would die in this war, and we can't seem to guarentee that it can't happen this time.

First off, can we have a poll option that just says "Yes, they are a threat" without spouting a lot of rather aggressive language?

Originally posted by nico
First, total war is North Korea's avowed strategy in case of US preemptive attacks. The US war on Iraq shows that the US can and will mount preemptive strikes in clear violation of international laws, and the United Nations is powerless to stop the US.Backfire Indeed. As I said before the invasion, invading Iraq and ignoring the UN was a more dangerous route for international security than leaving the situation alone.
But based on outdated desgins.The AK-47 is a rather old design and it is still one of the finest battlefield rifles available. And the knife is a much older design, and it's still part of standard military kit. Don't discount a design simply because it's old - old designs can have retrofitted electronics and weapons systems.
Well some say that Saddam told them to give up.That's not terribly believable - far more believable is that a deal was struck to prevent large amounts of damage and casualties.
Yes but the T-62 has proven a liablity to the Iraqi's against the M1A1, and what good is speed if your gun won't work while you are at top speed, thus the T-62. See I can be objective Yes, but recall that the scenario here is of the DPRK being attacked and retaliating - so you're more looking at a NATO-in-west-germany strategy of defending positions rather than an attacking strategy, at least for the first few hours.
To be frank, the apache is the main worry for the T-62, followed by the A-10, and then small anti-tank weapons like the TOW-2, and then finally the M1A1.
I question that, the US will eventually win the skies from N.korea. Over time mind you and if the whole country isn't nuked out. Also if the fighters on the American and S.Korean side survive the initial wave of N.Korea's wrath. Assuming every single aircraft in the ROK is in the air in a single massive strike on the DPRK, their airbases are still likely to be gravel pits by the end of the day - so your air superiority is likely to be quite difficult to take from the DPRK. Also, US army reports have stated that the A-10 is an inferior close air support system to the Apache - and the Apache is a more vulnerable target for anti-aircraft fire.
Same for them, unless N.Korea attack with a huge pouring of CAP. The DPRK aircraft have the advantage of being more russian in design and thus more sturdy - the Frogfoot, don't forget, is just about as tough as the A-10, and proved it in afghanistan. Hence they don't need large runways, sophisticated maintainance, specialised fuels, or whatever. Also, don't forget that you're talking here about attacking a nation with a developed military. The home field advantage, to borrow a phrase, is a big one here.
I've heard reports that some can acutally fit tanks in them to cross the border.I'd treat that skeptically - B-52 carpet bombing would play havoc with most tunnelling efforts.
Dirty bombs in the US, Japan, Canada, Europe?It's unlikely that that would be done by special forces. Far more likely to sell or give the bombs away. And forget dirty bombs - stick a live nuke in a 40-foot container and ship it to the US. At the present state of alert (orange) in NYC, one in 50 of these containers is examined due to funding problems.
I don't believe that. Neither does anyone else really. But that the DPRK has some nukes? I'd be very skeptical of claims to the contrary.
But that dosen't mean they are effective.It's a case of numbers really - put up far more SA-5s than needed, while shelling runways to gravel, and you have an effective anti-air system.
But woefully inaccurate.Not woefully - just labour intensive. And again, playing the numbers game...
Therefore, a volley of about 60 missiles and rockets will penetrate the Aegis shield and hit the career.I think it'll be a lot more than 60. Remember to apply the same assumptions on system failures to the missiles as to the carrier, if not more. Try 180 missiles or more - but even on a cost-benefit ratio evaluation, that's still cheap at the price.
Remember Trpitz, how many ships needed to destroy a docked ship. I mean US sonars would pick up that sub in a instant it's so loud.Recall the war games held in the persian gulf in 2000 - the Red force eliminated virtually all the opposing Blue force's ships, including a carrier, using nothing more than small motor launches.
He doesn't want to say it but the US could win this one.They might win the battle, but while they're attacking in the air, the DPRK artillery is shelling the runways that those F-15s have to return to.
Well, after reading that it makes you think. But what I am sure of is this N.K has much more than just one nuke, at least ten. She has to have at least that many to say that is a nuke power. Another thing is that they have extensive underground network of everything from aircraft to wheat. N.K policy is to destroy the enemies will to fight. Millions would die in this war, and we can't seem to guarentee that it can't happen this time.
Frankly, it would be an unholy mess, it's not even close to certain that the US would or even could win, and I still have to see what they could gain from a war that can't be gained through other means.

First off, can we have a poll option that just says "Yes, they are a threat" without spouting a lot of rather aggressive language?


NO, it adds effect :D

The AK-47 is a rather old design and it is still one of the finest battlefield rifles available. And the knife is a much older design, and it's still part of standard military kit. Don't discount a design simply because it's old - old designs can have retrofitted electronics and weapons systems

But a gun EI is much different than a tank or jet fighter. A M16 was designed in the 60's and the Ak's the 40's there haven't that meny improvements over the last 40 years to replace either unlike in Tanks. I am discounting the design I am discounting it's effectiveness. I highly doubt that NK has really that much that hi-tech toys to put in their tanks to upgrade them. Even if the T-62's were updated the M1A2's were desgined for a Korea and European thearte.

That's not terribly believable - far more believable is that a deal was struck to prevent large amounts of damage and casualties.

True.

To be frank, the apache is the main worry for the T-62, followed by the A-10, and then small anti-tank weapons like the TOW-2, and then finally the M1A1.

The biggest threat to the Apache is Iraqi farmers! LOL, no but really the hilly nature of Korea would offer a death trap for the Apahces, remember Kosovo they were there but they didn't even fight. A-10's better escourted MiG-21's are going to be flying at low level with Ground Radars telling them where the A-10's are. The US needs a Hind type of helicopter if she hopes to get rid of that rep.

I'd treat that skeptically - B-52 carpet bombing would play havoc with most tunnelling efforts.

These tunnels porbably exist right now, we don't know. And the NK would be pouring into SK so the B-52's would come just tad late, and most C&C in SK would be gone, and if NK has nukes most air bases in the region could be gone as well.

It's a case of numbers really - put up far more SA-5s than needed, while shelling runways to gravel, and you have an effective anti-air system.

The SA-5 would best be used to attack American bombers. The US over a short period of time could only use the Long Range aircraft ie F-15E, and carrier borne aircraft so A-10's Apaches, they'll be all gone in the first days.

Not woefully - just labour intensive. And again, playing the numbers game...

I would put my ZSU's in the hills and valleys ready to target whatever is left of Allied helicopter forces.

They might win the battle, but while they're attacking in the air, the DPRK artillery is shelling the runways that those F-15s have to return to.

We assume that the F-15's would take off in the first place, Seoul would be utterly destroyed and possibly even captured by the NK's. If they used their weapons right they could take Sk.

Frankly, it would be an unholy mess, it's not even close to certain that the US would or even could win, and I still have to see what they could gain from a war that can't be gained through other means.

I also doubt American cockiness on this one, I don't think that they will win if they keep this Iraq rant on. The war in NK is the last vestage of the Cold War, I think to avoid millions of deaths we should just concede to the fact NK is a nuke power. It's all or nothing.

NO, it adds effect :D
Okay so, I won't vote.

But a gun EI is much different than a tank or jet fighter. A M16 was designed in the 60's and the Ak's the 40's there haven't that meny improvements over the last 40 years to replace either unlike in Tanks.
Incorrect - the M16 has seen a lot of changes, to prevent jamming in the field amongst other things.

I am discounting the design I am discounting it's effectiveness. I highly doubt that NK has really that much that hi-tech toys to put in their tanks to upgrade them. Even if the T-62's were updated the M1A2's were desgined for a Korea and European thearte.
Remember that even when outclassed, tanks make for effective mobile artillery units.

The biggest threat to the Apache is Iraqi farmers! LOL, no but really the hilly nature of Korea would offer a death trap for the Apahces, remember Kosovo they were there but they didn't even fight.
I was under the impression that apache pilots (especially longbow pilots) were trained in hilly terrain and that that's where it operated best...

We assume that the F-15's would take off in the first place, Seoul would be utterly destroyed and possibly even captured by the NK's. If they used their weapons right they could take Sk.We're assuming that the US makes the first strike though.

I also doubt American cockiness on this one, I don't think that they will win if they keep this Iraq rant on. The war in NK is the last vestage of the Cold War, I think to avoid millions of deaths we should just concede to the fact NK is a nuke power. It's all or nothing.Seems like the logical course to me.

Okay so, I won't vote.


Free will man, enjoy it :)

Incorrect - the M16 has seen a lot of changes, to prevent jamming in the field amongst other things

But at the end of the day it's still the same gun, is it not? There hasn't been a revolutionary design for a Machine Gun in a long while. Thus to compare a AK-47 to a T-62 is wacko.

Remember that even when outclassed, tanks make for effective mobile artillery units.

I think if the crews can use the tank in a moblie mode not in bunkers it would be harder for the US. I am wondering if NK has ERA then I would increase the T-62's abilities against the M1A2.

I was under the impression that apache pilots (especially longbow pilots) were trained in hilly terrain and that that's where it operated best...

Well that reputation has been tarnsihed in 1999 in Kosovo hasn't it?

Seems like the logical course to me.

Usually does even dealing with non-Americans



:)

Perhaps you could all agree that a war with North Korea would cost more than its worth. And that war is a stupid thing.