North Korea may have just declared war on South Korea

I mean, who gives up a 25,000,000 member cult? Can't see it happening. Being the leader of a cult is a top 5 job. That little fat fuck doesn't want to end up hiding in a hole like Saddam.

That shit is for true believers, and unless this apple fell really far from the tree, he isn't doing shit. His old man spouted similar anti-American nonsense while gobbling up every shitty straight to DVD release Hollywood could put out.

It's a shakedown imo, nothing more. And it will likely work, it always has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on this subject, but I've read that NK has about 20,000 artillery but their range is less than 30 miles (the distance between Seoul and the DMZ). Still, that's a very small gap to close, and it's speculated they could easily kill about 30,000 people with a surprise volley. Before getting their shit pushed in, of course.

That's a lot of casualties, and certainly something worth sweating. But I have to think there's almost 0% chance they'll ever actually do it.

---

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BCR

I mean, who gives up a 25,000,000 member cult? Can't see it happening. Being the leader of a cult is a top 5 job. That little fat fuck doesn't want to end up hiding in a hole like Saddam.

That shit is for true believers, and unless this apple fell really far from the tree, he isn't doing shit. His old man spouted similar anti-American nonsense while gobbling up every shitty straight to DVD release Hollywood could put out.

It's a shakedown imo, nothing more. And it will likely work, it always has.

---

Very likely the truth, but to ignore the possibility and to dream that it is preventable is just a dream. Shit happens and to think the U.S. government can prevent it is the ultimate fantasy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackerdoodle jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on this subject, but I've read that NK has about 20,000 artillery but their range is less than 30 miles (the distance between Seoul and the DMZ). Still, that's a very small gap to close, and it's speculated they could easily kill about 30,000 people with a surprise volley. Before getting their shit pushed in, of course.

That's a lot of casualties, and certainly something worth sweating. But I have to think there's almost 0% chance they'll ever actually do it.

---

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

---

Not a great post. As usual. This dickweed knows nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Yeah, it's called a book.

---

Do you think the rogue countries of the world have a pre-nuclear warning system that is linked to the White House? Are you fucking totally insane? Yes you are.

Dumb cunt

---

Seriously? Hahahahaha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Do you think the rogue countries of the world have a pre-nuclear warning system that is linked to the White House? Are you fucking totally insane? Yes you are.

Dumb cunt

---

Seriously? Hahahahaha.

---

Sorry but that means nothing.........Make a statement backed up by facts or get the fuck off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

I think there may well be a hard line element in China's military that has leaked enough tech to DPRK to make a hot war far less one sided than we want to believe.

That said we had similar misgivings about Iraq (invasion, not retention)...

That said, after all the shitty crusades we've been on, Id fucking savor some drone footage of mouthy gooks getting their wigs split by some of God's America Brand DU shells from low orbit.

---

Hear yah re Iraq. But this aint fighting arabs (who suck at war btw). This 2 million strong incredibly well trained and disciplined asian army. That's an issue. Throw in the motivating factor of this regime will murder your entire family if you go awol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackerdoodle jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on this subject, but I've read that NK has about 20,000 artillery but their range is less than 30 miles (the distance between Seoul and the DMZ). Still, that's a very small gap to close, and it's speculated they could easily kill about 30,000 people with a surprise volley. Before getting their shit pushed in, of course.

That's a lot of casualties, and certainly something worth sweating. But I have to think there's almost 0% chance they'll ever actually do it.

---

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

---

Honestly I just skimmed it and can't speak to the credibility of the source. But it seems a fairly in-depth analysis.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-...#axzz2Ozkmo4jD

Leslie is correct, I know little about this. But I already admitted that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limitles

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Seriously? Hahahahaha.

---

Sorry but that means nothing.........Make a statement backed up by facts or get the fuck off.

---

I already told you to open a book, which you obviously aren't gonna do. Now I'm just gonna laugh at you. Lololol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackerdoodle jones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

I'm certainly not knowledgeable on this subject, but I've read that NK has about 20,000 artillery but their range is less than 30 miles (the distance between Seoul and the DMZ). Still, that's a very small gap to close, and it's speculated they could easily kill about 30,000 people with a surprise volley. Before getting their shit pushed in, of course.

That's a lot of casualties, and certainly something worth sweating. But I have to think there's almost 0% chance they'll ever actually do it.

---

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

---

I've read that North Korea most likely has about 8000 pieces of artillery along the DMZ. A large majority of those will be positioned within range of Seoul. Artillery is absolutely devastating against unarmored targets, and Seoul is home to over 25 million people. It would be shooting fish in a barrel. I have to think that 100,000 casualties is a low estimate.

And everyone who assumes that fancy US technology will neutralize those guns should realize that the terrain involved is very much like the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Our satellites and drones have done a terrible job gathering intelligence and striking targets there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackerdoodle jones

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

---

I've read that North Korea most likely has about 8000 pieces of artillery along the DMZ. A large majority of those will be positioned within range of Seoul. Artillery is absolutely devastating against unarmored targets, and Seoul is home to over 25 million people. It would be shooting fish in a barrel. I have to think that 100,000 casualties is a low estimate.

And everyone who assumes that fancy US technology will neutralize those guns should realize that the terrain involved is very much like the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Our satellites and drones have done a terrible job gathering intelligence and striking targets there.

---

And it's all hypothetical obv but if you throw in a nuclear weapon then shit gets real. I'm not saying this is likely to happen. In fact I think the opposite. But, it is not out

of the realm of possibilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SrslySirius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackerdoodle jones

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

---

Honestly I just skimmed it and can't speak to the credibility of the source. But it seems a fairly in-depth analysis.

http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-...#axzz2Ozkmo4jD

Leslie is correct, I know little about this. But I already admitted that much.

---

Quote:

---

Range – Only about 1/3 of Seoul is presently in range from artillery along a DMZ trace. The northern reaches of Seoul within artillery range have much lower population densities than Seoul proper;

Protection – Artillery shelters for twenty million people exist in the greater Seoul metropolitan area. After the initial surprise has worn off, there simply won’t be large numbers of exposed people. Even during the initial attack the vast majority of people will either be at work, at home, or in transit. Few people will be standing in the middle of an open field with no protection whatsoever available anywhere nearby.

---

Very interesting. I did not know either of these facts. In that light, 30k casualties seems like a more likely, but still terrifying, number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mackerdoodle jones

Great post. Think that may be the first casualty estimate I've seen. Did the article says if that's a conservative estimate? Seems low. Maybe I'm overestimating the degree of damage that artillery can do to densely populated areas. I expected the number to be closer to 100,000.

---

I've read that North Korea most likely has about 8000 pieces of artillery along the DMZ. A large majority of those will be positioned within range of Seoul. Artillery is absolutely devastating against unarmored targets, and Seoul is home to over 25 million people. It would be shooting fish in a barrel. I have to think that 100,000 casualties is a low estimate.

And everyone who assumes that fancy US technology will neutralize those guns should realize that the terrain involved is very much like the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Our satellites and drones have done a terrible job gathering intelligence and striking targets there.

---

We have a fairly sizable presence on the dmz. 3 zones. An entire infantry brigade is stationed there between the North and Seoul. Unfortunately any shake up would hit close to home no matter what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrett

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirtyB

I've read that North Korea most likely has about 8000 pieces of artillery along the DMZ. A large majority of those will be positioned within range of Seoul. Artillery is absolutely devastating against unarmored targets, and Seoul is home to over 25 million people. It would be shooting fish in a barrel. I have to think that 100,000 casualties is a low estimate.

And everyone who assumes that fancy US technology will neutralize those guns should realize that the terrain involved is very much like the mountains of southern Afghanistan. Our satellites and drones have done a terrible job gathering intelligence and striking targets there.

---

We have a fairly sizable presence on the dmz. 3 zones. An entire infantry brigade is stationed there between the North and Seoul. Unfortunately any shake up would hit close to home no matter what.

---

Meaning nothing.....thanks Searles.......idiot

why isn't garrett looking for a response? Only Searles

Believe me, a lurker can only be so interested in previous posts. A poster is much more interested in responses to what they have posted.

Also, no new poster would wind the forum up like garrett did with his shit. It is beyond normal practise for a Noob.

Searles = garrett

the final estimate is at the end. 85,000 casualties. also tight life me reading a long ass article about the koreas on a friday night.


" Running the numbers one more time, but with reasonable decrements, we see a dramatic improvement in Seoulites’ survivability. While still horrific, painful and extremely costly in terms of human lives, destroyed infrastructure, reduced and economic productivity such an attack is imminently survivable for Seoul, the Republic of Korea and almost certainly dooms any DPRK hope of achieving strategic or operational success since DPRK’s bluff will have been called.
Here are the changes made to the calculations: First, we decrement the numbers of systems and rounds by 1% per hour to account for a 20-25% loss per day. After 3 hours over ½ of the surface population is in shelters which reduces the population density to ~ 1,000 people per square kilometer. A shell would need to land extremely close to and almost directly on a shelter in order to produce fatalities. Finally, after about 12 hours, even though the shells keep falling and the numbers of systems steadily decreases, virtually everyone has some sort of shelter thus reducing the surface population and the survivability of those who do come under fire. At that point, it is almost exclusively soldiers and those unfortunate civilians who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time who are susceptible to the effects of fire. This gives a daily fatality rate around 65,000 the first day. Assuming, the long range artillery continues decrementing, in a week the guns could claim up to 80,000 before themselves being decimated."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vegas1369

A lot of experts feel this is just more posturing so some of the sanctions will be lifted, but I am thinking this is going to escalate into something bigger. I think this kid has a lot of old angry generals pushing for war and see him as a puppet for their devious plans. They couldn't do this will Il, but I think this kid is naive enough to fall for it and will inevitably cause a massive conflict.

I wouldn't take this too lightly, N Korea is no joke. They are the largest uniformed army in the world, and while we will eventually crush them there will be a lot of bloodshed along the way. S Korea will never be the same.

We should have just said fuck the commies back in the day and made it one big democracy. So much would have been avoided in the long run.

---

Yes, it will be a fucking bloody mess with heavy US and SK casualties just like the Korean war. This time however they will be completely wiped out. They have a large army that gets most of their resources but their resources are lollerskates and the US has built a plane or two since then.

I also think there's no way they can go through with a war, they have to be bluffing to try to get dialogue going, but they never follow through on their commitments even when the west makes concessions. I frankly don't give a shit if they have nukes, so long as one country has nukes most others will want them, and they'd be committing suicide by actually using them. What's more likely is that they try more under the table stuff like the recent cyberattack that is blamed on them, sinking a couple of ships with subs, that kind of thing.

I agree it would have been preferable to win the Korean war not just reach an armistice but when you're fighting a war against China and the Soviets as well as NK it's a bit tougher. With MacArthur going rogue and getting his ass fired by Ike (BTW, Ike was the fucking MAN) in some ways we're lucky we got out with a tie. Sort of like Churchill said after beating the Nazis, we shouldn't stop marching until we reach Moscow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anal_Hershiser

Lol @ anyone caring about NK. The kid has to put on a show at least. Can't be made to look like a complete fool so soon after taking power. Also lol @ anyone who thinks that NK could even lift a finger before they were pounded into the ground. The kid lives like a fucking king, he's not gonna risk fucking that up for the same reason his dad never did. He knows they stand ZERO chance of winning ANY war. The fact that this shit is even reported is what is ridiculous. Every time these slant eyed primates start wagging their little 3 inch peckers around, the US media goes apeshit. When Russia or China decide to go to war, lemme know. NK is a fucking joke.

---

Yeah but he could go out in a blaze of glory. Crazy fucks have done dumber shit before. When you grow up bring told you're the king and the next leader of the country and suddenly you're 20-something with the whole military including nukes (feeble, undeliverable nukes, but still) at your disposal, it probably fucks with your head a little. He could be batshit crazy like Hitler and then all bets are off. Also, we have commitments to SK and Japan, our ties run deep with them, and SK in particular could really get pounded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anonamoose

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrett

This is an interesting tidbit

"intelligence sources say the real power in North Korea today is Kim’s aunt, Kim Kyong-hui, sister of Kim Jong-il and daughter of Kim Il-sung. Kim Kyong-hui and her husband Jang Sung-taek are believed to be the key power brokers in Pyongyang."

Kids a pawn at this point

---

Jang Sung-taek maybe, but definitely not Kim Kyong-hui

---

Which one is the better lay, that's the real question.

More realistic than a full on war is the fall of the regime. That in itself is a fucking disaster.

That is pretty much the only reason why China supports NK.

But who knows maybe NK is suicidal