North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Rackum
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Rackum » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:32 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:True, It's kind of a shame that the US disposed of all it's chemical weapons, as based on the concentration of NK artillery and manpower, plus the area denial function of some of the V-series agents*, they would be a somewhat less visible, slightly less likely to start world war III option which would still protect SK...

*also I wrote a paper on the effects of and subsequent treatment for V-series nerve agent exposure, and it would be academically interesting (if something of a human tragedy) to see if the efficiacy of the treatment holds up on the battlefield.

The problem with area denial using V series agents is that they are too persistent; you're basically looking at the same effects of irradiating the whole area but without the ability to reliably measure anything for "clean is clean" determination. Yes we can say that theoretically V series agents can persist in typical atmospheric conditions for up to 10 yrs, but how confident are we in that figure? And I'll be damned if, when I do my tour in SK, I'm romping around in the jungle in level C with an ICAM looking for the stuff, hehe.

Also, while it's not been a widespread use, the live agent training courses that are offered at various locations are sure to have had some SNAFUs over the years. Perhaps there are some published results of antidote use and medical recovery from those places.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:34 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:It's the fact that they're North. Nobody likes North. North can go eat a bag of douche.

Yeah, they're like South Korea's Canada and gods damnit we hate Canada for all their free healthcare and nice things that we can't have. Same for Sweden. But no, we look like crazy folk if we call for nuking Sweden. Bastards.



Though, I have a feeling this is actually a reaction to the hope of a Bieber concert that was so cruelly torn away from them.

Duban
Posts: 352
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Duban » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:37 pm UTC

Hawknc wrote:
Zamfir wrote:What is it about North-Koreans that make people so quick to consider gassing and nuking them?

Compared to somewhere like Sudan or Afghanistan, not nearly as many journalists and photographers chronicling the plight of the North Koreans. (Kids, you noticing all this plight?)

In the event of war N Korea would level Seoul with artillery, some armed with chemical weapons. Sudan and Afghanistan wouldn't slaughter millions, if not tens of millions, of US allied civilians if the war isn't ended in hours. Basically in the event of a war it would be a matter of "we receive genocide" or "we dish out genocide". It changes the situation significantly.

Whether or not the above a reasonable point of view is up to the observer, but it is one of very few situations where the use of nuclear weapons can be taken seriously.
Last edited by Duban on Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

User avatar
Bhelliom
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:30 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Bhelliom » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:54 pm UTC

Keep in mind folks that the NK government and military is the target, not the oppressed general population. Nukes and Chem weapons are not such a great idea.
"Eloquently Blunt"

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:55 pm UTC

Bhelliom wrote:Keep in mind folks that the NK government and military is the target, not the oppressed general population. Nukes and Chem weapons are not such a great idea.

I think you underestimate my propensity for thinking large explosions are not only a great, but an awesome idea.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:59 pm UTC

Duban wrote:
Hawknc wrote:
Zamfir wrote:What is it about North-Koreans that make people so quick to consider gassing and nuking them?

Compared to somewhere like Sudan or Afghanistan, not nearly as many journalists and photographers chronicling the plight of the North Koreans. (Kids, you noticing all this plight?)

In the event of war N Korea would level Seoul with artillery, some armed with chemical weapons. Sudan and Afghanistan wouldn't slaughter millions, if not tens of millions, of US allied civilians if the war isn't ended in hours.

But the US has such capabilities to dish out genocide too, in much, much greater amounts than North Korea. yet when the US decides to bomb some other country, no one start considering to nuke the US just in case they are going to commit genocide this time around.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Nov 23, 2010 3:59 pm UTC

I say we just drop a vial of zombie plague on Pyongyang and let the problem sort itself out. What could possibly go wrong?

And you can't tell me there isn't a vial of zombie plague in a top secret bio-weapons facility somewhere.
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:04 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Duban wrote:In the event of war N Korea would level Seoul with artillery, some armed with chemical weapons. Sudan and Afghanistan wouldn't slaughter millions, if not tens of millions, of US allied civilians if the war isn't ended in hours.

But the US has such capabilities to dish out genocide too, in much, much greater amounts than North Korea. yet when the US decides to bomb some other country, no one start considering to nuke the US just in case they are going to commit genocide this time around.

Which is interesting to think about. Based on the US's history, some say how we dealt with the Native Americans is not unlike genocide. But I think the reason people doubt N Korea more than the US (despite precedence) is that N Korea has less to lose than the US, and has been showing how erratic they are, for lack of a better word.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:06 pm UTC

Yeah. The US has done some scary shit in the past. Thing is, we stopped doing that scary shit after we did the scariest shit of all.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki later, we decided that maaaaaybe we should stop with the big-badda-booms before we break something important. Since then, we've managed to keep it down to a dull roar.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:20 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:some say how we dealt with the Native Americans is not unlike genocide.
What the US did to the Native Americans was exactly genocide. But I think you're correct that NK has far less to lose (people are starving in droves anyway) and is led by far more erratic people.

The prospect of a sane person with a holstered gun, even if the person has killed in the past, is much less worrisome to me than an obviously crazy person actively waving a gun around and threatening people.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:24 pm UTC

I dunno, is US (or anybody else's) foreign policy really that much more sensible than North Korea's? We are pretty stumped on why North Korea shells islands, but I bet analysts in Pyongyang are still trying to figure out why the US is in Iraq.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:29 pm UTC

I dunno. If what I've read about their education is true they might just assume the US is in Iraq because of some evil mission of the US. Assuming the articles I've read is true, isn't North Korea kept very much in the dark and more or less fed lies by the government? I'm not sure I'm describing it correctly.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Triangle_Man » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

So, am I correct in understanding that North Korea is attempting to provoke South Korea into doing something stupid?
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
Jahoclave
sourmilk's moderator
Posts: 4790
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:34 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Jahoclave » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:I dunno, is US (or anybody else's) foreign policy really that much more sensible than North Korea's? We are pretty stumped on why North Korea shells islands, but I bet analysts in Pyongyang are still trying to figure out why the US is in Iraq.

Freedom, democracy, and repossession of wmds due to Saddam's non-payment.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:I dunno. If what I've read about their education is true they might just assume the US is in Iraq because of some evil mission of the US. Assuming the articles I've read is true, isn't North Korea kept very much in the dark and more or less fed lies by the government? I'm not sure I'm describing it correctly.


North Korea doesn't inform their populace. They propagandize them.

Triangle_Man wrote:So, am I correct in understanding that North Korea is attempting to provoke South Korea into doing something stupid?


No, KJI is trying to set up his son as a bad-ass. They're readying the succession plan.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby jestingrabbit » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:31 pm UTC

Stacy S. wrote:
weasel@xkcd wrote:tl;dr
War won't happen, too expensive. NK knows SK won't retaliate and just wants a Glorious Victory to strengthen the position of Kim Kim Jong-un.


Good post, good summary. The only problem I see with your analysis is that NK is on such a hair trigger (or so it is believed). Little things like this could quickly escalate out of control in less than a single minute to the point were neither side could turn back before 10,000 dead people showed up.


Yeah, its an especially dangerous time. The command structures are likely confused, commanders are wanting to put their hand up for promotion, not purging and this is happening whilst they're upping their rate of provocations.

Zamfir wrote:What is it about North-Koreans that make people so quick to consider gassing and nuking them?


Its the nature of the problem. Initially people talk about bombing them into the stoneage, then someone mentions the plight of Seoul, and the halfwitted response is to escalate to nukes.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:I dunno. If what I've read about their education is true they might just assume the US is in Iraq because of some evil mission of the US. Assuming the articles I've read is true, isn't North Korea kept very much in the da
rk and more or less fed lies by the government? I'm not sure I'm describing it correctly.

Look at it thiw way: Americans themselves are still very much debating how and why they got in Iraq, exactly, and whether it was a good idea. There are even quite some people in the US who think it was part of some evil, Halliburton-led masterplan.

Why not assume that North Korean policy is determined by similarly vague processes?

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Princess Marzipan » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:It's the fact that they're North. Nobody likes North. North can go eat a bag of douche.
Of course, much like the seasonal flip/flop between Northern and Southern hemispheres, there is a douchiness flip/flop between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Very important to remember, especially if campaigning for national political office in the US.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby BlackSails » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:44 pm UTC

People dont want to nuke all of north korea, just a thin strip over the DMZ that has a mind boggling amount of artillery there.

Why not assume that North Korean policy is determined by similarly vague processes?


Because North Korea is ruled by a single person, not several branches, each made up of people with their own reasons for doing stuff

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Azrael001 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:45 pm UTC

If the US would just get it's kinetic bombardment satellites up, we could talk about hitting military targets without worrying about all these radioactive and chemical weapons that are so problematic.
23111

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
Oregonaut wrote:It's the fact that they're North. Nobody likes North. North can go eat a bag of douche.
Of course, much like the seasonal flip/flop between Northern and Southern hemispheres, there is a douchiness flip/flop between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. Very important to remember, especially if campaigning for national political office in the US.


Yeah, I was saying that in that section of the world North is bad. Obviously in my neck of the woods, North is good. North West is even better.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Diadem » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:51 pm UTC

Duban wrote:
Hawknc wrote:
Zamfir wrote:What is it about North-Koreans that make people so quick to consider gassing and nuking them?

Compared to somewhere like Sudan or Afghanistan, not nearly as many journalists and photographers chronicling the plight of the North Koreans. (Kids, you noticing all this plight?)

In the event of war N Korea would level Seoul with artillery, some armed with chemical weapons. Sudan and Afghanistan wouldn't slaughter millions, if not tens of millions, of US allied civilians if the war isn't ended in hours. Basically in the event of a war it would be a matter of "we receive genocide" or "we dish out genocide". It changes the situation significantly.

Whether or not the above a reasonable point of view is up to the observer, but it is one of very few situations where the use of nuclear weapons can be taken seriously.

The problem is that nuclear weapons do very little against heavily entrenched artillary positions. Even nuclear explosions do not penetrate solid rock very well, and radiation doesn't either. I'm sure the US has nukes designed specifically for penetrating bunkers, but even then you can only blow up a few at the time. And they have thousands. To take out positions like that you need smart weapons. Payload is much less important than your ability to deliver the bomb at the right point. Conventional weapons are most likely almost as effective. And neither is remotely effective enough. You will not be able to take out those artillery positions before a significant number of them can retalliate.

Besides, carpet bombing them with nuclear weapons will wreak havoc on the atmosphere. The whole world will suffer.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26767
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:If the US would just get it's kinetic bombardment satellites up, we could talk about hitting military targets without worrying about all these radioactive and chemical weapons that are so problematic.
Unless you're propelling stuff downwards with rockets (in which case how is it better than conventional rockets?), wouldn't anything dropped from a satellite either reach terminal velocity or burn up in the atmosphere without doing a whole lot of damage?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Diadem » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Azrael001 wrote:If the US would just get it's kinetic bombardment satellites up, we could talk about hitting military targets without worrying about all these radioactive and chemical weapons that are so problematic.
Unless you're propelling stuff downwards with rockets (in which case how is it better than conventional rockets?), wouldn't anything dropped from a satellite either reach terminal velocity or burn up in the atmosphere without doing a whole lot of damage?

The terminal velocity of a cilinder of depleted uranium or some other dense material is probably quite high. I am too lazy to do the math atm, but it's probably kilometers per second.

The problem is that if you drop something from a satellite it stays in orbit. Unless you attach a rocket to it, but then you might as well fire it from earth :)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
dumbzebra
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere on the moon.

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby dumbzebra » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:10 pm UTC

SWGlassPit wrote:North Korea is not a rational actor. This will not end well.


I read the whole thing. It´s terrible.
However I hope the regime shows more sanity in preventing a war, than they did in having prisoners
As the great philosopher Socrates once said: "No."

User avatar
Azrael001
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:15 am UTC
Location: The Land of Make Believe.
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Azrael001 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:11 pm UTC

Satellites are not static. They are already moving faster than terminal velocity. They are, I think, slightly rocket guided, but they are uniquely suited to penetrating bunkers, and don't have a fixed launch site. Strike time is minutes rather than hours, so there is less to worry about as far as retaliation is concerned.
23111

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Zamfir » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:12 pm UTC


Why not assume that North Korean policy is determined by similarly vague processes?


Because North Korea is ruled by a single person, not several branches, each made up of people with their own reasons for doing stuff

Therefore is a lot of debate on how much power Kim really has. Korea has a ruling class of military men, factory owners, party apparatchiks, bureacrats, the works. In the end, if enough of them don't want to follow orders from Kim, there is nothing he can do. In the meantime, they can quibblye and scheme amongst each other just as much as the ruling classes of other countries.

Keeper in mind, no one doubts that Bush gave the order to invade Iraq and that he personally supported it. Questions are, why did he do it? Who was influencing the decisions? What did they hope to gain, both personally and for the country? What information were they acting on? Was that information correct? Was there information they ignored, or missed? Did people lower in the hierarchy mislead them? Why did enough people support them in these actions? Did they have choice, or were political considerations forcing people to support actions they did not personally support?

Such questions can be asked about decisions of the US as much as about decisions of North Korea.
Last edited by Zamfir on Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:13 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:People dont want to nuke all of north korea, just a thin strip over the DMZ that has a mind boggling amount of artillery there.

Let's try to follow the thought process here:

Q: What are we worried about?
A: NK's artillery on the DMZ

Q: Why are we worried about it?
A: Because it can strike Seoul.

Q: What are we going to do about it?
A: ... use nuclear weapons?

If this artillery is close enough to hit Seoul (roughly 35 miles from the DMZ), what the fuck do you think the fallout and after-effects of nuclear weapons would do to the population that we are trying to protect from artillery? Never mind the aforementioned inappropriateness of that weapon for achieving the goal.

Citing that artillery as a reason and place to resort to nuclear weapons is absolutely ludicrous.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SlyReaper » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:27 pm UTC

Wait a second, if it's a DMZ, why is there artillery there?
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
dumbzebra
Posts: 275
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 4:59 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere on the moon.

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby dumbzebra » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:29 pm UTC

Okay can someone please post some information about this artilery? In case of an emergency, I´m sure western mitlitary forces have the power to do something against that other than nuking it. I mean the US destroyed half of Iraq´s border communication net in the first (second?) Gulf war, about 12 hours BEFORE the war started.
As the great philosopher Socrates once said: "No."

User avatar
Obby
Posts: 785
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:37 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Obby » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:30 pm UTC

SlyReaper wrote:Wait a second, if it's a DMZ, why is there artillery there?


It's only a strip of land roughly 2.5 miles wide. Artillery can fire much, much further than that. NK most likely has dozens of artillery installations on their side of the DMZ that can hit Seoul and most likely well beyond it, as well.
The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PeterCai » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:34 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:If the US would just get it's kinetic bombardment satellites up, we could talk about hitting military targets without worrying about all these radioactive and chemical weapons that are so problematic.


sure, let's weaponize space, see how well that goes.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Oregonaut » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:34 pm UTC

The artillery isn't in the DMZ, it is just on the Northern side of it. The Arty has an effective range of 50 miles. An ineffective range of 80 miles, and a maximum range of 120 miles.

It is entrenched, fortified, and covered with shelter to prevent bombardment.

Bunker busters, and infantry assaults, are the only two ways to take it down. Considering you are talking about a range of arty that stretches from one coast to the other, we would not have a good chance of taking it all down at once without suffering some serious casualties. More than are acceptable, for anything less than a direct and immediate threat on Seoul.

Air strikes are not a good idea, considering you have to move the planes in range of China's air-net.

Wait...what am I doing, nobody wants actual information.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:35 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
Azrael001 wrote:If the US would just get it's kinetic bombardment satellites up, we could talk about hitting military targets without worrying about all these radioactive and chemical weapons that are so problematic.


sure, let's weaponize space, see how well that goes.

Its not gonna weaponize itself! Well, until skynet.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby BlackSails » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:35 pm UTC

Okay can someone please post some information about this artilery? In case of an emergency, I´m sure western mitlitary forces have the power to do something against that other than nuking it. I mean the US destroyed half of Iraq´s border communication net in the first (second?) Gulf war, about 12 hours BEFORE the war started.


I seriously doubt it. There are 10,000-13,000 artillery pieces within striking range of Seoul. They are both hidden and entrenched. Each salvo has a total yield of over a kiloton, and based on very conservative rates of fire, it would be the equivalent of several nukes going off in Seoul every hour.

A carpet bombing over the area where they are known to be would be both too slow and too ineffective, they are too spread out for ground troops to secure in any timely manner, and there are too many for some fancy Israeli anti-artillery laser system to work, since afaik.

Even if we were to move all our aircraft carriers and all our battleships to the Sea of Japan and fill up every Japanese airport with bombers, we wouldn't have enough artillery and planes to destroy the NK artillery before seoul was completely destroyed.

The best bet would be to institute oppressive real estate taxes on everything near the DMZ, to encourage people to move South.

Aradae
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 5:59 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Aradae » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:37 pm UTC

Mass siege tanks?

Counter with banshees.

I thought South Korea was supposed to be good at this sort of thing.
Guys guys guys! I found Russel's teapot! . . . nevermind, it was just Jesus flying to Mars again.

User avatar
Wnderer
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Wnderer » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:40 pm UTC

What I don't understand is that South Korea seems so unprepared for these incidents. I don't expect a full out war, but they should be prepared for a tit for tat, you use it, you lose it campaign. North Korea has this artillery positioned on the coast pointing at this island. When North Korea fired on the island, South Korea should have destroyed that artillery. They were using the island for a military exercise. They should have been prepared to take out that artillery, not just fire back.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby BlackSails » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:41 pm UTC

Aradae wrote:Mass siege tanks?

Counter with banshees.

I thought South Korea was supposed to be good at this sort of thing.


Actually, the best way to counter mass siege tanks is to nuke them, so they unsiege and move, and then siege up your own tanks. The ghost nuke target painter range+nuke AoE is longer than the siege tank range, so if you target the nuke a little bit proximal to their tank lines, you can still kill the tanks while they cant just scan and kill your ghost. Much cheaper than banshees, and in TvT, siege tanks almost always come with mass viking.

This way you just slow push forwards until they run out of room to retreat.

In this analogy though, that means you are pushing the siege tanks into China.

User avatar
broken_escalator
They're called stairs
Posts: 3312
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:49 am UTC
Location: _| ̄|○

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby broken_escalator » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Aradae wrote:Mass siege tanks?

Counter with banshees.

I thought South Korea was supposed to be good at this sort of thing.

Well played.
Image

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Azrael » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:I seriously doubt it. There are 10,000-13,000 artillery pieces within striking range of Seoul. They are both hidden and entrenched. Each salvo has a total yield of over a kiloton, and based on very conservative rates of fire, it would be the equivalent of several nukes going off in Seoul every hour.

While in theory I agree with the assessment, I'll say that some of these doomsday predictions smack of good propaganda and hyperbole. Furthermore, they remind me an awful lot of some of the (in retrospect) embarrassing assessments that the US produced regarding the USSR's actual military capabilities in the 80's. Just because there are a lot of guns doesn't mean they have actually maintained full readiness. Never mind if they have enough shells.
Last edited by Azrael on Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:56 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests