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

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Dark567 » Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:53 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote: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.
This makes me pretty scared. Do we have options other than hoping we can talk down the crazy man?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

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 5:56 pm UTC

I think our current plan is wait for crazy man to die and hope his successor isn't batshit insane.

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 5:56 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:The Arty has an effective range of 50 miles. An ineffective range of 80 miles, and a maximum range of 120 miles.
Where are you getting those numbers? The M109 (155mm) is the approximate era of most of NK's military tech and has a max range of less than 20 miles. Even the brand new canceled Crusader only had a range of 40-50km (31 miles).

Furthermore, the actual data-backed projections I've seen (example) don't show Seoul within the artillery range.

So ... [citation needed]

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 6:04 pm UTC

Azrael001 wrote:Satellites are not static. They are already moving faster than terminal velocity.
Yes, but air has a habit of slowing things down to terminal velocity when they're moving through it without thrust.

They are, I think, slightly rocket guided, but they are uniquely suited to penetrating bunkers, and don't have a fixed launch site.
They need to be guided by powerful enough rockets to deorbit precisely enough to hit the exact target you want, though. That requires a bit more than you need for station-keeping.
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
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 6:06 pm UTC

Yes. Convince China that it really would be best if there was just one Korea. Promise that after there is only one Korea, we'll leave the peninsula. We'll still have bases in Japan, which will allow the US to maintain relations in the area while saving face for the Hawks here in the states.

China will have a stable, productive trade partner. ASEAN will grow. The Pacific theater will calm down. Everyone wins, except for the idiots in charge in NK now.

All it would take, at that point, is a mass evacuation in the world's second largest city, and a unified strike between US and Chinese forces. China crushes them from the North, and we hammer the 38th parallel.

If you neutralize their coastal defenses, which include anti-air facilities, NK would likely fall in four weeks. Many people forget about the tunnel network that NK has worked on since they realized how effective it was for the Vietnamese.

@ Az. I'm sorry. That was mobility, not firing distance. Sleepy Oregonaut makes mistakes sometimes. I was posting about how far they could move the artillery, then begin firing. I'm assuming a massed charge, combined with tunnel warfare, would give the NK army some ground past the 38th parallel.
- 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
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 6:11 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:@ Az. I'm sorry. That was mobility, not firing distance. Sleepy Oregonaut makes mistakes sometimes. I was posting about how far they could move the artillery, then begin firing. I'm assuming a massed charge, combined with tunnel warfare, would give the NK army some ground past the 38th parallel.

However, moving that artillery eliminates the advantages of reinforcement that they've spent years creating and invalidates many of the doom and gloom estimates in this thread for how much force would be required to stop them. As soon as they move, they're not hard to destroy.

Yes, keeping the door open for such tactical movement of artillery prevents Maginot line or dug-in panzers on the coast of Calais-like mistakes, but it has massive downsides.

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 6:18 pm UTC

It does. Part of my mind is trying to focus on what the North Korean military would do were it to come down to it. Everyone is assuming that they'll stick on Defense, but with that underground network of tunnels, they're going to try to take ground.

It is difficult to think about what their military will do, when the last time it engaged people it took longer to move people hither and yon. I honestly wonder if they'll make more mistakes due to old thinking, than not. If we manage to get SEAD aircraft in theater, and China doesn't make them go boom, and Russia doesn't suddenly feel frisky, we could land troops just about anywhere we damn well pleased. That's where the Maginot problem kicks in. Would they react that way, or would they react differently.
- 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
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 6:25 pm UTC

S. Korean President calls for ENORMOUS RETALIATION!

Image

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 6:26 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:Yes. Convince China that it really would be best if there was just one Korea. Promise that after there is only one Korea, we'll leave the peninsula. We'll still have bases in Japan, which will allow the US to maintain relations in the area while saving face for the Hawks here in the states.

China will have a stable, productive trade partner. ASEAN will grow. The Pacific theater will calm down. Everyone wins, except for the idiots in charge in NK now.


China does not need trade partners as it did a few years ago. For China, a country seeking regional dominance, the last thing it wants is to have a nation with a long standing track record of supporting US and Taiwan to become stable, and to have a buffer nation be absorbed into said nation, while needing to deal with thousands of refugee? It's pretty much all lose for China to go with that.

User avatar
Ortus
Fluffy
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:09 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Ortus » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:28 pm UTC

Jahoclave wrote:S. Korean President calls for ENORMOUS RETALIATION!






Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
roband wrote:Face, yes. Chest, probably. Pubic area, maybe. Scrotum, not a fucking chance.

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 6:30 pm UTC

They'll deal with those refugees the same way they deal with them now. They'll ship them back.

As for not needing trade partners, that's not true. They'd love to have access to the technology that SKorea will bring to the table. Largely so they can reverse engineer it.
- 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!

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 6:37 pm UTC

Oregonaut wrote:They'll deal with those refugees the same way they deal with them now. They'll ship them back.

As for not needing trade partners, that's not true. They'd love to have access to the technology that SKorea will bring to the table. Largely so they can reverse engineer it.


What technology does SK have that China don't already have access to through the current trade partnership?

Also, pretty good opinion piece: http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/23/c ... index.html

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Le1bn1z » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:48 pm UTC

Attention Dr. Tam China,

Your gorram batshit crazy sister Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea is doing the crazy again. And we're not talking rubbing soup in people's hair, neither.

We thought you had her on the mend them back on the leash. You best see to her, or you're both off the gorram ship going to realise that they're interested in blackmail, and you're the biggest, richest folks in range of those nukes you gave 'em.

-------

I swear to God. It's like China is Dr. Tam, and the Kims are like fat, ugly and stupid Rivers with dumb glasses.

Where the hell in Jayne when you need him?

EDIT: When do you suppose the South Koreans and Japanese are going to hold their next "kick the Americans out" rally? Oh, wait, they might need the yanks now. Well, on the bright side, America might get two years of respect out of this....
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Nov 23, 2010 6:54 pm UTC

Rackum wrote: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.


Indeed, VX in particular is extremely effective at what it does, probably too much so... It would still be a very quick solution to the problem though.

As far as live data on antidotes, thanks to some ethically questionable work at DRE Porton Down we have a fair bit... It would be interesting to see if that held in an environment where most of the personel were not familiarised with the procedures, and where immediate hospitalisation was not available.

Diadem wrote: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.


This is a very good argument against the use of nuclear weapons, I didn't realise how close seoul was to the DMZ.

Though you're kindof wrong about hardened bunkers... "normal" high powered (multi megaton) nuclear weapons are more than capable of destroying hardened structures especially in laydown detonation (rather than the normal airburst mode).

Oregonaut wrote: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.

Wait...what am I doing, nobody wants actual information.


I'd appreciate a continued input of actual information, the more you know and all that... though I was required to semi-facetiously mention nuclear weapons, it's one of the conditions of my Internet Licence.
When you say infantry assault, would it be right to assume that with the north korean forces and entrenchment, it could end up being a case of flame weapons (Presumably the M202, which if anything like it's Russian equvilent is brutally effective) and bayonet charges?
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

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 7:01 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:... and bayonet charges?
The use of infantry does not require the regression by 90 odd years to the trench warfare of WWI (never mind actual bayonet charges). Lots and lots of wars and assaults have been fought between then and now; Normandy and the entire pacific theater of WWII come to mind.

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 7:03 pm UTC

We don't do bayonets anymore, nor do we do trenches. The North Koreans, however, will be inside tunnels. We will need to clear out those tunnels, or cave them in.
- 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 7:08 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:
Diadem wrote: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.


This is a very good argument against the use of nuclear weapons, I didn't realise how close seoul was to the DMZ.

Though you're kindof wrong about hardened bunkers... "normal" high powered (multi megaton) nuclear weapons are more than capable of destroying hardened structures especially in laydown detonation (rather than the normal airburst mode).

You're right of course that a nuclear weapon would take out a bunker. But it range will be severely limited. A high yield nuclear bomb can flatten anything above ground within a 20 km radius and do heavy damage in a 50 km radius. But below ground? You're probably gonna get no more than a few hundred meters. Let's be extremely generous and say half a kilometer. You'd need 4 nukes per square kilometer. Considering the size of the area where this artillery is located, that's thousands of nukes. Not really feasible.

And yeah, if you do detonate several thousand high yield nuclear weapons China is probably going to get pissed. Russia too. And even the EU will most likely cancel NATO and join a general boycot against the US.
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

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 7:15 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:You're right of course that a nuclear weapon would take out a bunker. But it range will be severely limited. A high yield nuclear bomb can flatten anything above ground within a 20 km radius and do heavy damage in a 50 km radius. But below ground? You're probably gonna get no more than a few hundred meters. Let's be extremely generous and say half a kilometer. You'd need 4 nukes per square kilometer. Considering the size of the area where this artillery is located, that's thousands of nukes. Not really feasible.

And yeah, if you do detonate several thousand high yield nuclear weapons China is probably going to get pissed. Russia too. And even the EU will most likely cancel NATO and join a general boycot against the US.


Who says we need to destroy the fortified bunkers anyways? Wouldn't caving in the entrances to all the bunkers work just as well at protecting the south?

I'm just speaking theoretically, of course. I agree that the political ramifications alone would be massive.
It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:22 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
TheKrikkitWars wrote:... and bayonet charges?
The use of infantry does not require the regression by 90 odd years to the trench warfare of WWI. Lots and lots of wars and assaults have been fought between then and now. Normandy and the entire pacific theater of WWII come to mind.


However bayonet charges have been used to dramatic effect in Malaya, Vietnam (Aussie SAS), The Falklands, by Croat forces in their clashes with the JNA during the 1990's and much more recently in Iraq and most recently of all in Afgan where Lieutenant James Adamson won the Military Cross for taking a taleban position by bayonet charge... It's not obselete, just far more brutal than we're accustomed to thinking about and somewhat less neccessary these days.

In fact looking at the information I have it seems that the use of the bayonet charge in modern infantry warfare is a very British thing (the last US Bayonet Charge was in 1951 and won a MoH, as of 2010 only the Marines still teach bayonet fighting)... Still seems to work very well though.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

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 7:28 pm UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:... Still seems to work very well though.
In a pathetically small number of instances. Hell, even by the US Civil War, bayonet casualties were less than 1% of overall battlefield casualties.

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 7:32 pm UTC

Bayonet training is more useful for teaching you how to hit with your rifle in CQC. Bayonet charges are less useful when facing machine gun nests. The US Military frowns on using massed charges, largely because we can manage more with air superiority. Hiding in a trench is hard when the Zoomies are out and about.
- 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 7:36 pm UTC

I don't really understand the tactical advantage a bayonet would give a machine gun of today's era. Which is probably why it is largely discontinued.

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 7:42 pm UTC

broken_escalator wrote:I don't really understand the tactical advantage a bayonet would give a machine gun of today's era. Which is probably why it is largely discontinued.


As Oregonaut said, bayonet practices are apparently good for learning how to use a rifle in close combat.

However, bayonet charges are probably useless outside of historical interactions nowadays.
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
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 7:49 pm UTC

Dang oregonaut ninja'd me and I was too busy playing with excel's graph features to notice.

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 7:51 pm UTC

Echo is good at ninjaing things, Echo is.
- 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
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 7:53 pm UTC

The best thing to do is probably to take the beating and try to stabilize the situation.
Cut any international aid as much as possible (even food and medicine), and wait until the country surrenders.
I know it sounds cruel, but I bet it would be way more violent and bloody if there was a war.
As the great philosopher Socrates once said: "No."

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:55 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
TheKrikkitWars wrote:... Still seems to work very well though.
In a pathetically small number of instances. Hell, even by the US Civil War, bayonet casualties were less than 1% of overall battlefield casualties.


However dealing witha great deal of enemies in a bunker/cave system is one of those instances... Hence it's usefulness in Afgan.
Based on what the russians got upto in the various chechen wars I'd say that flame weapons are definately preferable for their effectivess... I'm sure I had links to an article which had a very good description of their tactics for dealing with fortified confined spaces, replete with harrowing pictures.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

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 7:56 pm UTC

I don't think I agree with cutting aid to the common people of N Korea when they largely have no say in what goes on in their life. Less so when they die because of no aid or food.

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 7:59 pm UTC

dumbzebra wrote:Cut any international aid as much as possible (even food and medicine), and wait until the country surrenders invades.
There's a gambit there, and no one is sure how it will play out. Back them far enough into a corner and you might provoke a more violent response than is already seen.

Lots of behavior methods (animal, manager, diplomatic) rely on reinforcing the good behavior, rather than punishing the not-particularly-bad.

PCal
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:00 am UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby PCal » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:11 pm UTC

Obviously the best thing is to hope that it settles out with out war. However I like talking about unrealistic war predictions/strategies. Every talks about stopping the artillery form firing by removing it. How about if the order fire never gets to the artillery never gets to it. I feel as though if shit war to go down the most important thing would be large amounts of psychological warfare. NK basicily sees Kim as a god I think it would be a pretty significant shock if say he were to die in cruise missile strike. That combined with hey look they outside world aint that bad actually its significantly better then what your state sponsored media has been telling you its like. Only real problem is that the people manning the artillery prolly have standing orders to take out Seoul should anything happen to kim. Basically if anything is going to happen aim for the com network first. I also like the orbital strike idea too.

*bird
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 6:14 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby *bird » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:22 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:Attention Dr. Tam China,

Your gorram batshit crazy sister Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea is doing the crazy again. And we're not talking rubbing soup in people's hair, neither.

We thought you had her on the mend them back on the leash. You best see to her, or you're both off the gorram ship going to realise that they're interested in blackmail, and you're the biggest, richest folks in range of those nukes you gave 'em.


What are you talking about? Simon and River weren't Chinese (and I maintain that.)

Besides, that analogy is flawed anyway. NK wasn't designed to be a superweapon and isn't nearly as effective in general.

/offtopic

User avatar
grythyttan
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:46 pm UTC
Location: Hncwhxagykozzqlif azefkbtvw. Kjkd sb, ypwyw eg tdpm.
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby grythyttan » Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:29 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
Azrael001 wrote:Satellites are not static. They are already moving faster than terminal velocity.
Yes, but air has a habit of slowing things down to terminal velocity when they're moving through it without thrust.
Well the thread has moved a bit since this, but I just have to point out that the whole point of these types of kinetic weapons is that with the huge velocities involved the aerodynamic drag does not have time to slow them down enough. Consider meteors, they hit the earth at supersonic speeds becauses of the high velocity prior to entering the atmosphere. These weapons would do something similar, with the difference that they would be designed to reduce drag much better than a lump of rock, and that they would be much denser in order for them to not break apart in the atmosphere.
Joy of Cooking was far less of an achievement than Thyme Cube discovery, for I have Cubed the Spice, with 4 simultaneous flavor types in 1 plant of Earth.
Spoiler:
Image

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 8:51 pm UTC

*bird wrote:What are you talking about? Simon and River weren't Chinese (and I maintain that.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_%28surname%29

they are at least part Chinese

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:20 pm UTC

PeterCai wrote:
*bird wrote:What are you talking about? Simon and River weren't Chinese (and I maintain that.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_%28surname%29

they are at least part Chinese


More likely, they just had Chinese-sounding names due to the heavy influence Chinese culture had in that star system.

Back on topic, I'm hoping it's just posturing and not KJI getting even loonier. If war goes down, sure NK will lose, but a freaking lot of damage will be done in the meantime. Not to mention the headache of ensuring as smooth as possible integration with the South (here's to hoping China doesn't snag the North, though).
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

User avatar
torontoraptor
Posts: 442
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:58 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby torontoraptor » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:34 pm UTC

So basically the only way we would attack NK is if they had already launched a large attack on SK?
If we were very lucky, we might get enough time to order an evacuation of Seoul, although I highly doubt the North Koreans will just wait the day or two it would take to completely evacuate the world's second largest city. I think that if this was going to escalate, it would have by now, but goddamnit, someone needs to get rid of the crazies.
Promicin wrote:Now if I can just grab on with my tongue-like foot... wait. I am not a mussel.

pseudoidiot wrote:
You, sir, name? wrote:fucking owls is enjoyable.
Someone should sig this

Glmclain
Posts: 442
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 12:51 pm UTC

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Glmclain » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:59 pm UTC

I've talked to some Air Force buddies and they said that since we're allied with the South, if they want help militarily we're going to back them up. If China decides to get involved (although it's unlikely they will since they've ditched the North in the past) we could have WWIII on our hands :(
You Samoans are all the same! You have no faith in the essential decency of the white man's culture!

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby Marbas » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:59 pm UTC

What I don't understand is that South Korea seems so unprepared for these incidents.


My guess would be that any visible preparation would be met with more threats of artillery fire. But I too am curious about this.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

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 10:16 pm UTC

torontoraptor wrote:So basically the only way we would attack NK is if they had already launched a large attack on SK?


Yes. Preemptive military strikes don't win you any friends in the international community, no matter who you're attacking, and if you win that will make controlling the aftermath very difficult. I would have hoped that recent history would have already made you aware of this. Starting wars is generally, and in this case specifically, a really bad idea.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.

User avatar
SummerGlauFan
Posts: 1746
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:27 pm UTC
Location: KS

Re: North Korea Fires Upon Inhabited South Korean Island

Postby SummerGlauFan » Tue Nov 23, 2010 10:40 pm UTC

Marbas wrote:
What I don't understand is that South Korea seems so unprepared for these incidents.


My guess would be that any visible preparation would be met with more threats of artillery fire. But I too am curious about this.


The DMZ is the most heavily guarded zone on the planet (granted this is taking both sides into account). SK keeps half of their active military on the border. They run regular drills, as evidenced in this case (NK attacked the island due to drills, at least as an excuse). They are as prepared as they can be. There is only so much you can do to "prepare" against an enemy that has that many missiles, rockets, and artillery pointed at you. You don't honestly expect them to be able to shoot all those projectiles out of the air if KJI decides to use them, do you?
glasnt wrote:"As she raised her rifle against the creature, her hair fluttered beneath the red florescent lighting of the locked down building.

I knew from that moment that she was something special"


Outbreak, a tale of love and zombies.

In stores now.

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 10:45 pm UTC

Glmclain wrote:I've talked to some Air Force buddies and they said that since we're allied with the South, if they want help militarily we're going to back them up. If China decides to get involved (although it's unlikely they will since they've ditched the North in the past) we could have WWIII on our hands :(


Where else do you think fighting would break out?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests