North Korea's Military Capabilities

[BobTheDonkey]

We haven't engaged in imperialism in about a century.

rofl. You did have a lot of credibility in this thread...I think you just wasted most of it on this line.

 

[McHrozni]

The size is referring to "Line of sight" thickness. As I said previously, yes the number quoted in the article is incorrect, along with just about every other specification the author tried to present for a tank. But the M1A2 Abrams has 894mm LOS thickness, so the number presented is not too crazy, even though it is still incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sloped_armour

Okay, it might have meant that. Though given the general level of ignorance of the article, I would sooner say the author just added the thicknesses of armor from all over the tank, something like this:
242 mm (turret front) + 153 mm (turret sides) + 97 mm (turret rear) + 102 mm (angled hull front) + 79 mm (upper hull sides) + 15 mm (lower hull sides) = 688 mm

The actual LOS armor of a T-62 is up to 480 mm steel equivalent from this web page I quickly googled. Given that's still awfuly wrong, and only applies to the turret front (it's less for hull), I suspect the author indeed just added the armor thicknesses of various parts of the armor together, ignoring some of them in the process.

It's a ridicolus article overall, and extremely funny.

McHrozni

 

[Skwinty]

We haven't engaged in imperialism in about a century.

Americans may not like to call themselves imperialists or claim to practice imperialism, but whether you call it imperialism, neo imperialism or hegemony, the objective is the same.

By extension, hegemonism denotes the policies the great powers practice in seeking predominance, leading, then, to a definition of imperialism.

http://www.slate.com/id/2075261/

In the lexicon of euphemism, the word "superpower" was always useful because it did little more than recognize the obvious. The United States of America was a potentate in itself and on a global scale. It had only one rival, which was its obvious inferior, at least in point of prosperity and sophistication (as well as a couple of other things). So both were "empires," in point of intervening in some countries whether those other countries liked it or not, and in arranging the governments of other countries to suit them.

I can quote more if you would like.

Well, no. It's because South Korea is rather obviously better equipped to handle it, starting with the fact that they all speak the language.

And Americans can speak Afghan or Iraq without translators?

Indeed: Iraq never would have built up the massive military it had, and so wouldn't have been positioned to stage an invasion in the first place. Nor would it have had an incentive to, since Kuwait's oil is what Saddam was after.

And America doesn't want or need that oil? ETA: Iraq has loads of oil, probably the bulk of the worlds oil.

I'm sure they don't, but I don't think you understand how dire the food situation is. If conflict breaks out, it isn't just the peasants who might starve, it's the soldiers. And when the soldiers start starving, the military elite have nothing to protect themselves with.

If the food shortage is so dire, how come they haven't already starved to death.
They could always resort to cannabilism in the event of a protracted war. There would be no shortage of dead bodies.

Would you put that beyond them?

They certainly don't look like Biafrans.

ETA: Here is another. It is not a derogatory term IMO, merely a factual one.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-05-05-boot_x.htm

 

[Quad4_72]

Okay, it might have meant that. Though given the general level of ignorance of the article, I would sooner say the author just added the thicknesses of armor from all over the tank, something like this:
242 mm (turret front) + 153 mm (turret sides) + 97 mm (turret rear) + 102 mm (angled hull front) + 79 mm (upper hull sides) + 15 mm (lower hull sides) = 688 mm

The actual LOS armor of a T-62 is up to 480 mm steel equivalent from this web page I quickly googled. Given that's still awfuly wrong, and only applies to the turret front (it's less for hull), I suspect the author indeed just added the armor thicknesses of various parts of the armor together, ignoring some of them in the process.

It's a ridicolus article overall, and extremely funny.

McHrozni

I agree

 

[Darth Rotor]

For FHA:

Cost to train an American pilot. Between one and three million per, and that is just to get said pilot to the set of wings and assignment to a platform. After than, the training continuum just keeps adding dollars to the cost of a pilot both trained and current enough to get your chosen mission accomplished.

Also, FHA, your Starcraft ref made me chuckle. If only Siege Tanks had nuc rounds ... but that would unbalance the game.

DR

 

[catsmate]

And America doesn't want or need that oil? ETA: Iraq has loads of oil, probably the bulk of the worlds oil.

Nonsense. Saudi Arabia, Canada and Iran have larger proven oil reserves than Iraq; between them more than four times as much.
The Orinoco tar sands alone could produce three times as much oil as Iraq.

 

[jimbob]

But doesn't North Korea only need enough of a capability to seriously rule10 the economy of South Korea?

It is a fairly big assumption, but if 50% of their artillery managed a couple of salvos on Seoul, with a mix of conventional and chemical explosives, that could be pretty costly, and I'd imagine could cause a fairly drastic recession.

After all I doubt that the North Korean troops have been told how suicidal that would be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Americans may not like to call themselves imperialists or claim to practice imperialism, but whether you call it imperialism, neo imperialism or hegemony, the objective is the same.

The objective is not the same, and more importantly, the methods aren't the same. The reason the word "imperialism" gets used is to try to tar the US with the various horrible acts that Europe engaged in while it pursued real imperialism. We've done bad things, but we haven't done imperialism in about a century, and even then our efforts were rather half-hearted.

And Americans can speak Afghan or Iraq without translators?

Few of our soldiers can. And that makes the job harder. But we have no ally with an arabic-speaking army willing and able to do what we're doing. That's not the case in Korea. In the aftermath of a war, the South will want to take the lead in managing what remains of the North. And they'll be able to as well.

And America doesn't want or need that oil?

There were always easier ways of getting that oil.

ETA: Iraq has loads of oil, probably the bulk of the worlds oil.

Uh, no. No, it does not.

If the food shortage is so dire, how come they haven't already starved to death.

A good number of North Koreans have starved to death. They're on the edge. A disruption in transportation (an inevitable effect of war) would push many of them over the edge, because there are very few stockpiles of food anywhere.

They could always resort to cannabilism in the event of a protracted war. There would be no shortage of dead bodies.

Yeah, that's GREAT for soldier morale. Go eat your fallen comrade! Or, if you're not near the front, shoot your comrade and eat him.

Or you could just shoot your commanding officer and eat him instead.

Would you put that beyond them?

I don't think that the leadership cares about the welfare of anyone under them except to the extent that it's necessary to maintain stability and power. But if your army is resorting to canibalism in order to avoid starvation, you've lost control already.

 

[Ziggurat]

They're waiting for the premier's birthday. It will be a big surprise.

I like the reference. Of course, it also makes exactly the point I was making (though I'm not suggesting you're trying to argue otherwise): threats are only effective when they're known.

 

[Skwinty]

Nonsense. Saudi Arabia, Canada and Iran have larger proven oil reserves than Iraq; between them more than four times as much.
The Orinoco tar sands alone could produce three times as much oil as Iraq.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

"Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."

While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.

 

[Ziggurat]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

Congratulations. You've discovered that Iraq has a lot of oil.

Too bad that you claimed significantly more than that, and that this link doesn't support what you actually claimed.

 

[catsmate]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

"Iraq holds more than 112 billion barrels of oil - the world's second largest proven reserves. Iraq also contains 110 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and is a focal point for regional and international security issues."

While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the work behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.

Out of date, that's an eight year old webpage. Current proven reserves of oil in Iraq are actually ~140Gbbl; this is still less than Canada, Iran or Saudi Arabia and still less than one quarter of the total of all those countries reserves. And my comment about the tar sands still stands.

On the subject of oil inspired invasion conspiracy theories.........
The US imported 11.3Mbbl of Iraqi oil in 2002 compared to:

• [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Saudi Arabia 56.2[/FONT]Mbbl
• [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Venezuela 20.2[/FONT]Mbbl
• [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Nigeria 19.3[/FONT]Mbbl
• [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Canada 46.2[/FONT]Mbbl
• [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Mexico 53.8[/FONT]Mbbl
• [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]United Kingdom 11.7[/FONT]Mbbl

why not invade them instead? Two of them even have land borders with the US.

 

[WildCat]

Third, the prospect of several hundred thousand North Korean refugees pooring into China would be most unwelcome.

I can't imagine that China would be the destination of choice for N. Koreans, when S. Korea speaks their language and shares the same history and culture.

What would they be refugees from if S. Korea took over? Stocked grocery stores and the latest electronic gadgets?

The only reason they head to China now is that border is far easier to get across than the heavily guarded border with S. Korea.

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't imagine that China would be the destination of choice for N. Koreans, when S. Korea speaks their language and shares the same history and culture.

During a war, China would be a better destination, because that's away from the fighting. After a war, yes, refugees are more likely to head south than north.

What would they be refugees from if S. Korea took over?

They would flee during the fighting, to escape being conscripted, to escape getting caught in the crossfire, to escape not having any food, etc.

 

[WildCat]

During a war, China would be a better destination, because that's away from the fighting. After a war, yes, refugees are more likely to head south than north.



They would flee during the fighting, to escape being conscripted, to escape getting caught in the crossfire, to escape not having any food, etc.

I know this, which is why it would not be in China's interests to get involved in any such war and thereby prolonging it.

 

[Skwinty]

Congratulations. You've discovered that Iraq has a lot of oil.

Too bad that you claimed significantly more than that, and that this link doesn't support what you actually claimed.

I stated that Iraq has lots of oil and my bad was to say "probably" the bulk of the world reserve. Big deal.

Congratulations, you scored a major point here.

The link stated that Iraq had the second largest proven reserve in the world, and that was an American source of data.

WRT to imperialism I now understand why the US requires it's own dictionary for the english language.

It is obviously a touchy subject for Americans and any question or opinion to the contrary is seen as a personal affront. Get over it.

I don't see it as a derogatory statement or trying to tar the US with any one elses brush as US hegemony/imperialism has brought more good to the world than bad.

If you read the links I provided, you would have realised that.

 

[Skwinty]

I will start a new thread later on today to discuss the oil and imperialism subject as this is not the thread for those issues.

 

[Jungle Jim]

Here is an interesting comparison of the relative military strength of North and SOuth Korea. Keep in mind this is just a quantitative comparison, not a qualitative comparison. However, one item particularly stands out.

North Korea has:
1.7 times as many active military personnel
3.3 times as many air based weapons (planes)
2.0 times as many land based weapons
8.3 times as many naval units

and yet, South Korea's defense expenditure is 4.6 times greater than North Korea.

 

[pipelineaudio]

and yet, South Korea's defense expenditure is 4.6 times greater than North Korea.

Food, fuel and ammo cost money

 

[Andy_Ross]

Training costs money so does buying and maintaining up to date weapons. Keeping everything you ever purchased in service no matter how old or decrepid gets you into the state the Soviets were in at the end of the Cold War.