North Korea General

[spooky lynx 73]

My thoughts? There won't be any war. Norks have no power to take the South. Zerg rush is not so successful nowdays. South has not enough funds to make Northern infrastructure at least half of their own and at the same time it will have to drop significantly its army budget after reunion. USA will lose its long time scarecrow and excuse to have huge amount of forces at the Far East (and also drop the defence spending - no more crazy Norks missile threat). So current status quo suits well for everyone.

P.S. If North will take over South it will collapse too. All its ideology is based on possible war. But what will be after its end? They don't say anything. They will fail to explain why their people still live in poverty after crush of evil Southern capitalists.

[Fuse 1]

As has been said, war for NK is suicide from every angle and they know it. The impending war is just one of many ways they control their populace, and that is their only goal: keep the people down and exploit them until they die at their work station (though, unlike China, the exploitation only benefits the party leaders, not national development). Unfortunately I think all we can do is sit back and hope China doesn't keep them propped up forever. Who knows, maybe once China surpasses the US they can slow their roll and start to develop a conscience. :)

[scrim 1]

The NK regime has no other interest than to remain in power. They know that war will result in a quick, overwhelming defeat. The SK government will always hate their Northern neighbour, and want to wipe that abomination of a nation of the map. Afterwards, sure, they'd regret it when they get a Germany re-united bill times 100, but they won't invade because the US wouldn't allow an aggressive war, and going solo would work, but it would be devastating.

So no, NK won't go to war. Kim is just flexing his muscles in front of the regime. Let's face it, there could be a bunch of brothers we don't know of who could go for the power.

[DocTore 1]

Hopefully, NK won't bother doing anything too... aggressive. Whatever insanity they're under is just asking to get themselves removed from the map. Part of me wants to

see them disappear from the map but there's plenty of innocent people that are simply starving and shouldn't be a part of this situation.

[CommanderYuri 10]

such tough talk only proves that there's heat in internal affairs. Someone want's to show who's the leader and at the same time evade any internal conflict by simple warmongery dialogue against the west. I would take those preemtive strike threats serious though, no matter if SK or Japane are able to defend themselves against ballistic missiles or not. Even take a preperation for a conventional assault of NK into considaration. After all, a surprise attack is allways a huge possibility and it is what it is, pretty much capable of dealing quite significant damage in the beginning, no matter how well prepared you think you are. For something like that you are never really prepared.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Must be serious! They have started phtoshopping the military to make it look more impressive:

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/03/is-this-north-korean-hovercraft-landing-photo-faked/100480/

[Beagle 684]

More recent videos...

Peasant stormtroopers at shooting practice. Note Soviet era late 40's equipment and use of plastic plants as camo.

http://youtu.be/sJRpw34Oo6o (still many of these soldiers wield ww2 weapons - Dp28 & PPSH.

(Borat has visited North Korea)

Bullets do not care if the weapon it is shot from looks cool or not. A lot of WW2 weapons are still fit for the job. I own a precision grade rifle made from a 1942 dated Swedish Carl Gustav 6.5x55 myself abnd a lot of armies even use a slightly modified MG42 or M2 Brownings .50 till today. The current use of plastics is not really an big achievement in gun development.

[scrim 1]

I think it's got more to do with the bullets being fired from obsolete SMGs and support weapons that were bad during WW2.

[bangtail 0]

If endless smack talking and posturing won wars, we'd all be speaking Korean.

Thankfully, it does not ;)

And ROFL at the Photoshopping - nothing says 'be afraid' more than non existent vehicles :rolleyes:

[Fuse 1]

I think it's got more to do with the bullets being fired from obsolete SMGs and support weapons that were bad during WW2.

I don't care how "obsolete" a weapon is. If it still fires then I don't want to be in front of it.

[Beagle 684]

In Germany we had someone in a station shooting using 6 muzzle loader pistols...that obsolete stuff still kills.

[scrim 1]

Yeah, I suppose you're right. What disadvantage could possibly be suffered by a military that equips itself with obsolete weapons?

[Lauxman 10]

Yes, obsolete weapons still kills.

An infantry platoon equipped with M4s, M249s, and the Ranger Handbook still kills much more effectively than peasants with old rifles.

[slatts 1978]

Yes, obsolete weapons still kills.

An infantry platoon equipped with M4s, M249s, and the Ranger Handbook still kills much more effectively than peasants with old rifles.

Annnd that's where guerilla warfare comes in.

[Lauxman 10]

Guerilla warfare isn't successful because of the lethality of obsolete small arms.

[slatts 1978]

Guerilla warfare isn't successful because of the lethality of obsolete small arms.

Yeah...I'm saying that your infantry platoon with their little handbook can still be overcome by peasants.

[oxmox 73]

Yes, obsolete weapons still kills.

An infantry platoon equipped with M4s, M249s, and the Ranger Handbook still kills much more effectively than peasants with old rifles.

Did you see some of the weapons the Mujahideen used in the 80ies....sometimes with the old Lee Enfield equipped.

[Lauxman 10]

I'd like to hear the last time an infantry platoon was overcome by peasants with obsolete weapons.

Even the insurgents think you're wrong.

Yeah, I also recall the Mujahadeen getting slaughtered by Soviet helicopters, until...

[spooky lynx 73]

Guerilla warfare isn't successful because of the lethality of obsolete small arms.

But still Talibans equipped with obsolete weapons are potent threat to ISAF, and they fight for already 12 years against enemy with up-to-date equipment. Making coffins fly to Europe and America and being a reason for giant amount of money spent on this war. So I'd say peasants with obsolete weapons but with great knowledge about theatre of war and idea to fight for were and are serious enemies.

[Lauxman 10]

But still Talibans equipped with obsolete weapons are potent threat to ISAF, and they fight for already 12 years against enemy with up-to-date equipment. Making coffins fly to Europe and America and being a reason for giant amount of money spent on this war. So I'd say peasants with obsolete weapons but with great knowledge about theatre of war and idea to fight for were and are serious enemies.

So what, exactly, is the weapon system that produces most of those casualties?

[batto 17]

so what, exactly, is the weapon system that produces most of those casualties?

ak-47?

[scrim 1]

Did you see some of the weapons the Mujahideen used in the 80ies....sometimes with the old Lee Enfield equipped.

Yeah, while that was their primary weapons, they were losing badly. It's when they got MANPADs, AA cannons, training, radios, etc. that they managed.

Spook: "Potent threat"? They're barely managing their survival, and if it hadn't been for the withdrawal, they would have been doomed. Just look at Marjah. They're not like the Mujahedeen that tossed the Soviets out in the '80s.

Batto: Nope, IEDs. And thanks to Pakistan and Iran, they have gotten their hands on more advanced components for them. Still, the MRAPs manage quite well.

[spooky lynx 73]

So what, exactly, is the weapon system that produces most of those casualties?

Ole good mines and other explosives, AKs, PKs, RPG-7 and DShK. It's easier a lot to set a minefield or IED if you live in that place and know all the spots that are best for it.

Spook: "Potent threat"? They're barely managing their survival, and if it hadn't been for the withdrawal, they would have been doomed. Just look at Marjah. They're not like the Mujahedeen that tossed the Soviets out in the '80s.

Oh the irony... Many people say that late 80's Mujaheeden were barely managing their survival too:)

[scrim 1]

Like who? Soviet generals? It is widely accepted that they grew stronger once they gained foreign support. The difference between the Mujahedeen and the Taliban is that the latter isn't fighting against a military force which is terrorising the population, meaning they have less vital popular support.

[Lauxman 10]

So since when are mines (lol, they don't use military landmines often, genius) and AKs, PKMs, RPGs, and DSHks obsolete weapons?