-Snafu-

I use Alpinestars. Works great for me.

I agree. I mean, really fun and enjoyable, but realistic? I didn't think so.

You haven't produced any sources at all. You are focusing one the initial part of the war where the ROK was surprised and not ready for such a fight what with being a new nation and that the US declared it outside of its core interests, hence not much aid in the way of development. The North had a head start considering that's where most of the industry was located. Highly unlikely. They will never repeat 1950. Why? South Korea has a good military, industry and is much more prepared for such an eventuality. As I said before you haven't produced anything. The internet is not my source. Reputable reports, articles, books and the like are my sources. It doesn't matter if they come from the internet or not. As long as what is produced is reputable. As I said earlier ones on the internet means that others can quite easily check them out. You must be on a different planet from everybody else as producing quotes and sources is definitely not regarded as lazy. Quite the opposite in fact and is actively encouraged. I use you plenty, thank you very much, I have to. I am well aware of what's out there.

I like to read a variety of sources instead of making stuff up like Cliff from Cheers. I also read reputable internet articles too and most of these are from Academic Journals since you can't get easily hard copies of them. Reputable internet sources are also good since other people can check them out easily. The South Koreans acquitted themselves well in the Korean War. The initial advances less to do with their fighting ability and more to do with the fact that they simply weren't prepared. The South Koreans gained an excellent reputation during the Vietnam War (65-73). Furthermore, South Korean troops were deployed to Iraq. The South Korean military has actual recent operational experience unlike North Korea. More on the ROK in Vietnam. They were well respected for their tenacity. From 1965 the Republic of Korea deployed tens of thousands of ground troops to Vietnam. The Korean force level in Vietnam reached a high of 50,000 men in 1968, and the Koreans remained in Vietnam until the final US withdrawal in 1973. The Korean troops were respected for their tenacity, and US servicemen nicknamed them 'the RoKs'. As Army medical technician James Calbreath remembers, the Korean troops were believed to be ready to take on any military task, and to do so with enthusiasm: ...during Tet [1968] the VC had gotten into town, like they did into all towns, and had taken over the radio station and the TV station. And so they were broadcasting from the TV station and the ARVNs went in and they tried to get them out but they couldn't get them out. The US troops I don't think really ever tried to get them out. So they called in the Koreans, and the Koreans just drove a tank up in front of the building and just started firing and just literally blew the building to smithereens, went in, drug out the dead VC and hung them from a telephone pole. These were the people who were protecting us, "It sounds good to me." The Koreans were tough and crazy. From: Voices from Vietnam Eye-witness accounts of the war, 1954-1975 by Richard Burks Verrone and Laura M. Calkins (2005). p. 107. Even though South Vietnam was defeated it is irrelevant because victory in that war hinged upon the US. The ROK did not deploy enough troops to have a decisive effect. Quite clearly, they performed well. These two small incidents do not provide enough information to analyse the performance of South Korea in a conventional war against the North. Another highly dubious sweeping statement. As far as I am aware the ROK still exists so I am not sure how they were defeated by the DPRK. Also, you do realise your list goes beyond partition so you're lumping North and South Koreans as one and then separating them post-partition? So, what are you saying, all Korean are all bad fighters and all ways will be because of history? Honestly, your point makes little sense. What matters: a) Training b) Doctrine b) Equipment c) Planning d) Morale e) Competent leadership f) Logistics etc. Not historical track record. It may factor in some way (morale) but it is hardly decisive. Furthermore, you can't use events from the past, where warfare and Korea was completely different, and state that the modern ROK military is 'useless'. The North Korean posturing has little to do with belief in some sort of military superiority over the ROK. It's posturing for primarily for political reasons.The DPRK obviously does not share your assessment of the South Korean military, otherwise, they would have tried to invade again. You also ignore the position of modern China on the DPRK.

No, actually doing some reading is important, otherwise you will find yourself making sweeping statements that have little to no basis in reality.

IIRC, the RO2 devs are aiding mod teams to create mods that should be available soon after the release of RO2. A quick Google should bring up something about it. Here's a PTO mod that's being developed. http://www.risingstormgame.com/

There was quite a serious food crisis in post war Europe and you will find it mentioned in almost any general history of WW2. You underestimate the damage caused by WW2. Continental Europe became a battleground where millions of people died (labour shortage) and production was very adversely effected. In 1939 the UK had to bring in 70% of its food from overseas but the push for agricultural production meant that this could be brought down to the bare minimum (Source: Storm of War by Andrew Roberts). At this moment I am looking at a Cabinet report from April 1945 where the colonies and dominions were suffering food shortages of their own. I don't have my hands on the necessary documents but it seems to me that Brazil, the US and Argentina were more important than the empire during the war and immediate post-war period as food producers. (Source: REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1945 FOR THE DOMINIONS, INDIA, BURMA AND THE COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES) With agricultural production in Europe ruined supplies were brought across from the Atlantic but many rations in the German urban centres were well below 1,000 calories per day. Only in 1948 did food rations begin to improve. (Source: The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze) Indeed, a Cabinet report produced in February 1945 stated that, 'Of the chief foods only wheat will be available in abundance. Meat, canned fish, fats, sugar and dairy produce (butter, cheese, canned milk and milk powder) will, in face of increasing demands, be in shorter supply than ever before.' (Source: WORLD FOOD SUPPLIES, 1945. MEMORANDUM BY THE MINISTER OF FOOD) It really did take years for the world to recover post-1945. The post-war period was quite bloody despite the lack of a war. Still, I am at a loss as to why this is being discussed as it has no relation to the famine in the DPRK. There are interviews of people who say the opposite. These are just individual perspectives, however, and do not give you a big picture. The life of a party member in Pyongyang is completely different to that of a rural farmer. I would appreciate it if you could post these interviews. Why not? They are pretty interesting and useful. It 'makes sense' despite the fact you openly admit your knowledge of the DPRK is limited? As with WW2 these events that are not directly comparable. The DPRK openly admitted they were in the middle of a famine in 1996 in order to receive food aid from the world (including ROK). They are still quite reliant on food aid to this day. In what way are the authors of these studies the DPRKs enemies? I am not sure what these international studies have to do with intelligence agencies. Perhaps you can shed some light on this? They received, in fact still receiving, food aid from other nations. Loosening political control was not a condition to be met to receive aid. Evidently not as you say below. Your observation is based on nothing but a few interviews. As you said earlier information is not readily available so I am surprised as to how you can come to this conclusion.

Great release. I really missed TrueMods in ArmA 2. :) Will there be a TrueAI release like there was in ArmA?

I am more interested in what in-depth studies think on the matter rather than someone who has thought about the subject for 30 seconds and passes off what he thinks as fact. Problems in production have been compounded by difficulties in distribution and in the use of output. Shortages of fuel and spare parts for vehicles have hampered distribution. At the same time, some outside observers have questioned the uses to which output has been put: scarce cereals appear to continue to be used to produce luxury products such as noodles, urban areas with high concentrations of Korean Workers Party (KWP) members and government officials have received preferential allocations, and it has been claimed that military stockpiling continues. The end result of these difficulties has been a secular deterioration in food production and, in the absence of additional imports, a deterioration in the food balance. Despite the desperate situation internally, the government maintains the most militarized society on earth, with more than one million men (and increasingly women) under arms, and estimated 25 percent of GDP devoted to military expenditures (US ACDA 1997). This point is reinforced if one believes that certain military or military-related expenditures are hidden in the economic development budget. Estimates of North Korean military manpower and equipment do not reveal anything like this economic decline over the relevant period. Indeed, US and South Korean defense ministry figures show a slight increase in North Korean military deployment during this period. This suggests that the non-military part of the economy is being severely squeezed. pp. 1-2. From: FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA:Causes and Cures Marcus Noland Institute for International Economics Sherman Robinson International Food Policy Research Institute Tao Wang Institute for International Economics http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/99-2.pdf The country could improve food availability by freeing up resources currently devoted to the military, but as long as the country pursues “military-first†politics, this is unlikely. It is not at all clear that the current leadership is willing to countenance the erosion of state control that would accompany the degree of marketization necessary to revitalize the economy. pp. 26-27. Famine and Reform in North Korea Marcus Noland http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145.4829&rep=rep1&type=pdf While the desire to maintain power and diversion of resources to military policies are not the only causes (I never said they were), most things have a number of causes, however, they are without a doubt key reasons. Your comparison is flawed. Different time and circumstances. There was no famine. Furthermore, the UK was facing a possible invasion. National survival was at stake. DPRK was not about to be invaded by the ROK. It was not fighting a war for national survival. The main reason there was a food shortage from 1945 onwards was that Europe had been devastated by WW2. People were killed, industry was destroyed and agricultural production slumped. It had very little to do with developing nuclear weapons which began as early as late 1945, long before the Cold War was in effect.

Don't want to drag the thread OT. I am not denying horrible stuff has not happened in 'the west' (I dislike that generic term that constantly changes meaning). A famine in Ireland (it did not only effect Ireland FYI) that occurred 100+ years ago in a different time period in completely different circumstances cannot be used to justify the actions of modern NK. My point is that NK is willing to put large parts of its population at risk so it can pursue military development. Not many people flee from SK to NK.

You can't compare WW2 to the current situation. Completely different times and circumstances. The world 'sat on its collective ass' because it couldn't see into the future and judging them with what we now know is silly. The mass casualties of WW1 was still fresh in the minds of people of Europe and nobody wanted that to happen again. They all thought Hitler was a rational man and the demand to have the majority German Sudetenland seemed reasonable. I say again they did not know what would happen in the future so judging them with what we now know is stupid. Only post-Munich did the leaders of France, UK and Poland realise that Hitler could not be trusted. Churchill could afford to be a voice in the woods in the 1930s because he was not in a position of political power. Not that hew knew what Hitler was really like. The only direct similarity with Munich and the current situation (I really don't know why they are being compared in the first place) is that the people and governments do not want to see millions die. Nobody 'give a shit' about NK because a conflict would result in millions of casualties and lots of damage to SK, NK and economies of the world. Not so much is at stake, compared to WW2, and the costs outweigh the benefits. The west is 'morally superior' in that they are not totalitarian states and don't starve their people. Just because you don't agree with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't make NK any better.

Baff1, for 4 years we have had to put with your posts. They are odd, poorly structured, light on facts and evidence and often make little sense. Do what that well known poster of the WW2 soldier holding the canteen is asking. You will be doing humanity a favour. EDIT OK, I was an arsehole earlier. My apologies. There was too much opinion and not enough facts. A war would not be in the interest of SK. Although a conventional conflict might not last long and it would be a victory for the US and SK it would costs millions in lives and millions in damage. I don't understand how one can say there is no moral side to this. Some conflicts don't have moral sides, some do. This is one of them. The NK leadership is willing to sacrifice some of its population in order to maintain its power. The dictatorship, camps and starvation gives a clear moral side to this. While SK does not have a squeaky clean past it is now a functioning and stable representative democracy. There were other dubious claims with the WW2 areas presented in this thread but I leave it since it's OT.

You can find a good Dog script, blitzy, here. http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=87080&highlight=blitzy

Nobody is saying anything about doomsday but that the North has the ability to inflict heavy casualties against the South in terms of lives and property damage. The US and South Korean governments (see report I posted earlier) believe this to be highly likely as well as military experts and defence think tanks. In addition to military targets and other close urban centres 5,000 artillery shells are estimated by the US military to hit the SK capital within 24 hours of hostilities. That's quite a lot. You forget that it's not just Seoul that is of concern but the whole of South Korea. Millions of soldiers, civilians and foreign troops, will die. You paint a potential war as some sort of cake walk. The South Korean government obviously disagrees, otherwise they would issue harsher responses to these provocations. They are quite rightly concerned with the death and destruction that would be inflicted upon their country in the event of a war. The AAA systems are obviously not state of the art. I'm not saying they can wipe an allied air force out of the sky but they do need to be destroyed. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of these sites and they have the ability to put a lot into the air. It would probably require hundreds of strikes to degrade AAA capability. This will eat up a lot of available assets and time. As USAF Col. Steven R. Prebeck (promoted since he wrote it) states in his report on a possible strike on North Korea: 'Along with their fighter force, the North Koreans have an elaborate AAA and surface-to-air missile (SAM) capability, although it is mostly concentrated on their southern border...Any other option requires a sustained campaign involving the removal of air defenses.' 'Considering the uncertainty introduced by providing warning and including North Korean air defenses, the target base increases tremendously...Finally, air defenses would have to be destroyed to ensure freedom of access to targets.' This would require a lengthy build up of air assets which is problematic if NK should launch a 'surprise' attack which it may have the ability to do considering the amount of units stationed at the border. The bulk of US airpower would not be in theatre during the crucial early stages of such a conflict. Preventive Attack in the 1990s? STEVEN R. PREBECK, MAJOR, USAF School of Advanced Airpower Studies http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/9305prebeck.pdf Back to the main point. A war wouldn't be easy, it would see millions of casualties and cost billions. I'm not saying that SK would be a push over, far from it, both sides would suffer greatly in a war. Both armies possess the ability to inflict a great deal of damage upon each other. Underestimating this ability is, IMHO, dangerous. Thankfully, US and SK generals and politicians agree that a conflict would be a bloody mess and not something like Desert Storm. In the 1950s and 1960s US generals and politicians discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons in local conflicts. There are good reasons they never resorted to such potentially catastrophic measures.

I'm not sure what you're point is. The war would be costly in lives. US and South Korean civilian and military casualty estimates run into the millions if a general war breaks out. The AAA assets and artillery are not easy targets either. The author of that thread you linked also details AAA positions, of which there are a hell of a lot, and these would need to be suppressed or destroyed before taking action against other fortified positions which are not very easy to destroy. Since the 1980s, North Korea has built up its forces within 60 miles of the DMZ to roughly 65 percent of its total units and 80 percent of its total estimated firepower, a 1998 assessment judged. This compares to 45 percent of its total units in 1984. U.S. military estimates in 1994 were that those artillery pieces could bombard Seoul with 5,000 rounds in the first 24 hours of any attack. South Korea’s hesitancy to engage in warfare with the North can justifiably partly be attributed to concern about casualties and damage to itself. Casualties in such a conflict would be in the hundreds of thousands, and damage to the infrastructure of the Peninsula in the billions of dollars. The political and economic effects of such a war would reverberate around the region for decades. When the United States was making serious preparations to go to war with the DPRK in May 1994, senior military leaders gave estimates to President Bill Clinton that predicted 52,000 U.S. military personnel killed and wounded, along with 490,000 South Korean military casualties, in the first 90 days, as well as ‘enormous’ DPRK and civilian casualties. A month later, in June 1994, the then U.S. commander-in-chief on the Peninsula, Gen. Gary Luck, estimated in the process of preparing war plans that as many as a million people might be killed if war broke out, including 80,000-100,000 Americans; the war would cost the United States more than $100 billion; and the destruction and interruption of business would cost a trillion dollars to the countries involved and their immediate neighbours. All from a report by the Center for Defense Information on what could happen in another Korean war. http://www.cdi.org/north-korea/north-korea-crisis.pdf

Obviously, aircraft carriers are not the be all and end all of naval warfare, however, there are only three reasons to have an aircraft carrier. Those reasons are power projection, power projection and power projection. If you can't project a significant amount of military power anywhere in the globe then you are not a superpower. Submarines and ICBMs are useless against land assets under threat from, say, militia or another nation. To secure them China would need to deploy troops and those troops need air cover and that means they need a mobile airfield, in other words, an aircraft carrier! It will have to deploy troops overseas and you can't do that without an aircraft carrier. It is only in the early stages of carrier development and if it wants to be a superpower it needs that power projection ability or it will never be able to defend its future significant overseas interests. The 'superpowers' of the Cold War were the US and USSR. 'Superpowers' in that they were the only two nations able to match each other politically, militarily and economically around the globe. The Chinese aren't quite there yet. A nation can't be a superpower on economic power alone.

Not quite there yet. Only when it has large aircraft carriers and the ability to project military power at any point in the globe will it be one. It may have economic power but it needs military power to back it up. A bit like the USA in the early 20th Century. Economically powerful but not much of a military power bar the USN.

ARMA 2 + MichaelCO + ffur2007slx2_5 + xiaogoufu + Local host + Hamachi + Public TS3/Skype = Good times I host my own MP COOP games and play with a few others from around the world using Hamachi and it all works fine.

Yeah, theoretically anything can happen. The scenario carries too many risks though. Obviously I don't know for sure as I haven't looked into it, but looking beyond a tactical perspective like we have in ArmA, does Alaska have the necessary infrastructure to support large military units? Same goes for that area of Russia. Logistics would be a major headache I'd imagine. The weather and terrain don't make for a nice combination either.

I don't understand why the US would agree to let China fire a missile off its coast. I can't see that it serves any purpose. Where and how would the US an Russia fight? It can't be conventional as the Russian armed forces are in no state for any long term major offensive and US forces are bogged down in two wars in far off places. They also don't share a land border and the areas that are closest are not well suited to large scale troop movements. It would most likely go nuclear and would certainly not be confined to just those two. The whole world would be dragged into it.

Reasons? Why would China sail up to the US and fire off a missile, an act of war, when it's armed forces are in the middle of major development? It wants to send a message of strength? There are less dangerous and stupid ways to do that (military exercises, parades and the like). Plus, when a nation wants to flex its muscles it makes sure it gets the credit. The media does love bad news. Try watching a 24 hour news channel all day. You'll want to kill yourself by the end of it.

1. Run down to the library, grab a book on WW1 infantry tactics and Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory. 2. Adding knives and/or bayonets will not turn ArmA 2 into COD.

No, not trolling. Just some friendly ribbing. I'm willing to wait for more facts to come in before jumping to conclusions, but hey, why let common sense stand in the way of fanciful conspiracy theories revolving around dodgy Tom Clancy novels and China trying to start WW3 for no apparent reason?

Yes, it's quite obviously a nuclear explosion despite the fact that it is nothing like a nuclear explosion. :p :rolleyes: Perhaps it is something simple. On October 13 people in New York spotted some balloons in the sky and reported them as UFOs. Yes, they were just balloons.

Back in the day Dmakatra had a little thing called Project: Flashpoint where he took CS players and introduced them into OFP. http://project-flashpoint.blogspot.com/