backtop


Print 116 comment(s) - last by cyberguyz.. on Apr 3 at 5:18 PM

Defense experts say North Korea's claims are purely bombastic and delusional

Kim Jung-Un, supreme ruler of North Korea (NK) and son of late dictator Kim Jong-Il, loves Dennis Rodman and American culture, but he hates the American government after they cut off his imports of luxury items due to his insistence on nuclear weapons development.  Now the dictator's bipolar attitude towards the U.S. has seemingly taken, with Mr. Jung-Un scrapping a six decades old armistice with America and South Korea (SK).

I. Kim Jung-Un: "We Should Mercilessly Strike the U.S. Mainland"

In an appearance on the state-controlled Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), the young dictator is pictured leafing through documents surrounding by four military officials.  Behind him is a map of his plans to "attack" the U.S. with missile strikes.  The map indicates missile trajectories stretching from NK to the continental U.S.

The KCNA report describes recent stealth bomber tests over South Korea by the U.S. as "an ultimatum that they (the United States) will ignite a nuclear war at any cost on the Korean Peninsula."

attack plans

(closeup 1)
attack plans (2/3)

(closeup 2)
attack plans (3/3)
[Image Source: KCNA/Reuters (Top), bottom images modified by James Pearson of NK News]

The report continues, "If [South Korea and the U.S.] make a reckless provocation with huge strategic forces, (we) should mercilessly strike the U.S. mainland, their stronghold, their military bases in the operational theaters in the Pacific, including Hawaii and Guam, and those in South Korea."

II. Tensions Escalate

The threat is the latest in a series of jabs between the U.S. and the defiant Asian military dictatorship.  Following its decision to scrap the armistice, the U.S. conducted war games in SK.  NK responded by cutting a key phone line used as one of the only diplomatic channels between the North and the South.

In an apparent response to the line cutting, the U.S. proceeded with a test of B-2 Spirit stealth bombers over North Korea, which according to U.S. Forces Korea "demonstrates the United States' ability to conduct long-range, precision strikes quickly and at will."

B-2 fly over
B-2 bombers fly over South Korea earlier this week. [Image Source: Sin Young-Keun/Yonhap]

Designed by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC), the B-2 is a fearsome weapon far beyond anything in North Korea's arsenal.  Its specialty is in standoff missiles (cruise or short-range ballistic) -- missiles that are launched at distance to avoid counterattacking fire.  The B-2 is the only known aircraft capable of engaging in standoff missile strikes while in stealth mode (most nations use ships for this purpose).  The bomber has a crew of two and carries up to eighty 500 lb (230 kg)-class JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400 lb (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs.

Despite the back and forth Pentagon spokesman George Little called on NK to "dial the temperature down", accusing the nation of engaging in cycles of "provocative behavior".


He told CNN, "No one wants there to be war on the Korean Peninsula, let me make that very clear....  We have to deal with them. We have to be sober, calm, cool, collected about these periods. That's what we're doing right now.  And we are assuring our South Korean allies day to day that we stand with them in the face of these provocations."

China echoed the desire for peace, despite its growing frustration with its ally NK.  Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei told reporters that peace was a "joint responsibility, remarking, "We hope relevant parties can work together to turn around the tense situation in the region."

III. Despite Helping Hand From Iran, Danger Remains Low, Experts Say

After several failed tests, North Korea did succeed last year in launching a rudimentary ballistic missile into space.  The key appears to be support from Iran; sources say that shipments from Iran have been headed to NK and Reuters reported that Iranian observers were present at the December rocket launch.  Some reports indicate that North Korea may have paid Iran nearly $1.3B USD for its engineering expertise, allowing it to turn around its floundering missile program.

North Korea has also been successful in conducting small-scale nuclear bombs tests.  

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NK's February's nuclear test measured "approximately several kilotons" while the first nuclear test in 2006 was under 1 kiloton and the second in 2009 was about 2-7 kilotons.  Those bombs would likely be capable of causing significant damage if they reached a populated area, but are smaller than the 16- and 21-kiloton explosives that the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively) at the close of WWII.

Hiroshima
North Korea's nuclear weapons are about 1/2 to 1/3 the size of the nuclear bomb the U.S. used on Hiroshima in WW II [pictured].

Since WWII, there has been no nuclear act of war.

North Korea may have the ability, theoretically to strike at the U.S. mainland, at least before you consider interceptor capabilities.  However, defense experts say a successful strike on the U.S. by the hostile Asian nation is unlikely.  

J
ames Hardy, Asia-Pacific editor of IHS Jane's Defense Weekly told CNN in an interview, "Unless there has been a miraculous turnaround among North Korea's strategic forces, there is little to no chance that it could successfully land a missile on Guam, Hawaii or anywhere else outside the Korean Peninsula that U.S. forces may be stationed."

Accuracy would be a likely issue, should North Korea attempt such an act of war.

Thus far the hostilities have not resulted in any direct violence.  However, digitally the nations are already at war in cyberspace. North Korea has been engaged in a war of cyber-attacks in recent weeks with the U.S. and its ally South Korea.

Sources: KCNA, CNN



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Seriously?
By BRB29 on 3/29/2013 2:12:52 PM , Rating: 4
Plans and capability are two different things. The map and everything looks like it was set up for media purposes.

Their out of shape leader and generals are a joke and look their part.

Does anyone here actually think that he's signing off on a war plan with four fat generals? Last I checked, a meeting for a war plan is quite elaborate and probably has at least 20 people since you need experts in different fields along with generals.




RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 2:18:58 PM , Rating: 1
NK leadership is a joke. NK readiness is a joke. Last but not least, NK military capabilities are a joke.


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/29/2013 2:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Wonder what the Brits thought about some scrappy lads with muskets in 1775? Just like in the Revolutionary War, there are also supporting nations in the background.

We are supposed to learn from history, not repeat it. Trust me, I'm not some peace loving hippie, quite the opposite actually. However, there are too many signs worldwide of a pending global conflict; Syria and Cyprus in addition to a China backed NK. Have you checked the price and availability for ammo recently, especially .40/.45 (neither are NATO rounds!), and .223? DHS and other agencies are literally stocking up and now even Costco sells MREs!


RE: Seriously?
By BRB29 on 3/29/2013 3:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
How do you compare that?

That is a conventional warfare on enemy soil. Brits has gaps of months in communications because they had to write a letter and wait for the next ship to go back to England. They are fighting in foreign land. They were outnumbered and does not have a reliable supply chain. They were using traditional formations against guerrilla strikes. More died from diseases than actual battles. Etc...etc...


RE: Seriously?
By Bubbacub on 3/29/2013 3:48:27 PM , Rating: 3
what planet are you on?

seriously

global conflict?

a global conflict kind of requires some/all of the major global powers to start a war.

the days of major armies invading one another to enslave another's population are over. there is just no profit in that kind of enterprise anymore.

no one is interested in pulling this kind of crap anymore - not the usa, not the uk/france, not russia, not india and not china.

the global agenda is to make money, drive a fat 4x4, have central heating and play xbox.

the only kind of conflict that could arise are small wars against crackpot dictatorships that can be fought in civilised fashion, trying to minimise civilian casualties with free fluffy bunnies and chocolate for the local children.

if any of these crackpot dictatorships starts throwing nukes - all that will be left is a small smoking radioactive crater - all these crackpot dictatorships know this and thus nothing is likely to happen.

HOWEVER - in our soft modern society there is money to be made by generating fear, uncertainty and doubt - if this (and the prospect of obama suceeding in restricting gun usage) causes a change in the price of ammunition then so be it. i wouldnt read too much into it from a global geopolitical point of view.


RE: Seriously?
By JediJeb on 3/29/2013 9:04:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the days of major armies invading one another to enslave another's population are over. there is just no profit in that kind of enterprise anymore.


Hitler didn't invade most of Europe for profit, heck he destroyed a lot of the infrastructure that was profitable. Just as with him, there are still rulers with delusions of grandeur or just plain evil power lust who would not blink an eye at invading their neighbors if they thought they could win.

If the rest of the world ever said they would not back Israel you can bet their surrounding neighbors would be invading soon after the news broke.

Do not forget the lesson of WWI, where the whole world became involved in war when an assassination of a small countries Arch Duke ignited war among the other larger countries. Just as it was back then when tension had been building for decades, right now there are tensions that could be precursors to something similar. If someone attacks Iran, and Iran tells Russia they will cut off their supply of oil if they do not help them, it could easily escalate into something major. Iran gets upset with Israel if they do make a preemptive strike on their nuke program, the US gets involved to protect Israel from Iran's counter strike, Iran gets Russian involved or Iran's partner North Korea gets a wild hair and decides to just let it fly and nuke South Korea no matter the consequences. Where could that lead?

China if they were smart would simply wipe out North Korea to become the hero of the world, then threaten Iran to make them back off, which could fix their position as world leader over even Russia and the US. Or they can try to let loose with their military on everyone hoping to use power to claim the major position of world power. The decision there would depend on whether deep seated nationalism and pride along with lust for power would win over cool, calm decisive playing of the cards to improve their global standing.

quote:
no one is interested in pulling this kind of crap anymore - not the usa, not the uk/france, not russia, not india and not china. the global agenda is to make money, drive a fat 4x4, have central heating and play xbox.


we can't even get kids to stop bullying other kids when they believe they can win the fight, what makes us think that our leaders are free from such emotions. People in positions of power, most often like that feeling of power and if not very careful it can lead to less than rational thinking.

Don't be so quick to rule out the possibility that some small action somewhere in the world could unleash the worst of peoples actions.


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 3:51:51 PM , Rating: 3
The price of ammo in the US (assuming you're talking about here) is due to the irrational fear of Obama taking our guns away. Nothing more, nothing less. NK is not a "scrappy lad", they're the guy with the short mans complex. And did you actually mention Syria and Cyprus as supporters of NK? Was that as serious comment? Syria couldn't beat Israel with two other countries to help them. And Cyprus? Is that a misspelling or something? China doesn't even like NK's rhetoric, they're sure as hell not going to back them in a conflict especially if they fire a missile at someone.

What's your point anyways? I already said we're not going to be the one's involved here. Bet you Japan, S. Korea or maybe even China shoots down anything they throw out and S. Korea does the invading with China either turning a blind eye or secretly supporting it.


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/29/2013 4:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ammo prices are supply and demand mixed with some profiteering. However, availability is a different issue because civilians who do hoard ammo, they do via wholesalers like bulkammo.com, not retailers. Local shops supply chains have simply dried up. In my parts, few people get the call from the wife on the way home, "Honey, can you pick up some .45 or .223."

I live in NJ, your gun laws (California) are even more strict than ours. Or were... NY state has seven round limit now. Its not Obama or just one person attempting to mandate gun control laws. Its pockets of nanny state cheerleaders that are doing it (Cuomo, Feinstein, Biden, etc)... with thunderous applause.

Never mentioned Syria and Cyprus supporting NK, plus I spelled it correctly. Just examples of leadership and global leadership loosing the ability to negotiate or mitigate conflicts through established means. This also happened in the 1930s during a period of similar global economic situations. Look how that turned out. Iran has been helping out NK not to mention China playing both sides of the ball to its favor.

With respect to Bubba, war and conflict is profitable, extremely profitable actually. However, no one cares about the population, its the area's natural resources (fuel, water, drugs, etc) that are the focus.

I'm interested in anyone on DT to translate not whats on the paper map, but written on the big stationary map behind it.


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 5:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its not Obama or just one person attempting to mandate gun control laws.
You're not reading a thing I've posted. Pull what you think I'm saying out of your brain and READ what I've actually said!


RE: Seriously?
By Bubbacub on 3/29/2013 6:02:23 PM , Rating: 3
certain wars can be profitable - namely small ones in poorish undeveloped countries with wealth wrapped up in raw unprocessed primary exports.

these wars have been going on since ww2 without anyone getting unduly worried.

the large uncontained global conflict which you referenced in your original post has no purpose these days as the wealth of a modern developed nation is in the hands and minds of its population - its difficult to invade such a country without destroying its wealth generating capacity - thus making such conflict pointless - this is one of the main reasons IMO why global conflict has been meaningfully off the agenda since the 70s.


RE: Seriously?
By mcnabney on 4/1/2013 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
The ammo shortage is deliberate hype. If the demand for ammunition had actually increased you might think that some bright person/company might build a factory and cash-in on the high ammo prices. That hasn't happened. It is just fear and stupidity. Eventually it will end and ammo prices will plummet. That is why nobody in the industry is trying to expand production. Hell, even Lake City has dropped their third shift. The industry is just laughing at the stupid rubes as they hoard ammo that they will never shoot. The real victims are the regular shooters that have cut back or even stopped shooting because the costs of gone up so much.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 5:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's the Government that started the ammo shortages and price spikes. Since Obama's first term they've been buying up billions of rounds of ammunition.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/...

http://www.infowars.com/dhs-purchases-21-6-million...


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 6:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting!


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/29/2013 6:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
Told you so spuke and thank you Reclaimer.

What mre are we preparing for dinner?


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 6:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah but you know I don't believe anything anyone tells me. Rec had the good sense to put up some links. Although I'll have to verify that info too. No offense Rec. :)


RE: Seriously?
By ianweck on 3/29/2013 7:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
How have you not heard about this, by now?


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 8:03:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How have you not heard about this, by now?


Because aside from Fox News and some Internet sources, we pretty much have a Leftist State-ran media empire in America that absolutely refuses to call out Obama or even educate the public about what's going on.


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/29/2013 11:09:41 PM , Rating: 1
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=09c3d5e933bc2441...

dhs rfp for 7000 units of select fire 5.56. They also picked up some colt 901 in 2010; a piece that can be switched between 5.56 and 7.62 with an upper change.


RE: Seriously?
By delphinus100 on 3/29/2013 11:37:44 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"Because aside from Fox News and some Internet sources..."


And they, of course, are truly 'fair and balanced.'

Almost everyone's got an agenda. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2013 7:55:35 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes we don't need "fair and balanced". Sometimes the people of this country needs to be told "look this guy is doing some fucked up shit, let me break it down for you."

I think the people of this country should know our Government under Obama is engaging in the largest domestic buildup of the police state ever. Now they've made, in total secret, domestic drone strikes of US citizens legal. And you can call it whatever you want, but the simple fact is this would NEVER be brought up at MSNBC or the others.

So you would choose total ignorance over awareness, even if it might be presented with a slant? Do you not believe people are basically intelligent enough to form their own opinions if you've given them the basic information?


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2013 8:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
You know it's funny but when Bush, or any Republican, is in office the man can't sneeze without it causing a major media controversy. Now that we have Obama, nope, nothing to see here folks move along!

And you want to talk about "fair and balanced"?


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/30/2013 9:21:43 AM , Rating: 1
The constant reporting on the DOMA case, social media campaigns to change pictures, and "skim milk marriages" are an intentional distraction for the masses as well.

This in addition to the timing of the sudden release of new Newtown and Loughner information, coincidentally after major legislation failed to pass. Its laughable that Mark "Michael Moore" Kelly staged purchasing purchasing an AR and then complain about how easy it was. Mark Kelly has compartmentalized clearance and no background check red flags!



RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2013 9:51:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its laughable that Mark "Michael Moore" Kelly staged purchasing purchasing an AR and then complain about how easy it was. Mark Kelly has compartmentalized clearance and no background check red flags!


And this is the biggest tool of the Leftist Liberal media, the half-truth. If you never mention this little tidbit, it changes the entire narrative of the story doesn't it?

Obama shamelessly exploiting the victims of Newtown on stage time and time again is sickening at this point. Background checks? Waiting periods? The Newtown shooter murdered his mother and used HER guns. None of those ideas would have helped. Hey Obama, explain to me how a Federal background check scheme would have prevented that shooting again.


RE: Seriously?
By Pavelyoung on 3/30/2013 5:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
Good luck getting a real response to that one


RE: Seriously?
By ianweck on 4/2/2013 1:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
I see a lot more balance on Fox than CNN, if you're talking about news casting. And yes I switch between liberal and conservative sources constantly.


RE: Seriously?
By Mint on 3/30/2013 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that's actually suspicious.

I don't pay attention to Alex Jones because I'm not going to waste my time wading through a sewer of crap to find one gem now and then, but this conspiracy seems to have at least a bit of merit.

What on earth does the gov't need 1.6 billion rounds of ammo for? I'm not remotely close to buying the whack notion that it's going to war with the US populace, but more realistic possibilities - like handing them to rebels to overthrow a gov't they want ousted - don't exactly put my mind to rest...


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/31/2013 3:27:59 AM , Rating: 3
Two things to mention on the 1.6 billion;

1. It includes jhp and fmj .40 rounds. The US is the only nation to standard issue that pistol round; dhs, dea, FBI, etc. Its also the most popular state and local police pistol round. Yes, you can get a specific 100 yard carbine (storm) in .40, but its still a US sidearm load.

2. That order is in addition to the many other large orders. The one before it was for additional 5 million rounds of .40, but over fiver years. That's sounds normal at quick glance, but taken into context, stands out as well.

So in short, unless the dhs plans on hosting a ton of 50 state ipda and three gun competitions, its preparing for something else.

I lived through sandy and still see the effects months later. People waited on 2-3 hour gas lines (not me thanks to the diesel) and fighting for bread/water. The town we eventually found shelter in had a mandatory curfew which could be viewed as martial law because looting set in. Plain and simple, the local cops were too overwhelmed and state troopers spread too thin. Even months, state troopers patrol seaside, same town as the roller coaster in the water. My whole point of this thread is never underestimate your enemies while at the same time of keeping your eye out for subtle but domestic changes.


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/31/2013 3:30:33 AM , Rating: 2
Wish there was an edit button. Meant idpa and some other grammar stuff. Oh well.


RE: Seriously?
By Lord 666 on 3/31/2013 3:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Seriously?
By craniumbox on 4/2/2013 10:48:47 PM , Rating: 2
How about all those rich, fat Egyptian tycoons bring their money back in from Switzerland and maybe perhaps help the country out that made them so FAT!

Yet the poor average joe gets bent over again...

LoL their answer...
Raise the taxes

What a joke.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/31/13, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By Ramstark on 4/1/2013 1:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Damn, I agree with you totally.

You see, it's always a matter of opinions, not just fanboy bias...

The links were interesting too. I hope the Mexican and US "not official" media channels will cover some of that...


RE: Seriously?
By Schrag4 on 4/1/2013 6:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
A major Mexican news outlet put out an hour-long story about this in the summer of 2012, IIRC. There's a version with english subtitles available somewhere. I don't have a link but if you can find it, I would recommend taking the time to watch. It's a bit sensational (like every media story) but you'll be exposed to lots of facts that our media is refusing to cover.


RE: Seriously?
By Schrag4 on 4/1/2013 6:22:52 PM , Rating: 1
Not sure why you got rated down. We all know you're pulling hard for the right, but what you said is proven fact. The point of the gun-walking plan was never about tracking them, it was always about swaying public opinion about gun sales in the US. Early on they tried to say that 90% of all guns found at Mexican crime scenes were from the US. As it turned out, what they really meant was that 90% of all guns with US serial numbers could be traced back to US sales - really shocking, right? The true total of guns from the US was something like 2%.

So they set out to make their 90% claim come true. They told dealers in border states to ignore regulations put in place to prevent straw purchases. ATF agents who questioned the tactic were told that they would stop these guns from making it to Mexico, but they had no intention of doing so. THE ONLY WAY THIS PLAN WOULD WORK WAS FOR INNOCENT MEXICAN CITIZENS TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS WHO OBTAINED THESE GUNS! So, yeah, the Obama administration's plan was for Mexicans to die in the hopes that public opinion here would change. Pretty sick stuff.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 4/1/2013 8:24:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Not sure why you got rated down. We all know you're pulling hard for the right, but what you said is proven fact.


/shrug

DT is full of Liberals, I knew the second I typed that it would get a -1, and I didn't care. Still don't.

I'm not pulling for the right, I'm just telling the truth.

quote:
THE ONLY WAY THIS PLAN WOULD WORK WAS FOR INNOCENT MEXICAN CITIZENS TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS WHO OBTAINED THESE GUNS! So, yeah, the Obama administration's plan was for Mexicans to die in the hopes that public opinion here would change. Pretty sick stuff.


That's what gets me. They haven't even tried to cook up a plausible story about what the goal of Fast and Furious was, even though it would be a lie, it would still be something. Instead they literally set out to intentionally facilitate the murders of innocent Mexican citizens, with the belief they were above the law and beyond being questioned.

But this Administration is all about the manufactured crisis. Healthcare, Sequester, Budget, Guns...you name it.


RE: Seriously?
By poi2 on 3/31/2013 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
*Conspiracy theory
bama gonna sell it to SK,
still wait for the NK to *poke SK
meanwhile Xi gonna sell stuff to NK,
then giants mediacorp will have their moment so nobody gets bored.
Win-win solution for everybody. Yay!


RE: Seriously?
By Jeffk464 on 3/29/2013 5:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China backed NK


I'm pretty sure China is not thrilled with NK at the moment. I have heard that China fears NK becoming a failed state which would end up being a big headache for them.


RE: Seriously?
By fteoath64 on 3/30/2013 10:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
That is correct. China does not want the west to nuke NK just to avoid any fall-out that will drift into China making them suffer for other people's fault. China can take out NK before the west has any decision to launch!. It is a matter of proximity. And so can Japan since they are both in the danger zone.


RE: Seriously?
By SlyNine on 3/29/2013 7:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, like how Afghanistan fought off the Russians. Oh wait, the US had no problems there.

Comparing today to 1775. Please, your comparison is also a joke. Its okay to learn from history, but to think its the same thing without objectively looking at the differences makes you cliche saying long in the tooth.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 8:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Underestimating people or feeling superior is how Pearl Harbor, 9-11, or 1775 happens. Doesn't matter what decade or century, people are still people, and the same crap keeps happening.


RE: Seriously?
By JediJeb on 3/29/2013 9:12:10 PM , Rating: 3
True, many of the wars have started over the smallest things. Pride is probably one of the biggest factors in all of them.


RE: Seriously?
By craniumbox on 4/2/2013 10:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I would say a lot of misinformation and fear is what started most of them.


RE: Seriously?
By delphinus100 on 3/29/2013 11:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"... in addition to a China backed NK.


And utterly displeased themselves with what North Korea is doing, but with less influence on them than many think.

The last thing China wants is a war (even a conventional one, but exponentially more so if it involves splitting or fusing any atoms) that would cause NK refugees to flood across its border. This isn't the 50's. North Korea can't count on Chinese 'volunteers' to come to their aid this time.


RE: Seriously?
By Dj8rays on 3/30/2013 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
The Americans had a reason to fight freedom and we still live by that Koreans don't we breath freedom they hate it they aren't fighting for anything but a nuclear war what I'm trying to say is they may kill millions of Americans but there not gonna beat us there not no one can I almost all of Europe will be helping us Canada Australia and with that no one can defeat us


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 4:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
Still we should invade them just for making this threat. Lets just end these fucks once and for all.


RE: Seriously?
By Jeffk464 on 3/29/2013 5:48:26 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, you first. A new definition of army of one.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 5:55:24 PM , Rating: 3
I could take over North Korea with an 18-wheeler full of pizzas, put me in coach! :)


RE: Seriously?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 6:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
You'll need one of those things that blows up mines in front you though. Otherwise, we'll be calling you Rubber Duck.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/2013 8:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
Pffft they'll throw themselves on the mines just for a chance at something to eat! lawlers :P


RE: Seriously?
By JediJeb on 3/29/2013 9:15:20 PM , Rating: 5
Today we need Colonel Sanders instead of General MacAuthor to lead the invasion of North Korea. :)


RE: Seriously?
By Chaotic42 on 3/31/2013 9:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
Now we just need to bring Jerry Reed back so he can write Northbound and Down for you.


RE: Seriously?
By Omega215D on 3/30/2013 9:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
Psh, with those B2s we can annihilate him NOC (ca) JDAM Style!


RE: Seriously?
By SlyNine on 3/29/2013 7:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
We all know he's just doing this as a show for his people. He must really trust the USA, quite frankly, given the likely results of a US attack on NK.

I'm sure if he truly thought the USA was aggressive enough to attack he wouldn't be Fking around with this.


RE: Seriously?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/29/13, Rating: 0
RE: Seriously?
By delphinus100 on 3/29/2013 11:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
But they only have to guess wrong once...

And sooner or later, they'll have to either back up their rhetoric or not. This is known as 'painting yourself into a corner.'

And they have to know that if they really could do any of this, they would be turned into a parking lot, 30 minutes later. Any President who didn't make at least an equivalent response to even one nuclear strike, would quickly be replaced by someone who would...


RE: Seriously?
By craniumbox on 4/2/2013 10:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
Well, a pussy in the media eye maybe. But Obama has quick dial on his phone for Seal Team 6 to get in there and remove Kim if needed... LoL


RE: Seriously?
By Jeffk464 on 3/29/2013 8:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hey wait a second if you escort a stealth bomber with an f16, don't you show up on radar.


RE: Seriously?
By JediJeb on 3/29/2013 9:18:07 PM , Rating: 2
Should have used an F35 for escort.


RE: Seriously?
By delphinus100 on 3/29/2013 11:51:36 PM , Rating: 2
They wouldn't do this operationally. indeed, F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters would go in first to take out their air defense radars, as is their purpose.

The point is for them to know in their guts that that B-2s are in the area, and crews are familiarizing themselves with it.


RE: Seriously?
By DougF on 3/30/2013 12:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm...sorry, but all the F-117s are retired, sitting in hangars in Tonopah, slowly rotting/rusting away (can't be put into the normal boneyard in Tucson, AZ as a lot of stuff is still classified).


RE: Seriously?
By hiscross on 4/1/2013 12:59:30 PM , Rating: 2
Tonopah is in the desert. I don't see F117 rusting. Also, notice how Fat they are. They need get out more. Iran is available.


RE: Seriously?
By Gondor on 3/30/2013 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't B-2 stationed in Missouri and fly wherever they are needed from there ? They are not 'in the area' but can be made to go anywhere on the globe anyway.

http://www.whiteman.af.mil/

http://www.whiteman.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=12334...


RE: Seriously?
By WoWCow on 3/30/2013 12:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
Most likely, there is something internal terrible happening.
Anyone with some brain can see the current NK path is one guaranteed of self-destruction. The problem is the current regime head most likely has NO idea, no plans and/or no power to handle the changes and reforms necessary for its people or the regime itself to survive and thrive.

I can't imagine his father having left behind an actual nation rebuilding plan.

NK is very much a cold war leftover regime (Cuba too, but Cuba in contrast seems far more sane and reasonable to deal with right now, especially before Fidel and Raul Castro dies).

What I fear is the terrible price the people in the NE Asia region will have to pay for in due time.

I sincerely hope the people over there are prepared to pay the price, be it war or the humanitarian disaster that is sure to follow.


RE: Seriously?
By mike66 on 4/2/2013 3:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
Is not the old saying " I fear the man with one atomic bomb not the one with many" they maybe just nuts enough to do it against the south.


Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By DougF on 3/29/2013 2:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if the boy-leader is being manipulated by his generals, realizing their nation is slowly eroding and before too long it will be near impossible to "win" a war with South Korea. Not that I, or many defense experts, think they could anyways.

Or, is he manipulating his generals and the population to prevent unrest at the poor conditions in the DPRK, and all this is just another propaganda exercise...

If this were the precursor to some meetings, it would be more obvious what the rants were about, e.g. gaining concessions from the talks.




RE: Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By Jeffk464 on 3/29/2013 5:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that if NK did decide to invade the south they would be able to temporarily overrun it. In theory it would look like the last Korean war. They would successfully push deep into South Korea until we have time to get in to reinforce it.


By SlyNine on 3/29/2013 7:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
I would be surprised if the troops ran to the otherside threw down their weapons and yelled "WERE FREE"


RE: Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By StevoLincolnite on 3/29/2013 8:14:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My understanding is that if NK did decide to invade the south they would be able to temporarily overrun it. In theory it would look like the last Korean war. They would successfully push deep into South Korea until we have time to get in to reinforce it.


North Korea has numbers on it's side, that's it, they have a *massive* amount of soldiers.

However, South Korea has technology on it's side and that alone can make up that numbers difference.
Not to mention that Japan is not far away and would be able to send assistance at the drop of a hat...
Then the rest of the developed world would zerg rush North Korea


By JediJeb on 3/29/2013 9:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
Unless they have stealth troops and vehicles I imagine any movement they made would be spotted before they even got near the border. Though as complacent as we are now, we would not pay attention until the whole NK army was sitting in the middle of the DMZ.


RE: Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By croc on 3/30/2013 12:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
Japan will not be taking their JDF anywhere that involves shooting. That's according to the Constitution that Japan had drawn up for them by Gen. MacArthur.


RE: Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By Bad-Karma on 3/30/2013 1:10:06 AM , Rating: 2
In WWII, Germany had vastly superior weaponry and tactics than did the allies. Germany was relying on those superiority to carry them through the war. Defeating Germany literally came down to overwhelming numbers.

Many German panzer officers were quoted after the war that; "No matter how many Shermans or T34s you destroyed, another would immediately take it's place."

"Quantity has a quality all its own" - Joseph Stalin. And he used that attribute greatly to his advantage in getting to Berlin.

So you can have all the technology in the world, but if you can't sustain it, then you risk eventually being overwhelmed. Logistics aircraft can only carry so much, to supply a general ground war you need ships, and lots of them. And ships are relatively slow. Unfortunately The US isn't in the same place mobility wise that it was at following WWII when the Korean war kicked off.

Also, remember that US and South Korea were holding on to the Pusan perimeter by the skin of our teeth until sufficient reinforcements arrived. We then had to attack Inchon to allow a break out of Pusan.


By Reclaimer77 on 3/30/2013 7:49:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yes but Germany often deployed those superior weapons stupidly. Case in point - the Bismark. Yeah lets take the most powerful warship known to man, give it ONE escort ship, and basically send it off alone to harass shipping convoys (something their own U-Boats were far more suited for) when it could have been used to completely smash the war machine of many Navies, decimate ports, shell coastal cities off the map etc etc.


By Jeffk464 on 3/31/2013 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, basically its the zerg swarm attack.


RE: Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By Jeffk464 on 3/31/2013 10:24:23 AM , Rating: 2
By the way its worse than all that because the US has outsourced manufacturing. We no longer have the ability to ramp up production like we did for WW2. Although I'm not sure you can realy ramp up today's high tech like they did for WW2.


By craniumbox on 4/2/2013 11:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
This must be a joke...

US + Canadian and Mexico's Mfg plants would make far more than it could ever need.


RE: Who is In Charge in North Korea?
By Pavelyoung on 3/30/2013 12:14:38 AM , Rating: 2
This is the way things stand.

The North Korean military consists of the following elements.

Armor:
2100 type 59 Chinese tanks that were built in 1958 - 1960
100 Sovie T-62 built in the 60s.
2000 various other WWII tanks
200 various unguided rocket launching vehicles

Fighter aircraft:
35 soviet Mig-29b
500 fighter aircraft built between 1950 and 1970

Strike aircraft:
600 bomber build between 1940 and 1970

Artillery:
19,000 artillery pieces located along their borders from starting at the border with China on their west coast and following that boarder all the way around to their border with China on their east coast.

Anti air:
11,000 anti air cannons
10,000 single shot man portable anti air missiles

Missiles:
1000 with ranges capable of anything from 160 km to 10000km They only have 2 of the missiles capable of going 10000km. The majority of their missiles have a range of 300 - 700 km.

Troops:
1.2 million active duty
4.6 million ready reserves

This information is available from various sources including the CIA fact book, Janes Defense publication, wikipedia and various other sites across the internet.

Nothing North Korea has would enable they to over run any part of South Korea. You have to remember that while North Korea does have a lot of soldiers, they are very limited with the hardware they own. I suspect that with the local US air power and combined South Korean and US troops we could hold them off long enough for the aircraft carriers to get back on site and after that they are finished.


By lagomorpha on 3/30/2013 10:55:50 AM , Rating: 2
Even without US intervention the South Korean military is better equipped and could defeat the North's. Trouble is all those artillery pieces and missiles are in range of Seoul and would make life very unpleasant in the region.


Bring it *!#*#...
By maxxcool on 3/29/2013 2:44:19 PM , Rating: 4
Your chubby little ass could not hit a toilet let alone a continent.

But on the other hand if you DO hit cali, at least well be rid of the #$%#^ing Kardashians.....




RE: Bring it *!#*#...
By BRB29 on 3/29/2013 2:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Last i checked, a toilet is smaller than a continent....much much smaller.


RE: Bring it *!#*#...
By maxxcool on 3/29/2013 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
true, but you literally sit on the toilet... IE can't hit a toilet with s%^t. meh poorly worded i guess... oh well


RE: Bring it *!#*#...
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 3:56:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Last i checked, a toilet is smaller than a continent....much much smaller.
LMAO


RE: Bring it *!#*#...
By SlyNine on 3/29/2013 7:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
Given the respective distance to a toilet, you see his point.

But I'd like to add that, as a custodian at one time, I was constantly surprised at most humans lack of ability to hit a toilet at point blank range.


RE: Bring it *!#*#...
By JediJeb on 3/29/2013 9:20:47 PM , Rating: 2
So true. Funny, you would think with all the improved hand eye coordination we get from playing video games the aim would be much better.


LOL @ Maps
By dsx724 on 3/29/2013 2:21:30 PM , Rating: 3
Last time I recalled the world isn't flat and a flat map would show a curved trajectory in the northern hemisphere for a direct missile.




RE: LOL @ Maps
By Kurz on 3/29/2013 2:30:32 PM , Rating: 4
Perhaps they think the world is flat in NK?


RE: LOL @ Maps
By phazers on 3/29/2013 3:45:59 PM , Rating: 3
Not only that, but the shortest route for an ICBM would be near the North pole from NK to USA. Therefore the angles are all wrong as well.

Looks like a 3rd rate propagandist just inked in lines on a Google map..


Fat and Ronery
By UppityMatt on 3/29/2013 4:29:37 PM , Rating: 2
What everyone can't see is that he is looking at a dinner menu, not war plans.




RE: Fat and Ronery
By phil38 on 3/29/2013 7:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
They're broke. Their vision is clouded by dreams of reconstruction dollars after we bomb them, a la Iraq.


RE: Fat and Ronery
By delphinus100 on 3/30/2013 12:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
You know, maybe that's the real plan. 'We will prod them into attacking us...then bask in the Marshall-like Plan they'll give us to build us up again, after they win...!'

Kind of like 'The Mouse That Roared.'


RE: Fat and Ronery
By lagomorpha on 3/30/2013 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 3
Except that any reconstruction plan would involve regime change.

It's more likely they see their current economic policy as not sustainable and they're holding out because they think they can get some kind of bribe to back down.


Why does this guy get so much attention ?
By max_payne on 3/29/2013 2:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
As long as the world tremble at every fart Kim make and the medias scream at every one of them, he will keep making them. Louder and bigger.




RE: Why does this guy get so much attention ?
By WelshBloke on 3/29/2013 3:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think we are trembling so much as pointing and sniggering.


By lagomorpha on 4/2/2013 8:40:38 AM , Rating: 2
You might feel safe thousands of miles away from North Korea out of range of his missiles, but do keep in mind he does have enough missiles and artillery to do significant damage to Seoul. You know, that place your Samsung and LG phones are designed?

Wait a second... has Apple joined the Axis of Evil?


By cyberguyz on 4/3/2013 5:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
The trembling is from barely controlled laughter.


So, what's the plan?
By bug77 on 3/29/2013 2:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
North Korea launches a missile, US shoots it down. Then what? North Korea, China and Russia will say the launch never happened or it did, but it was just a conventional missile, a misfire, something like that (part of US media will support those claims, too). How does one knock some sense into these guys?




RE: So, what's the plan?
By Spuke on 3/29/2013 2:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
We won't be the one to shoot it down, I guarantee you that. It'll be either S. Korea or Japan.


RE: So, what's the plan?
By bug77 on 3/30/2013 2:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
The question stands: then what?


Kim Jong-Un
By DAVIDWILSON1 on 3/29/2013 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 3
Dear Kim, while the US clearly wants to live in peace with responsible, sane, and peaceful world neighbors my only reaction to your delusional threats of a nuclear strike against our country would be this: I would love to meet with you and hope reason would change your mind and your heart and show you that you can be a more effective leader employing common sense and reason rather than proceeding down the foolish and self-destructive path you are currently taking but if you are unable to comprehend reason then I say, "Bring it on you short, crazy ass pigmy freak and we'll annihilate you along with the poor people that are suffering under your communistic rule! But remember, you brought it on yourself and have no one but yourself to blame!




RE: Kim Jong-Un
By x10Unit1 on 3/29/2013 4:02:49 PM , Rating: 1
Please tell me you are trolling?


RE: Kim Jong-Un
By delphinus100 on 3/29/2013 11:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
But even so, is he wrong...?


He's not going to do jack-all
By gwem557 on 3/29/2013 8:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is all bluster. He knows that as soon as he does something concretely aggressive, his regime, and probably his life, are over.

No way he gives up his lifestyle. This is all posturing.




By delphinus100 on 3/30/2013 12:06:35 AM , Rating: 2
Completely agreed. But does he really understand just how far he can get away with it, before we decide to actually do something? (I'm not sure of that, myself)

It's like playing chicken, without being sure of just how close the cliff is...


If they could...
By xenol on 4/1/2013 10:50:58 AM , Rating: 2
If I were to take a minute to believe North Korea has a competent military force capable of striking the US... Part of me doesn't believe that they'll do it right away. Aside from their neighbor South Korea, I would have quite a good reason to believe they're looking eastward to Japan and would rather have them snuffed out before taking on the US.

But if this were missiles we're talking about here, I'd still think they'd point them at South Korea and Japan first.




RE: If they could...
By Techslave on 4/1/2013 1:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
I really think that Kim just has a serious case of missile envy.


Team America 2
By btc909 on 4/1/2013 12:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
All production of South Park MUST be stopped NOW!
Team America 2 MUST be MADE!!!

North Korea would have a better chance of striking the US with a paper airplane.




RE: Team America 2
By Any14Tee on 4/1/2013 2:28:06 PM , Rating: 2
And no strings attached :)


Announcement
By SuckRaven on 3/29/2013 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
North Korea: We are Ready to Strike the U.S. Mainland With Missiles


U.S. (and probably the rest of the world): We are ready to collectively wipe the entirety of the landmass of North Korea off the face of this little blue globe we call home.




*sigh*
By Scannall on 3/29/2013 8:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Here we are, arguing about Intel vs AMD, or iOS vs Android. When the people of NK are starving to death, being ruled by a kookburger.

These days the US goes after command and control plus leadership first Surely at least one person in power must realize the folly.




By bill.rookard on 3/30/2013 12:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
You know, the one that looks like it was made of fiberglass? And not very well made at that. If so, then I expect the nuclear missle to fire, go up about 50 feet, sputter out and fall on their heads thus obliterating themselves much like the hapless Wile E. Coyote.




Comedy
By stevekgoodwin on 3/30/2013 1:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
Attacking the USA is actually not a bad strategy by North Korea.

Why?

Because the USA cannot bomb them back to the stone age, because that's where they already are.

(boom-tish)




"Olympus has fallen"
By lmlim on 3/30/2013 8:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
"Olympus has fallen" is imminent... huh?




Propaganda
By cyberguyz on 3/31/2013 9:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
It is the favorite tool of a country's leaders to swing public opinion to their favor and justify their actions.

It has been used by every country considering war against another and has been used throughout history to demonize a political party's opponents. Germany, USSR, U.S, Japan, Iran, Israel have all used propaganda to demonize their opponents.

Propaganda is one thing. Reality is something else altogether. North Korea's leader knows that they don't have enough nuclear firepower to stop the U.S. from retaliating hard if they pulled a first strike. Regardless of any 'disarming' done at the end of the cold war, the U.S. still has enough long range nukes to instantly vaporize the entire country of North Korea and they know it.




By Any14Tee on 3/31/2013 11:19:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to totally ignore the subject title, there are more pressing things in life, like when do we expect to see the next TEAM AMERICA 2 movie?




Exept they are playing....
By overlandpark4me on 3/31/2013 11:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
the two man version of the Battleship game.




I'm Ready...
By Tuor on 3/30/2013 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 1
to win $1,000,000.

Seriously. I'm ready.

Anytime now.

Still waiting...

Hello?




clown!
By macca007 on 4/2/2013 1:57:29 AM , Rating: 1
April fools day is it?
Well I am not an American or Nth Korean but looking as an outsider, North Korea hasn't got a hope in hell!
What it should of said is "We are ready to be wiped off the face of the planet if we strike America with missiles", There fixed it for you!
As with Iraq who at the time had 3rd largest army and WAS at least battle hardened from war with Iran, North Koreans are malnourished, Using old technology and are not battle hardened. Iraq's army was obliterated in a few weeks and most of the time they had no idea what hit them.
Don't be so fucking stupid North Korea, It would be the end of your nation if you attacked anyone. US and allies should cut all aid to them and let them starve, Soon the army and citizens would rise up and overthrow this moron as the stomach talks louder than any words. If you say "you can't do that" it's against human rights by cutting aid to them well you need to open your eyes as well to what is already going on in there. China won't be there to back them up this time, It's not in their best interest, They are growing wealthy from manufacturing for the west and see the benefits of fitting into a world community.




"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki