Can America and South Korea take North Korea conventionally?

North Korea still has at the most only 2-3 missiles with nukes mounted ready to go (and more likely 0).

What if SK and the US attacked the North conventionally? Would it work? Would the North falter?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/3WyrYBrOC1o
youtube.com/watch?v=lhaiWVe0zac
youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

If that's good intel, please delete. Do not compromise nuclear proliferation.

>implying I'm not allowed to bootlick the deep state when nukes are involved

No because China has to be little autistic attention whores again and said they will retailiate agaisnt the US.

They couldn't care less about NK, in fact their political relationship was so bad these last years that I thought they would be the ones initiating hostility but they kinda just started ignoring them.

But now that it's hot topic fucking china has to steal the stage like the fucking child their are.

''ROOK ROOK! WE CAN WORLDU PEACU TUU''

I fucking loath them. Their IQ scores are LIES. low IQ scums like the inbreeds sand niggers, or even real niggers.

NUKE THE GOOKS
>NUKE THE GOOKS
NUKE THE GOOKS
>NUKE THE GOOKS
NUKE THE GOOKS
>NUKE THE GOOKS
NUKE THE GOOKS
>NUKE THE GOOKS
NUKE THE GOOKS
>NUKE THE GOOKS
NUKE THE GOOKS
>NUKE THE GOOKS

>No because China has to be little autistic attention whores again and said they will retailiate agaisnt the US.
I doubt it. Anything but a Chinese security council demanded meeting "calling on an end of hostilities" would be a big surprise.

no seriously, they're inviting themselves in like an unwanted cock in a gangbang

it makes me physically cringe

Listen this has been debated to death.

Yes the U.S. and SK could stomp NK, the fucking problem is that in almost every scenario, short of nuking the dmz, Seoul is most likely going to get blown the fuck out.

If those fucking plastic gooks decided to move their city, instead of letting it build up to be in the crossfire for almost 70 fucking years, NK would mostly been already taken care of with bush.

How large is the blast radius of a tungsten rod? Would the liquefaction reach Seoul?

>Seoul is most likely going to get blown the fuck out.
and why is that? Israel has a 95% chance of intercepting non-sophisticated missile attacks. SK should have the same systems in place.

they could intercept /some/ ICMBS but not all

Why would china aid north korea overtly?

Scenario 1:
Aid North Korea by joining the war on it's side
> Likely win land war in Korea, occupy south korea
> Get blockaded & bombed
> Economy rekt
> Possible internal revolution/civil war

Scenario 2:
Do nothing
> Relations with the US unchanged
> Economy remains largely unchanged
> US & Allies dictate peace terms to their best interests

Scenario 3:
Intervene against NK, aid the US
> Possibly occupy most of NK territory
> Peace terms favouring China's Interests
> Improve relations with the US

How many nuclear mounted missiles do you think NK has? They may have like 10 nukes, but it is highly doubtful any are operationally mounted on missiles.

just to be dicks.

literally.

They have this grandiose dream of taking the US place as the cultural leader of the world so anything they can do to just be dicks they will.

I recall a graphic showing they have around 70, like less than Pakistan, but they'll probably dump half their shit on SK

U.S. is not stupid enough to use something like low orbital kinetic bombardment, which to my knowledge has little to no practical testing, along with revealing to a closely watching china we have non-nuclear WMD's. Not worth the risk.

There is estimated to be roughly 50-100,000 pieces of artillery batteries aimed at Seoul, this is not the same a limited missile attack. Were taking thousands upon thousands of shells.

>No because China has to be little autistic attention whores again and said they will retailiate agaisnt the US.
It's all talk. The Chinese government would have to have a death wish to fight alongside North Korea. They're not going to risk a global conflict for half a peninsula that hates their guts. At the very most, they'd just supply arms, intel, and food to the North Koreans, but even that would be unlikely and wouldn't do much to defend an attack against North Korea. It's a bluff, and I hope Trump calls them on it.

ok so no nuke or striker, what do you propose? A chopper five guys and a weaponized goat? Bin Laden Style?

North korea has thousands of conventional long range artillery zeroed on Seoul.

You can't counter that shit.

The estimated artillery barrage that can hit Seoul is about 300 000+ rounds per hour.

US & SK only option is to bomb the shit out of estimated artillery positions & go full blitzkrieg across the border so most artillery pieces within range of Seoul are captured or forced out of range by retreat.

That sounds like a Zap Branigan strategy, ''I'll just send wave after wave of my men in''

It's not effective, especially from a PR point of view. The public from both sides is still sensible from Iraq, I don't think they're ready for another proxy war.

The action needs to be swift and effective.

ITT: We make the battle plan

Old chink shells. Old chink howitzers. Depends how operational they are.

All depends on if other countries jump in if its just nk then yes

US intelligence has been mapping out every conceivable piece of artillery for decades. What you're mostly likely going to see is a massive surgical strike aimed at taking out as much batteries across the DMZ as possible with B1b's, B2's, B52's, multiple strike aircraft, and Cruise Missile's if such an attack was made to limit the damage to Seoul as much as possible.

What the actions that are used next could be a number of things.

The problem, again, is even if we know were 80% of the batteries are stationed, the could still launch a massive salvo before it's destroyed, and even 10,000> pieces could do untold amounts of damage.

There is also the possibility to consider that any mass evacuation of Seoul before bombardment would be extremely hard to conceal without the Norks knowing, if not outright impossible. And the perceived evacuation of Seoul by the Norks might make them preemptively start shelling the targeted areas as they probably realize shit is about to go down and their getting bombed next.

I honestly don't see a situation where Seoul isn't fucked somehow majorly.

Is it possible to coordinate the attack in a such a way that virtually all the targets are taken out at the same time and then evac? Casualties aren't going to be unavoidable, the best that can be done is minimalise them.

This and China's a factor. The US and SK could absolutely annihilate NK with or without nuclear weapons.

We have cruise missiles. We have AWACS and ELINT. We have bombers and aircraft carriers. We have the US Navy, and we have the Air Force. We have all manner of thermobaric weapons the yield of which rivals tactical nukes, and we have modern conventional payloads that work perfectly well. NK has a tiny navy with mostly light attack boats that we could sink. The biggest threat would be subs, but they'd have to surface to scuba depth to get in range to hit us, and we could sink them then.

We could probably beat NK on its own even in a scenario where they try to nuke us and we don't try to nuke back. Even without establishing a beachead or doing a land invasion, we could probably rain fire down on NK and force them to retreat underground. The sheer technological advantage we enjoy is too great. They're working with Soviet tech from the early 90's.

China needs to have a reason to be neutral, though.

This guy gets it.

Just use napalm.

>Is it possible to coordinate the attack in a such a way that virtually all the targets are taken out at the same time and then evac?

No, evac would mostly take precedent simultaneously if not before any major military action. The risk of loss of life is too high, no one wants that shit again.

The best you can get as far as I know would be naval assets stationed with the right coordinates ready to bomb the affected area on a moments notice. I assume the USN, USAF, and US intelligence have mapped this out already. Be wary that there is also untold amount of tunnels under the DMZ, Mountains in NK that are most likely holding and hiding more IRBM's, MRBMs, Artillery, and who knows what else that could be in any number of places, it would be hard short of nuclear strikes to destroy this outright, and a nuclear response might just give Kim Jung Un a reason to launch his own nukes at Seoul, and possibly area's around Japan, including US bases and territories. If he does infact have missile capable nukes.

I would do a prolonged evac of Seoul over time, maybe months if possible and see closely the Norks response, and if anything escalates do the full scale evacuation as US military and SK assets begin destroying the area.

I know NK is shit but they surely have enough intel resource to see a fleet coming in no? Why not carpet bomb the place from submarines?

Howitzers are fucking simple man theyd be operational even in a 100 years if cleaned properly

So tell me how do you solve the artillery problem?

Would you do a nuclear first strike?

My strategy would not be "send wave after wave", it would be a quick and strong strategic push with heavily armed forces to encircle major pockets and cut them off from supplies. Basically Blitzkrieg style.

This spearhead would be lots of Tanks and APC's with attack helicopters and jet support right after bombers soften critical areas of resistance.

Regular ground troops would then deal with encircled troops while heavily armed troops would prepare for the next spearhead push and encirclement

Marine corps could conduct a naval invasion and open up an alternative frontline to pour forces into.

Special forces could conduct infrastructure sabotage.

Subs would blockade, destroyers would hunt for NK subs.

There is no question that NK can be defeated, the big problem here is how much would SK suffer to achieve victory.

>Seoul evacuates
>NKorea attacks first

I think we mapped out the happening, folks

>I know NK is shit but they surely have enough intel resource to see a fleet coming in no?

Yes, which is why it's imperative we have strike ready naval assets that have been/already in the area. We already have USN craft in the area already, the amount needed to attack the area is something I'm not sure of. You can actually track Naval vessels with many sites out their to a pretty good degree on the web, subs are not for obvious reasons.

>Why not carpet bomb the place from submarines?

Because attack subs, even though I assume would be involved to require nearly the amount VLS systems needed in places to take out Artillery positions across the DMZ. It would need to be a coordinated effort with Strike Aircraft and Destroyers that carry much more ordinance.

There's a bigger chance of NK just nuking itself once the invasion begins.

It'll just be another Iran war if they don't, where the airforce shits all over them.

Have a US military base on their border?

Has any of you idiotic fools stopped and asked:
>"What is in Guam?"

Still think Seoul should evacuate asap right before real bombardment.

I mean once US bombers begin they are going to open up artillery anyway, with Seoul evacuating in advance you can maybe give their inhabitants a 30mins head start to head to safety

Maybe even more time if you pretend it's a civil defense exercise.

everything you are told about the country is a lie. they could have thousands of nuclear weapons.

You both have a similar strategy but it seems to rely on the presumption that NK won't be fast enough to make a move or won't start panicking the second they start noticing the moves.

that's why I was thinking nuke or tungsten first, just surprise them and leave them no time to react.

Speculatively speaking, do you think if King Gook get sniped the whole thing falls apart or will the generals keep on the fight?

>Why not carpet bomb the place from submarines?
The amount of fuel to get submarines airborne is prohibitive.

youtu.be/3WyrYBrOC1o
It would be a massacre

Cutting off the head would be the best bet in my opinion. Shock and awe, then hopefully the nork army would probably surrender like the Iraqi one. A decisive strike is probably the best option.

>"What is in Guam?"
The place where our bombers take off from.

Like they already don't lol.

China is already caged in South China sea, with NK gone little changes.

Besides China knows it can likely strategically beat the US in a land war in Asia.

Ideally SK would simply become Korea and behave more like buffer state.

Fuck China if they try

god damn straya we're trying here

Are you aware of how many nukes you would need to make a nuclear first strike more successfully than a conventional military push?

>Use nukes to destroy most NK artillery at border to save Seoul
>Radiation from nukes reaches Seoul creating a disaster
>NK strategic assets are deployed, nuclear weapons could be deployed against SK or Japan

Aren't there nukes that can destroy the entire Korean Peninsular in one blast?

Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't even try, evacuations and shelters would take place regardless of the type of attack used. Its just the sheer number of ways Seoul can get fucked is hard to ignore. Saying something like New York to evac everyone in a 30min grace period before 200,000-300,000 shells start raining on them is hard to do.

My point is merely Seoul is going to take it up the ass whatever the outcome.

>Maybe even more time if you pretend it's a civil defense exercise.

Thought of this myself, but a exercise involving the evac and sheltering of the whole city, people would need time to prepare such an act, and the Norks might be smart enough especially with whats going on to start shelling anyway. They are not going to let that piece get away from them, is a major leverage position for them, and they know it.


>that's why I was thinking nuke or tungsten first, just surprise them and leave them no time to react.

Once you bring in Nuclear warfare, or orbital bombardment the whole situation changes. If there is a 25% chance they have nuke capable assets that could target, SK, Japan, US bases, or even the Mainland, they would use it at this point.

>Speculatively speaking, do you think if King Gook get sniped the whole thing falls apart or will the generals keep on the fight?

Even if you somehow pulled this off, no one knows the internal power struggle in NK, it's been theorized forever. Un killed his uncle, none of the Generals seemed to protest, which isn't a great sign. There is a possibility they are crazier than him.

Modern blitzkrieg. Cruise missiles/orbital bombardment with bombers and multirole aircraft (midair refueling) following behind. TRIDENT the living shit out of them. Ground invasion and naval spearhead follow after a massive first strike.

What about low tactical yield like these you see at 2:34

youtube.com/watch?v=lhaiWVe0zac

something like a tsar bomb I guess but then again you'd be fucking up SK side too

Dude, detonating something like a Tsar bomb would have untold consequences if used on NK. I don't think China would be too happy with massive nuclear explosions happening right on their door step.

It seems like no matter what, thousands of innocents are going to get hit.

Damn it, does this rat really has the perfect stalemate?

That's why they got shelled by Norks a few years back right?

See the size of the affected area if the largest nuke US has on it's arsenal was used on Pyongyang

Really? Are you sure? That blast radius is laughable...

Does it include the fallout?

Interdasting, did only the Russians bother with flashy ones?

Well, it's named ''tsar'' for a reason user

Binkov's Battleground is great but any real world scenario would involve South Korea and that massively changes outcome. There is a big difference between an amphibious landing from the ocean with poor resupply vs. docking in Pusan and taking highways north.

In the event that N. Korea did attack first and attacked the U.S. that would also activate the U.S-Japan Mutual Self-Defense Pact bringing Japan into the war. While Japan's army isn't really worthwhile it's presence as an unsinkable aircraft carrier and it's significant naval presence would be important.

If the biggest nuke in history was dropped on NK capital with nuclear fallout. (Notice on how Russia would be pissed off)

The thing is NK could deal with the fallout area and still be able to retaliate.

Nukes have to be used in large quantities to completely destroy NK and the radiactive fallout for China, Russia, SK & Japan would be just too much for their comfort.

yup, only Russia bothered getting the super heavy largest ones. For the purposes of "Eliminate enough enemy core cities", "eliminate enemy logistics bases, airfields, military capacity etc", and "Eliminate enemy nuclear silo's before they launch" our current nukes due the job just fine. There isn't really a need to make them bigger. Better at that point to have more of them as make it harder to shot down each and every one of them.

Well... Do we really care about Vladivostok?

jk...

The idea in a nuclear war would be to take out the other sides missile silos before they can fire, then airfields and military bases. Just using the biggest you can would end up killing you too through nuclear winter.
The US missiles were more accurate, so the blast radius could be smaller. The Russian ones weren't that accurate, so they had to be bigger. (if they're accurate to 1km, you need a 1km blast radius, if they're accurate to 10km you need a 10km blast radius).
But you also had a few big ones for retaliation/deterrence.

America has waited too long and has nothing to gain from any change to the status quo in the Korean peninsula.

Scenario 1: no change
America wants to change this situation because it's very expensive. It requires being favourable in deals with China, so that China continues to at least ostensibly work in American interests to keep North Korea on a leash. The problem here is, the calculus has changed somewhat; China can't seem to keep Kim Jong Un under its thumb as well as it exerted control of his predecessors, and China also stands to gain by the continued existence of a Korean quagmire that causes the US to treat them more favourably than they otherwise might, causes the US to spend a lot of money on strategic defences in the region they'd otherwise be able to spend on other interests, etc. The status quo is a money drain for the Americans. China loves that because it fucks the Americans, North Korea loves it because they get to exist and continually play countries against each other to get appeasement cash, and South Korea's alright with the status quo because Seoul is still in one piece, and they don't have to deal with an influx of unskilled refugees who would be more of a burden on their economy than any benefit from cheap labour would merit.

Scenario 2: America strikes first
Worst possible option for the Americans. This would stir up anti-American sentiment in China, North Koreans whose wariness of American imperialism is now 100% confirmed, and the South Koreans, who lose Seoul in a retaliatory strike, and have a bunch of anti-American refugees flooding their country. This makes it that much easier for China to convince South Korea to align their interests with theirs, vs. the bellicose Americans whose recklessness has now put them in a wartime scenario. If America strikes first, China wins the Korean peninsula.

(1/2)

Blame the damn plastic gooks for being pacifist cunts and building up their capital city for 70 fucking years right in the crosshairs of being glassed by the Norks at a moments notice and pretending is not a big deal, as they have shoved aside the issue and gave America the problem to deal with. All while giving us the finger as we have wanted to install systems like THAAD in place to minimize the risk. But they keep backing down and saying no. Now they have nukes and ICBM's they are starting to actually shit their pants even though we've been warning them for decades. I saw a SK survey that's been posted on here saying how much they hate US military, and how a lot would "side" with NK all because the occasional drunken plastic SK whore decides to take one up the ass by some US military guy screams rape to save her honor from being the white equivalent of a coal burner, but now shit is happening they are looking to the US again for answers.

I'm almost to the point to where I say "fuck it, you made your bed, now lay in it" type of mentality. Keep ignoring the issue and pretending everything going to be fucking kumbaya at some point and this is what you eventually get. You think people would have learned with Chamberlain.

You didn't include the fallout. The blast won't be a problem. Fallouts the bitch. When Chernobyl happened (nuclear reactor meltdown) farmers in Europe trew away their harvest because of fallout. The wind and the sea carries it and in every case an ally would be hit by fallout, ruining land economy and lives.

Also, the fallout can go in any direction. It depends on the wind.

>
>Well... Do we really care about Vladivostok?
>jk...
They care. And they have nukes too. They might drop one in the ocean near the US to return the favor

Scenario 3: North Korea does something stupid and strikes first
Inspires a retaliatory strike by the Americans. Up until recently, this was actually a "win" scenario for the Americans, because while it entails having to invade North Korea and do a full-fledged war, it meant popular support, acting as a defence force for the South Koreans (and so remaining in their graces), and with justified causus belli, there's a chance to 'win over' the North Koreans.

What has happened now is that – and China might've even consciously let this happen; there's no doubt they aided the North Korean nuclear program, is there? – North Korea has become nuclear capable. This affords them limited defensive capabilities, and timed/pointed correctly, a North Korean nuke would let them take out a major portion of an invading force. The fact America can "nuke the shit out of North Korea" is really an all-or-nothing scenario. America either sincerely does nuke every last inch of North Korea out of existence, and execute an unprecedented loss of life that changes global geopolitics from that point on for good, or it enters an unpopular war that starts very poorly for them, i.e. North Korea is now the 'powder keg' it was always mythologised to be. South Korea does not want this scenario to happen because it fucks them. America doesn't want it because it's walking into a trap. China has everything to gain from the continued threat of this scenario coming to fruition, and actually, if it did happen, has a game plan to win the Korean peninsula. They are quite likely to covertly support anti-American efforts during a new Korean war.

(2/2)

So no nuke because fallout+PR nightmare.
No kinetic bombardment because China is watching.
Not enough time to send a coordinated airstrike without Seoul getting ass gapped.

What option do we have left...

Nukemap with 14 US high yield nukes on major population centers + favourable fallout (not towards SK or China

Commit to full scale modern blitzkrieg or get used to NK being a nuclear power

oh god no no no no, bad, real bad

DEVGRU should handle this...

Golf off. Winner takes all. Why do think Trump has been training so hard?

again Seoul gets it in the ass, you just don't have time mate, there /will/ shell raining, as prqER0A0 said, even if we know 80% of their silo there is some hidden in the mountains that will fire back

>I recall a graphic showing they have around 70
All intel says they have at the most 10, probably less. But they are mostly airforce bomb material. As i said, it is doubtful there are any operational nukes on missiles at all at the moment.

I'd say they're operational, probably just not armed

>North korea has thousands of conventional long range artillery zeroed on Seoul.
>You can't counter that shit.
What are cellars? What are pre-emptive strikes against artillery? Like 2,000 tomahawks and 2500 aircraft bombing the crap out of the North's close to the border capabilities.

Hi guys I work for the Australian PACMAN Radar as the people in the Skykang generals call it, you know the one that makes the wakawaka over the horizon sweep noises?
AMA about NK or SK, shit is getting heated.
I have plans ontop of plans out my ass.

What's it like to touch boobs?

Do you drop your pants to your ankles when you piss like a true Chad?

bag of salt and milk

Nothing special.
Little underwhelming.
Girls don't seem to like it mostly?
Maybe it's just small ones or ones with supports I dunno.
Of course, I also leak flight response plans regularly for no reason.
It's considered treason.

Seoul getting ass raped is part of the cost of defeating NK.

youtube.com/watch?v=ILcVt9p7cug
Can this stop artillery?

It seems unavoidable isnt it..

South Korean men will be forged anew by fire.

Anyone familiar with Neutron bombs?

Any chance NK is luring us in for a trap set by china. Isn't it possible they have a war chest and a shitload of off book advanced weaponry? Something about this whole situation seems a little silly.

USA lost every war they fought on foreign soil.

It can stop some of it but it wont stop all 100,000 shells

casualties are unavoidable at this point...

Yes you fucking dit.
It can stop anything short of a HE round probably.

How the fuck is Japan ok with NK sending their missiles over their country? I would be shit scared with just the notion of a nuclear warhead flying over my head.

Who cares about conventional? I love how you idiots actually think we wouldn't nuke them.
>protip: WE WILL

Do you still have those?

and yet we're still more powerful than you.

So I was in the US Navy for a while. Our phalanx on the ship couldn't hit shit. Even when they guys were deliberately targeting some floaty in the water, we couldn't hit it the first few tries.

> Like 2,000 tomahawks and 2500 aircraft bombing the crap out of the North's close to the border capabilities.

Not enough, 100 tomahawks couldn't even destroy an airfield in Syria let alone 12 000 artillery guns spread-out throughout the mountains & forest areas (some are hidden and fortified against air attacks)

If the US commits to only airstrikes/artillery to destroy NK artillery, it would take at least a week to reduce NK firepower to something more manageable.

My point is that, if you are going to war with NK, you have to go full bomb & blitzkrieg to minimize damage to SK (which is still going to happen)

SK can not support the influx of refugees from NK. It would disrpurt the economy. This is the common knowledge to average person in SK. NK is a pimple waiting to be popped. Its already in the plans. NK refugees are going to serve the same purpose in Japan and CO as our muslim friends in the west. Does pol not already know this?

Okay I'm gonna leak those Australian NK response plans.

>Can America and South Korea take North Korea conventionally?
Yes, but at too high a cost. North Korea is willing to sacrifice everything, and that's why nobody attacks them.