North Korea Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
The main issue people usually mention regarding invading North Korea is their artillery. They have rather old high caliber artillery, like 170mm guns.
Those have enough range to bomb Seoul from the North Korean side.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So it is not like they would not lose but the chance of harm to the main populated areas of South Korea is quite high. Besides, the South Koreans do not want to have a war with the North Koreans. So good luck with that.

I would not take the North Korean ballistic missiles lightly. The ones they developed a couple of years back seem to be quite capable.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


There is a decent enough probability they could launch a couple of these missiles if they were attacked. Also with regards to their nuclear weapons payload there is a high possibility that they have conducted a thermonuclear weapons test. That alone indicates they should have a decent ability to do warhead miniaturization.

It is not like you could not do a plan to invade the place but without South Korean support it would be extremely difficult.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
@Dook
yeahhh ... do you ever wonder why SK needs US soldiers to protect them? ... yeahh NK has no military capabilities :p ..... why SK spends $40B on military and like 2.6% of GDP (while China only ~1.5% and Japan 1% )

you believe what you want to believe .. thats fine
2.6% GDP is actually quite sustainable and if it contributes to SK military superiority over NK then it should not be too surprising . While the factor of the US-SK alliance is somewhat mislead in this statement, while it is true on paper that the security treaty is on paper for the protection of SK, remember that it was drafted during the 1950s, back then NK's military capability was greater than SK's. Fastforward 70 years later, the nature of the treaty has subtly changed, nearly every defense expert agrees that the treaty now has China more in mind that NK. Maintaining the treaty at least gives the US a pretext to maintain a presence on the peninsular.
Also in reality, the actual security details listed out are rather meager, 20 thousand US troops in SK represents a mere token force. Their presence there is more of a tripwire to galvanise US public opinion in the event of any actual attack with the pictures of US servicemen wounded or killed. Regardless of any real damage NK can actually cause.
While I disagree with the OP's assertion that NK's military capability is non-existant, belittling SK military capacity is neither helpful nor truthful in anyway.
The main danger NK represents is not in the way of conventional military might but rather that of asymmetrical. The idea that NK will only restrict itself to conventional munitions is absurd to say the least, in the event of a SK first strike everything will be on the table.
And this is a nation that has prepared for nearly a century for total warfare. Extensive articles have been written regarding NK tunnel network and underground installations, and real life experiances like Desert Storm has shown that air power alone does little to blunt the enemy's capability.
So the real issue is not whether NK can defeat SK, but rather how much damage it can inflict on SK before NK is defeated. And data shows that it wont be pretty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deino

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
@Dook

First of all welcome on board but then right from the beginning a kind reminder: We are NOT an ordinary forum, where you can spread propaganda and if an argument do not fit your agenda, you can insult and offend others.

Calm down your tone ... if you want to discuss, then in in a proper way with arguments, if you want to troll, then face the consequences.

Therefore, please read https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/sinodefence-forum-rules-of-behavior.t6748/


Deino
 

Dizasta1

Senior Member
The idea that North Korea has a significant military capability is completely false.

If North Koreans are such a failure, then why are there 30,000 troops of the American Military present in South Korea? With one of the largest F-16 fleets outside the United States, and one of the most powerful air force and navy in the world, why does South Korea need America to protect it from weak, rusting old North Korean military?

Think before you type, buddy. Appearances and reality sit at opposite ends in today's world. Wake up, do some research and open your eyes to the reality, not what appears to be.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
The main issue with North Korea isn't there tech. It's vintage at best. Most of there Air forces are relics even there most advanced Mig29 is in small numbers.
It's the Huge numbers of army.
The Navy is small.
The Air force is obsolete at best.
There artillery is huge. There armor corps are huge. There infantry numbers are massive.
In a system to system fight South Korea has the edge. But numbers count for something. North Korean weapons are proverbial hash and trash but ever K2 tank has to kill a dozen cheaper types to wade through. Every South Korean soldier would have to deal with hundreds of poorly armed infantry in a active war.
Add in nuclear weapons and it get suicidal at best.
 

Dook

New Member
Registered Member
2.6% GDP is actually quite sustainable and if it contributes to SK military superiority over NK then it should not be too surprising . While the factor of the US-SK alliance is somewhat mislead in this statement, while it is true on paper that the security treaty is on paper for the protection of SK, remember that it was drafted during the 1950s, back then NK's military capability was greater than SK's. Fastforward 70 years later, the nature of the treaty has subtly changed, nearly every defense expert agrees that the treaty now has China more in mind that NK. Maintaining the treaty at least gives the US a pretext to maintain a presence on the peninsular.
Also in reality, the actual security details listed out are rather meager, 20 thousand US troops in SK represents a mere token force. Their presence there is more of a tripwire to galvanise US public opinion in the event of any actual attack with the pictures of US servicemen wounded or killed. Regardless of any real damage NK can actually cause.
While I disagree with the OP's assertion that NK's military capability is non-existant, belittling SK military capacity is neither helpful nor truthful in anyway.
The main danger NK represents is not in the way of conventional military might but rather that of asymmetrical. The idea that NK will only restrict itself to conventional munitions is absurd to say the least, in the event of a SK first strike everything will be on the table.
And this is a nation that has prepared for nearly a century for total warfare. Extensive articles have been written regarding NK tunnel network and underground installations, and real life experiances like Desert Storm has shown that air power alone does little to blunt the enemy's capability.
So the real issue is not whether NK can defeat SK, but rather how much damage it can inflict on SK before NK is defeated. And data shows that it wont be pretty.

I did not say that North Korea's military capability is non-existant. I said it's nowhere near as significant as the media claims it to be.

Maybe do a little research on your own. You can go to a satellite view website and take a look at the following airfields and navy bases: Koksan, Hwangju, navy base at Wonsan (a little south of Wonsan), Sunchon, Yongbyon, and the submarines are located on the east coast near Hamhung.

Everyone knows that air power is dominant over ground forces. Their airfields only have ONE runway and one or two taxiways. Two F-35's with two GPS bombs each can eliminate North Korea's ability to launch aircraft from an airfield. Think of what 20 stealth bombers could do? Then South Korea's drone MD-500 attack helicopters would come in and strafe all of the aircraft on the ground. No air power means you lose.

Desert Storm shows that air power does little to blunt an enemy's capability? WHAT? What war did you watch? I saw us win that war with air power. Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world at the time. And now, with the F-35's infrared detectors and 8 small diameter bombs, any heat source can be identified and a bomb dropped on 8 heat sources. That's 8 tanks destroyed by one F-35 and South Korea is ordering 40 of them.

As for the North's nuclear weapons, satellites would identify any standing missiles and they would be taken out at the start of the attack. Osprey's full of special forces would be already on their way and come in from the Yellow Sea to the known missile sites and they would capture them in the first 15 minutes of the war.

North Korea has prepared for war for nearly a century? They don't have access to modern technology and modern information. They don't know about stealth. Their tanks don't have computer controlled aiming. Their navy ships can't fire accurately over the horizon. Do they have some capability? Sure, they have a very large army which would be bombed to pieces.

The real issue is how much damage NK can do to SK before it is defeated? Correct, but any artillery that fires will be identified and an A-10 would destroy it in minutes.

If Seoul conducted NK invasion exercises and had the most exposed people move into underground bunkers they could sound the alarms at 11:45 pm, 15 minutes before the real sneak attack begins. They wouldn't tell the people an invasion of the North has begun until 12:30 or so.
 

Dook

New Member
Registered Member
If North Koreans are such a failure, then why are there 30,000 troops of the American Military present in South Korea? With one of the largest F-16 fleets outside the United States, and one of the most powerful air force and navy in the world, why does South Korea need America to protect it from weak, rusting old North Korean military?

Think before you type, buddy. Appearances and reality sit at opposite ends in today's world. Wake up, do some research and open your eyes to the reality, not what appears to be.

Who told you that South Korea needed the US to protect them? South Korea needs the US to help more easily defeat the North if the North ever attacks.

I should think before I type? I just spent a week looking at satellite views of all of North Korea so I know more than you do. You haven't done the work. You follow the media.

And I've been to South Korea twice. How many times have you been there? Let me guess, none, right? So you're talking about something and you're only information has come from the media.

What type of aircraft does NK have at the Sariwon airfield? You don't know. I have satellite pictures of the entire airfield.
 

Dook

New Member
Registered Member
The main issue with North Korea isn't there tech. It's vintage at best. Most of there Air forces are relics even there most advanced Mig29 is in small numbers.
It's the Huge numbers of army.
The Navy is small.
The Air force is obsolete at best.
There artillery is huge. There armor corps are huge. There infantry numbers are massive.
In a system to system fight South Korea has the edge. But numbers count for something. North Korean weapons are proverbial hash and trash but ever K2 tank has to kill a dozen cheaper types to wade through. Every South Korean soldier would have to deal with hundreds of poorly armed infantry in a active war.
Add in nuclear weapons and it get suicidal at best.

This is all correct but you're not adding in air power. The F-35 can identify any vehicle heat source, armor engines, artillery firing, trucks and vehicles, possibly even soldiers. One F-35 can take out 8 tanks. SK just ordered 40 of them. That's 320 tanks per flight and that is only the F-35's. The F-15's, F-16's, Apache's, drone MD-500's, and A-10's will annihilate any troops.

Other than the opening attack, SK would fight a defensive war. NK troops would have to move down into SK to fight. Plus, if 300 cruise missiles were launched at the start then that is 300 military barracks that would be taken out.

Nukes are bad news, if they work. I doubt NK has figured it out. Anyone can explode a very large nuke under a mountain but reducing it's size is very difficult.

It would mostly be over in a day.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Air power is important but the raw numbers don't make it a bloodless fight and they do have nukes.
Yet even without those the artillery, conventional and the well known chemical weapons factor comes into play. Most of South Korea is in easy reach of those. Especially Seoul.
The costs to South Korea are very high in the offensive.
Additionally the North are know to have planed the same kind of Post regime guerilla warfare strategy that has drawn on and slowed things in Iraq to farther destabilize.

Well I agree a conventional war would be one-sided military. The costs would be very high.
The North has built its strategy on the idea of making the costs of action destructive across the board. This is why the South doesn't attack.
The economic hardship would leave the reunited Korea's a disaster.
 
Deino if I were you, I'd close this thread before individuals will come up with what? their versions of an easy Inchon landing/Chosin Reservoir battle remake? dropping napalm? sending human waves?

after all there's
FORBIDDEN TOPICS:

  • No "what if" discussion about war, particularly nuclear war, between China and other nations, or between any nations.
 
Top