{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/7/2013 3:26:38 AM
11
Is North Korea being underestimated? (Publically)
This is purely anecdotal, but from what I've seen a lot of Americans (at least around me) aren't too concerned about NK targeting cities (we live near DC).
Now I'm sure the government is taking this pretty seriously, but I don't see the same throughout the citizens. There are obviously exceptions, but generally it's the opposite.
From what I know, NK has an outdated arsenal (which, IMO, is not the whole story behind military strength) and the USA is [apparently] leagues above them. I'm not exactly sure how much of this is war propaganda, but I'm sure it isn't exaggerated too much.
[b] TL;DR:[/b] Is NK being underestimated by the general public? How much damage do you think they could inflict?
Well, I'm relatively uneducated regarding this subject, so please excuse any ignorance I may have shown.
-
3 RepliesEdited by Raptor: 4/7/2013 3:47:18 AMNot really. We understand their capabilities. Their airforce is a joke, they still use MIG-15's and their best plane is the MIG-29 which is quite dated as well. As for tanks they own some T-62's (T-62's were made in the 1960's) that have been upgraded for their terrain but nothing spectacular their either, not to mention they only have enough fuel for 30 days to run an armored offensive. However much like the battle of the bulge for the Germans the fuel they use will be in manuevering not necessarily just getting to a target. They will run out much faster than 30 days. As for infantry small arms they are equipped with relatively old AK's, what they do have is a lot of numbers. Numbers don't help much in the warm body department if your foe owns the skies and the seas. Anyway this was a super quick run down of their conventional military if you want more i could write it but yeah... PS: Yes i am sure their are quite a few grammar mistakes but i typed that up quick.
-
Edited by manwith: 4/13/2013 2:16:55 AMPeople are underestimating North Korea and people are seriously overestimating Russia.
-
Do they pose a significant threat to the US in conventional war? No, as I liken it to Hussein's regime and military strength during the Gulf War: significant for the region, but wholly ineffective against modern air-based first-strike tactics and smart munitions. They do have significant amounts of artillery and rockets, with various guided ground-to-ground missiles across the country. These have been in place for many, many years and are generally aimed at South Korea. They pose little threat to the U.S. mainland, but put the entire South Korean country at risk, including the U.S. military bases across the region. If they were to attack South Korea, we would strike back, as they are our allies. Now, if they were to take a less conventional approach, such as smuggling a nuclear device into the U.S., then they may pose a larger risk to the American populace.
-
Against an opponent that isn't even paying them any attention? How could they not do damage?
-
2 RepliesTheir arsenal is outdated but any arsenal can still do damage. I fully believe that they can cause quite a bit of damage. Like someone else said in another thread, they will not win a conflict but they can commit genocide with relative ease. I think someone said that they have one of the largest artillery forces in the world.
-
9 RepliesNK could do some serious damage to SK in a short amount of time with their artillery, and there aren't really any proven countermeasures to artillery.
-
As a potential world-war starter, yes. As a military force, no.
-
Let us consiter the gulf war which the US fought against Iraq in 1990 and 1991. In this war, Iraq held the 4th largest military in the world and had, by all means, more advanced military technology than modern NK by several decades. The US was able to defeat the Iraqi military proper in about 18 months... Consiter that NK currently is the 4th largest military on earth and that its technical capacity is still in the 50s or 60s and I'd say that to american interests, NK is anally -blam!- every which way to dodge.
-
7 RepliesEdited by Diplomat: 4/7/2013 3:43:28 AMConsidering the fact that a full blown conflict would lead to millions of casualties within months, at least according to the author of [I]Defiant Failed State[/i], I'd say laughing and making memes about the situation is pretty indicative of a public that grossly underestimates the capabilities of the DPRK. P.S. for those who have trouble deducing things, I'm talking about casualties on the North/South side. Not American soil.
-
Certainly. While I don't doubt that if a war were to break out against NK that they'd lose, I've seen some people talk as if everyone's going to make it out with zero casualties. The USA is much more powerful than NK, but you'd have to be blindly arrogant to think that NK wouldn't be able to do any damage.
-
4 RepliesDoesn't matter how great their arsenal is. All it takes is for them to fire one nuclear bomb--no matter how outdated it may be--and then it's possibly game over for the entire world. Any nuclear state is a serious threat.
