North Korea attacks South

[dog_day_sunrise]

Kids know sh*t about their past anymore. I thought the guys my age, mid 20s or so, were already bad off, but f*ck...the teens now are just ignorant bastards.

 

This, is exactly how I felt about my bro. sixteen and he didn't even know who Jim Carrey was. I nearly shot him at that moment. Anyway, the kids that interject their opinion honestly can't be taken seriously, since their plan usually involves nuclear detonation or massive invasion, both of which are f*cking stupid at this point in world affairs.

Exactly. It seems to be taking longer and longer for kids/teenagers to realise that, even in times of war, the vast majority of operations are covert,rather than overt. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not just the younger generations- people seem to have this notion that the "Ride of the Valkyries" scene in Apocalypse Now is pretty much what warfare consists of- gung-ho patriots riding into battle on their mechanical steeds.

 

It's all such sh*t. Wars aren't fought with troops and aircraft, they're fought with agents and intelligence. In fact, the "boots on the ground means victory" bollocks seems to extend from the military institutions themselves. It really infuriates me that- the US in particular, but also the UK- the first thought that comes into the military leadership's head when someone says "ensure victory" is "put more troops on the ground". It's been pretty much proven that in order to fight COIN operation, you need the smallest possible number of extremely highly trained personnel, with the least overt presence possible and the most subersive and underhand tactics possible. So much easier to fight and insurgency with another insurgency than it is with a battalion of troops.

[Tyler]

DDS, I get your pain man. A person in Intelligence saves just as many lives as someone on the front lines, in fact, they usually saved people on the front lines! Yet people are still reluctant to say anyone who's not shooting a gun is a true benefactor to the war. It's total BS, and for future reference, everyone in their respective branches are trained the same. Mechanics did just as many push-ups and miles as someone who works administrative duty.

[dog_day_sunrise]

 

DDS, I get your pain man. A person in  Intelligence saves just as many lives as someone on the front lines, in fact, they usually saved people on the front lines! Yet people are still reluctant to say anyone who's not shooting a gun is a true benefactor to the war. It's total BS, and for future reference, everyone in their respective branches are trained the same. Mechanics did just as many push-ups and miles as someone who works administrative duty.

Some of it might be down to the sector in which I work- when I left uni I had the choice- Sandhurst or DSTL/the various intelligence agencies. I plumped for the latter principally because my interest is in the craft of intelligence and warfare, not in it's actual execution. An infantryman or pilot is but a means to an end, whereas someone working in intelligence or strategy has the ability to shape operation or strategic policy and enable those working in combat operations to achieve their ends.

 

People say being on operation is extremely difficult, and I don't doubt that for a second. But even those ranked in the highest echelons of the military follow policy dictated by organisations like DSTL, and the execution of the various arms of combat depends on the intelligence and information gathered off the battlefield. A commissioned officer will be responsible for the lives and fighting effectiveness of those who serve under him to some extent, but those crafting strategy back in the UK- or on deployment with operational forces- bear responsibility for the lives and fighting effectiveness of a much wider range of personnel.

 

Poor tactical and operation policy, or duff intelligence, is responsible for the deaths of far more forces personnel than poor front-line leadership.

[Geedoo]

North Vs South quality photos

 

Must see.

[Adler]

 

Kids know sh*t about their past anymore. I thought the guys my age, mid 20s or so, were already bad off, but f*ck...the teens now are just ignorant bastards.

 

This, is exactly how I felt about my bro. sixteen and he didn't even know who Jim Carrey was. I nearly shot him at that moment. Anyway, the kids that interject their opinion honestly can't be taken seriously, since their plan usually involves nuclear detonation or massive invasion, both of which are f*cking stupid at this point in world affairs.

Ohhh leave it to the majority of kids to make a bad impression out of all of us.

[Typhus]

The Taliban once killed an enemy of theirs by posing as journalists. It emerged that the 'camera' they brought with them was actually a very well disguised bomb.

Now, as Kim Jong Il is such a film freak. Maybe we could use something similar to get rid of him. People seem to think he's untouchable.

Now, a guy like Fidel Castro. He is untouchable, or as close as any mortal man can be. But that's because he's smart, he's got a sharp mind and what I can only describe as almost supernatural good luck.

But some two bit whackjob with an inferiority complex shouldn't be too hard to dispose of, should he? And sure, his son will take over. But the question we have to ask if whether or not they will follow him. I am aware that the Stalinist regime there has created a religion of sorts around their leadership. But do the military buy this? When they execute orders, do they legitimately believe that they are doing the work of a 'God'? Or do they see it for the hollow sham it is?

Kim Jong Il's theatrics endanger them all. And loyalty can only stretch so far until the desire for self-preservation outweighs any patriotic fervour.

[That_Guy28]

 

Kids know sh*t about their past anymore. I thought the guys my age, mid 20s or so, were already bad off, but f*ck...the teens now are just ignorant bastards.

 

This, is exactly how I felt about my bro. sixteen and he didn't even know who Jim Carrey was. I nearly shot him at that moment. Anyway, the kids that interject their opinion honestly can't be taken seriously, since their plan usually involves nuclear detonation or massive invasion, both of which are f*cking stupid at this point in world affairs.

Ohhh leave it to the majority of kids to make a bad impression out of all of us.

Look, can we quit arguing about 12 year olds versus adults in cod? gosh..

[Adler]

What who's talking about CoD or even "12 year olds versus adults" in those quotes? I'm just saying that a lot of other kids ruined the chance to whatever dignity that the more mature ones work so hard to earn.

[-slash]

Send in a few recon Marines armed with a Barrett M82 with the objective of killing Kim Jong Un and Il....

 

Problem solved.

Are you actually retarded? I hope so.

 

Yeah, send in some loud overly confident military men whose primary objective is first recon and frontline warfare and have them sneak into a country whose entire populace is consistently alert to intruders whilst carrying a rifle nearly the size of a human body in order to assassinate a man whose undoubtedly under constant guard by actual specialists 24/7. Brilliant plan; I think you're going to give General James Cartwright a run for his money some day, why didn't he think of that?

Not to mention the fact it's a relatively inaccurate rifle principally used for destroying military materiel, rather than use against personnel.

Yeah, lets not.

Just out of interest, what makes you say that an M82 is relatively inaccurate?

 

Not that I have any personal experience shooting one but I have always maintained an interest in firearms, and it does have a fairly hefty effective range at 2000 yards, compared to say, the dedicated sniper rifle design of the USMC M40, which is effective out to 1000 yards.

 

Then there are other sniper rifles such as the PSG1 and SVD which are even lower still, but still classified as particular effective rifles. The 50 calibre round is going to be more accurate the lower the range.

 

Of course the problem with them is that they're pretty cumbersome to drag around a battlefield.

 

There's an interesting video here where a Marine sniper used one in an anti-personnel role assisting a patrol engaged in a firefight.

 

Link.

 

 

Not meaning to give any credit to the ridiculous idea that "zombiestheynombies," came up with, just wondering what your reasoning is.

[dog_day_sunrise]

 

Send in a few recon Marines armed with a Barrett M82 with the objective of killing Kim Jong Un and Il....

 

Problem solved.

Are you actually retarded? I hope so.

 

Yeah, send in some loud overly confident military men whose primary objective is first recon and frontline warfare and have them sneak into a country whose entire populace is consistently alert to intruders whilst carrying a rifle nearly the size of a human body in order to assassinate a man whose undoubtedly under constant guard by actual specialists 24/7. Brilliant plan; I think you're going to give General James Cartwright a run for his money some day, why didn't he think of that?

Not to mention the fact it's a relatively inaccurate rifle principally used for destroying military materiel, rather than use against personnel.

Yeah, lets not.

Just out of interest, what makes you say that an M82 is relatively inaccurate?

 

Not that I have any personal experience shooting one but I have always maintained an interest in firearms, and it does have a fairly hefty effective range at 2000 yards, compared to say, the dedicated sniper rifle design of the USMC M40, which is effective out to 1000 yards.

 

Then there are other sniper rifles such as the PSG1 and SVD which are even lower still, but still classified as particular effective rifles. The 50 calibre round is going to be more accurate the lower the range.

 

Of course the problem with them is that they're pretty cumbersome to drag around a battlefield.

 

There's an interesting video here where a Marine sniper used one in an anti-personnel role assisting a patrol engaged in a firefight.

 

Link.

 

 

Not meaning to give any credit to the ridiculous idea that "zombiestheynombies," came up with, just wondering what your reasoning is.

1) Semi-automatic action

2) 3 MOA at 1000m with match-grade ammo

 

Dedicated anti-materiel rifles don't need a high degree of accuracy. Materiel is usually much larger than your average man-sized military target and M82's are seldom used against personnel. Contrast with a weapon like the AW50 or MacMillan Tac-50, which are both bolt action dual-purpose counter-sniper/anti-materiel and both have accuracies in the sub-MOA region at 1000m. People have shot the M82 (with modifications) to about [email protected] using match-grade ammunition, but that's well below the accuracy of most military sniper rifles (usually .5MOA or lower at 800m)

 

The M82 is designed to destroy stationary radar arrays and immobilise stationary vehicles and helicopters from long range- not for use against personnel. Of course it does see a degree of use against human targets (that's the nature of war, unpredictable) but almost all militaries primarily use 7.62/.338 caliber bolt-action rifles for actual sniping duty- or in the case of certain special forces, extremely high-grade match rounds like the .408.

 

 

The SVD isn't a sniper rifle, it's a Designated Marksman's Rifle, designed for use in squad scenarios out to ranges of around 800m- to extend the range of a squad. The PSG-1 is a police/special forces sniper rifle which trades effective range for accuracy and is predominantly used in urban sniping situations with ranges of 400-800m. It's also based on a semi-automatic converted battle rifle so in the strictest sense is a designated marksman's rifle too.

 

The .50 BMG round is basically a big .30-06 in terms of ballistics- it's got a lot of weight and brute force behind it but compared to modern dedicated sniping ammunition it's got quite a large degree of velocity drop-off past. Most anti-materiel rifles use API ammunition, which contains an armor piercing core and incendiary charge, for destroying fixed targets- but is outlawed by the rules of war for intentional usage against personnel (no explosive or incendiary ammunition below 400 grams to be used against personnel). With a few exceptions (the Tac-50 as mentioned, AW50/50F and PGM Hecate II) most .50 rifles (as opposed to machine guns) exclusively use API ammunition rather than match-grade sniping ammunition which is designed to fly as uniformly, aerodynamically and to maintain supersonic velocity for as long as possible.

 

Interestingly, dedicated rounds like the .338 Lapua Magnum or .408 Chey-Tac both maintain supersonic velocity at ranges well beyond that of the .50 BMG. The longest ever sniper shot- nearly 3km, was made with a .338 rifle (despite them having a supposed maximum range of 1600m).

Edited November 26, 2010 by dog_day_sunrise

[Finn 7 five 11]

I guess North Korea's world take over has begun!

WE'RE DOOMED! ( as threepio would say) Jokes, but really, we are all screwed.

 

THE WORLD'S TEN LARGEST ARMIES

 

1. China - 1,700,000

2. India - 1,200,000

3. North Korea - 900,000

4. South Korea - 560,000

5. Pakistan - 520,000

6. United States - 475,000

7. Iraq - 360,000 - Pre-2003, of course.

8. Myanmar - 325,000

9. Russia - 320,000

10. Iran - 320,000

 

Although every website says something a little different i would say this is reasonably accurate.

[unopescio]

Shame all of north korea's troops are malnourished and using weapons from 1940.

[dog_day_sunrise]

Shame all of north korea's troops are malnourished and using weapons from 1940.

And, as I've said several times now, the size of an army means f*ck all in terms of their combat effectiveness.

 

Case in point- 1940 Russia/Finland Winter War. Or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Or the Six Day War. Or the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Or the Second Boer War. Or the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war. Or Yom Kippur. Or the Iran-Iraq War. Or the Korean War. Or Vietnam. Or the Battle of Vukovar. Or the Battle of Midway.

 

In fact, I think it's safe to say there's little or no correlation of any kind between size of armed forces and ability to wage war.

[Kevin...]

Send in a few recon Marines armed with a Barrett M82 with the objective of killing Kim Jong Un and Il....

 

Problem solved.

Are you actually retarded? I hope so.

 

Yeah, send in some loud overly confident military men whose primary objective is first recon and frontline warfare and have them sneak into a country whose entire populace is consistently alert to intruders whilst carrying a rifle nearly the size of a human body in order to assassinate a man whose undoubtedly under constant guard by actual specialists 24/7. Brilliant plan; I think you're going to give General James Cartwright a run for his money some day, why didn't he think of that?

Not to mention the fact it's a relatively inaccurate rifle principally used for destroying military materiel, rather than use against personnel.

Yeah, lets not.

Just out of interest, what makes you say that an M82 is relatively inaccurate?

 

Not that I have any personal experience shooting one but I have always maintained an interest in firearms, and it does have a fairly hefty effective range at 2000 yards, compared to say, the dedicated sniper rifle design of the USMC M40, which is effective out to 1000 yards.

 

Then there are other sniper rifles such as the PSG1 and SVD which are even lower still, but still classified as particular effective rifles. The 50 calibre round is going to be more accurate the lower the range.

 

Of course the problem with them is that they're pretty cumbersome to drag around a battlefield.

 

There's an interesting video here where a Marine sniper used one in an anti-personnel role assisting a patrol engaged in a firefight.

 

Link.

 

 

Not meaning to give any credit to the ridiculous idea that "zombiestheynombies," came up with, just wondering what your reasoning is.

1) Semi-automatic action

2) 3 MOA at 1000m with match-grade ammo

 

Dedicated anti-materiel rifles don't need a high degree of accuracy. Materiel is usually much larger than your average man-sized military target and M82's are seldom used against personnel. Contrast with a weapon like the AW50 or MacMillan Tac-50, which are both bolt action dual-purpose counter-sniper/anti-materiel and both have accuracies in the sub-MOA region at 1000m. People have shot the M82 (with modifications) to about [email protected] using match-grade ammunition, but that's well below the accuracy of most military sniper rifles (usually .5MOA or lower at 800m)

 

The M82 is designed to destroy stationary radar arrays and immobilise stationary vehicles and helicopters from long range- not for use against personnel. Of course it does see a degree of use against human targets (that's the nature of war, unpredictable) but almost all militaries primarily use 7.62/.338 caliber bolt-action rifles for actual sniping duty- or in the case of certain special forces, extremely high-grade match rounds like the .408.

 

 

The SVD isn't a sniper rifle, it's a Designated Marksman's Rifle, designed for use in squad scenarios out to ranges of around 800m- to extend the range of a squad. The PSG-1 is a police/special forces sniper rifle which trades effective range for accuracy and is predominantly used in urban sniping situations with ranges of 400-800m. It's also based on a semi-automatic converted battle rifle so in the strictest sense is a designated marksman's rifle too.

 

The .50 BMG round is basically a big .30-06 in terms of ballistics- it's got a lot of weight and brute force behind it but compared to modern dedicated sniping ammunition it's got quite a large degree of velocity drop-off past. Most anti-materiel rifles use API ammunition, which contains an armor piercing core and incendiary charge, for destroying fixed targets- but is outlawed by the rules of war for intentional usage against personnel (no explosive or incendiary ammunition below 400 grams to be used against personnel). With a few exceptions (the Tac-50 as mentioned, AW50/50F and PGM Hecate II) most .50 rifles (as opposed to machine guns) exclusively use API ammunition rather than match-grade sniping ammunition which is designed to fly as uniformly, aerodynamically and to maintain supersonic velocity for as long as possible.

 

Interestingly, dedicated rounds like the .338 Lapua Magnum or .408 Chey-Tac both maintain supersonic velocity at ranges well beyond that of the .50 BMG. The longest ever sniper shot- nearly 3km, was made with a .338 rifle (despite them having a supposed maximum range of 1600m).

Yay...spared me another speech.

[dog_day_sunrise]

Yay...spared me another speech.

Are you my septic clone or something?

[Kevin...]

I dunno what a "septic" clone. is..but you must be a beautiful bastard if I am.

[dog_day_sunrise]

I dunno what a "septic" clone. is..but you must be a beautiful bastard if I am.

Septic = Septic Tank = Yank.

Oh yes.

[Kevin...]

 

I dunno what a "septic" clone. is..but you must be a beautiful bastard if I am.

Septic = Septic Tank = Yank.

Oh yes.

I don't much care for the yank joke but I will humor you just this once.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, aside from video games, The History Channel has these programs where guys who have been in combat tell their stories. There are quite a few sniper stories about guys with Barrett .50 rifles holding off hoards of men. I am sure all the little kiddies around the USA are watching and thinking the .308/7.62 NATO rounds are pea shooter bullets because the 50 is so much bigger and cooler.

[dog_day_sunrise]

I dunno what a "septic" clone. is..but you must be a beautiful bastard if I am.

Septic = Septic Tank = Yank.

Oh yes.

I don't much care for the yank joke but I will humor you just this once.

It wasn't meant to be offensive, apologies if it was.

[Kevin...]

I dunno what a "septic" clone. is..but you must be a beautiful bastard if I am.

Septic = Septic Tank = Yank.

Oh yes.

I don't much care for the yank joke but I will humor you just this once.

It wasn't meant to be offensive, apologies if it was.

Sarcasm olol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, its been a few days. Where is WWIII at?

[dog_day_sunrise]

I dunno what a "septic" clone. is..but you must be a beautiful bastard if I am.

Septic = Septic Tank = Yank.

Oh yes.

I don't much care for the yank joke but I will humor you just this once.

It wasn't meant to be offensive, apologies if it was.

Sarcasm olol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways, its been a few days. Where is WWIII at?

Internet sarcasm is always a challenge

Yeah, I don't see any mushroom clouds over the South China Sea.

[SPMovies]

Fresh Artillery Fire Apparent North Korean Drill

Fresh artillery shots are being heard on the South Korean island targeted earlier this week by the north.

The apparent drill comes three days after a South Korean island was devastated by a North Korean bombardment and hours after Pyongyang warned the peninsula is on the brink of war.

This may just be more saber-rattling on the part of the north, and the United States is still trying to defuse the tension. But the situation could escalate quickly.

The top U.S. military commander in Korea is getting an-up close look at the damage from the earlier attack

General Walter Sharp says there is no question about what happened on the devastated island.

"We in United Nations command will investigate this completely and call on North Korea to stop any future attacks," Sharp said.

As more military might moves into the waters, there is a growing likelihood of further attacks and counter-attacks.

The White House response, at least so far, has been to call for more diplomacy, including more pressure from China, the only country that may hold sway over North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

"China is the key, and China has big interests in not wanting this to escalate into war. Remember, North Korea is right on their border. If there is a war, you will have millions of refugees flowing across the border. You'll probably hurt the regional economy there," said Jim Walsh, of the M.I.T. Security Studies Program.

But for Kim Jong Il, this may just be the latest exercise in brinksmanship.

Its nuclear ambitions and occasional military incursions often win the regime there both attention and concessions.

"You know, if I were an official in Pyongyang, I'd roll this tactic out from time to time," said John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. "It always works against the United States."

And for the United States, there is a great deal at stake, with more than 28,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea, Fox

 

 

I dont have the link, got it off another site. Aint too good of news if the North is still firing artillery

[meta187]

Yea, I don't think they're going to be able to put a pretty pink ribbon on this one and make it go away with diplomacy. This was meant to be a catalyst for something, to what degree or outcome remains to be seen but some intentional conflict has been instigated, to be sure. That may sound general but it's better to keep it that way until more facts are known and results are forthcoming.

 

I think the whole "China is key" thing is pretty accurate, as far as how they actively condone or condemn NK's actions going forward, words will not be enough. Action or lack there of will be very telling and define their position on the matter.

[dog_day_sunrise]

Yea, I don't think they're going to be able to put a pretty pink ribbon on this one and make it go away with diplomacy. This was meant to be a catalyst for something, to what degree or outcome remains to be seen but some intentional conflict has been instigated, to be sure. That may sound general but it's better to keep it that way until more facts are known and results are forthcoming.

 

I think the whole "China is key" thing is pretty accurate, as far as how they actively condone or condemn NK's actions going forward, words will not be enough. Action or lack there of will be very telling and define their position on the matter.

China will be intentionally ambiguous about it's intentions. It can't be overtly seen to be siding with the DPRK as that would lead it into seriously murky waters in terms of relationships with other nations, but it also can't outright condemn the DPRK because of the close military ties between the two countries. It's an unfortunate equilibrium that will need to be broken sooner or later; then China will have to decide between the DPRK or the rest of the world.

 

As it's not 1951 and the world is still rather unipolar, my initial thought is that China will either put a leash on the DPRK to keep them from lashing out, or will quietly step back amid complaints but no action as US and South Korea destroy the DPRK's military capability. The former is probably the more realistic of the two, but the latter would to more to benefit global security.

[nerner]

China isn't at all eager to show support for North Korea right now as doing so would probably turn out to be little more than suicide with regards to their international relations. Unless the war (if it happens) ventures right up to their borders then I can't see them getting involved, especially not on the side of the crazy dictatorship outlaw state.

 

"As for North Korea, I don't think that they want war. North Korea has the world's second-largest army with more than a million soldiers and nearly 5 million reservists, despite its population of just 23 million people after two decades of famine and malnutrition. But even within this privileged military strata soldiers are physically stunted, equipment is not maintained and even bullets are in short supply." - From a newspaper. Can't remember which one.

 

They may be slightly unhinged, but surely they can't be completely batsh*t crazy and suicidal.

 

[Minus the Boom]

Yeah, anyone got a link for that?

[dog_day_sunrise]

China isn't at all eager to show support for North Korea right now as doing so would probably turn out to be little more than suicide with regards to their international relations. Unless the war (if it happens) ventures right up to their borders then I can't see them getting involved, especially not on the side of the crazy dictatorship outlaw state.

 

"As for North Korea, I don't think that they want war. North Korea has the world's second-largest army with more than a million soldiers and nearly 5 million reservists, despite its population of just 23 million people after two decades of famine and malnutrition. But even within this privileged military strata soldiers are physically stunted, equipment is not maintained and even bullets are in short supply." - From a newspaper. Can't remember which one.

 

They may be slightly unhinged, but surely they can't be completely batsh*t crazy and suicidal.

The problem is that the DPRK take an attitude to international relations somewhat similar to Soviet Russia or Iran's- almost reverse-idealist. They, like the USSR in the 60s and 70s, have no concept of their own downfall or destruction- in the case of USSR this was due to their political system being based on the ideological principal that Communism was stronger than the the combined might of the US and Eastern Bloc, and even mutual assured destruction would not stop the Communist machine.

 

In the DPRK, partially due to the enormous cult of personality built up around the leadership and military institutions, partially to do with their utterly isolationist government, and partially due to serious mental health issues that appear to present themselves in the Kim family, there appears to be no understanding of the concepts of power balance or international order- events like the recent shelling or the sinking of the Chenoan are perfect representations of a nation taking tactically rationalised military action with little or no consideration for the operational or strategic outcomes. Whilst this is never going to win them any out-and-out conflicts, it still poses a significant threat to various nation's interests in the East- it must be demonstrated that the DPRK is hopelessly outgunned and utterly fallible in order to them stand the remotest chance of decreasing their aggression.

[Rown]

AP: Defiant North Korea fires artillery warning shots

 

The DPRK would do a fairly good job as a trap though. I don't know what would bring about such a scenario but:

 

If they could lob one of their atomic firecrackers at the George Washington we'd be down a major asset and instantly drawn into a new war. American air support would undoubtedly be rerouted through places like Kadena on Okinawa, limiting its ability to respond to issues in the south, meaning if China took the opportunity to retake Taiwan they'd probably be able to do it before we could respond.

 

Ya we could create baseless scenarios all day, but I feel that this sort of situation though might help explain why China keeps Korea on the payroll.

 

Rown

[dog_day_sunrise]

If they could lob one of their atomic firecrackers at the George Washington we'd be down a major asset and instantly drawn into a new war. American air support would undoubtedly be rerouted through places like Kadena on Okinawa, limiting its ability to respond to issues in the south, meaning if China took the opportunity to retake Taiwan they'd probably be able to do it before we could respond.

Nope. No deliverable nuclear weapons and no proof that their existing weapons even work, as both their tests have been fizzles.

Much more likely to be hit by a conventional attack.

[Rown]

The use of the term "atomic firecracker" was intentional. I'm not suggesting they replicated the bikini islands, I'm thinking along the lines of a sub-hiroshima style weapon that could still knock out a carrier without having to actually touch it.

 

Rown