The country supposedly has intercontinental missles capable of reaching US and 20 warheads. Could they be intercepted if so, how many? Would North Korea even bother nuking US when it could instead nuke the south much easier?
North also has enough altirelly like these 300mm rockets to flatten Seul so it would do heavy damage to the south even without nukes. I assume they would also send troops by land but I don't know if they could break into South and do any damage. It's airforce is pretty outdated and I doubt it could do much damage before being shot down.
Bonus question: If North Korea nuked US what would be it's target?
North Korea would have the shit stomped out of it by South Korea all on its own at this point given the sheer disparity of training and technology, but it would still be a bloody mess. The political ramifications in the United States would be utterly devastating on account of it being the bloodiest American war since Vietnam or even the First Korean War.
Nicholas Mitchell
>North Korea would have the shit stomped out of it by South Korea all on its own at this point given the sheer disparity of training and technology
I get that but wouldn't the norks make the most fanatic fighters and wouldn't they have an easy time infiltrating SA considering how they both speak the same language and look the same.
I had this imagination of North somehow managing to send a lot of people over and have them fight guerilla warfare inside South.
Liam Perry
>I get that but wouldn't the norks make the most fanatic fighters Half of them would defect given the chance
William Collins
I don’t think the North Korean state would last long enough for a protracted guerrilla campaign to make much headway. It’d be a fucking disaster for the South in terms of lives lost and infrastructure destroyed in the first few days, but the end result would be the conclusion of North Korea’s existence.
Dominic Bailey
Realistically most of the damage would be done pretty quickly. The Koreas both have a huge amount of presighted artillery pointed at one another. Given how long this shit has been going on, there's been enough espionage that both sides probably know where to strike each other to cause maximum casualties. Seoul would probably be leveled with massive civilian casualties. When the lumbering American war machine executes its autistically exhaustive contingency plans, the North would have little recourse. Yes, it might be bloody, but with total air supremacy, an American victory would be a foregone conclusion in the conventional war without direct Chinese intervention. That latter part is important because while the Chinese aren't sentimental about North Korea, they are heavily invested in it acting as a buffer state between their border and a modern American infantry division in a state of high readiness. Don't underestimate how little the Chinese want Americans at their border, which is the only realistic outcome of this particular conflict without Chinese intervention.
Isaiah Gomez
>North Korea would have the shit stomped out of it by South Korea all on its own at this point given the sheer disparity of training and technology,
most non superpowers like south korea pull the same trick, and you just fell for it they have a thin crust of fancy shit like K2 tanks, and NLOS missiles or whatever
but in reality they still operate thousands of m-48s, that will have to fight swarms of north korean tanks with composite armor. same with all the rest of their equipment.
south korea itself is like this, it has some real shitty slums around and outside of Seoul
Cool, I didnt know Norks posted here What's life like there?
Liam Flores
well it's the only place with workplace democracy and non-Rothschild banks so it feels pretty uncucked youtube.com/watch?v=ZdhSuJ47Zqw
Tyler Cox
He’s actually right for the most part. SK would still obviously beat NK even if the US remained uninvolved, but it’d be a lot less one-sided than people would imagine.
Ethan Adams
>but in reality they still operate thousands of m-48s, North Korea isn't that weak despite all the western shilling. You don't need the latest tech to flatten civilian cities which are located only a few dozen kilometers away.
No amount of south's technology can stop thousands of 300mm rockets raining down on Seul.
remember those inter-island shillings where worst korea failed at counter-battery and then got counter-counter batteried and took losses lmao
pretty cool artillery duel, but embarrassing for south korea
Chase Jenkins
Memes aside, the Norks do sell a shit ton of fairly advanced technology to countries that’d otherwise never have the ability to acquire it, especially Israel’s various regional enemies. Most of Iran’s ballistic missiles and orbital launch vehicles are more or less direct copies of North Korean systems iirc.
Jace Rogers
>yfw north korea has a space program and south korea doesn't
>SK would still obviously beat NK even if the US remained uninvolved
I wonder about that. Without foreign involvement one side has 20-40 nukes while the other has none. >Israel shall be nuked
KEK Israel would in return nuke the shit out of them but it would be funny to see what a nuke would do to Tel-aviv.
James Morgan
>remember those inter-island shillings where worst korea failed at counter-battery and then got counter-counter batteried and took losses lmao >pretty cool artillery duel, but embarrassing for south korea
I don't. Can you feed me the sauce father?
Nathan Barnes
I never said and dont believe the North is weak. Do you guys utilize a kit of asymmetric warfare too? I've heard rumors that you guys have some crack spec ops divisions
One source says they would shoot their own officers in a war and rush to surrender to the south. The other says they will blindly charge gatling guns and tanks with a rock in heand for 'the Dear Leader'. Neither source is more trustworthy than the other...so no fucking idea.
There are probably some norks who would rebel in case of a war, and some that would fight to their last drop of blood.
The south should try it. Best outcome would be, both koreas destroyed...nothing of value would be lost. Same with jews and muslims.
The only difference between the 2 koreas is that south is rich.
Alexander Adams
Using nukes would be the most surefire way to guarantee absolutely not just a US response but an enthusiastic one from the entire Western world.
Grayson Kelly
I mean, at the end of the day, one country can afford to feed its people during a war and the other can’t. Even the most fanatic fighters can’t survive off of grass, and most normal people are more worried about starving to death than the consequences of committing treason against a regime that’d be very quickly collapsing under the pressure of a modern conflict.
Alexander Ross
Well, any scenario not involving the US is completely hypothetical to begin with. America has troops stationed in Korea and will have no choice but to respond if their troops are attacked, even if they decide to ignore the various joint-defense treaties for some reason.
Evan Moore
Tbqh an american war with Korea would likely end the US as a superpower and destroy NK entirely. People dont have the stomach for that kind of war after the MIC has forced almost 20 years of middle east wars upon us. If they tried that shit the vietnam protests would look like a garden party. The MIC would be shut down and defunded and politicians who supported it would be impeached or worse. NK of course would be destroyed entirely and tens of thousands dead on both sides at least.
Easton Peterson
> they have an easy time infiltrating SA considering how they both speak the same language
They have a lot of words that would mark someone as south or north Korea.
Ayden Hill
>NK of course would be destroyed entirely and tens of thousands dead on both sides at least.
north korea was reduced to rubble to an extend never before seen in history the last time over, the percentage of infrastructure destroyed was higher than either ww2 Japan or Nazi Germany. yet they didn't collapse.
might be the same next time round.
Joseph Parker
They didnt collapse because a million screaming chinese marched in from the north. If Truman had the stones to use nukes to stop them the world would look a little different today
Wyatt James
There’s zero reason to believe another Korean War would weaken America’s position. Defending a democratic state from a country that’s basically the caricature of an evil military dictatorship will never not be politically viable in America.
Austin Reed
>inb4 the 5 largest metropolis in US get nuked
Jaxson Cook
This. Defending South Korea from the North is as close to a just war as you can get in the current world without enduring an actual direct attack by an unequivocally demonstrable foreign state actor on American soil. We're still basically the Klingons of the world; violent and warlike as fuck. It's just that we're growing a conscience lately.
Wyatt Smith
Nork nukes can hit parts of the west coast, not the whole country. The current ground based midcourse defense should be sufficient for the amount of warheads they could conceivably lob across the Pacific. Even if we assume one hits LA or whatever, that would only make a war even easier to sell to the public.
Ryan Miller
It doesn't take much more than a handful of men willing to martyr themselves so their families can live in luxury to smuggle them over in shipping containers ahead of time.
Brayden Cooper
And this completely disregards our pretty extensive Pacific coast missile defense network. Turns out that infrastructure originally designed to counteract Russian a ICBM's would work just as well against North Korean missiles. Their best shot would be delivering the payloads via submarines but I'm not sure how viable that plan would be. It's doubtful a sub could get close enough undetected.
Aiden Wood
Once again, there’s no amount of damage that North Korea could conceivably dish out that would make America not fully retaliate.
Jonathan Thompson
>I mean, at the end of the day, one country can afford to feed its people during a war and the other can’t. Even the most fanatic fighters can’t survive off of grass, and most normal people are more worried about starving to death than the consequences of committing treason against a regime that’d be very quickly collapsing under the pressure of a modern conflict.
Nobody thinks the norks could win, dude or to last very long.
A new war between south and north Korea would be quick and extreemly bloody...What would survive of south Korea would be victorious...though I'm sure they won't feel like they have won...
Isaiah Rodriguez
except for SDI projects like brilliant pebbles, all the US interceptors are designed for nuclear breakout states like north korea
none of them are suitable for a russian/soviet attack. dont forget things like missile defense treaties anyway....
Gabriel King
That still leaves you with a fairly sized army of zealots armed with nuclear weapons.
Jacob Gomez
Did you forget what Iraqi soldiers did when Kuwait was invaded? They behaved like kids in a candy shop, looting and pillaging whatever they set their eyes on... What makes you think the Norks would be any different?
Dylan Gonzalez
In a word, discipline. The Arab world isn't exactly renowned for its intense commitment to discipline at any level. Dramatically different from an over the top authoritarian regime like North Korea.
Isaiah Garcia
Well, once the American-led counterattack occurred, they surrendered, deserted, and retreated en masse. I’d imagine a similar situation would occur.
Ryan Lewis
>keeps beliving that Norks won't just send the nuke in a shipping container by boat
Carter Ortiz
>Nork nukes can hit parts of the west coast, not the whole country. The current ground based midcourse defense should be sufficient for the amount of warheads they could conceivably lob across the Pacific.
NK missiles improve the range every few years. It won't be long before NK can hit any part of us
Xavier Richardson
>What would a war with North Korea look like?
Non-existent, because wars are fought to gain something. Making war on North Korea means erasing Seoul from the map. And with it, a ridiculous portion of the country's GDP.
Thomas Edwards
NK won’t nuke their sister state California
Isaiah Evans
The Leftists don't like the Norks either though, and they're usually the main source of anti-war protests.
Bentley Smith
Because they'd be looting and pillaging their future homes. A unifying war's objective on either side would be to consume the other without completely destroying their economy in the process, because that soon becomes YOUR economy.
Jackson Garcia
The look different too. South Koreans are fucking giants compared too their northern counterparts.
Jordan Jenkins
>No amount of south's technology can stop thousands of 300mm rockets raining down on Seul. >implying all those launch sites haven’t been pre-sighted and wouldn’t be obliterated by American airpower within minutes of war being declared
Nathaniel Nguyen
The norks are too centralized. One decapitating strike and they are basically left with their dicks in their hands. Any sort of mid level officer initiative and ability to operate independently has been quashed for the last 60 years to prevent any possible could. Take out their high command and it's basically like the end of the Phantom Menace
Luis Bailey
Nukes are a Catch-22. Their presence discourages the US from launching direct military incursions in NK, but if they were ever to be actually used, the United States would exterminate every last North Korean man, woman, and child.
Gabriel Taylor
A Second Korean War would jumpstart the Second American Civil War (although frankly that would happen with any country we go to war with at this point).
Levi King
> an easy time infiltrating SA considering how they both speak the same language and look the same.
Think of how hard of a time somebody from the 1950's would have blending in to modern society. Sure they speak the same language and kind of look the same, but the complete lack of modern nuance would make them stick out like a sore thumb.
Camden Thompson
>They behaved like kids in a candy shop, looting and pillaging whatever they set their eyes on... What makes you think the Norks would be any different?
Norks wouldn't be given the opportunity. Iraqis had four months to run riot in Kuwait before the first American bombs fell. Norks would be non-stop air attack from the very second they cross over the border.
Carter Torres
>build airbase 50 km from artillery batteries in order to take out said batteries 56% IQ is showing >muh air power worked out well against unarmed Chinese troop in Korea kek
Jack Fisher
Im south korean and we wont allow it. Ethier that or we deport all americans including military off our cunt. Cry more GI.
>worked out well against unarmed Chinese troop in Korea kek
I'd say it worked extremely well. We beat the Norks' asses so hard that the Chinese had to intervene.
Lucas Reyes
Well for start they lack fuel and ammo reserves for any protracted campaign. Much of their artillery would be CBd to death quickly. They won't "obliterate Seoul".
Now terrain is a bitch and I don't know much about their culture, morale, what their people think, so I wouldn't say they'd collapse ASAP but I don't think they would fight very hard.
Juan Johnson
Yes, but +50 million casualties along the western coast would make us regret intervening to begin with.
Blake Rodriguez
>Much of their artillery would be CBd to death quickly. They won't "obliterate Seoul".
THIS
We've had 60+ years to map out every bunker and foxhole along the DMZ, if you think all of those artillery pieces pointed at Seoul aren't on a target list to be obliterated by every American aircraft in Asia, you're an idiot.
Jaxson King
And what would they gain by that? Their goal is to survive, so it would be better to use nukes on US troop concentrations, not on random US civilisns.
Justin Rogers
>Yes, but +50 million casualties along the western coast would make us regret intervening to begin with.
It would probably start a civil war desu
Carson Brown
yea and surely the US won't nuke their cities under flimsy excuses to retaliate.
