U.S. prepared to use force on North Korea 'if we must' - U.N. envoy

[Morch]

14 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

China will "neutralise" NK.

 

But only if the US gives them a free hand in South China Sea.

 

That's the "deal".........what would you do?

 

 

 

Doubt there's such an offer, or that there will be one.

And, of course, the PRC already doing what it wants in the South China Sea, so what's the point?

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, Grubster said:

I would think they could take Kim out with a drone, if they did this I would guess most N Koreans would rejoice. On the other hand if they do have a short range nuclear missile they probably have it aimed at the US troops in S Korea so maybe they better wait until the missile defense system there is complete.

 

I doubt that "they" can. NK isn't a pushover when it comes to defending it's leadership. Then there's a question of how such an attack would be received internationally. And then there's the possibility it will fail, and what then...?  As for the North Koreans - far as I recall, when the Elder passed away he was genuinely mourned by many of them. Call it brainwashing or whatever, but still.  

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

The armchair general at it again.

 

The core of the NK ground forces is well trained, and rather well suited to engage SK. Not, perhaps, in the old-school sense, but as quite a bit of today's warfare is asymmetrical, certainly. By various estimated, NK has stocks of military supply enabling btween 6 to 18 months of fighting. That's rather formidable by any count, even taking lower figures. That's without even accounting for artillery, rockets, missiles and SK ability to deal with such. And not accounting for NK probably being less scrupulous choosing targets. Or SK being dependent on digital, electronic and internet based systems - which NK is rather good at disrupting.

 

May I suggest that your overwhelming confidence in the outcome of such a hypothetical conflict does not rely on anything more than reading a couple of articles and having a look at one of them nonsense military ranking websites? 

First off, thanks for the gratuitous insults. I can see that, as usual, you are running on automatic pilot.

We heard the same kind of nonsense about Saddam Hussein's army. A good case for it could be made on paper, but in conventional warfare it was useless

 

If you're talking about a North Korean invasion of the south. that's an attempt doomed to failure. As anyone who has even a feeble grasp of military matters know, asymmetrical warfare works in your favor when you're on the defensive where on your home ground and you have familiarity with the locals..  Not so well when you're launching an invasion. So, it doesn't really matter how much supplies they've got, if they're depending on that kind of force for an invasion.

 

As for North Korea disrupting South Koreas communications.  South Korea has one of the most advanced economies in the world. Presumably they have a fair amount of technological expertise to deal with North Korea's attempts.

 

The North Korean Air Force is mostly very old aircraft. Their pilots get very little training.

“The North Korean Air Force (NKAF), a fleet of more than 1,300 aircraft that are primarily legacy Soviet models, is primarily responsible for defending North Korean air space,” reads a Pentagon report to the Congress on the state of North Korea’s military in 2015. “Its other missions include SOF insertion, transportation and logistics support, reconnaissance, and tactical air support for KPA [Korean People’s Army] ground forces. However, because of the technological inferiority of most of its aircraft fleet and rigid air defense command and control structure, much of North Korea’s air defense is provided by surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and antiaircraft artillery (AAA).”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/should-the-world-fear-north-koreas-air-force-20315

 

In very short order the US and South Korea would have total air superiority. An army isn't much good if the possession of the sky isn't seriously disputed.

There are lots of other things militating against their chances of success. Undependable food supplies, bad logistics, inferior industrial capacity. And most of all the nature of a totalitarian regime. Modern warfare calls for great flexibility. The requires initiative far down the chain of command.  Not the kind of thing that people raised in a totalitarian state, with a government that is paranoid and vicious, are likely to have much of.

. 

The US and South Korea would literally make mincemeat out of North Korean soldiers. Which is why North Korea has invested so much in their nuclear program.

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

The decisions were taken by leaders other than Trump, long before he became President, and none of those warnings were heeded.  He merely observed that other leaders thought they could rely on China to rein in a rogue leader, but regrettably China hasn't cooperated.

 

It's not about being a declaration of war, but about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and delivery systems, with the ability to strike targets a long way from North Korea, and nuclear weapons and ICBMs in the possession of an unstable leader.

 

If nothing else, Trump will be a decisive leader in this situation, but the US, along with any other countries who want to prevent this developing situation, will have to hit hard, and a lot of targets to prevent a retaliatory strike against Japan or South Korea.

 

This can only end in tears for North Korea, and the idiot in charge will be the architect of a situation way beyond his expertise, control, and probably care factor, and as a consequence, mass casualties of his own people, not that it seems to have bothered him in the past.

YOu mean decisive like he was in his attack on the Syrian missile base?

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

The N Koreans can put almost 6,000,000 troops in the field and would outnumber the S Koreans by at least 2 to 1 (assuming S Korea will mobilise them all).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_People's_Army

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Armed_Forces

 

The N Koreans don't care about the casualty rates but the S Koreans do.

 

Granted a nuclear weapon is a great equaliser but who would be foolish enough to launch the first one and where would it be aimed at. Look at the map of the world and see who is close to both Koreas and see who will suffer the most from nuclear fallout.

 

Conventional weapons are easy to control. You can fire a bullet from a rifle, a shell from a gun, a torpedo from a ship or a bomb from an aircraft and you are pretty sure how far it will go, roughly how much damage it can do and how many people it can kill over what period of time.

 

Once that nuclear weapon goes off you have NO idea how much damage it will do though studies have been done on it. There is no way to predict how many people will die instantly, within a day, week, month, year or even how many years. That assumes that ONLY 1 nuclear weapon is launched. What if 5, 10, 50 or more were launched and they all went off.

 

All the keyboard warriors who advocate the nuking of N Korea must be totally out of their minds as they have NO IDEA of the devastation nuclear warfare will bring.

 

It is no use thinking that because we live in Thailand we will be safe here because we won't.

 

If the prevailng wind is from the East and N Korea gets nuked the fallout will spread across parts of China and SEA and when there are a lot of heavy storms, rain and floods in Thailand a lot of that weather comes from China.

If you think about the North Korean economy, you have to wonder how such a weak economy can possibly support an army of that size.

Further, their airforce is no match for South Korea's, much less for the USA's. In pretty short order South Korea and the USA would have total air superiority. So I think in conventional warfare, that war would be over in pretty short order.

That said, occupation is another matter. Hard to know how willing the population would be to fight for their government. It isn't like they would be being invaded by foreigners. The South Koreans, after all, speak the same language and look more or less the same as their northern brethren. Except I suspect that they are somewhat larger, not having experienced protracted periods of near starvation.

I certainly agree with you that nuking North Korea is a horrifying idea. Less horrifying, but more than horrifying enough would be an invasion. I think most of the posters rooting for a a nuclear attack or even a conventional invasion  have anger management issues. 

Personally, I don't think much is going to happen.  Those of us who take the long view, and I suspect that the Chinese are among them. see that the North Korean economy is turning to free or freer market economics. It is doing better. The more prosperous they become the less likely they will be to be belligerent. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[Grubster]

39 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt that "they" can. NK isn't a pushover when it comes to defending it's leadership. Then there's a question of how such an attack would be received internationally. And then there's the possibility it will fail, and what then...?  As for the North Koreans - far as I recall, when the Elder passed away he was genuinely mourned by many of them. Call it brainwashing or whatever, but still.  

Well they missed Gaddafi I guess. I think every high ranking officer under Kim fears for his life every day, so I'm not sure they would be very sad of his death. I think Kim's father was a much less brutal dictator. I think the powers that be in the west will want a good war there anyway, so I think the US will do something rash there within the next few years.

[midas]

1 hour ago, Grubster said:

I would think they could take Kim out with a drone, if they did this I would guess most N Koreans would rejoice. On the other hand if they do have a short range nuclear missile they probably have it aimed at the US troops in S Korea so maybe they better wait until the missile defense system there is complete.

" if they did this I would guess most N Koreans would rejoice. "

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

" they probably have it aimed at the US troops in S Korea "

 

Or maybe not?

 

https://www.hardassetsalliance.com/our-blog/a-north-korean-emp-attack-the-dark-possibility-1#

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt that "they" can. NK isn't a pushover when it comes to defending it's leadership. Then there's a question of how such an attack would be received internationally. And then there's the possibility it will fail, and what then...?  As for the North Koreans - far as I recall, when the Elder passed away he was genuinely mourned by many of them. Call it brainwashing or whatever, but still.  

And you know it was genuine how? What would have happened to these people if they hadn't strongly displayed sentiments of grief?

  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/north-korea-reportedly-punishing-insincere-mourners/

[Grubster]

5 minutes ago, midas said:

" if they did this I would guess most N Koreans would rejoice. "

 

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

" they probably have it aimed at the US troops in S Korea "

 

Or maybe not?

 

https://www.hardassetsalliance.com/our-blog/a-north-korean-emp-attack-the-dark-possibility-1#

 

 

Since I said it would be my guess I would think you could gather that I have no evidence. I think the evidence could only be seen if it happens don't you? And yes probably means maybe not.

[Morch]

13 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

First off, thanks for the gratuitous insults. I can see that, as usual, you are running on automatic pilot.

We heard the same kind of nonsense about Saddam Hussein's army. A good case for it could be made on paper, but in conventional warfare it was useless

 

If you're talking about a North Korean invasion of the south. that's an attempt doomed to failure. As anyone who has even a feeble grasp of military matters know, asymmetrical warfare works in your favor when you're on the defensive where on your home ground and you have familiarity with the locals..  Not so well when you're launching an invasion. So, it doesn't really matter how much supplies they've got, if they're depending on that kind of force for an invasion.

 

As for North Korea disrupting South Koreas communications.  South Korea has one of the most advanced economies in the world. Presumably they have a fair amount of technological expertise to deal with North Korea's attempts.

 

The North Korean Air Force is mostly very old aircraft. Their pilots get very little training.

“The North Korean Air Force (NKAF), a fleet of more than 1,300 aircraft that are primarily legacy Soviet models, is primarily responsible for defending North Korean air space,” reads a Pentagon report to the Congress on the state of North Korea’s military in 2015. “Its other missions include SOF insertion, transportation and logistics support, reconnaissance, and tactical air support for KPA [Korean People’s Army] ground forces. However, because of the technological inferiority of most of its aircraft fleet and rigid air defense command and control structure, much of North Korea’s air defense is provided by surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and antiaircraft artillery (AAA).”

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/should-the-world-fear-north-koreas-air-force-20315

 

In very short order the US and South Korea would have total air superiority. An army isn't much good if the possession of the sky isn't seriously disputed.

There are lots of other things militating against their chances of success. Undependable food supplies, bad logistics, inferior industrial capacity. And most of all the nature of a totalitarian regime. Modern warfare calls for great flexibility. The requires initiative far down the chain of command.  Not the kind of thing that people raised in a totalitarian state, with a government that is paranoid and vicious, are likely to have much of.

. 

The US and South Korea would literally make mincemeat out of North Korean soldiers. Which is why North Korea has invested so much in their nuclear program.

 

Calling you an armchair general is not an insult, but an observation based on quite a few posts across a range of topics.

 

Was actually wondering if to bring up Saddam Hussein's army, but figured you'd go there anyway and make my point for me. The difference between the two situations is simple - the Iraqis didn't stand a chance because they went for a symmetrical head on fight with the World's leading superpower. If NK would be as dumb as to try that, they'd be wiped out. I don't think that's quite what they have in mind, though.

 

Anyone that has a feeble grasp of military matters would inform you that there is no such "rule" about asymmetrical warfare being automatically in favor of the defender. That sort of thinking is, just perhaps, relevant if one thinks along conventional modes of military engagement. Or if one assumes that the opposition plays from the same textbook he reads. Again, I very much doubt that the NK military is bound by either. Or perhaps, it's just your grasp of what asymmetrical warfare is, that's lacking. For example, it does not necessarily have anything to do with "home ground", or even "knowing the locals". It could just as well pertain to balance of means and to the tactics employed.

 

I guess that in your mind, an invasion means lines of tanks advancing on the border, squadrons filling the skies and fleets on the move. Well, that's one way to go about it. Again, doubt a NK offensive will conform to such images. And then there's this gem about supplies being immaterial. Good luck with your imaginary campaigns, general.

 

It might be worth considering that NK is well aware of relevant considerations. Executing a full blown invasion resulting in full control of SK is probably not a realistic proposition. But an operation aimed at limited gains, certainly is. NK does not have to win everything in one move. A successful (from their point of view) limited operation will work just fine. Given it's existing nuclear capabilities, and the indecision of world powers, someone may think it a worthwhile risk.

 

SK being an advanced economy and having advanced technology is a two edged sword. The benefits are obvious, but at the same time it raises vulnerability levels to certain types of attacks. Presume what you will, but generally speaking, this works like cyber security - much easier on the attack.

 

There was no claim made with regard to the NK Air force or its capabilities. Having said that, and without ignoring the benefits of having a superior air-power, there are more than one recent examples of conflicts in which air-power is less of a factor than expected. And if NK air defense was a joke, most matters touched upon would not be an issue by now.

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Calling you an armchair general is not an insult, but an observation based on quite a few posts across a range of topics.

 

Was actually wondering if to bring up Saddam Hussein's army, but figured you'd go there anyway and make my point for me. The difference between the two situations is simple - the Iraqis didn't stand a chance because they went for a symmetrical head on fight with the World's leading superpower. If NK would be as dumb as to try that, they'd be wiped out. I don't think that's quite what they have in mind, though.

 

Anyone that has a feeble grasp of military matters would inform you that there is no such "rule" about asymmetrical warfare being automatically in favor of the defender. That sort of thinking is, just perhaps, relevant if one thinks along conventional modes of military engagement. Or if one assumes that the opposition plays from the same textbook he reads. Again, I very much doubt that the NK military is bound by either. Or perhaps, it's just your grasp of what asymmetrical warfare is, that's lacking. For example, it does not necessarily have anything to do with "home ground", or even "knowing the locals". It could just as well pertain to balance of means and to the tactics employed.

 

I guess that in your mind, an invasion means lines of tanks advancing on the border, squadrons filling the skies and fleets on the move. Well, that's one way to go about it. Again, doubt a NK offensive will conform to such images. And then there's this gem about supplies being immaterial. Good luck with your imaginary campaigns, general.

 

It might be worth considering that NK is well aware of relevant considerations. Executing a full blown invasion resulting in full control of SK is probably not a realistic proposition. But an operation aimed at limited gains, certainly is. NK does not have to win everything in one move. A successful (from their point of view) limited operation will work just fine. Given it's existing nuclear capabilities, and the indecision of world powers, someone may think it a worthwhile risk.

 

SK being an advanced economy and having advanced technology is a two edged sword. The benefits are obvious, but at the same time it raises vulnerability levels to certain types of attacks. Presume what you will, but generally speaking, this works like cyber security - much easier on the attack.

 

There was no claim made with regard to the NK Air force or its capabilities. Having said that, and without ignoring the benefits of having a superior air-power, there are more than one recent examples of conflicts in which air-power is less of a factor than expected. And if NK air defense was a joke, most matters touched upon would not be an issue by now.

 

Well, now that you've told us what unconventional warfare is not, tell us what it would look like in the case of a North Korean invasion.

There's so much nonsense in your argument I haven't the time to deal with it.  But there is one particularly choice piece

"And if NK air defense was a joke, most matters touched upon would not be an issue by now"

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Well they missed Gaddafi I guess. I think every high ranking officer under Kim fears for his life every day, so I'm not sure they would be very sad of his death. I think Kim's father was a much less brutal dictator. I think the powers that be in the west will want a good war there anyway, so I think the US will do something rash there within the next few years.

 

I'd assume many of these high ranking officers also depend on the current regime (or a similar alternative) to preserve their status and well being. So whether they are more afraid of Dear Leader or the unknown after him, is an open question.

[baboon]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd assume many of these high ranking officers also depend on the current regime (or a similar alternative) to preserve their status and well being. So whether they are more afraid of Dear Leader or the unknown after him, is an open question.

A very astute point - 'We hang together or we hang separately' I think may be the motto...

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And you know it was genuine how? What would have happened to these people if they hadn't strongly displayed sentiments of grief?

  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/north-korea-reportedly-punishing-insincere-mourners/

 

I don't "know" that it was genuine, probably not for everyone, but for some - yes. I do recall memoirs of PRC citizens and reaction to Mao's death. Seems that with many people the indoctrination worked well.

[Grubster]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd assume many of these high ranking officers also depend on the current regime (or a similar alternative) to preserve their status and well being. So whether they are more afraid of Dear Leader or the unknown after him, is an open question.

This open question may be answered soon I think. None of these officers would dare to say anything to each other or even their own families about the Dear leader, so how would anyone know how they feel. Yes it is an open question.

[baboon]

22 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And you know it was genuine how? What would have happened to these people if they hadn't strongly displayed sentiments of grief?

  http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/01/north-korea-reportedly-punishing-insincere-mourners/

The authors of the books I have read on the DPRK and who have interviewed defectors pretty much all agree that the mourning for Kim Il Sung was more or less genuine, much less so for Kim Jong Il. 

[Grubster]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I'd assume many of these high ranking officers also depend on the current regime (or a similar alternative) to preserve their status and well being. So whether they are more afraid of Dear Leader or the unknown after him, is an open question.

That question may be answered soon.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Well, now that you've told us what unconventional warfare is not, tell us what it would look like in the case of a North Korean invasion.

There's so much nonsense in your argument I haven't the time to deal with it.  But there is one particularly choice piece

"And if NK air defense was a joke, most matters touched upon would not be an issue by now"

 

Sorry, I don't take orders from armchair generals. Especially those pretending to speak for an imaginary "us". There is nothing nonsensical in my post or my argument, and you simply saying so means less than nothing as far as I'm concerned.

 

As for the quoted bit, it's not too complicated, really. If North Korea's airspace was as open for grabs as portrayed, the US would have far better intelligence. This by itself would have lessened the indecision and foot dragging at certain junctions. Further, it would mean that an aerial operation on NK facilities, HQ's or Kim's person could have been easily accomplished. If they "war mongering" US had the relevant intelligence, and the ability to strike, it would have. And then, possibly, we wouldn't have this "discussion".

[Grubster]

oops I thought my other response disappeared , sorry bout that.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

 

Sorry, I don't take orders from armchair generals. Especially those pretending to speak for an imaginary "us". There is nothing nonsensical in my post or my argument, and you simply saying so means less than nothing as far as I'm concerned.

 

As for the quoted bit, it's not too complicated, really. If North Korea's airspace was as open for grabs as portrayed, the US would have far better intelligence. This by itself would have lessened the indecision and foot dragging at certain junctions. Further, it would mean that an aerial operation on NK facilities, HQ's or Kim's person could have been easily accomplished. If they "war mongering" US had the relevant intelligence, and the ability to strike, it would have. And then, possibly, we wouldn't have this "discussion".

Apparently you're still living in the 1950's.  The USA has long had very powerful satellites that, as far as I am aware, North Korea is unable to do anything about, claims about their hacking prowess notwithstanding. And the consequences of an attack on North Korea delivered via their formidable artillery and that army you whose capabilities you rate as daunting, would have counted then for nothing? Especially back when South Korea's economy hadn't made them the formidable force that they are today?  Such silliness. I think you've lifted your scenario from a failed screenplay.

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Apparently you're still living in the 1950's.  The USA has long had very powerful satellites that, as far as I am aware, North Korea is unable to do anything about, claims about their hacking prowess notwithstanding. And the consequences of an attack on North Korea delivered via their formidable artillery and that army you whose capabilities you rate as daunting, would have counted then for nothing? Especially back when South Korea's economy hadn't made them the formidable force that they are today?  Such silliness. I think you've lifted your scenario from a failed screenplay.

They do indeed have powerful satellites, but the DPRK knows this and has a good deal of stuff stashed underground.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, baboon said:

They do indeed have powerful satellites, but the DPRK knows this and has a good deal of stuff stashed underground.

It doesn't start out underground.

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It doesn't start out underground.

But what doesn't? Nobody knows what they have buried or where.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, baboon said:

But what doesn't? Nobody knows what they have buried or where.

You know nobody knows? You must have very privileged access to some very classified intelligence.

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Apparently you're still living in the 1950's.  The USA has long had very powerful satellites that, as far as I am aware, North Korea is unable to do anything about, claims about their hacking prowess notwithstanding. And the consequences of an attack on North Korea delivered via their formidable artillery and that army you whose capabilities you rate as daunting, would have counted then for nothing? Especially back when South Korea's economy hadn't made them the formidable force that they are today?  Such silliness. I think you've lifted your scenario from a failed screenplay.

 

Apparently, your perception of intelligence gathering is that it relies solely on satellite data, or that all intelligence can be gathered by them. Having some first hand experience with that, let me assure you that's not the case.

 

As for what you're aware of, I can't tell. But just in case you're not informed on the matter, there are, in fact, ways to distort, limit and mislead when it comes to coverage by satellites. Satellites aren't a new thing, most countries targeted are well aware of being spied on, all those not in the stone age take certain measures to protect themselves. The application of "hacking" in this regard is your addition, not mine.

 

Similarly, I did not rate the NK army capabilities as "daunting", another one of your insertions. I merely pointed out that it's not the push over scenario you touted. Not the same thing.

 

If the NK airspace was a free for all, then the US could have both executed whatever operation it would have liked. If it had such military superiority as you suggested, then it could have dealt with the consequences quite easily. Better pick one argument and stick with it, can't have it both ways. 

 

[baboon]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

You know nobody knows? You must have very privileged access to some very classified intelligence.

No, I simply read and deduce.

 

An inspection was carried out at a large bunker in Kumchang ri as part of the terms of the 1994 Agreed Framework, as it was a suspected nuclear site. Nothing was found and inspectors said that there had never been any kind of nuclear activity at that site. Intelligence is far from perfect.

[ilostmypassword]

6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Apparently, your perception of intelligence gathering is that it relies solely on satellite data, or that all intelligence can be gathered by them. Having some first hand experience with that, let me assure you that's not the case.

 

As for what you're aware of, I can't tell. But just in case you're not informed on the matter, there are, in fact, ways to distort, limit and mislead when it comes to coverage by satellites. Satellites aren't a new thing, most countries targeted are well aware of being spied on, all those not in the stone age take certain measures to protect themselves. The application of "hacking" in this regard is your addition, not mine.

 

Similarly, I did not rate the NK army capabilities as "daunting", another one of your insertions. I merely pointed out that it's not the push over scenario you touted. Not the same thing.

 

If the NK airspace was a free for all, then the US could have both executed whatever operation it would have liked. If it had such military superiority as you suggested, then it could have dealt with the consequences quite easily. Better pick one argument and stick with it, can't have it both ways. 

 

I have never denied that North Korea's artillery would inflict horrific damage on the south since Seoul is in its range.  And that alone would have been quite a deterrent to attempting to take out whatever it was decided needed taking out. In the not so long run, the North would be defeated in a conventional war. As for that asymmetric warfare tripe, it's the kind of thing that has infected so much fiction today. :When your characters run up against some apparently undefeatable obstacle, just hire a hacker. Because, you know, the powers that be are fundamentally clueless.

[baboon]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If the NK airspace was a free for all, then the US could have both executed whatever operation it would have liked. If it had such military superiority as you suggested, then it could have dealt with the consequences quite easily. Better pick one argument and stick with it, can't have it both ways. 

 

DPRK airspace (The Pyongyang Flight Information Region) is used by very few airlines. Many detour to avoid it altogether. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I have never denied that North Korea's artillery would inflict horrific damage on the south since Seoul is in its range.  And that alone would have been quite a deterrent to attempting to take out whatever it was decided needed taking out. In the not so long run, the North would be defeated in a conventional war. As for that asymmetric warfare tripe, it's the kind of thing that has infected so much fiction today. :When your characters run up against some apparently undefeatable obstacle, just hire a hacker. Because, you know, the powers that be are fundamentally clueless.

I have no idea what you think you are responding to, but it certainly doesn't have a whole lot to do with my posts.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Morch said:

I have no idea what you think you are responding to, but it certainly doesn't have a whole lot to do with my posts.

In that case I have bad news for you: somebody has hijacked your TV account. Probably a North Korean hacker.

Edited July 6, 2017 by ilostmypassword