Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
South would reduce Pyongyang 'to ashes' 
Author Message
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37331852

Smashing!

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:40 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
Well that's helping....


Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:21 am
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
I doubt they can reduce a well defended city to ashes just with conventional ballistic missiles.
They couldn't do it with jets (unless the USA helped with stealth jets).
They don't have nukes.

I doubt the USA would ever agree to attack first as that would cause all sorts of economic issues and issues with China.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:14 pm
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
l3v1ck wrote:
I doubt they can reduce a well defended city to ashes just with conventional ballistic missiles.

It's actually quite hard to defend a city from ballistic missiles. We really can't do it all that well - the American Patriot system is the only one that's actually tried to do so in 'live' situation (one of the gulf wars) and opinions of it's success rate is varied. Moscow in theory has ICBM defences but obviously they;'ve never actuallybeen used, so nobody knows how effective they'd. NK almost certainly doesn't have the types of high speed electronics, missile tech and radar systems to build something like a Patriot. If Seoul has enough long range missile artillery with big MIRV incendiary warheads, they could set a fairly big portion of a city alight and then it's a case of whether PyongYang's civil defence people are up to fighting widespread fires simultaneously or not. You don't actually have to set fire to all of a city, just enough so the locals can't put all the fires out, then let nature take it's course.

Not that they'd actually ever do this in practice - it's definitely falling under the category of 'war crime', and the nations who were otherwise on their side would drop them like a hot rock if they did it. They may be able to decimate Pyongyang, but they certainly don't have the conventional armed forces on their own to stop North Korea coming over the border afterwards and stomping them into the ground.


Sun Sep 11, 2016 9:48 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
I was thinking more about the warhead yield versus the amount of concrete buildings they'd have to destroy.
They'd need a plethora of missiles to stand a chance.
Then they'd have to defend themselves against an attack across the boarder by the massively larger North Korean army.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:23 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 5 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.