# Taking North Korea



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I have to wonder if we used tomahawks (in a massive single strike) to take out their leadership, air strips, naval yards, communications, rail yards, and missile launch sites... how long it would take for them to surrender.
I wonder if they would be like the Iraqi's tossing down their arms and surrendering to news reporters??


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Ewwww, tomahawk missiles are expensive--more expensive than the crap we'd be blowing up.

I think we should gather up old Maytag washers and dryers, and all the rusted out Nash Ramblers nobody wants and drop them out of cargo planes.

At terminal velocity, it will do some damage at least, and at the same time provide lots of urban renewal here. Win/win.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

Those people are so well indoctrinated since birth, that they will never surrender unless incapacitated.

They are well trained and well disciplined, tough SOB's.

The best bet would be a MOAB or a ground penetrator on his HQ, but exact intel would have to be up to the second.


----------



## mooosie (Mar 26, 2016)

What ever is done if we don't strike first and eliminate them South Korea will get hammered and maybe Japan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Think we would be better off with a subtle chemical assisination of the boy dictator and see what takes his place. Repeat until we find a winner.


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

Not sure if we could decapitate the leadership to a point and quickly enough where the North suddenly just gives up.
Because once we start bombing, the North will light up its artillery along the border which numbers in the thousands.
Here is a map of what South Korea can expect from the North every hour.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Do not forget about China--


----------



## MI.oldguy (Apr 18, 2013)

I am sure that south Korea has endlessly looked at every scenario......


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

I"ve been having similar thoughts myself. Agreed, it would be a roll of the dice, a very BIG ROLL of the dice. United States does not want a war with Russia, nor China, but you know what? I don't think they want a war with us either. We may have our problems, but we do have the best military in the world, and they know it. 
So, here's what I was thinking, just do a surgical strike on the Kim Jong-un, and probably a bunch of his bodyguards and henchmen, try to keep the innocent body count as close to zero as humanly possible. And say to China and whoever "ok, we did it, not what?"
I'm not talking about trying to destroy or conquer the country of North Korea, just disposing of a crazy evil little man. Does China really think he's worth going to war with the US over, I think not.
North Korea under Kim Joung-un have taking American prisoners and sent one back practically dead already, we need to show the world the price of such actions. I don't want war, and I agree americans going into places like NK is just plain stupid. 
I maintain China, Russia, and others don't really want a war with the United States anymore than we want a war with them, they just are better and bluffing than we are.
*Note: I COULD BE WRONG.*


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

there's something like 8,000 underground installations of all kinds in NK - most wouldn't be scratched by a Tomahawk - catching Little Fat Boy and all his crazy azz generals would be a shot in the dark .....

an attack would be highly coordinated - the stealth bombers going in first with bunker busters taking the best guess shots possible first - then a massive barrage of Tomahawks opening up flight paths for the regular birds to safely operate - there's no doubt the US can succeed eventually in taking down NK - question is how badly does South Korea and Japan get hurt - possibly a bad casualty toll on the 20K+ US DMZ troops .... NK has as much military crap positioned in that southern DMZ strip as Iraq had for the whole country during Desert Storm ....


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

A crazy alternative would be to pull out and let the SKs and Japs deal with them. Not that I am advocating this but watch Ford, GM and Crystlers stock soar if it did. Just saying. Problem is we would still have a problem with NK.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

NKAWTG said:


> Not sure if we could decapitate the leadership to a point and quickly enough where the North suddenly just gives up.
> Because once we start bombing, the North will light up its artillery along the border which numbers in the thousands.
> Here is a map of what South Korea can expect from the North every hour.
> View attachment 47633


According to the map, N. Korea can launch 981,804 kg of explosives per hour. That's 2,159,975 lbs/hr.

Just as an estimate, assume their artillery pieces are the equivalent of the US M114 155mm Howitzers. These guns can fire shells containing 23.8 lbs of explosive at a rate of 4 rounds per min, or 240 rounds per hour, for a delivered rate of 5712 lbs explosive per gun per hour. 2,159,975 lbs/hr / 5712 lb/gun/hr = 378 N. Korean guns.

The FA-18 has 7 underwing and fuselage hardpoints capable of carrying JDAM Precision Guided Bombs. That works out to just 54 carrier launched FA-18 missions to destroy the entirety of N. Korea's artillery capability.

- edit. - I just checked, and one of our carriers can launch 36 FA-18s. We have three there now? And the above estimate ignores OUR artillery, from which radar-directed counter-battery fire can be devastating. (That's why our guys are mobile, and are trained to "shoot and scoot".)


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> According to the map, N. Korea can launch 981,804 kg of explosives per hour. That's 2,159,975 lbs/hr.
> 
> Just as an estimate, assume their artillery pieces are the equivalent of the US M114 155mm Howitzers. These guns can fire shells containing 23.8 lbs of explosive at a rate of 4 rounds per min, or 240 rounds per hour, for a delivered rate of 5712 lbs explosive per gun per hour. 2,159,975 lbs/hr / 5712 lb/gun/hr = 378 N. Korean guns.
> 
> The FA-18 has 7 underwing and fuselage hardpoints capable of carrying JDAM Precision Guided Bombs. That works out to just 54 carrier launched FA-18 missions to destroy the entirety of N. Korea's artillery capability.


The knowledge that some of you guys posses gives me a chill sometimes.
Sure glad we are on good terms with each other.


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

sideKahr said:


> According to the map, N. Korea can launch 981,804 kg of explosives per hour. That's 2,159,975 lbs/hr.
> 
> Just as an estimate, assume their artillery pieces are the equivalent of the US M114 155mm Howitzers. These guns can fire shells containing 23.8 lbs of explosive at a rate of 4 rounds per min, or 240 rounds per hour, for a delivered rate of 5712 lbs explosive per gun per hour. 2,159,975 lbs/hr / 5712 lb/gun/hr = 378 N. Korean guns.
> 
> ...


I see your point, but you missed a factor.
Multiply that per square kilometer.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

NKAWTG said:


> I see your point, but you missed a factor.
> Multiply that per square kilometer.


I think they mean if ALL the N. Korean artillery within range were concentrated on one square kilometer, the could land that many kg of explosive. If you assume every square km in S. Korea near the border can be saturated at that rate, the numbers become astronomical and unbelievable.

It's probably all just B.S. anyway.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

stowlin said:


> Think we would be better off with a subtle chemical assisination of the boy dictator and see what takes his place. Repeat until we find a winner.


I don't think there is a winner in the entire wretched country.

I was 2 months old when the Korean War started--the North and South guards still face each other.


----------



## Fuser1983 (Jul 8, 2016)

This might be the beginning of the end for NK.. A few minutes ago Trump tweeted "While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!" Surely this is connected to the death of the American student Otto Warmbier. Now this may seem a little far-fetched, but what are the chances that Otto Warmbier (who arrived in a coma) was infected with a deadly virus, and subsequently released to the U.S., then bringing said virus to U.S. soil to infect us all? Too much?


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

Maine-Marine said:


> I have to wonder if we used tomahawks (in a massive single strike) to take out their leadership, air strips, naval yards, communications, rail yards, and missile launch sites... how long it would take for them to surrender.
> I wonder if they would be like the Iraqi's tossing down their arms and surrendering to news reporters??


They wouldn't surrender. They would invade South Korea with everything they had left. Seoul would be a quick, easy target.


----------



## tango (Apr 12, 2013)

Whatever we would do cannot include a ground war with NK.
We tried that once, didn't work out, no reason to think it would be different now.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

China, Russian and North Korea are not a monolithic bloc. They have different goals and methods.

There is not yet a sufficient reason to invade North Korea. Don't engage North Korea when the military is otherwise occupied.

Traveling north, don't go past the thin neck of the peninsula. Past that line lies suicide. The northern mushroom aids them, not us.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

If we strike NK unless China is on board with it, China will strike back.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

History and modern political theory both say that's not true unless U.S. forces are on the Yalu.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Just send in special forces on missions to strike Kims key personnel, and his fat little body. Cut all comms, and have some serious air power flying over in case they are alerted and just level them.. 
We have some serious firepower that could deter a border attack. I gurantee SK and the USA, with Japan go over this plan time and time again.


----------



## Real Old Man (Aug 17, 2015)

Maine-Marine said:


> I have to wonder if we used tomahawks (in a massive single strike) to take out their leadership, air strips, naval yards, communications, rail yards, and missile launch sites... how long it would take for them to surrender.
> I wonder if they would be like the Iraqi's tossing down their arms and surrendering to news reporters??


Having spent more than a few years on the peninsular, I can tell you that all you call for would only cripple that country's military. It wouldn't touch any of the almost million ground pounders or their armor or artillery.

And those crazy MF's are not like the Iraqi's and would go down more like the Japanese in WWII.

No the only person not bat shit crazy was the boy who took his kids to Disney Land.

And he's dead


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

tomahawks all over, followed by EMP a week later, then another. Cost? Under a billion. Expensive you say, not if we weren't spending billions on welfare and fighting nature(climate change).


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

I don't understand what you just said.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

Moonshinedave said:


> I"ve been having similar thoughts myself. Agreed, it would be a roll of the dice, a very BIG ROLL of the dice. United States does not want a war with Russia, nor China, but you know what? I don't think they want a war with us either. We may have our problems, but we do have the best military in the world, and they know it.


After a container ship damn near sunk the Fitzgerald last week, I'm not so sure.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Hemi45 said:


> After a container ship damn near sunk the Fitzgerald last week, I'm not so sure.


The bridge watch must have all been playing hanky panky with the female crew members. The captains head will roll, even if he was asleep.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Hemi45 said:


> After a container ship damn near sunk the Fitzgerald last week, I'm not so sure.


I think getting hit by a huge freaking container ship midships and staying afloat is a testimonial to the design & build quality ....

the Chinese have purposely tried the same thing using their troop transport fleet - they have tried ramming US destroyers on multiple occasions in the South China Sea ....


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

sideKahr said:


> The bridge watch must have all been playing hanky panky with the female crew members. The captains head will roll, even if he was asleep.


I also wonder how a ship that large got that close to the Navy ship


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> I also wonder how a ship that large got that close to the Navy ship


The ships were within shipping lanes, very common. The straights of Hormuz, Mallaca, Medeterranean etc. Very tight sometimes


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Steve40th said:


> The ships were within shipping lanes, very common. The straights of Hormuz, Mallaca, Medeterranean etc. Very tight sometimes


I'll take the word of a guy with a pic standing in front of the long guns on deck.


----------



## Joe (Nov 1, 2016)

Fuser1983 said:


> This might be the beginning of the end for NK.. A few minutes ago Trump tweeted "While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!" Surely this is connected to the death of the American student Otto Warmbier. Now this may seem a little far-fetched, but what are the chances that Otto Warmbier (who arrived in a coma) was infected with a deadly virus, and subsequently released to the U.S., then bringing said virus to U.S. soil to infect us all? Too much?


 @Fuser1983 Hey Fuser nothing is too far-fetched anymore, nothing


----------



## Joe (Nov 1, 2016)

Maine-Marine said:


> I also wonder how a ship that large got that close to the Navy ship


I am glad I am not the only one with that question. Isn't there radar and sonar equipment on our ships. Heck a guy on break smoking a cigarette on the deck could have heard or seen a tanker coming . Kinda scary if you ask me.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Shoulda just strapped explosives around the ass of that dumbass Dennis Rodman before he landed back over in N Korea to visit with his fat little putz friend.

Dennis Rodman sucks ... tell all of your friends.


----------

