|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-03-2010, 07:59 PM
Quote:
Is there any information on the event that would invalidate my theory? Until any solid information is provided, I'm stuck with speculation... and I'm a bit intrigued. I did a light search on the (M114) 155mm howitzer. It seems the maximum range for the model the ROK may be using is approximately 14,600 meters (16,000 yd). The Yeonpyeong island is 11 km from the DPRK mainland. That leaves the artillery emplacements to be within 3000 meters from the coast in order to be effectively engaged by the south; accuracy beyond that begins to be significantly hindered -- without (or possibly even with) compensation. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. What's left is to know where and how far the emplacements were. 
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-05-2010, 04:59 AM
Yes, the old 155's did have something of a range issue. That was one primary reason the MRLS system was developed, because the 155 didn't have the range to compete with the Russian guns dureing the Cold war. The MRLS system has a longer range with a larger payload.
The Paladin system..wich is basically a 155 with much more advance targeting and propellent is interconnected to the "whole battlefield " thing the US works on...It's basically a system designed to connect all combat units, from airforce planes , naval ships, artillery and tanks via a network of computers. All these systems remain in contact with each other and relay information reguarding battlefield conditions and enemy postions to each other in real time. If a Palidin was underattack, then all the planes, tanks and ships close enough to respond would know who was under attack and from where. Theoretically anyhow. Like all systems, how they work in the lab, isn't how they work in the field. Still, if the US really wanted to, they could level most of North korea's artillery in a few hours. The real question would be, how much damage could those batteries do in those few hours and would the South be willing to take that as "exceptable losses".
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-05-2010, 07:27 AM
Quote:
There would never be a war. North Korea is already doing a good job by dismantling the Gukbangbu (South Korean Ministry of Defense) from the inside. You don't really need a war to collapse a country. Don't forget. According to now-deceased Hwang Jang-yeop (North Korean minister who defected to the South in the 1990s) mentioned that there are approximately 10,000 North Korean spies infiltrated in the South Korean government, even today. After this bombardment, I can't but to conform this fact as "almost true". Let me tell you this as a South Korean: having a full-fledge war against North Korea is impossible.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-05-2010, 08:14 PM
North Korea is a starveing trash heap with a wacko in charge. They can't Compete with South Korea's economy and you know it Komitsuki. Even if they did cause the "collapse" of the South and the wacko in charge took over. You would simply have twice as many starveing people in twice as big a trash heap.
I agree that war won't happen because The US has a weak leader and the South has it's capitol being held hostage. However, never doubt that if the US population was pissed off enough, the North would cease to exist.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-07-2010, 02:39 AM
Quote:
One thing for sure. North Korea already brought down the South Korean military heirarchy few weeks ago. We might see our president getting impeached in 4 months. Lesson: Never have a pro-American president having power in Seoul.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-07-2010, 04:20 AM
Quote:
Sorry if it should already be clear, but are you suggesting that the South President's support of U.S. relations being the possible cause for the attacks from the North is something he should be condemned for? It would seem like a negative sentiment, to me; cowardice. The South should have the freedom to associate themselves with any free country without fear of the North killing civilians. ... or is there more depth to that argument?
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-07-2010, 06:28 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
12-07-2010, 10:33 AM
I think I better throw this fact in here for good measure.
Roh lost the election in which this current government took power. He took a conciliatory approach to relations with North Korea and relations between Japan and the US soured while he was in charge.... But it is a stretch to call him pro-NK. No South Korean president and very few South Koreans for that matter would like to see the Northern regime come to power in the South which is what it means to be pro-North. Many of course would like to see a peaceful reunion.
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
12-07-2010, 10:47 AM
Quote:
But still, many South Koreans now prefer the previous pro-North government from how I see it. Ever since this: 1. Dysfunctional military hierarchy 2. the general collapse of the National Assembly 3. The collapse of the Supreme Prosecutors (Japanese equivalent would be 検察官) 4. Few provincial government leaders attacking the president (this time it's worse) 5. NIS (South Korean equivalent of CIA) under crisis 6. Mislead economical crisis 7. Collapse of the agricultural sector after 2 years of policies If you think NK is screwed up towards SK. Well, think again. South Korean domestic politics project more influence towards the US foreign policies and the Blue House's decision-making than NK itself. Lesson: Never trust the South Korean, Western, and Japanese media. You'll get more misinformation about South Korea regarding North's actions. I don't care if you say bad things about the North. But you'll misjudge everything about the North and South eventually if you have this hawk-ish attitude.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
