/k/ - Weapons

>What percentage of the population tends to be part of the military around the world?

States surrounded by other, hostile states tend to be heavily militarized.

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

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

>>334270

North Korea is hilarious, 7 million military and active paramilitary forces.

NATO has about 4.4 million forces, Russia has about 1.3 million, China 2.9 million.

If nukes and machine guns didn't exist, the Norks might have been this centurys barbarian hordes that just conquered everything.

>>334270

What percentage of the population could a country mobilize without suffering too much?

>>334278

Nah, while they have a large standing force other countries would mobilise huge numbers if the nurks started shit.

>>334521

Soviets started with 147 million available people, lost 13.7 million as civilians, and recruited or attempted to recruit 47.8 million. Total about 35% of the available population, or a third in general terms.

North Koreans boast about 25 million people, and have militarized 7.679, for a total of 31%, again interestingly a third. Although it bears mentioning the Koreans have done this in defacto peace time, their bloodthirstiness in peacetime is the same as wartime.

So it's safe to assume if a country is hard pressed, the best they could do is about a third.

>>334253

I guess the nomad societies of Eurasia back then were on the top of it. Nearly every man had a horse, a bow and some melee weapon, and that was enough to wreak havoc in those times.

Of course you have to account for the differences between now and then, but this system worked pretty well from the beginning of civilization until about the XVI-XVIIth century.

the NK's "army" is interesting, they have a lot of "soldier farming" going on and soldiers making roads, etc. mostly the army is doing basic labor.

>>334559

Yeah. There's actually a lot of resources on medieval (and earlier) demographics, along with how many soldiers and for how long a country could support them. This is usually done to help people create fantasy settings. But they don't seem to exist for modern or scifi settings.

>>334542

Exclude women and you get a half of the population. Exclude children and old men and you'll (almost) get to that third.

>>334278

Norks have shit gear, shit management and no money to even mobilize the army.

Fuck no they won't take any Western nation.

>>334614

If Mogadishu taught us anything, it's that even bows and arrows are effective if someone is dumb enough to enter into a situation where they're effective.

If someone is dumb enough to attack Norks, they're going to get pasted.

Millions of North Koreans join the military because its a guaranteed food supply, a heck of an incentive for such a poorly managed state.

>>334614

And the moment you gave them any mobilization they'd just run away from their posts, as seen with the various Nork Air Force defectors.

>>334819

are you kidding me? the norks will get fucked up in direct combat, their most likely strategy will be to hit the hills and turn the war into a giant quagmire like vietnam until western forces give up and leave the country

or just drop some nukes on it :^)

>>335276

>Millions of North Koreans join the military because its a guaranteed food supply

This is false. NK's military actually has a major problem with looting and extortion because they make their soldiers buy their own food.

>>335374

I don't think the US really "gave up".

>>335374

They are about twice the size of Iraqi forces before Desert Storm Electric Boogaloo.

They're also on better terrain, better armed, with better strategic posture.

>>335473

>They are about twice the size of Iraqi forces before Desert Storm Electric Boogaloo.

And that worked out brilliantly for the Iraqis, didn't it?

>They're also on better terrain, better armed, with better strategic posture.

None of that matters if you can't keep them supplied.

>>335493

>this man is twice as strong as this woman

>ARE YOU SAYING I CANT RAPE THE WOMAN

More like

>This woman is twice as strong as this other woman

>So one will put up a slightly bigger fight before being raped?

>>335529

>North Korea has a complete navy, with submarines and mine layers providing considerable asymmetric capability.

This is not an asymmetric capability, unless the US and allies got rid of their navy, subs and underwater mines without me noticing.

>They have an air force which is A) five times larger than Iraq

Which doesn't matter if they A) can't support it B) can't keep their pilots alive C) can't mitigate US and allied air superiority and SAM capabilities. The last of which they definitely won't be able to do. The US could literally just crash two of their planes into every Nork plane and still have enough for air missions.

>They have considerable artillery set to do damage

On civilian targets, at the start of the war. After which they'll have to deal with US air superiority, counter artillery, decreasing morale, desertion from specialist functions and the supply chain breaking down when the US decides to do major combat against a shitty little country from the 60s.

>and unlike Iraq have actual access to weapons of mass destruction ranging from chemical to nuclear.

Chemicals are overrated in major combat. Regular kinetics will do the same without the HUGE political fallout of using chemical weapons against US troops.

Nukes are an entirely different ball game, and I'm not sure that if the Norks are crazy enough to actually use them, if the US will be even crazier and retaliate with their own.

>In terms of logistics, they have access to their own oil fields, a large oil reserve,

Until the US bombs them, seizes them or they stop working due to lack of personnel or other supply.

>This adds up to a different situation than Iraq.

Sure, nobody is saying that it isn't. The problem is that the biggest obstacle is political. The thing that's preventing the US from leveling North Korea is not their military capabilities, it's the political effect it would have on Russia, China and the rest of the world. A lot of people would die in the invasion, definitely more than in Iraq, but the Norks would ultimately stand no chance. Just like the Iraqis.

To think that North Korea could take the western world with allies is stupid and shows a massive lack of knowledge and understanding regarding even basic military strategy.

>>335478

>And that worked out brilliantly for the Iraqis, didn't it?

Coalition forces outnumbered them in armor 4:1, with Iraqi tanks facing the other way towards Saudi Arabia as they had no intelligence about incoming enemy armor due to SAM sites and electronics being shut down to avoid detection since coalition forces had been running ELINT flights for 6+ months. North Korea on the other hand has 8x the SAM systems Iraq did in a much smaller area and would likely have much better information, along with being in a different environment with much better entrenched positions whereas Iraq just captured Kuwait months prior with what was at first US approval and did not expect to be betrayed.

>>335529

>B) isn't disassembled and buried underground

>and unlike Iraq have actual access to weapons of mass destruction ranging from chemical to nuclear.

You seem to be thinking about the 2003 invasion instead of 1991 Desert storm, in 91 they did actually have chemical weapons but willingly gave them up afterwards which was part of why the 2003 invasion was so controversial since you had multiple UN arms control inspectors testify that Iraq surrendered all WMDs already.

>>335535

> but the Norks would ultimately stand no chance. Just like the Iraqis.

Coalition forces never seriously pushed into Iraq proper in 1991 and the vast majority of the Iraqi military at that point was left alone, 2003 was after 10 years of sanctions and disrepair at which point the Iraqi military was a complete joke, whereas in 89 they had a larger GDP than Saudi Arabia and were starting to rebuild the military but lost most of their Officers in the Iran-Iraq war and training quality dropped off shortly afterwards. North Korea's military is much stronger in Iraq in regards to both size and equipment in every sector than the Iraqi military was in 1991 at its post Iran-Iraq war peak and any invasion force would face massively higher casualties, along with Seoul being flattened and the likely death of most of the South Korean population.

>>335535

>This is not an asymmetric capability, unless the US and allies got rid of their navy, subs and underwater mines without me noticing.

North Korea operates the largest number of mini subs which can be used for infiltrator or planting bombs/mines and they already use them pretty actively is what i assume the Canadian means by asymmetric capability.

>>335541

>2003 was after 10 years of sanctions and disrepair at which point the Iraqi military was a complete joke

Sanctions were far more damaging to Iraq since nearly the entire Iraqi economy was dependent on Oil exports whereas North Korea has had decades to develop a siege economy.

>>335535

The following are your personal opinions, wishful thinking, not backed up by any actual facts.

>can't support it

>can't keep their pilots alive

>can't mitigate US and allied air superiority

>decreasing morale

>desertion from specialist functions

>US bombs them, seizes them or they stop working due to lack of personnel or other supply

These however are provably wrong.

>The US could literally just crash two of their planes into every Nork plane and still have enough for air missions.

>Chemicals are overrated in major combat

Ooooh, a self contradiction.

>Sure, nobody is saying that it isn't.

>Norks would ultimately stand no chance. Just like the Iraqis.

Are you actually a south korean, or just too proud to admit you know jack shit about north korea?

>>335545

Exactly, infiltrator troopers could prevent marines from landing or place mines so that landing is very casualty heavy, they could also set up bombs and all kinds of insurgent shit. Also they have the capability to project force far more than Iraq (which had no ability whatsoever) and might actually strike western shipping in the region.

>Are you actually a south korean, or just too proud to admit you know jack shit about north korea?

Third option might be that these >>335543 guys just desperately need to believe in the power of nations, because of statist cuck mentality.

>>335555

Do you honestly think that North Korea could match the US and allies in air power? Like, honestly 100% that is what you believe?

Because if you do then I won't even spend the time fleshing out the rest.

>The US could literally just crash two of their planes into every Nork plane and still have enough for air missions.

USAF (with no allies) has 2000 _fighters_ alone. The Norks have less than a thousand _total_ air vehicles including helos and trainer aircraft.

>>335558

The main purpose of the NK air force at this point should be close air support and bombers with a few escorts and some Mig-29s to defend Pyongyang whereas there are enough SAMs to handle anything else. The NK air force at this point is entirely for defense and operating within NK ground defense radar range other than the remote possibility of using H-5 bombers to deliver nuclear weapons, which should soon be supplemented by Ballistic and possibly Cruise missiles instead.

>>335556

Is this what libertarianism has turned into? Just yelling "statist" all the time the same way liberals cry about "racists" and "bigots".

>guys just desperately need to believe in the power of nations, because of statist cuck mentality.

Aren't you defending the power of a nation in your previous posts? You know, North Korea's military strength.

Inb4 you accuse me of being a "statist" or whatever.

>>335558

>>335558

>Do you honestly think that North Korea could match the US and allies in air power? Like, honestly 100% that is what you believe?

>Because if you do then I won't even spend the time fleshing out the rest.

>>The US could literally just crash two of their planes into every Nork plane and still have enough for air missions.

>USAF (with no allies) has 2000 _fighters_ alone. The Norks have less than a thousand _total_ air vehicles including helos and trainer aircraft.

Danefriend, things aren't so simplistic. Yes, the AF has 2,025 fighters…however, that is in it's entire inventory.

Running the force wide numbers isn't realistic, only PACOM forces would be in contact with Nork forces, not the entire AF.

If you want a realistic idea of what would go down, you need to onlt factor in PACOM forces, CONUS deployed RRFs, and the forces of other combatant commands that are capable of reaching the Norks.

Certain scenarios would have the Norks playing it out solo, others would have partial or full Chinese interaction…all depends on the situation that's playing out.

>>335578

>Danefriend, things aren't so simplistic. Yes, the AF has 2,025 fighters…however, that is in it's entire inventory.

I'm not saying that the USAF should literally crash two of their planes into a Nork plane to achieve victory. That would be pretty stupid.

>If you want a realistic idea of what would go down, you need to onlt factor in PACOM forces, CONUS deployed RRFs, and the forces of other combatant commands that are capable of reaching the Norks.

And the forces that are deployed from the US and allies when they commit to a major combat ground war in Asia.

NK don't stand a chance unless you severely gimp the US by placing stupid restrictions on them or having China or Russia defend them, which would be against US interests to engage in.

>>335558

They don't have to match them, they just have to put something in the air which can reach 35k feet. Putting something in the air = American bombers can't fly, and their fighter-bombers have to carry lighter bomb loads. All this translates into fewer hits on the ground, and less need to expose SAM sites.

They can challenge airspace with fighters for up to a year, easy, and a year or so after that challenge air with their IADS, possibly decades thereafter challenging airspace with MANPADs and artillery.

If you weren't a military-illiterate fellow, you would understand this.

>USAF (with no allies) has 2000 _fighters_ alone.

You seem to think America would pull out every fighter across the world and focus them all onto North Korea somehow, thereby exposing all of their allies and protectorates to getting BTFO by very angry neighbors. Americans aren't stupid.

Furthermore how will they get to North Korea, faggot? A carrier carries a complement of 80 aircraft, a marine carrier will bring <10 aircraft, Yokota has only two squadrons (<40) of interceptors. It's unlikely Korea will deal with more than this in terms of air power in the immediate response. More might be brought in from Hawaii, but that's further down the line, and certainly not huuuurrr two thousand fighters.

>>335562

>its the far more informed canadian who disagrees with my media programmed BASIC BITCH mentality

Nigger do you think I agree with Juche? Do you think someone who calls you a statist is a communist?

>>335574

I'm doing a realistic dispassionate analysis, everything I've said so far in the thread can be backed up. Meanwhile the danish and roach are spouting nonsense, ignorant opinions and wishful thinking they know they can't back up.

>defending the power of a nation

North Korea is not my nation buddy, nor is it allied with my nation. It is a planetary outcast and you're unlikely to find a brainwashed Nork on 8chan.

>>335583

>NK don't stand a chance unless you severely gimp the US by placing stupid restrictions on them or having China or Russia defend them, which would be against US interests to engage in.

Its also against US interests to engage in a war that would wipe out the south Korean economy and a massive part of its population, not to mention economic costs and military casualties to the US itself.

>>335586

This.

>>335583

>I'm not saying that the USAF should literally crash two of their planes into a Nork plane to achieve victory. That would be pretty stupid.

Not what I was saying.

It is pointless to compare force sizes, the US isn't going to deploy all 2,025 of it's fighters. It'll be whatever is under PACOM, until follow-on forces arrived, but you've got to have space to have those additional forces deploy from.

Even naval force (which China wouldn't like floating in it's part of the tub) deploying have to have a place to preform critical support functions at…anywhere within range of Nork subs isn't a good idea.

>And the forces that are deployed from the US and allies when they commit to a major combat ground war in Asia.

That's what RDF/RRF's are….and there aren't that many. We don't have barracks and bunkers filled to the brim with personnel and materiel just waiting for the shit to hit the fan, that all disappeared when the USSR fell.

>NK don't stand a chance unless you severely gimp the US by placing stupid restrictions on them or having China or Russia defend them, which would be against US interests to engage in.

They stand a good chance. Force numbers and grandeur aren't what win, it's being realistic that does. The Norks would cause a shit load of damage, even on their own. Throw the China or Russia into the mix, it's going to be one HELL of a party.

There are always restrictions, be they political, economic, social, military, ect…always.

If you think fighting the Norks, even alone would be a cake walk. I advise you too read up on Millennium Challenge 2002.

>>335585

>They can challenge airspace with fighters for up to a year, easy, and a year or so after that challenge air with their IADS, possibly decades thereafter challenging airspace with MANPADs and artillery.

They probably wouldn't last thirty six hours. You are delusional.

>>335603

see

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB771.pdf

>>335593

>Not what I was saying.

Read what I wrote like 4 posts ago. I'm saying that they literally could do it, because they have enough planes to do it. Logistics don't even factor into it. The Canadian was just stupid enough to say that the US doesn't have at least twice the number of planes that NK does.

>It is pointless to compare force sizes

No it isn't.

>Force numbers and grandeur aren't what win

No, numbers, equipment, logistics, strategy and persistence is what wins. North Korea only has one of those over the US.

>The Norks would cause a shit load of damage, even on their own.

Nobody is disputing that. Major combat requires, by design, large amounts of sacrifices. What I'm disputing is the fact that North Korea, on its own, would be able to beat the US and allies in any capacity except maybe casualty numbers.

>Millennium Challenge 2002

I don't know why people on /k/ like this perfect example of pop his so much. It's the perfect example of the good idea fairy crossed with overzealous meta gaming OPFOR, quoted by people who don't know anything about military exercises but think they're like a non lethal hunger games.

>>335603

>(1)

With no air force, Iraq lasted half a year since start of hostilities until collapse of government, and almost a decade after that in the form of insurgency.

No offense but I'm going to assume both these values for North Korea are magnified as a result of their stronger strategic posture, not reduced as a result of your emotions.

>>335761

>With no air force, Iraq lasted half a year since start of hostilities until collapse of government, and almost a decade after that in the form of insurgency.

the Iraqi government never collapsed during desert storm, nor did coalition forces ever enter Baghdad or anywhere 100+KM outside the Kuwaiti border

Saddam was still president for another 12 fucking years later, Iraq was just economically devastated from desert storm and not being able to export oil due to sanctions

>>335725

>Read what I wrote like 4 posts ago. I'm saying that they literally could do it, because they have enough planes to do it. Logistics don't even factor into it. The Canadian was just stupid enough to say that the US doesn't have at least twice the number of planes that NK does.

I know what you said, I disregarded it because it's satirical banter.

>No it isn't.

Yes it is, it offers no empirical data. It has no bearing other than saber-ratting and moral boosting.

>No, numbers, equipment, logistics, strategy and persistence is what wins. North Korea only has one of those over the US.

Numbers only matters in attrition warfare. If a military is smart, they'll avoid becoming entangled in it.

Equipment isn't enough to tip the scales, if an inferior force's training and combat experience is superior, even with inferior numbers and inferior equipment they can defeat a larger, technologically superior force with laxed training and combat experience.

>Thermopylae

>Six Day War

>Valley of Tears

Logistics is dependent on force size and what strategy you're using. You can have minimal logistical capabilities and still defeat an enemy.

Strategy would be one of, if not the most important, but it's dictated by external influences, not by the force.

Persistence has it's place, but is often confused with arrogance, which isn't a desirable trait.

>Nobody is disputing that. Major combat requires, by design, large amounts of sacrifices.

Not at all. It requires the willingness to accept sacrifice, but major conflict in no way equates directly to "major sacrifice".

>What I'm disputing is the fact that North Korea, on its own, would be able to beat the US and allies in any capacity except maybe casualty numbers.

..and you'd be wrong. More than once a force has had it's ass handed to it because it followed the same logic.

Dismissing the Norks as pushovers is a mistake, a mistake that would cost and more than in just casualties.

>I don't know why people on /k/ like this perfect example of pop his so much. It's the perfect example of the good idea fairy crossed with overzealous meta gaming OPFOR, quoted by people who don't know anything about military exercises but think they're like a non lethal hunger games.

It has nothing to do with /k/, it has to do with being the most readily accessible information that can be pointed to that a normie can understand. It's dismissed by those that think they know something about military sciences, but don't.

Military exercises serve a multitude of purposes, chief among them is to test tactics/strategy, probe for failure points, and increasing operational readiness, but it requires the exercising force to accept detrimental outcomes, learn from them, then incorporate changes…not alter the outcome by restricting OPFOR TO&E to claim a win.

There are a number of examples that have played out in history that teach the same lesson, some are;

>Vietnam

>Mogadishu

>Little Big Horn

>Bay of Pigs

Of course, I say this as a person who's participated in "war gaming" on both the macro and micro levels, knowing full well the politics involved and how a superiority complex is one, if not the number one reason for failure in both exercise and reality.

>>335793

>it offers no empirical data

That's not what empirical means.

> I say this as a person who's participated in "war gaming" on both the macro and micro levels

The more you write the less I think you've got an actual military education.

Stuff like

>Equipment isn't enough to tip the scales

>Strategy would be one of, if not the most important, but it's dictated by external influences, not by the force.

>Logistics is dependent on force size and what strategy you're using. You can have minimal logistical capabilities and still defeat an enemy.

just doesn't make any sense, even if you're only a platoon level leader. Even the OPORD (or whatever you Americans call it) brief you give at the platoon level has entire points dedicated logistics, enemy capabilities and likely actions. To say it's irrelevant is quite frankly stupid.

>Not at all. It requires the willingness to accept sacrifice, but major conflict in no way equates directly to "major sacrifice".

This won't be Afghanistan again. When entire battalions get wiped out you won't have resources to call in CAS A on every injury that presents infection risk like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

>it has to do with being the most readily accessible information that can be pointed to that a normie can understand.

Most of the information is Daily Mail tier shit that "exposes" the corrupt Army for not allowing literally an entire army to throw away their radios and instead use lightspeed messengers. Most of the actions performed by OPFOR in MC2002 would be severely punished by someone who didn't know that they were supposed to fight against a conventional enemy with the express purpose of testing out high level leadership bullshit.

>chief among them is to test tactics/strategy, probe for failure points

Very rarely is this the case. Most exercises are just the same old scripted shit that gets the grunts through the paces to prove that they can do their battle maneuvers. Less often an exercise is performed at a high enough level that the leadership is actually tested.

>not alter the outcome by restricting OPFOR TO&E to claim a win.

It's "restricted" the same way not allowing OPFOR to put on white armbands and pretend to be combat judges then blow up your entire company with a CPX IED they teleported in from the pacific is "restrictive".

>>335814

>That's not what empirical means.

Oh, but it is.

>The more you write the less I think you've got an actual military education.

It's been apparent since before I commented that you don't have any kind of idea what's being discussed.

>Stuff like

>>Equipment isn't enough to tip the scales

>>Strategy would be one of, if not the most important, but it's dictated by external influences, not by the force.

>>Logistics is dependent on force size and what strategy you're using. You can have minimal logistical capabilities and still defeat an enemy.

>just doesn't make any sense, even if you're only a platoon level leader.

Of course it doesn't, when you move goalposts.

>Even the OPORD (or whatever you Americans call it) brief you give at the platoon level has entire points dedicated logistics, enemy capabilities and likely actions. To say it's irrelevant is quite frankly stupid.

I never said that, which is why you're confused.

>This won't be Afghanistan again. When entire battalions get wiped out you won't have resources to call in CAS A on every injury that presents infection risk like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That's because Afghanistan was a low intensity counter-insurgency conflict. Our force structure is actually less suited to combat the Norks.

>Most of the information is Daily Mail tier shit that "exposes" the corrupt Army for not allowing literally an entire army to throw away their radios and instead use lightspeed messengers. Most of the actions performed by OPFOR in MC2002 would be severely punished by someone who didn't know that they were supposed to fight against a conventional enemy with the express purpose of testing out high level leadership bullshit.

Yeah…it was a bit more involved than that. Nice oversimplification though.

>Very rarely is this the case. Most exercises are just the same old scripted shit that gets the grunts through the paces to prove that they can do their battle maneuvers. Less often an exercise is performed at a high enough level that the leadership is actually tested.

It's apparent Denmark and the US have very different ideas of how to maintain mission readiness.

.

>It's "restricted" the same way not allowing OPFOR to put on white armbands and pretend to be combat judges then blow up your entire company with a CPX IED they teleported in from the pacific is "restrictive".

Not strawman.

>>335826

>It's been apparent since before I commented that you don't have any kind of idea what's being discussed.

That's great.