Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

If I remember rightly, Sky told us much earlier in the thread that the grandiose and archaic style of the North Korean dialect is legitimately how it sounds.

Edit: Here we are.

Hey Skyrunner (or anyone else who knows Korean), does the North Korean government really sound that ridiculous all the time in Korean, or is some of that a translation issue?

Yes.



They talk in a distinctive style that's made fun of often and they also are stupidly obviou in thir propangda. There's a reason SK doesn't worry about the North->South propangda (we're rich and they sound hilarious) but NK flips out every time something comes their way.

Also, we know their artillery works because they used it on Yunpyungdo a couple years back.

[hops]

Yeah but that's arguably a feature of their language. And sure, they write that way too when they write English, but there's no need for unofficial translators to make them sound like a tool.

[Guardian G.I.]

North Korea has provided global access to its intranet, not sure if it's intentional.

Here's a compiled list if you'd like to get viruses from ten years ago, many are currently DDoSd.

I don't think that's the Kwangmyong network - actual North Korean intranet websites use numerical addresses like "10.240.100.11".

That list from that Reddit post contains all North Korean Internet websites. Kwangmyong is basically a giant LAN, so I don't think you can actually access it from the Internet itself.

[Grimlocke]

The bombastic, grandiose tone is at least how the communist party under Mao liked to express itself. That and with lots of poetry, Mao liked poetry. This was not just a feature of Chinese languages either, but keep in mind that use of language might not have sounded as ridiculous to them as it does to us.

Given that DRPK is based on Maoism with an extra dose of cult worship of the leader, it would surprise me if they went back to using every day language for their propaganda. Listen to any news broadcasts of the DRPK, and compare it to the ones from South Korea. The North Korean presenters take a far more bombastic and grandiose tone of voice, with that sneering, judgemental tone applied to anything the state does not approve of.

So, probably the DRPK news articles are translated correctly, but to its people and its leaders it doesn't sound as ridiculous as its part of their ideology.

[Loud Whispers]

I assume South Korean tactics are focused on active defense; meaning acting aggressively to destroy any threat to Seoul, such as Artillery, and obviously the Nuclear Weapons, if at all possible. Only then is proper occupation invovled.

North Korean tactics are, presumably, to cause the worst humanitarian disaster since the end of WW2 and drop a bomb bigger than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki's on a city that is between 20 and 30 times more populated then Hiroshima was.

I would presume they either use it as a sword of damocles to say "yeah if you invade N/K we blow up all of Korea", or try to blow up a US fleet to halt absolute wreckage

[hops]

I'm not sure how effective nukes are against moving targets.

[Sheb]

Depends on the accuracy of the delivery system. Nukes would be great against a surface fleet, if you have a missile able to deliver it without being shot down.

[misko27]

I'm not sure how effective nukes are against moving targets.

I mean, an ICBM wouldn't have great accuracy, but if you are doing it Enola Gay style you're more then fine (although that raises the concern of being shot down). A middle option: a short range missile, is an interesting question that depends on their rocket making skills.

As the size of a nuclear bomb increases, the need for aim decreases proportionally. This is, incidentally, explains an interesting bit of Cold War trivia: ICBMs only became important around the time that Hydrogen bombs were being rolled out, as the significantly greater explosive power meant that the risk of aiming at a major city and hitting an outer suburb was diminished. After all, when the bomb gets big enough, who cares?

Granted, Tactical Nuclear weapons are actually much smaller then Strategic ones, but I don't think Korea's nuclear arsenal has developed to the point where there's a difference. And it's not like it is a bad thing to use big bombs tactically (they have a hell of a bang), it's just that usually you'd want smaller ones while keeping the big ones for bombing major targets.

[smjjames]

Depends on the accuracy of the delivery system. Nukes would be great against a surface fleet, if you have a missile able to deliver it without being shot down.

I know there was a test done with an underwater detonation, no idea if one was done on a surface fleet with a nuke detonated above the water surface. Probably as deadly as a land based one, except that there's a higher chance of irradiated ships still actually floating. At least we can just use a submarine to torpedo them underwater if that were the case.

[Loud Whispers]

nuclear sea mines

[Baffler]

It's not as stupid as it sounds if the target is a 70,000 ton supercarrier.

[IronyOwl]

One would think those would be swept for rather rigorously, but yeah.

[Loud Whispers]

One would think those would be swept for rather rigorously, but yeah.

The ocean is very big and the detonation could be manual

[Flying Dice]

I mean, if they were sufficiently paranoid they could probably rig the mines to detonate when attacked with normal sweeping methods. Or make the clearing of a conventional mine the trigger for the nuclear detonation. You can add nukes to horseshoes and hand-grenades pretty fairly, after all. Or, hell, set them to manually detonate and seed them inside conventional minefields.

[Loud Whispers]

Or best of all, say you've put nuclear sea mines in the ocean, when you haven't. US navy starts cautiously searching for nuclear sea mines that don't exist. Plan backfires when China invades