PDA

View Full Version : N.Korea has 122,000 special operations troops - US commander



2RHPZ
07-05-2004, 06:54 PM
WASHINGTON

The commander of U.S. forces in South Korea said Thursday that North Korea is estimated to have 122,000 troops for special operations.

''North Korea's 122,000-man special operations force is the world's largest, and a high funding priority for the regime,'' Gen. Leon Laporte said in a written statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

''They are tough, dedicated, well-trained, and profoundly loyal'' to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, Laporte said.

His remarks indicated North Korea is strengthening its special operations force. The number of members of the force was previously estimated at 90,000 to 100,000.

If a conflict occurs on the Korean Peninsula, the North Korean special operations force would direct long-range fires against key facilities in South Korea, conduct attacks to disrupt command facilities of South Korean and U.S. forces, and seek to block the reinforcement of troops from beyond the peninsula, Laporte said.

Macs.
07-05-2004, 07:16 PM
North Korean "Special Forces" are the soldiers with guns and ammo, right ?

radon
07-05-2004, 07:22 PM
We will never what quality troops those are unless there is a war.

mocking_loudly_died
07-05-2004, 07:28 PM
It's so easy to slap the title special forces onto a large number of plebeians, something communist governments seem to have a fondness for - you would find most of these "super-soldiers" have yet to see a compass.

North Korea is a rejected old attention-seeking slut.

Kilgor
07-05-2004, 07:32 PM
North korean special forces = soldiers that get fed a full bowl of rice a day and get not one.. but two clips of ammo for their PPSh41

FinnishMF
07-05-2004, 07:43 PM
North korean special forces = soldiers that get fed a full bowl of rice a day and get not one.. but two clips of ammo for their PPSh41

Hmm.. Like Vietnamese ? ;)

Kilgor
07-05-2004, 07:47 PM
no.. at least the russians gave them AK's :P

Secret Squirrel
07-05-2004, 07:51 PM
North korean special forces = soldiers that get fed a full bowl of rice a day and get not one.. but two clips of ammo for their PPSh41

Remember what happened the last time a military situation was underestimated?

Kilgor
07-05-2004, 07:57 PM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

stuntman
07-05-2004, 08:00 PM
North korean special forces = soldiers that get fed a full bowl of rice a day and get not one.. but two clips of ammo for their PPSh41

Remember what happened the last time a military situation was underestimated?
You mean like Gulf war 1 and 2, Afghanastan?

Tane Angle
07-05-2004, 08:06 PM
Or Lebanon or Somalia? Neither politicians nor generals nor rank-and-file GIs should underestimate our enemies.

I think the general was referring to troops who would be used to direct artillery, air, and missile strikes, or to sieze key targets in South Korea, such as airfields and seaports, thus blocking reinforcement.

Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

duck
07-05-2004, 08:11 PM
If I'm not mistaken the compulsory military service in the PRK varies from 7,5 to 10+ years. SOF troops can be expected to be in the 10+ years range. Btw, two bowls of rice, some kim-chee and soy sauce satisfies all our nutritional needs.

However, they lack initiative. They might be fanatic and full of Pan-Korean nationalism but they are not independent thinkers.

Secret Squirrel
07-05-2004, 08:14 PM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence . War is not a simple business. Everyone knew that Bush wanted to get Saddam, so that meant an occupation. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to flaten a country and enrage a population you want to liberate? Why would you want to make your task harder in the long run? :cantbeli:

UkrainianAmerican
07-05-2004, 09:28 PM
If I'm not mistaken the compulsory military service in the PRK varies from 7,5 to 10+ years. SOF troops can be expected to be in the 10+ years range. Btw, two bowls of rice, some kim-chee and soy sauce satisfies all our nutritional needs.

However, they lack initiative. They might be fanatic and full of Pan-Korean nationalism but they are not independent thinkers.
Soy protein results in estrogen being produced in males. Ahem.

usa320
07-05-2004, 09:30 PM
What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence . War is not a simple business. Everyone knew that Bush wanted to get Saddam, so that meant an occupation. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to flaten a country and enrage a population you want to liberate? Why would you want to make your task harder in the long run?

Wow you are as stupid as thought to be.

He was clearly referring to Vietnam.

Brozozo
07-05-2004, 09:41 PM
Anyways, concerning the capabilities of N. Korea's army...I think a war with them will be significantly different than that in Vietnam or Iraq (current) as the N.Korean military will not likely dissolve like the Iraqi army and the invading force (lets say the US) will not be fighting a nearly invisible of force of rebels by night and "innocent" rice farmers by day but an organized force. In such a situation it is unlikely that N.Korea will be able to defeat the US using its numerical superiority (given that the US has no other major commitments, ie. Iraq).

Jack Mehoff
07-05-2004, 09:43 PM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence . War is not a simple business. Everyone knew that Bush wanted to get Saddam, so that meant an occupation. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to flaten a country and enrage a population you want to liberate? Why would you want to make your task harder in the long run? :cantbeli:

Genius, brush up your reading comprehension a little bit. I believe Kilgor was talking about Vietnam War. :cantbeli:

Kilgor
07-05-2004, 09:49 PM
What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence . War is not a simple business. Everyone knew that Bush wanted to get Saddam, so that meant an occupation. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to flaten a country and enrage a population you want to liberate? Why would you want to make your task harder in the long run?

Wow you are as stupid as thought to be.

He was clearly referring to Vietnam.

yes... I was
the ROE for aerial bombing was a joke.

plus a million other things.

Tane Angle
07-05-2004, 09:56 PM
Let's ask Kilgor what he was referring to.

To be honest, it seems like it could describe a number of wars; besides Southeast Asia, the uniformed military's (and other intelligence agencies') recommendations were completely ignored in Grenada and Lebanon. Many of the most important ones for Somalia were ignored, and so too with Iraq today. This is just a short list. Like it or not, we live in a nation where the military is directed by civilians who very likely will not have had any experience, training, or education on how to run a war. It is very frustrating, but we know it when we're signing.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Tane Angle
07-05-2004, 09:59 PM
Wow, thank you for answering so quickly, Kilgor.

Kilgor
07-05-2004, 10:01 PM
thats exactly what I was trying to say, but said alot better :P

Secret Squirrel
07-05-2004, 10:12 PM
What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence . War is not a simple business. Everyone knew that Bush wanted to get Saddam, so that meant an occupation. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to flaten a country and enrage a population you want to liberate? Why would you want to make your task harder in the long run?

Wow you are as stupid as thought to be.

He was clearly referring to Vietnam.

yes... I was
the ROE for aerial bombing was a joke.

plus a million other things.

My mistake. Most of the rants about the Iraq invasion always seem to revolve around someone saying that the military should have been "let loose".

Secret Squirrel
07-05-2004, 10:13 PM
What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence . War is not a simple business. Everyone knew that Bush wanted to get Saddam, so that meant an occupation. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to flaten a country and enrage a population you want to liberate? Why would you want to make your task harder in the long run?

Wow you are as stupid as thought to be.

He was clearly referring to Vietnam.

You're hardly in any position ever to call someone stupid. rofl homo erectus rofl

usa320
07-05-2004, 10:42 PM
yes... I was
the ROE for aerial bombing was a joke.

plus a million other things.

Hell yes it was.

They couldnt bomb anything within 10 miles of a school or hospital.

They couldnt bomb Gai-Lam airfield until a few years into the war.

Same for bombing targets around hai-phong.

Had the politicians just shut the **** up and let the soldiers do their jobs we could have kicked serious ass in Vietnam.

Kilgor
07-05-2004, 10:49 PM
thats why many feel that Nam was a political loss rather than a military defeat.

Tane Angle
07-05-2004, 10:50 PM
SACSA Blackburn, among many others, had a whole plan for making Son Tay-style raids throughout North Vietnam. It never really got approved, but it would have been a good idea, and saved us about twenty years in terms of learning special operations.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

NcDeuce
07-05-2004, 11:21 PM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence .

:cantbeli:

Okay...Mr. Chief of Staff...controlled violence...ha...yeah...the OPORD, controlled violence... rofl

Secret Squirrel
07-05-2004, 11:37 PM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence .

:cantbeli:

Okay...Mr. Chief of Staff...controlled violence...ha...yeah...the OPORD, controlled violence... rofl

If you disagree, tell me what you think it is.

NcDeuce
07-06-2004, 12:03 AM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence .

:cantbeli:

Okay...Mr. Chief of Staff...controlled violence...ha...yeah...the OPORD, controlled violence... rofl

If you disagree, tell me what you think it is.

Let's ask Webster,


A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

A state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism or a struggle or competition between opposing forces

I'm not disagreeing but if you did not already know, it's always great hearing Army and organization being put together.

Secret Squirrel
07-06-2004, 12:16 AM
yeah..we let the civilans and politicans wage a limited war, and told the armed forces what they couldnt bomb, and the goal posts were changed on a regular basis.

What hell do you think the military is? its not some kid's fanasty of maurading forces that destroy everything in its path; it's controlled violence .

:cantbeli:

Okay...Mr. Chief of Staff...controlled violence...ha...yeah...the OPORD, controlled violence... rofl

If you disagree, tell me what you think it is.

Let's ask Webster,


A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

A state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism or a struggle or competition between opposing forces

I'm not disagreeing but if you did not already know, it's always great hearing Army and organization being put together.

military = a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations? are you sure you searched for "military"?

Main Entry: 1mil·i·tary
****unciation: 'mi-l&-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French militaire, from Latin militaris, from milit-, miles soldier
1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war b : of or relating to armed forces; especially : of or relating to ground or sometimes ground and air forces as opposed to naval forces
2 a : performed or made by armed forces b : supported by armed force
3 : of or relating to the army

NcDeuce
07-06-2004, 12:43 AM
The military is controlled violence??

Sayeret
07-06-2004, 02:42 AM
I think that North Korea is a powerful nation but it tries to make the world think they are much more powerful than they really are. It seems like they are trying to get in a war with the United States by threatening it and showing its military power. It would be a war they would not win even if they had a few nuclear weapons.

fantassin
07-06-2004, 02:48 AM
Or, as it did with the Warsaw Pact, the Iraqi army (remember, in 1991 it was supoposed to be "the third in the world"), Lybia, Syria, the US are blowing their future's opponents capabilities out of proportion in order to

-get more ressources
- psychologically prepare the opinion
-justify further action

Reminds me of the general recently saying something like "oh, my god, the Indian Air Force is much better than we thought and our F15 are SO old now....can we get the F22 pretty pretty please Mr Treasurer?"

Pandy
07-06-2004, 02:55 AM
I think that North Korea is a powerful nation but it tries to make the world think they are much more powerful than they really are. It seems like they are trying to get in a war with the United States by threatening it and showing its military power. It would be a war they would not win even if they had a few nuclear weapons.

North Korea - "We have ten nukes."
United States of America - "We got so many nukes, we would have to dig though glass to find you."

If anything happens there now, it would be started by a Nuclear Blast in the Region.

Vintendo
07-06-2004, 10:37 AM
Why don't we just let the South Koreans deal with the North? After 50 years you'd think their military would be capable of defending themselves.
Also I don't think they appreciate what the US is doing for them with all the anti-Americanism there.

Mark Sman
07-06-2004, 10:42 AM
North Korea is an economic, environmental and social disaster led by a madman.

These "special" troops probably ride the short AFV.

Liquid
07-06-2004, 11:06 AM
Wtf is this "bash the yellow people thread".
North Korea is a very serious threat and taken so accordingly.When they say 122.000 special forces they mean that.I`ve seen unic footage of N Korea "Regular Army" and they were extremly well equipped and disciplined,I can only imagine how their special forces are.The country has more then enough money to equip their army using the soviet tactic of sacrificing the civillians to fund the army.

And btw no one knows how many nukes N Korea has there is no official world only speculatiom,but it apears they have intercontinetal missles capable of targeting USA.

rawkitheart
07-06-2004, 11:24 AM
Why don't we just let the South Koreans deal with the North? After 50 years you'd think their military would be capable of defending themselves.
Also I don't think they appreciate what the US is doing for them with all the anti-Americanism there.

i think i love you. haha jk.

no seriously, we've done a lot in south korea, and the population is greatful for that, but concerning modern negotiations we are a huge pain in the ass, i mean it's hard to say sorry and hug and make up when you've still got the class bully you've bribed with 50 year's of lunch money ready to jump on the first person who touches you.

i read an interesting statistic that said that the south korean military says that it currently has the strength to defeat any north korean attack. personally i have no idea how strong that claim is, but it should be noted that the korean populace is still very frightened of any action. i mean, arent there supposed to be like 10 thousand pieces of north korean artillery pointed at seoul?

you guys should go see some of the latest korean movies on their buddies up north. theyre actually really cool, i would recommend either JSA (joint security area) or Shiri (movie about north korean spies in south korea). shiri was actually so popular that it broke all movie attendence records, and jsa is considered so moving that its been rated as one of the all time best northkorea-southkorea relation movies ever.

garyfanclub
07-06-2004, 11:38 AM
I bet the 2nd Infantry Division could kick the crap out of 5 or 6 North Korean Divisions. However, they'd suffer casualites exceeding 75%