Does Britain have the capability to invade and conquer North Korea?
I'm thinking yes once both carriers are operational.
>>28343818
>invade
Most countries that don't have a joke of a navy have that capability
>conquer
Lolno. Best Korea at this point has enough tunnels, hidden military installations, and war plans to drive any invading force insane and force an armistice. North Korea can't be conquered by anything except internal strife.
>>28343856
>Most countries
All 1 of them?
> Best Korea
Stop being a huge memefag. I am stationed in South Korea, they already posses the capability themselves to steam roll the North with long enough of an assault. The North has shittons of men and artillery, it could do some heavy damage but to say it could last being invaded is pretty wrong, it couldn't repel that.
Also the UK doesn't have a reliable source of logistical power to sustain its invasion.
>>28343818
>I'm thinking yes once both carriers are operational.
You're thinking yes because you're a tard.
>>28343818
Britain couldn't invade and conquer Scotland. What makes you think they could go after North Korea?
>Give Norks food
>Arr right you can have country
>>28343919
>Give Norks British food
>Arr right we fight to death!
>>28343885
Any invasion of the North would instantly validate the propaganda that's been force-fed to the people for more than half a century.
>implying an invading force can quell the largest insurgency movement to ever grace the annals of history taking place in one of the most heavily armored, weapon-saturated, and entrenched countries in existence
>implying North Korea wouldn't retaliate against neighbors like South Korea or Japan in any number of ways with formerly forbidden tactics like large-scale terrorist attacks or chemical/biological/nuclear weapons
You're attacking the literal insane paranoid conspiracy survivalist of the international community.
Just because you ostensibly CAN doesn't mean you should, nor does it mean it'll work out the way you expected. No sane military planner would ever entertain the idea of conquering North Korea.
Plans are waiting for reconstruction and repelling a Northern offensive, yes, but nobody short of a retard will authorize a push past the MDL.
>>28343919
DoD estimates the norks have enough food and ammunition stockpiled for 100 days of total war. They aren't short of food.
>>28343910
>Britain couldn't invade and conquer Scotland.
>Britain couldn't invade and conquer Britain
What the fuck are you talking about.
>>28343980
Yes they are, they actively extort the West for food aid.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN0N01YK20150409
>>28343910
But your average Nork is better fed, clothed and generally more rational than a Scot.
>>28343953
>largest insurgency movement to ever
>implying implications
Stopped reading there. You're VASTLY over estimating their capability, and even more so on their capability to fight. Training to them is sitting in a class room and talking about shooting guns and maneuvering vehicles. They can't even afford to train their military in the use of much of anything. Al Quesdilla's ability to terrorize people is based off its members ability to actually conduct such things, in both training and real world experience. NK doesn't have that.
NK nukes gone in an hour
NK Navy gone in a day
NK Airforce gone in a week
NK Army gone in a month
>>28343997
>Scotland
>Part of Britain
Please, whenever someone across the pond says Britain, they mean England, and everyone knows the English can't fight.
>>28344011
terrible north korean propaganda
>>28344980
>my internet fantasies about england are reality
>>28344980
>Scotland
>Part of Britain
Are you that stupid
invade, probably.
Conquer? probably not. The logistics of taking over the country long enough to undo the propaganda of the various Kims would just be too big to be economically viable.
it would, in fact, be one of the classic blunders.
>>28345012
It's cheaper to send them a few million dollars worth if food each year than it is to wage war and deal with the end results. China does it too so they don't have to deal eith any more refugees than they already do.
>During the period of severe food shortage between 1996 and 1998, Beijing provided unconditional food aid to North Korea.[17]
>>28343980
>100 days of total war.
>implying that isn't short
Do you also have the reports that the vast majority of their air to Air missiles have expired and that only a quarter of their on paper air force even actually exists, let alone remains in even the least strict definition of working order.
So what do the Norks do with their nukes when they don't have any reliable delivery systems, such as bombers or ballistic missiles?
Currently their biggest bomber is the ancient II-28. Assuming they still fly they'll probably be bombed back into the stone age before they get off the ground.
As for ballistic missiles (assuming the Norks miniaturized their nukes enough to fit them on ballistic missiles), the Taepodong-1 was a tech demonstrator, and the Taepodong-2 hasn't been shown to have worked yet. So that leaves the Rodong, which is basically just a Scud copy.
So how the fuck are the Norks going to deploy these 10 or so nukes they have? Hide them in areas where the enemy army is likely to advance and detonate them when they're close?
>>28345093
Nuclear mines, hopes and dreams.
>>28343818
north korea has a fuck ton of air defenses. the UK doesnt have the air power to establish superiority. you'd need US help. and on the ground, in north korea. you'd get dealt with by those crazy nork fucks.
england you are useless, accept it.
>>28347647
Britfag soldier here.
I approve of this statement.
>>28344385
They have thousands and thousands of normal people there who are guilty of crimes against humanity.
You think those people will just let you conquer their country and expose their crimes? No. They'll fight like Wermacht soldiers after Berlin fell.
Plus, they probably have an extensive spy network to 'compel' their citizens to fight.
North Korea is a fortress nation.
>>28348765
Once their Navy is sunk we can bomb them to oblivion from carriers, destroyers and subs. No need to even risk a plane over their airspace.
>>28348864
>Once their Navy is sunk we can bomb them to oblivion from destroyers and subs
yup, missiles sure are great at holding ground. in fact, it worked wonders for Germany against Britain in WWII
>>28347647
>england
And everything you have said is immediately proven wrong by yourself.
>>28343818
A bit of a stretch for logistics, it's literally on the other side of the planet for them. If they can airlift all materiel and troops to south korea like the US would do and park their future carriers nearby, it's plausible they could pull through. They also would definitely out-produce norks and keep themselves fed so best corea would implode before bongs bugger off.
assuming half the NK military doesnt just surrender as soon as they encounter an enemy....
>>28343953
Any insurgents ever lol most if not all would flee to the south to get away for that hell
>>28349024
Yes because technology and tactics haven't advanced at all since world war 2
>>28345038
Except he just stated that Britain and Scotland are separate, can you read?
>>28343953
alright kim
thats enough
