Talk:Korean People's Army

Global Security has issues with this article

Global security has a totally different list of North Korean weaponry than this article does.

Apparently much of the North Korean equipment is manufactured in that country, though may be based on Russian equipment. However, this article seems to say that NK equipment is merely Russian.

Link to GS page: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/weapons.htm

Largest?

The article says fourth largest, but the BBC said in 2002 that it was the third largest. Who is right, or has it changed since 2002? Edward 23:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is some confusion over the term "army". North Korea is the third largest in terms of land forces, but only the fourth largest military overall (since the US has a huge navy and air force).--Todd Kloos 21:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"How weak is Europe? Lotto"

China has 1 million, counting only its army, excluding its navy or air force, as opposed to North Korea's combined forces of 1.2 million.

Within, or within?

The article states that fighters are stationed "100 miles within the DMZ". Should that read "within 100 miles of the DMZ" instead or am I missing something here?

Numbers seem meaningless

"North Korea may have a substantial armed forces in pure numeric terms, but this is largely misleading. On paper it may look impressive, but in reality it suffers major problems in regards to fuel and ammunition shortages. I think its misleading to say its the fourth biggest army to some degree."

While the logistics may be terrible, the army personel could very well be the fourth largest. It is not misleading in any way.

Troop Count is the best measure avaliable. Point one: NK only has to arm the soldiers in front anyways. When one gets killed the guy behind him picks up the rifle. Point two: There is no other laymans measure of a military force besides troop count, number of ships, aircraft etc. One could try to evaluate strong troops (good leadership, supplies, morale) from weak troops (dissertions etc) but such estimations by WP would surely fall in POV arguments. --mitrebox 20:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Counter-point Mitre: I can think of some problems with your arguements. in answer to point 1: "The Stalingrad strategy" can work, but it isn't something that is adviseable, and it does NOTHING agaisnt aircraft/mortars,etc. The United States/ South Korea (maybe Japan too) would hold absolute air superiority and the North Korean forces would be slaughtered, especially if they lack modern systems. Especially since the United States Air Force and Navy excel at weakening command/control/communications function. Remember that Iraq went from being one of the largest Armies in the world to only medium size in only three weeks during the Gulf War. point 2: Technology is a fairly good "layman's measure" of an army's capabilities, as are logistics. The danger of reporting on any communist millitary or any mil. at all is that Commies lie, but so do intelligence agencies. Both the American Intelligence apparatus and the Communists would have an interest in inflating the numbers and readiness of the North Korean Army. The American Apparatus would be interested in those numbers, particularly publically so as not to undermine the future support for war AND to make sure that the Army/Navy/Air Force keep an eye on things. --V. Joe 17:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, whatever the true state of north koreas military, seoul with it's 10 million people would cease to exist if all out war eventuated, since there are tens of thousands of heavy artillery pieces pointed at the city. Plus the 40,000 token US troops on the border owuld be destroyed. After that north korea could be defeated quickly however if china stepped in on the north's side with millions of peoples volunteers (it only took 200,000 chinese to stop then push back the UN forces in the first korean war) you would get a united chinese puppet korea, unless the west contributed millions of troops to the conflict and attacked china directly, which wouldn't happen. Never get in a land war in Asia. You WILL lose. 144.137.118.110 (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the U.S. forces would be the best equipped (far more advanced than anything the north Koreans could bring with them) and have the support of the world's most powerful military (air support, sea support.) It would be nasty for them, but destroyed, no (unless nuclear weapons were brought to bear.) HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Any military conflict on the Korean peninsula would be as the destiny of the DPRK itself: China will host the decision on the outcome. If the U.S./ South go to war with DPRK and China sends in their military the U.S. will lose. However, if (and this appears apparent somewhat) China doesn't give a rats' arse about the basket-case DPRK then they will simply disintegrate. I mean, how can you have a functioning army of "1 million" when they're half-starved to death? 119.161.71.12 (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)INFX.com.au

Template

I'm attempting to add a template to this article. --Mitrebox 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Nm I just replaced the Manpower/Expendatures section with a table I created from Military_of_the_United_States. --Mitrebox 05:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Reserves??

None of the military/army related articles on Wikipedia provide numbers for RESERVES. The U.S. has ~1.5 million active troops, but there is also about an equal number of reserve forces if you count the reserves and the national gaurd. I've seen statistics from The Center for Defense Information (www.cdi.org) however that number the DPRK's reserves as high as 4 million. It would be nice if someone would research this further using, for example, The Military Balance 2005-2006 from The IISS and add information on reserve numbers to this article, and perhaps other military-related articles as well. Facts and figures are important for issues like these. So it wouldnt hurt to add statistical numbers such as these. - Anon User

Is there any info about North Korea???

Its all like: "North korea has tanks, but south korea has more tanks, and the united states has far far more tanks!, and if we go to war, we'll pwn their asses!". Seriously, theres such a pre-war undertone to it, like it was the next war or something. I would very much like to see JUST info on north korea army, and not on south korea or the US.

I Added the articles. Mathieu121 19:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Equipment of Army

I have created the link to the Ground Forces of Korea and have started the list of equipment. Updates, suggestions or comments would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

i would like to see a list of small arms added if anyone is privy to that info GarrettJL 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Equipment of Air Force

I have created the North Korean Air Force list of equipment section. Any updates, suggestions or comments would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Equipment of Navy

I have created the North Koreab Navy list of equipment. Updates, suggestions or comments would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with South Korea

Why does this article seem preoccupied with comparing North Korea with South Korea? Is that not a bias. Skinnyweed 21:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since an armed conflict between DPRK+China vs. South Korea+USA has a high probability, it is obvious to compare the two Koreas' military might. Since neither Korea has big navy, thgey can only use their military against land neighbours, which is each other. (DPRK will not attack Red China obviously!)

It is highly biased. The article needs to be changed. Mathieu121 10:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.241.81 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia borders N. Korea as well. But no one seems to notice or care. --65.34.48.125 (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie

Good call, Reggie. I agree with Mathieu too -hypothetical military conflicts are meaningless in the context of, simply, DPRK military capability. 119.161.71.12 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)INFX.com.au

Links

I'm pretty sure about this, but this doesn't seem right. What does Crysis have to do with the North Korean Army besides that the main character fights them? I don't think it should be in the See Also section. Darth Gladius (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

POV in the lead

From the lead: "Currently, the DPRK is aiming 600-700 ballistic missiles at South Korea, and 200 Rodong-1 ballistic missiles at Japan. US research organization ISIS reports DPRK may have three nuclear missile warheads which can strike Tokyo."

This is obviously written from a Western/South Korean POV. We don't see statements like this in the leads of similar articles, such as Military of the United States. I'm sure South Korea is aiming quite a few missiles at the North as well; yet, this is not mentioned in the corresponding South Korean article. I'd suggest we remove this sentence. Let's just concentrate on describing their military neutrally, as we would describe any other military in the world. Offliner (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a statement of fact, and looks neutral to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why don't other countries' articles leads mention where they are aiming their missiles? Offliner (talk) 07:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note, that this is not North Korea–South Korea relations. Where the North is aiming its missiles at is a political matter, not a property of North Korea's military, and therefore does not belong into this article. I could go to Military of the United States, and something like "The US is pointing hundreds of nuclear missiles to Russia and China. According to experts its missiles could reach any place in the world and destroy it completely. Also, the US military could easily reach Mexico with its artillery" into the lead - but that would be nonsense as well. The military articles should concentrate on describing the militaries, not politics and foreign relations. Offliner (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Flag of the Korean People's Army

So, there are two variants of "main" PLA's flags: and File:KPA Supreme Commander flag.jpg. I affirm that the second one (flag of the Supreme Commander) is more acceptable in this significance then the flag of the Ground forces. There are hundreds of images of Korean soldiers with THIS type of flag! One can open 'Google' and type North Korean Army flag there. And there is no one photo or video of ordinary soldiers with Ground Force flag - only high-ranking generals. So, it's better to use Supreme Commander's flag! Nut1917 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Then get an SVG version of that other flag. --  Denelson83  20:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to do this. Please do it if You can.Nut1917 (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The first one is the KPA's official flag (the Ground forces have a different one). The second flag is not "more significant", it is used as extensively as the first one. - Tourbillon ^A ? 20:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Budget

It would be nice to have a section on how much $US and % of GDP (nominal) they use on their military. 83.108.194.210 (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Manpower

Where do the we get the number for the manpower? Where's the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.242.166 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of active: 700 000 soldiers

Look at the list of countries by numbers of troops. It says that NK has 700k soldiers, while this article states it has 1.9 million active soldiers. Which one is right? [1] - Jørgen88 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The number from List of countries by number of troops comes from the source http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/411106.html, which seems most up-to-date/realistic than any other I've seen lately. The DPRK-specific article has no size specific references for the number shown, so unless I'm missing something here, it should be made to read 702,000. Thoughts on this? --Ferbess (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

U.S. assessment from cable from Wikileaks

"FM Downer asked if it was correct that DPRK forces could unleash artillery shells and missiles into the Seoul basin and inflict tremendous damage before UN forces could neutralize their capability. LaPorte said there were some 250 North Korean underground artillery positions within range of Seoul which could fire high-explosive or chemicalfilled shells. DPRK missiles could reach all of South Korea and Japan. However, the North Koreans' ability to win a conventional war was doubtful. Even with 1.2 million under arms, its air force and naval capabilities were limited. The DPRK had 18 MIG-29s; the other airplanes were much older. Its tanks were mostly old T-55s. DPRK pilots averaged 12 hours of flight training per year, while U.S. and ROK pilots received 12 - 15 hours per month. Sustainability and logistics capabilities were "not there," LaPorte stated. The artillery, though old, was the main threat. So the DPRK's leverage, Downer surmised, was the damage it could inflict on Seoul. LaPorte concurred, calling it the "tyranny of proximity." "Not that any of us believe in preemption," Downer chuckled, but what could the UN forces do if they thought it was necessary? General LaPorte emphasized that all of the Combined Forces Command (CFC) operational plans were premised on reacting to a North Korean attack." http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10693865

sign your (bleepin') posts! HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

4.25

I don't know if I missed something here, but I would like to know what these numbers relate to? 119.161.71.12 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)INFX.com.au