>>64488417
>>64489744
>As long as they might nuke chinese troops on their own ground, defensively, that can hardly be called a nuclear escalation. So russia still has some deterrence left in it.

So the DPRK can use unlimited chemical warfare against anyone they want as long as they have a atomic escalation on hand? They can use tactical nukes on their own soil with impunity? That is a insane proposition.

>>64491176
>North Korea has basically single digit per year tank production capacity and that's with significant help from China. They also can't spare vehicles because South Korea and Japan have an already crushing armor advantage as is.

They have no help from Russia or the PRC as neither wants the DPRK to become more powerful than it already is.

>single digit per year tank production capacity

Objectively wrong. They parade their new tanks which is something Russia has not done for 30 years. The DPRK has made hundreds of new tank hulls in the last three decades and Russia has not produced one.

>>64241562
It is worth noting in the context of my last post that the DPRK has over twice as much functioning armor as Russia.

>>64062395
>I don't think it's realistic.

No one thought North Korean troops on European soil was possible 3 years ago but now they are Russia's Vanguard.

A DPRK division scale group threatening Poland from Belarus is not out of the question, i'd say that it is almost inevitable.

>>64005835
Not even close, top ten (like 7-9th ranked) at best.

Reading this thread has been bothering me for the last 48+ hours. I have been thinking about how the Admiral Kuzmetsov would be rebuilt and equipped if it were in North Korea service.

I think i could do a reasonably logical 8-10 post thread about it, should i? If ya'll just want me to fuck off say so but i if not say so, it will take me a day or so to write it up and to make sure i'm not being a total retard.