Talk:Korean People's Army/Archive 1

Budget/expenditures
The article states "The KPA's annual budget is US$6 billion", while in the right hand side box it states "Expenditure: 5 Billions". If can anyone correct it, please do so (except there's a distinction to be made between "budget" and "expenditure" in this case). ~RaffD.S.

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)


 * It's the largest army in the world if we count the reserves; counting only active soldiers, it's the fourth largest army (losing to China as first, US as second, India as third) [According to List of countries by number of troops, which I don't know when it was last updated]. If OTOH you are asking about "largest land forces"... ~RaffD.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.22.219.14 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The numbers seem contradictory. I was pulling my hair out at what "largest military organization in the world" meant (with 5,889,000 personnel), when the sidebar says it's the 5th largest at 1,280,000. The line mentioned paramilitaries, but the only paramilitaries the article talks about is a school program which effectively includes a bunch of students doing PE drills. Didn't realize until checking the List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel article's note by North Korea that the "Paramilitaries" referenced are the Worker-Peasant Red Guards, which are local city/town militias. Slight tangent, but interestingly, that list article doesn't appear to include the various U.S. non-military armed forces as "paramilitaries", but the largest paramilitaries listed seem to be socialist states. Interesting bias. Ragef33 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2021 (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
 * How would the U.S. "lose" unless nuclear weapons would be involved? The American military has the ability to defeat the rest of the world's combined military by 1.5X, per every reliable independent study.
 * The numbers are worth noting, but it might be better to acknowledge disagreements about the figures. (See also posts below.)  Any assessments about the calibre of the force (including equipment) are worth noting as well, but it should be kept in mind that these are speculative.
 * Any war would have two aspects: defensive and offensive. In terms of the first aspect, North Korea has a rugged terrain.  It should be noted it wasn't just the Chinese forces that swept back the UN forces in the Korean War, but also the KPA which had retreated into North Korea's mountainous interior.  It also countless underground facilities to shield itself from air attack, including the Pyongyang Metro and various other tunnels (including under the DMZ). In terms of an offensive war, the KPA could send large numbers of troops into the south, including by sea, as well as mounting a barrage of rockets and shells.  No one would argue North Korea could beat the USA, but (if the northern side fought) it would be a very hard fight and probably a very long one.  The sheer numbers of enemy fighters alone would make it very difficult.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. In 2003, the world's fifth largest army - with extensive defences - was crushed in three weeks. And that army had much more combat experience - and less ideology - than the KPA. How effective would goat battalions, political lectures, and biplanes be against modern tanks and missiles? bobrayner (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Iraq was not even comparative to NK. Iraq had no in-depth artillery or missile capabilities, and most of their troops surrendered en masse.  If the first Korean war is any indication, NK troops would prove to be fanatics, however badly trained and equipped.  Talk to a Korean war vet some time. Especially after Chinese regulars got involved, that was one very nasty conflict.  Also, Iraq didn't have 1,000 T62M heavy tanks, which would be formidable in such numbers.
 * According to Don Oberdorfer (Two Koreas), Clinton was told a war would cost 50 000 US military casualties and 500 000 South Korean military casualties...--Jack Upland (talk) 06:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The military heads probably inflated those numbers a bit - better over-estimate and be wrong in a good way, than the reverse - but, the bottom line that while NK would be defeated, a war on the Korean peninsula would be catastrophic with very high casualties and almost unimaginable material destruction. Later reports that are from very good Reliable Sources have entrenched that view since 2014.50.111.9.62 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * True, this article seems very Americentric — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.188.201 (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2012 (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

I don't agree. There is a state of hostility between the south and the north, which underlies the north's entire existence and in particular its military policy. (And by the way, the border with Russia must be one of the shortest in the world.)--Jack Upland (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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. 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. - [[Image:Biohazard orange.svg|17px]] 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? - 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


 * Wikileaks = Disinformation. If you do leak actual secrets to Wikileaks an FBI van is coming to your door. 71.191.189.195 (talk) 14:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So Bradley Manning never was....--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

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


 * I'm guessing… 4.25 Sports Team So maybe this is the flag of the sports team and not the Army? --Skippingrock (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Check the article. April 25 is the founding date for the KPA.--S. Rich (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Army Flag
Please note that the Korean People's Army flag image on this page is incorrect in several aspects; see FOTW for my corrected image. I'm not familiar with working on .svg or .jpg images so could someone please kindly work on that. Milesli 08:50, 06 November 2012 (UTC)

Please clear up some confusion.
Can somebody clarify the difference between these three?


 * Korean People's Army
 * Korean People's Armed Forces
 * Korean People's Army Ground Force

Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 08:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Coastal Security Bureau
Is the "Coastal Security Bureau" a branch of the KPA? It is mentioned in an article here, but there is no mention of it on Wikipedia. Illegitimate Barrister 03:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The NKLeadershipWatch article says it's part of the KPA. It's fairly difficult to find information about specific units or special divisions within the KPA. Complicating matters as well is the apparent fuzzy lines between the KPA proper, and the Ministry of People's Security and the State Security Department. Here's some additional info on the CSB from the "country study" book on North Korea published by the U.S. Federal Research Division in 1993. Coinmanj (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Female Conscription
My understanding is there is universal female conscription as well.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Origin
It would be good to find some information about the origin of the KPA. If it really was founded in 1948, it seems impressive that it formed such a formidable force in 1950. It also had a quite distinct identity, if you compare the Chinese and North Korean delegates to the armistice talks. The North Koreans do not look like representatives of a guerrilla army.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Duration of service
This article states that members of the KPA serve 3 to 5 years, then states that members serve 10 years. Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:702:8000:dd96:d91c:e2f7:baa3:97d3 (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2016‎
 * 10 years was sourced, 3 to 5 was not. I have removed the latter. Such information needs references to reliable sources. It's a mainstream media source and it will do, but academic sources would probably be ideal here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean People's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100331091148/http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/North_Korea/Final%20national%20census%20report.pdf to http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_PHC/North_Korea/Final%20national%20census%20report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429044154/http://kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201004/news09/20100409-10ee.html to http://kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201004/news09/20100409-10ee.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

China and Russia are not allies of North Korea
Okay, maybe Russia is a partial military ally to North Korea but that is still debatable. I don't even know why we have a "ally" list because it's pointless. The PLA doesn't have a "ally" list either so why the DPRK? For the record sure have Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah as an ally but don't include China. I don't know who edited the KPA article but please unless you have a good legit source on China being an ally to North Korea, don't bother putting it up on the article on the Korean People's Army. China is hardly a military ally if all coal has been suspended from export to the DPRK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.233.222.242 (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Korean People's Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524125334/http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=4109686 to http://article.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.asp?total_id=4109686
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140427050803/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2006/ustqab/ to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2006/ustqab/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

this needs revision - food supplies
The sourced statement "it is estimated that the wartime strategic reserves of food for the army are sufficient to feed the regular troops for 500 days" is probably inaccurate if the general physical condition of recent defectors is any indication. They appeared to be victims of slow starvation. Has anyone seen a recent RS that has re-examined this issue? My SWAG would be the military has perhaps a month's worth of food provisions for the military.50.111.4.123 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The World Food Programme says that there is "chronic malnutrition", not "slow starvation".--Jack Upland (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That soldier was full of parasites from eating grass to stay alive. There were other reports that called that slow starvation. He was badly malnourished, and his internal organ functions were all impaired. 500 days ... it beggars the imagination.50.111.9.62 (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Media reports are sensational. If this was actually true, many, many North Koreans would be dead. Grass is hard for humans to digest. Parasites are more likely due to bad hygiene than eating grass. The fact is that we have had reports that things have been getting worse in North Korea since the 1990s (when things undoubtably were bad). If that was true, then the whole population would have been wiped out long ago. On the contrary, we are told that the population is growing steadily. In any case, the current health and nutrition of the population does not prove that the army doesn't hold reserves of food.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: move to Armed Forces of North Korea
On 2019-04-15, wasn't the name changed to the Armed Forces of North Korea? The article about the post reflects it. Also, what's to do with the file names that include the old name such as ?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no evidence that there was a name change. This seems to be a case of Wikipedians creating factoids. There is no official title, "Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of North Korea". North Korean do not officially use the term "North Korea" and I am totally opposed to pretending that they do, or creating fake official titles of any kind.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I do share your sentiment, although I tend to view Wikipedia as a cause lost to mad Christians and neo-Christians. Still, can't you see ""North Korea" as a purely linguistic construct, in lieu with Kiev? Also, my point here is not about the name of the country but about the name of the army.--Adûnâi (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The state media in North Korea still continues to refer the army as the Korean People's Army even in articles that mention Kim Jong-un as the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces of the DPRK.  So, the name Korean People's Army should definitely be kept. The Account 1 (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)