Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hutch on November 23, 2010, 08:20:14 AM
-
There seems to have been a bit of a tiff on the Peninsula, some artillery exchanged, a few casualties, that sort of thing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/8153291/South-Korea-warns-North-Korea-it-will-sternly-retaliate-to-any-further-provocation.html
Reckon what them boys is up to? I mean, they have some dynastic succession issues, and they invite one of our nuclear scientists in to show off their centrifuge farm to enrich uranium. I can't believe this makes sense, even to Dear Leader. The Japanese are a little spooked, the Russians suggest there be no escalation, and the Chinese have threatened to frown.
-
Wonder if the Sorks are hiring...I know a few good men.
-
Wonder if the Sorks are hiring...I know a few good men.
Do you know any willing martyrs? Because that's what they'd be in a real war between the asian North & South.
-
More than likely its just some standard extortion. Rattle the cage, demand food for peace.
-
"Can't we all just get along?"
Answer: No, we can't.
-
Don't we have some new cruise missle technology that we need to test?.....
-
Don't we have some new cruise missle technology that we need to test?.....
See y'alls fail in not electing me? That's been a cornerstone of my Nork diplomacy plan for several years. We have these really quiet new SSGNs that need a full scale test. Line all 5? of them up off one coast, launch every tomahawk on board, have them fly at treetop level through every sensitive military installation NK has and then destruct over deep international water on the opposite coast. Publicly deny everything, privately threaten to repeat with slightly different targeting instructions. Meanwhile by boats intentionally grounded unmanned, airdrop etc, carpetbomb the nork population centers with internet enabled phones, foreign money, and high calorie food. Maybe some guns too.
-
See y'alls fail in not electing me? That's been a cornerstone of my Nork diplomacy plan for several years. We have these really quiet new SSGNs that need a full scale test. Line all 5? of them up off one coast, launch every tomahawk on board, have them fly at treetop level through every sensitive military installation NK has and then destruct over deep international water on the opposite coast. Publicly deny everything, privately threaten to repeat with slightly different targeting instructions.
That would be a waste of missles....and craters make a better message than deniable fly-bys....
Meanwhile by boats intentionally grounded unmanned, airdrop etc, carpetbomb the nork population centers with internet enabled phones, foreign money, and high calorie food. Maybe some guns too.
Now that would be a great idea....in NK and in Mexico.....
-
Win one for MacArthur.
-
That would be a waste of missles....and craters make a better message than deniable fly-bys....
Now that would be a great idea....in NK and in Mexico.....
Mexico knows the outside world exists, we just need to figure out how to give them an angry middle class. Not a waste of missiles, economic stimulus, 29 states selling more widgets to the gov't. :D
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101123/ts_yblog_thelookout/tensions-on-the-korean-peninsula-what-you-need-to-know
-
Norks are being surly batshit crazy again
FTFY.
I hope the Good Guys don't go to war, although I'd understand if they did: enough is enough. But we don't need to be fighting three wars. They know that, of course.
Who's next? Venezuela? Iran?
TC
-
I always have jokes, but in a serious vein does anyone see any scenario where we are not militarily involved on that stupid peninsula? Those kooks have held on too, tight, too long. Even if they said to their people hey, we were wrong, *poof here's some Jeffersonian democracy for you, oh, BTW there's this thing called the internet, it was part of the 20th century package you didn't get. Even then there would be massive upheaval, what little infrastructure they had would be destroyed in a civil war and there we'd be cleaning up the mess.
But batcrap crazy dictatorships don't fade away quietly so we can expect worse. Probably acting sooner is better than later, another winter of innocent people starving, another winter closer to nuclear weapons that actually work.
-
Isn't the boy taking over soon? Maybe Kim Jung Daddyo wanted to show his boy how to get the southerners spun up.
-
I always have jokes, but in a serious vein does anyone see any scenario where we are not militarily involved on that stupid peninsula? Those kooks have held on too, tight, too long. Even if they said to their people hey, we were wrong, *poof here's some Jeffersonian democracy for you, oh, BTW there's this thing called the internet, it was part of the 20th century package you didn't get. Even then there would be massive upheaval, what little infrastructure they had would be destroyed in a civil war and there we'd be cleaning up the mess.
But batcrap crazy dictatorships don't fade away quietly so we can expect worse. Probably acting sooner is better than later, another winter of innocent people starving, another winter closer to nuclear weapons that actually work.
The Norks are China's proxy. China wants us out of the region so they can have Taiwan and a unified penisula.
We
owe
shchloads
of
money
to
China.
I mean, unfathomable amounts.
I think that if we make any committed effort to prevent the unification when it comes, we're going to be quite sorry.
-
Popular Mechanics this month had a good story about how the PRC could invade Taiwan and take out an American carrier battle group in the process. It really made me think about the survivability of a carrier in a saturation missile attack.
-
Academic. When carriers go down, everything will be a target.
-
Academic. When carriers go down, everything will be a target.
if you are referring to north korean targets how do you think that can be done?
-
I was talking about China, Taiwan, and us. Okay, they can sink our carriers, destroy a full battle group. But they and we know full well what that would mean.
-
Academic. When carriers go down, everything will be a target.
Yeah, and what do you think is going to do the targeting if carriers can be sunk?
If they can do it repeatedly, they can devastate America's ability to target anything, anywhere. Of course they can't do it repeatedly.
-
Yeah, and what do you think is going to do the targeting if carriers can be sunk?
If they can do it repeatedly, they can devastate America's ability to target anything, anywhere. Of course they can't do it repeatedly.
I don't think you understand.
Of course they can do it repeatedly. Anybody who thinks that a war with China will not involve multiple aircraft carriers being lost is being... optimistics.
US Battleships were 'repeatedly' sunk in WW2 also. Remember who won that one?
-
I don't think you understand.
Of course they can do it repeatedly. Anybody who thinks that a war with China will not involve multiple aircraft carriers being lost is being... optimistics.
US Battleships were 'repeatedly' sunk in WW2 also. Remember who won that one?
No aircraft carrier has ever been sunk - and they were central to the victory in WW2. Losing multiple carriers would put an enormous dent in America's capacity to make war.
-
No aircraft carrier has ever been sunk - and they were central to the victory in WW2. Losing multiple carriers would put an enormous dent in America's capacity to make war.
Several aircraft carriers have been sunk in WW2.
The Yorktown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Yorktown_%28CV-5%29), Bismarck Sea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bismarck_Sea_%28CVE-95%29), Hornet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Hornet_%28CV-8%29), and Wasp[/yrl] are but a few. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wasp_%28CV-7%29)
-
If they can do it repeatedly, they can devastate America's ability to target anything, anywhere. Of course they can't do it repeatedly.
Not after an ICBM attack, they can't....
-
Fact:
If the Chinese sank 60% of America's aircraft carriers [which is impossible], the remaining aircraft carriers in America's possession [not counting mothballed and reserve ships], would, on their own, not counting escorts, have more tonnage than the entire Chinese Navy. All of it. All. Said carriers would also have more aircraft on board than the Chinese Navy has at its disposal.
-
Okay, they can sink our carriers, destroy a full battle group. But they and we know full well what that would mean.
Obama would send every ship and plane we have, loaded down with every sort of gift they could want.
He might include a card with a stern warning.
-
China is not interested in starting a war with us. Remember all that money we owe them? If they start a war with us their chances of collecting that debt drop to zero. The only way they start a war is if they are bent on some nationalist fantasy of global domination like Nazi Germany and Japan had. For right now, at least, they seem much more interested in getting rich.
This North Korea stuff is just the result of the Krazy Kims, in my opinion. China can't denounce it too aggressively as North Korea is at least a nominal ally. But they really don't want war with the U.S.
-
At the risk of repeating myself from the redundant round-table thread... you all have it.
Two things:
1. They had just gotten caught with a new uranium enrichment program. EVERY TIME they feel the need to strengthen their position in talks/negotiations, they have an "incident" or blow something up, launch a rocket. They do this like clockwork. The ROK/U.S. just ought to offer the DRPK an old ship to blow up every time it happens instead, it's so predictable.
2. Jong Jr. or whatever his name is starting to be publicly groomed for succession. Maintaining the state of external crisis keeps things more secure internally against a coup etc.
I think that's really all there is to it.
Of course, the risk is always that even if the Nork's don't really "mean it", shooting at crap... it could blow up into something bigger oh so easily. And possibly not understanding a free democratic/capitalist nation, they may one day miscalculate when the ROK will just get tired of it and decide to end it once and for all.
-
We all know that the NK is financially bust. They can't feed their people.
Anyone know how much war making they can actually engage in?
Obviously, I agree that they are just sabre rattling. Coo Coo for coco puffs commies and all that.
But I'm wondering, if it were to escalate....without direct help from China, how much war could the Norks make?
War requires fuel and food. Lots of it.
-
It does not require much food or fuel to nuke South Korea or Japan.
Am I the only one who thinks carriers are overrated? Missile cruisers are where it's at. I'm no military expert and I'm probably wrong, but what I'd like to see is about half as many carriers, with mostly drones and F35s, and more use of smaller battle groups sans carriers.
What kinds of missions absolutely require planes vs guided (cruise) missiles, anyway?
-
It does not require much food or fuel to nuke South Korea or Japan.
Am I the only one who thinks carriers are overrated? Missile cruisers are where it's at. I'm no military expert and I'm probably wrong, but what I'd like to see is about half as many carriers, with mostly drones and F35s, and more use of smaller battle groups sans carriers.
What kinds of missions absolutely require planes vs guided (cruise) missiles, anyway?
Most drones don't have the capacity of the average carrier fighter or attack aircraft. I just don't think we're there yet.
-
For the cases where we really need manned planes in the air, aren't F35s pretty much designed to be a "good enough" option for most purposes? If F35s can't handle something, do current carriers carry aircraft that are better suited, or would we send in cruise missiles, B2s, and F22s at that point anyway?
More directly: what will we be able to do with 8-9 active carriers with mostly F35s that we couldn't do with 5? Other than a conventional war with Russia or half a dozen smaller wars (in which case in my non-military opinion we should be more selective or get out faster in other wars, rather than letting those sorts of small wars pile up)?
-
For the cases where we really need manned planes in the air, aren't F35s pretty much designed to be a "good enough" option for most purposes? If F35s can't handle something, do current carriers carry aircraft that are better suited, or would we send in cruise missiles, B2s, and F22s at that point anyway?
Combat sustainability is why the carriers are there. A survivable airfield with weapons, fuel, food and parts. One that we don't need permission to establish somewhere. Flying an F22 or B2 12-24 hours one way to attack something is not too practical for very long.
-
It does not require much food or fuel to nuke South Korea or Japan.
Am I the only one who thinks carriers are overrated? Missile cruisers are where it's at. I'm no military expert and I'm probably wrong, but what I'd like to see is about half as many carriers, with mostly drones and F35s, and more use of smaller battle groups sans carriers.
The place where an aircraft carrier has an advantage over a missile cruiser is this:
Sight.
Carrier aircraft, patrolling at a decent range from the ship, can extend your reaction and RADAR range by hundreds of kilometers (horizon distance kicks in). A carrier can strike out to 800, 900 kilometers against ships, and far more against fixed ground installations.
-
Carriers and carrier task forces probably do not figure as much in current and future global warfare, except as mop-up assurance the "the other guys" are well and truely dead.
Carriers are wonderful for carrying out disaster relief and other showings of the colors. Their accompanying task force vessels enhance that capability.
Carriers on current and near-term future deployments also serve exceptionally well in keeping braggart Navy and Marine Corps aviators out of bars. ;/ :angel: =D
IMHO the Norks are not going to invade or otherwise try to totally blow up ROK, Japan or any other place. They appear to be so close to internal collapse that saber-rattling to try to extort food, energy and capital is moreso a death rattle. Further, IMHO, the Chinese are starting to act like the Soviets did towards Cuba - cutting aid and financial support as well as political championship. While China may have the natural resources and manpower, I do not see them being able to convert their ligt manufacturing and plastics industry into the heavy industry needed to support a major East Pacific war, let alone a global war.
I'm not sure but the odds seem to be that the Russians, now that they have lost their sattelites, both do not have the industrial capacity or the desire to convert from peacetime capitalistic industry to wartime industry.
The Norks are much like the Iranians, except there is no Israel nearby to nuke them into a glass-covered desert.
I'm not thinking that the current administration would ever consider this, but some future administration is going to finally decide if we are going to continue being the international Bruce Lee who beats up every bully, but does not actually kill them, or if we are going to go full Chuck Norris and rip their heads off. Either that or join the EU as a junior partner. [popcorn]
stay safe.