 |
| |
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Q Cubed
panag, bombers of this type are often sent in only after total air superiorty has been acheived.
meaning, a b52 could be taken down by an nkorean fighter, if the amis were stupid enough to send them in without decimating the nkorean air force.
the amis are not, thus, the b52s will be unopposed should the bomb nkorea.
even so, i find the prospect of any bombing of nkorea highly disturbing. it's virtually tantamount to my suggesting that one could solve the entire middle east/israel problem by turning it into glass, whether the people there want it or not. |
hi ,
huh , want to share something that the us joint chiefs of staff dont know , ....?
B-52's have been doing bombing raids in vietnam , the firts gulf war and afganistan from day one without figther protection , .... the same goes for B1B's , ....
one of the tricks of these bombers is to bomb first strike places , in other words , places that could launch lets say fighters , ....
with what they have nowadays they can take almost anything they want with them , from anti shipping to nuke's , mines , depthbombs , guided rockets and bombs , dumb boms , fual air explosives , tomahawk's , drones , etc , .... anything thats in the inventory can be taken aboard , ......
one other thing about modern day bombings , ....
you dont need to be near the target to bomb it , ....
meaning , the fly at X and the bomb fall on Y 20 miles further away , .....
since north korea is completely known the can bomb what they want when they want if needed (!)
no-one likes war , not a single soldier who has ever seen war likes it , but if it has to be done , ............
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
My take on it is somewhat different.
NK had a sweet deal going. They got half a billion out of SK, plus aid, IIRC. They were getting a bunch of free oil and food from us. I think Japan was chipping in with food as well. Plus, though we were slow about it, we were helping them with 2 lightwater reactors for power generation.
Then the Bushies win the election and make noises about not approving of the Sunshine Policy and Clinton's approach to NK (aka appeasement). NK thinks its sweet deal is threatened and decides to go offensive, hoping to force Bush & Co. to cave and go the Clinton route of paying NK off. This seems to be working.
So in a way, the people accusing Bush of screwing this up are right. It's just that, IMO, the screwup was caving in the first place (under Clinton and then AGAIN recently by offering to restart food aid), not tossing cold water on that strategy.
So what we have here is the fruits of an inconsistent approach to foreign policy. Regardless of the fact that I think the decision to pay of NK to be nice was wrongheaded, it has been screwed up a lot more by the current administration trying to back out of that policy, and now caving back into it. *sigh*
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
My take on it is somewhat different.
NK had a sweet deal going. They got half a billion out of SK, plus aid, IIRC. They were getting a bunch of free oil and food from us. I think Japan was chipping in with food as well. Plus, though we were slow about it, we were helping them with 2 lightwater reactors for power generation.
Then the Bushies win the election and make noises about not approving of the Sunshine Policy and Clinton's approach to NK (aka appeasement). NK thinks its sweet deal is threatened and decides to go offensive, hoping to force Bush & Co. to cave and go the Clinton route of paying NK off. This seems to be working.
So in a way, the people accusing Bush of screwing this up are right. It's just that, IMO, the screwup was caving in the first place (under Clinton and then AGAIN recently by offering to restart food aid), not tossing cold water on that strategy.
So what we have here is the fruits of an inconsistent approach to foreign policy. Regardless of the fact that I think the decision to pay of NK to be nice was wrongheaded, it has been screwed up a lot more by the current administration trying to back out of that policy, and now caving back into it. *sigh*
-Arrian |
Arrian, nothing happened after the Axis of Evil speech. Things began to get out of hand when we discovered the NK's had a nuclear program they had agreed not to have in 1994.
Bush then cut off oil. Then the **** hit the fan.
So, the screw-up is, if there was one, was cutting off the oil. However, I do not agree that that was a screw-up. What we did is the only way we can ever hope to get NK to give up its nukes peacefully. They get the oil again if they give up the nukes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Seeker
|
 |
London Ontario
Jan 1970
time: 00:26
|
|
LOL, this morning's Joong-Ang Il Bo carried a feature article about the SK and US govmn'ts denying (rather unconvincingly)a leaked statement made by an official at an 'off the record' dinner/party whatever....
....to the effect that the US is coming around to the view of just accepting NK as a nuclear country, and instead concentrating on preventing them from exporting the weapons.
Thus, no need to pay them tribute, if keeping them nuke free is no longer a priority.
Off course, this all being stridently denied because it hurts the bargaining position, and makes all the Non-Nuclear Penininsula rhetoric look a lot like BS.
From my situation, I'm ambivalent:
-on the one hand, the Bush maniac won't make the Kim maniac kill me
-On the other hand, the Kim maniac might just be so irrational that he thinks he's now invincible and just keeps escalating his military provocations.....and the 'mood' in the South is rapidly losing patience for that.
-and, what we all hope for, everything just blows over and status quo prevails....
Like the great line in Lawrence of Arabia from the Diplomat and General:
"Surely we can't just do nothing?!"
"Why not, it's usually best."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
quote:
hi ,
huh , want to share something that the us joint chiefs of staff dont know , ....?
B-52's have been doing bombing raids in vietnam , the firts gulf war and afganistan from day one without figther protection , .... the same goes for B1B's , ....
one of the tricks of these bombers is to bomb first strike places , in other words , places that could launch lets say fighters , ....
with what they have nowadays they can take almost anything they want with them , from anti shipping to nuke's , mines , depthbombs , guided rockets and bombs , dumb boms , fual air explosives , tomahawk's , drones , etc , .... anything thats in the inventory can be taken aboard , ......
one other thing about modern day bombings , ....
you dont need to be near the target to bomb it , ....
meaning , the fly at X and the bomb fall on Y 20 miles further away , .....
since north korea is completely known the can bomb what they want when they want if needed (!)
no-one likes war , not a single soldier who has ever seen war likes it , but if it has to be done , ............
have a nice day |
panag:
•b52s in vietnam did, let's see, fvckall in helping the us in the long run. all the daisy cutters and all the ordinance that the b52s dropped over vietnam still resulted in a us defeat, why? the inability of the ground forces being able to effectively capitalize on anything that the air did. why were the b52s ultimately ineffective? a) because of the land. no matter how much ordnance was released, there's still far too much land there to effectively blanket. b) because of the terrain. jungle, like rugged, is rife with hiding places and pathways.
•also, b52s are not invuldernable, as this link and this link state. the second one says that surface-to-air missiles managed to take a b52 out.
•the b1b is a low-radar-profile bomber. not quite stealth, but almost there. does not have the massive payload capability that the b52s have.
•the b52s were undefended, for the most part, because air superiority had been obtained by the point they were deployed in vietnam; thus, they did not need fighter escorts. they were utilized in the gulf war, again, after air superiority had been obtained; most of the iraqi air fields were taken out at the beginning of the war, not by b52s, but by precision strikes. they didn't need a fighter escort in afghanistan, because afghanistan had no air force.
•even if one managed to take out all of the nkorean air force, by that time, seoul would be leveled.
•most of these smart bombs that you speak of? their smarts take up too much space, so a lot of those specialized warheads don't work with them.
•nkorea is not completely known. we a) do not know exactly where many of the artillery fortifications are. we b) do not know exactly where many of the prison camps are. we c) do not know where many war factories are.
for a first strike to be carried out, the full brunt of the us military might must be brought to bear on nkorea; the forces currently stationed there are insufficient to carry out what you propose. furthermore, you'd need much better intelligence than satellite imagery to determine where things are (one harkens back the the falklands war in the early 80s, when argentina fooled britain multiple times into thinking that argentina's airfields were destroyed simply by throwing dirt and creating "craters" above them).
and the instant hostile force attacks nkorea, all the artillery on the border will strike at seoul.
end result of a first strike? perhaps nkorea's naval and air bases would be dealt with. seoul would be shattered and in ruins.
i don't care how much technology you wish to throw into it, the simple fact of the peninsula and the geography is that any armed conflict there will be predominantly ground combat, and will still result in the decimation of seoul in the opening hours of war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ranskaldan
|
 |
Beijing ~ Singapore ~ Toronto ~ All hail to the new Rome
Sep 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
DanS:
Leaders become what they are so that they can be remembered - so that they can be immortal. Look at what Hitler tried to do - a glorious, 1000-year Reich that will forever revere him as Fuehrer. What did he have to gain from 950 out of 1000 years? Nothing. But this is the closest thing a man can come to immortality - to have your name in historian's books, all over their margins and footnotes, to have your name synonymous with power and might.
This is why leaders calculate - what they have to gain and what they have to lose. They try to maximize their own benefits, because the top is a dangerous place to be. That is why in our current situation, Kim Jong-Il will not fire his missiles at anybody.
But then, what happens when the story becomes set - when the situation turns so that his fall becomes a certainty? Gone will be the statues of Kim in Pyongyang and his poetry carved into the mountains. Gone will be his immortality. He will become, instead, one of the many tyrants who plagued the history of Korea, a dirty footnote in history books, an unworthy son who threw away his father's Empire.
His immortality will be gone. What is the only thing he can do to gain it back?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
Ned, DanS, all you other amis out there:
let's get one thing straight--i have no love for kim jong il. in fact, if we got rid of him, i'd be happy. hell, if one of you gave me a nice gun and managed to drop me off in nkorea, i'd take care of him myself.
that's not the issue here. what i've been saying is that any precision strike, any military activity, will invariably result in the destruction of a good portion of seoul and perhaps even of the rest of skorea.
which is why, naturally, i do not even want to consider it as an option, not really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
As to Vietnam, let's not forget that the B52 bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong were what forced the NV to finally accept peace.
After we were gone, NV broke the deal and attacked. Then the true face of the Democrat Party was revealed. They gloried in cutting SV off from further military aid. This was their proudest moment! Ask any Democrat of the '70s era. What did you achieve? They will say - forcing Nixon to resign, betraying Vietnam, gutting the CIA, and backstabbing the Shah and his successor democratic regime.
Of course, any citizen of SK would feel much more confident of his security with a Democrat in power rather than a moron, warmonger Republican in the tradition of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. After all, Democrats are good at appeasement of enemies and betrayal of allies.
Q-Cubed, Bush will not use B52s or launch a first strike until Iraq is finished - and then only if SK and Japan and perhaps China agree. But this will be a last resort only. And if we do strike, the first thing we do will be to drive the NK's North, out of artlillery range of Seoul. This would mean, of course, that we would have to have the bulk of our army deployed in Korea first.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:26
|
|
i wasn't referring exactly to you alone, and perhaps i misread all of your comments, but it seems to me that all of your responses towards me have been small nitpicky things, like:
quote:
Q-Cubed, the precision strike need only have one small objective - Kim himself. |
quote:
The US won't be bombing DPRK. Japan and RoK won't have any of that. |
i'm saying i know that. i'm just trying to convince panag that any sort of military venture will result in seoul afire. i have full confidence that although bush is fixated on one solution in iraq, that he and his advisors have enough sense not to try it in nkorea. hell, mom voted for him, he can't be all that bad (never mind the fact that i would've voted third-party, had i not been 8 months too young).
now, ned:
quote:
Of course, any citizen of SK would feel much more confident of his security with a Democrat in power rather than a moron, warmonger Republican in the tradition of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. After all, Democrats are good at appeasement of enemies and betrayal of allies. |
i highly doubt that. seeing as it was a Democratic president who betrayed skorea in the first place by not continuing the war and getting rid of the damn communists and by not even inviting skorea to the peace talks.
one should also note that skorea is a supporter of the us's decision in iraq.
quote:
And if we do strike, the first thing we do will be to drive the NK's North, out of artlillery range of Seoul. This would mean, of course, that we would have to have the bulk of our army deployed in Korea first. |
most of that artillery? probably in fixed emplacements. when the first bomb hits, i'd bet your ass that once the nkoreans got wind of it they'd start shelling. seoul is going to be ablaze, no matter what scenario is taken.
if skorea and the us invade, then naturally, no other skorean city will burn. but seoul will.
Last edited by Q Cubed on 07-03-2003 at 07:33
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-03-2003 02:44
|