Jump to content


Photo

Bestest Korea Icbm Test Launch


  • Please log in to reply
1716 replies to this topic

#1701 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,834 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 10 January 2018 - 0925 AM

deleted

Edited by Josh, 10 January 2018 - 0926 AM.

  • 0

#1702 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 10 January 2018 - 1006 AM

 

 

 With a handful of nukes they cannot really start an decisive attack. They can only induce their own suicide. It is a bargaining tool for bestest Korea. They threaten and get negotiations going.

 

I do not think they are interested in “decisive attack”  -IMHO NK is about survival in unfavorable conditions. “handful of nukes” is the same what USSR got in early-mid 1950th, so I think they will follow the same route with focus on internal development.

 

 

The problem is, they survived in unfavorable conditions for 50 years, before they even embarked on a nuclear project. The myth of an American first strike is just that, a myth. The North Koreans already had the Americans by the balls by keeping Seoul within artillery range.


  • 0

#1703 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,952 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 10 January 2018 - 1106 AM

 

 

 

 

The problem is, they survived in unfavorable conditions for 50 years, before they even embarked on a nuclear project. The myth of an American first strike is just that, a myth. The North Koreans already had the Americans by the balls by keeping  Seoul within artillery range.

 

For most part of this 50 years they were backed by World #2 superpower of that time USSR and faced by more or less reasonable USA. Now they are still not properly backed by new World #2 superpower China short of political status of USSR (as China officially considered by us not as equal partner, but just “revisionist power” alongside shadow of USSR  Russia) and faced by increasingly mad USA with growing custom of regime changes and “humanitarian bombings”.

  Seoul is not US city.


  • 0

#1704 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted 10 January 2018 - 1124 AM

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is, they survived in unfavorable conditions for 50 years, before they even embarked on a nuclear project. The myth of an American first strike is just that, a myth. The North Koreans already had the Americans by the balls by keeping  Seoul within artillery range.

 

For most part of this 50 years they were backed by World #2 superpower of that time USSR and faced by more or less reasonable USA. Now they are still not properly backed by new World #2 superpower China short of political status of USSR (as China officially considered by us not as equal partner, but just “revisionist power” alongside shadow of USSR  Russia) and faced by increasingly mad USA with growing custom of regime changes and “humanitarian bombings”.

  Seoul is not US city.

 

 

Yes, but they are still backed by a superpower. Perhaps less than that superpower is offering to back them because they are so determined to be independent. If survival was just the only intent, they could invite the Chinese in to setup bases just like the South Koreans have. That they have not speaks volumes.

 

The 'We are scared of the US' is absurd. They shoot down US aircraft, butcher their soldiers on the border, steal their ships and they are STILL scared of the US?

 

If they are scared of anything, its the rickitiness of their own regime. Somehow I dont think the US is responsible for the problems of the Nork regime, other than not being strong enough to hold China on the Yalu in 1951.

 

Seoul is full of Americans. Did you know when the world trade center fell in 2001, that it was the highest death toll of British civilians in terrorism? This is what its like with a globalized world now. If London was destroyed, similarly half of the Russian Oligarchy would go with it. :)


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 10 January 2018 - 1132 AM.

  • 0

#1705 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,952 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 10 January 2018 - 1137 AM

 

 

 

Yes, but they are still backed by a superpower. Perhaps less than that superpower is offering to back them because they are so determined to be independent. If survival was just the only intent, they could invite the Chinese in to setup bases just like the South Koreans have. That they have not speaks volumes.

 

The 'We are scared of the US' is absurd. They shoot down US aircraft, butcher their soldiers on the border, steal their ships and they are STILL scared of the US?

 

If they are scared of anything, its the rickitiness of their own regime. Somehow I dont think the US is responsible for the problems of the Nork regime, other than not being strong enough to hold China on the Yalu in 1951.

 

Seoul is full of Americans. Did you know when the world trade center fell in 2001, that it was the highest death toll of British civilians in terrorism? This is what its like with a globalized world now. If London was destroyed, similarly half of the Russian Oligarchy would go with it. :)

 

I am not sure China is ready to throw in its newly gained weight in this manner (and I am also not sure NKoreans are ready to serve as bargaining item for rising superpower with lots of different interests around the globe, to be traded one day for something like official recognition of artificial islands chain or something else). Aggressive behavior is quite reasonable survival strategy (see how Israel is kicking its Arab neighbors when feeling threatened from their territory, not appeasing them)


  • 0

#1706 Jeff

Jeff

    Drum beating laughing boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,145 posts

Posted 10 January 2018 - 2043 PM

 

If it wasn't already completely obvious, I was speaking about YOUR anti-Ukrainian propaganda. There are several topics already overcome by it, let's not add more.

 

In what way providing link to official website of international, Kiev-based, anti-Russian organization, and headline quote from this website describing their recent North Korea\US-related action (note: without single word of my own)  is "YOUR anti-Ukrainian propaganda"?

 

Because you drag the Russia/Ukraine feud into everything. Give it a rest in topics that have nothing to do with it.


  • 0

#1707 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,952 posts
  • Location:Moscow, Russia
  • Interests:Tank recovery

Posted 11 January 2018 - 0426 AM

 

 

If it wasn't already completely obvious, I was speaking about YOUR anti-Ukrainian propaganda. There are several topics already overcome by it, let's not add more.

 

In what way providing link to official website of international, Kiev-based, anti-Russian organization, and headline quote from this website describing their recent North Korea\US-related action (note: without single word of my own)  is "YOUR anti-Ukrainian propaganda"?

 

Because you drag the Russia/Ukraine feud into everything. Give it a rest in topics that have nothing to do with it.

 

This particular action of Femen got nothing to do with “Russia/Ukraine feud”.


  • 0

#1708 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 958 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 1559 PM

Oops.

 

http://www.bbc.com/n...canada-42677604

 


An incoming missile alert plunged residents of Hawaii into panic on Saturday morning before it was declared to be false.

Mobile phone users received a message saying: "Ballistic missile threat inbound to Hawaii. Seek immediate shelter. This is not a drill."

State Governor David Ige apo


  • 0

#1709 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 13 January 2018 - 2354 PM

JMSDF has sent ships to the Yellow Sea since December upon request by the US to as far as the Northern Limit Line to observe suspicious vessels that may be violating the sanctions.

Spoiler

https://asia.nikkei....muggling-at-sea


  • 0

#1710 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,898 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 16 January 2018 - 0008 AM

Three B-2s deploy to Guam.
https://www.washingt...m=.1b4a32795416
  • 0

#1711 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 16 January 2018 - 0441 AM

And a couple of B-52s, too:

http://www.thedrive....orward-deployed

 

So the US has now deployed all three types of strategic bombers to Guam.


  • 0

#1712 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 16 January 2018 - 1046 AM

Today, another flight of B-52s is scheduled for Guam:

 

https://twitter.com/...289192422834177


  • 0

#1713 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,834 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted Today, 12:23 PM

So sounds like a six plane B-52 detachment, plus the local six plane B-1 detachment, plus three B-2s. That's kinda of a lot of ordnance carrying capability on hand, and a lot of variety of ordnance brought to the table. Everyone of those aircraft is capable of 20-30 tons of ordnance in one configuration or another.

Isn't such a deployment a little unusual outside an announced exercise?
  • 0

#1714 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Welcome to the new world disorder

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,952 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking at Elephants from the wrong end

Posted Today, 12:59 PM

Lots of B52s on the move today. Just had at least one go into RAF Fairford today, or so im told.


  • 0

#1715 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted Today, 04:11 PM

Isn't such a deployment a little unusual outside an announced exercise?

 

Apparently, the B-52s will eventually replace the B-1s for the continuous bomber presence mission on Guam. The B-1s are supposed to shift back to Al Udeid to cover the Middle East, where they will replace the B-52s that have been deployed there during the last months.

 

I'd imagine they will keep all three types at Guam during the Olympics as a signal to North Korea not to try anything stupid.


  • 0

#1716 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,834 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted Today, 05:22 PM

They only just replaced the B-52s in Guam with B-1s at the beginning of the year. I had thought the change was permanent, but perhaps there was just a B-52 gap...


EDIT: B-2s are still interesting.

Edited by Josh, Today, 05:22 PM.

  • 0

#1717 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 734 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted Today, 05:47 PM

Here's some further information about the deployment:

https://theaviationi...-already-there/


  • 0




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users