Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 18th, 2017, 10:39 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 9,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The THAAD installation is expected to become operational this summer.

From the link:
However, the US must pay the price for the THAAD deployment. The THAAD system is key for the US' "rebalance to Asia" strategy and its global anti-missile system so as to contain Russia and China's military capabilities, and secure its dominance in intercontinental ballistic missile deployment. China should take countermeasures to upset such plans.
Anti-missile systems at best would stop a rogue missile or missiles that were or weren't deliberately launched. As such, the THAAD system has no effect on the military capabilities of China or Russia. And the fact that North Korea wasn't mentioned further plunges this article into the realm of bullshit.

NK is useful to China much in the same way as Ukraine is useful to Russia. It's a buffer. It's a pain in the ass for certain competitor countries.

Even so, Chinese patience and forgiveness isn't infinite. It's my opinion that China would not come to NK's rescue, but I might be wrong. We preemptively striking NK would be a very significant escalation. A Chinese response of flooding NK with troops would be a matching escalation. All this is going on very possibly with the North Koreans attacking South Korea, specifically, Seoul.

And then what? It's too bad that the Chinese are taking an intractable position on the THAAD installation, because of all possible countermeasures it will provide a defense to blunt or contain a North Korean missile attack on Seoul. However, the North Koreans have been testing missiles with more vertical lift-offs and descents, specifically to thwart anti-missile systems with the resulting higher speed descents.

It's a bloody mess.
What kind of guidance does NK's missiles have? The Scud used by Saddam was basically a V-2 with gyroscopic inertial guidance but only had a range of 200 miles or so and inaccurate. NK is eons away from a MIRV ICBM. NK can raze Seoul SK to the ground.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old March 18th, 2017, 11:44 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 52,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
What kind of guidance does NK's missiles have? The Scud used by Saddam was basically a V-2 with gyroscopic inertial guidance but only had a range of 200 miles or so and inaccurate. NK is eons away from a MIRV ICBM. NK can raze Seoul SK to the ground.
The Rodong missile is based on the Scud-B but about twice as large. It's accuracy is in the 1-2 km. range, 0.6 to 1.2 miles.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
imaginethat is offline  
Old March 18th, 2017, 12:00 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 9,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by imaginethat View Post
The Rodong missile is based on the Scud-B but about twice as large. It's accuracy is in the 1-2 km. range, 0.6 to 1.2 miles.
Even my lowly and pitiful conventional warhead Tartar missile had semi-passive radar guidance and the range was 20 miles. Pull the pickle and the bird is traveling at 2000 mph in 4 seconds after boost and still accelerating up to 2200 mph during sustainer, DTRM (dual thrust rocket motor) but only designed for an incoming target. The ship' radar beam is reflected off the enemy jet fighter that gives The Bird the guidance with the help of the A and B head in the missile nose cone. Expanding Rod Warhead with 66 pounds of TNT that slices like a hot knife through butter.

edit: proportional navigation

Last edited by Twisted Sister; March 18th, 2017 at 12:05 PM.
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old March 18th, 2017, 02:48 PM   #14
Banned
 
excalibur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: The Milky Way
Posts: 24,581
Quote:
Originally Posted by right to left View Post
If I haven't lost track, the deranged right are pacifists for some reason when it comes to provoking war with Russia, but are gung-ho on war with China! This comes as expected, since fascists do not apply any higher decision-making values than gaining more power and increasing domination of others.

Who on this board is "gung-ho" for war with China?

But I am not wiling to allow a crazed and twisted regime in North Korea the opportunity to hit an American city with a nuke.

Preferably the ChiComms will realize that this is as much their problem as anyone elses. It is their friends in Pyongyang. But China, I believe, fears a united and democratic Korea on their border.

And it is neocons, and folks like IT (suddenly an expert on all things Russia - who no doubt was anti-Reagan in Reagan's dealings with Moscow in the 1980's,) who are agitating for a showdown with Russia. As we have reinvigorated the Russian - ChiComm axis with incompetent policy in dealing with Russia.


Last edited by excalibur; March 18th, 2017 at 02:52 PM.
excalibur is offline  
Old March 19th, 2017, 01:15 PM   #15
forgot my old user name
 
right to left's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Canada
Posts: 962
Quote:
Originally Posted by excalibur View Post
Who on this board is "gung-ho" for war with China?

But I am not wiling to allow a crazed and twisted regime in North Korea the opportunity to hit an American city with a nuke.

Preferably the ChiComms will realize that this is as much their problem as anyone elses. It is their friends in Pyongyang. But China, I believe, fears a united and democratic Korea on their border.

And it is neocons, and folks like IT (suddenly an expert on all things Russia - who no doubt was anti-Reagan in Reagan's dealings with Moscow in the 1980's,) who are agitating for a showdown with Russia. As we have reinvigorated the Russian - ChiComm axis with incompetent policy in dealing with Russia.

Trump and Trump fans are exact replicas of the thoughtless idiots and their leaders at the turn of the 20th century...just prior to the outbreak of the first world war. They want to beat their chests, showing how brave they are and goading their enemies with inflammatory rhetoric...what could go wrong?

I recall prior to the Election, Trump was calling Obama 'weak' on dealing with China and North Korea...not going far enough with his sanctions rhetoric, and demanding ultimatums be given to both about North Korea's nukes and China's confrontations in the South China Sea....and the fanclub was right there behind him! As in the example of WWI, major wars are sometimes launched out of sheer stupidity and lack of understanding of opposing sides, their needs and desires, or how they see the world situation...Trumpism distilled down to the fundamentals.

It's not just the foaming-at-the-mouth right that is too stupid today to ask some obvious questions that have last been raised when Billy Clinton occupied the White House, like "what does North Korea want?" Has anyone actually asked them? There are a scattered, few voices in the wilderness who have noticed that North Korea has a history...that has largely been formed by being the subject of mass destruction of the Korean War with thousands killed. The legalease of this war informs us that it never actually ended, but has been allowed to continue on unsettled by any treaties. Wouldn't that be a first step if you wanted to avoid nuclear annihilation? It sure as hell would be on my mind if I lived in South Korea!

I was able to find this on a Quora blog:
Actually, they don't want to attack the U.S. Despite all the bluster and rhetoric, the leadership knows that any successful attack is likely to lead to annihilation. What North Korea wants is the following:
- a bi-lateral peace treaty with the U.S.
- recognition that it is a nuclear power
- food
- diplomatic recognition
- a guarantee that the U.S. will not attack.

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-North...merica?share=1

If taking a shot at making peace with North Korea is a risk, what the hell would declaring war lead to? For that, I recently found this opinion piece on The Hill, which actually presents to the American public what the full consequences of a war would lead to:
What would a Trump-Tillerson war with North Korea really look like? | TheHill

What would a Trump-Tillerson war with North Korea really look like? | TheHill
If you are an ally of the U.S., especially those in the region, you might want begin taking inventory of your military capability. The question remains — is the military option really on the table? Would South Korea and others in the region actually green light a military operation, which could cause immediate casualties and destruction the world hasn’t seen since WWII? What are the parameters of a successful military operation?

First, a war with North Korea would take extensive planning, coordinating, rehearsing and preposition of military assets. A first strike would have to be a complete surprise to be successful — mainly because the Korean leader has watched twice in the past 20 years the U.S. build up to go to war, then pull the trigger both times.


In order to be successful, any military action against North Korea would have to amount to the largest full scale attack that world hasn’t seen since D-Day. It would have to be updated to reflect current capability, but would have to come from all sides — air, land, sea, and a new domain, cyber.

The attack would likely start with a cyber attack, looking to shut down all communications and utilities on the scale the world hasn’t never seen. On the traditional military side, to be effective the initial assault would have to destroy any and all nuclear first strike capability of the North Koreans. We would have to literally blanket the sky for hours with air strikes on their nuclear facilities, as well as other military targets.

We would have to hunt down their mobile launchers, which can be hidden in their mountainous regions — then be ready to shoot down a missile if they get one off. We would have to ferociously strike military targets along the border, where artillery tubes in range could reign down conventional munitions to the millions of residents of Seoul. The attack would not focus on just military targets — there would be civilian casualties in the hundreds of thousands as well.

In what would be a nothing-to-lose proposition, North Korea could first strike the South and inflict incredible damage with their nuclear arsenal — and they have even stated they would do this. In today’s interconnected world, the likelihood of any surprise military action is remote.


U.S. and South Korean ground troops would be on full alert, and likely on the defense to the north to thwart a potential ground attack from the Korean People’s Army (KPA). There would be a focus to defend attacks from tunnels prepared by the KPA for this very likelihood. The U.S. would have to be prepared to send troops to South Korea at the onset of hostilities — at least 50,000 troops to reinforce the defense and potentially go on the offensive.

Unfortunately, the war won’t go as planned for many reasons — if the North is successful in launching a nuclear weapon that destroys part of Seoul, that would change the calculus of our counter response. I don’t see the U.S. side using nuclear weapons in the initial barrage, but would surely retain the option to use them in response.

Military planners need to figure out what is the true capability of the North Korean military, and in particular their first strike capability, and be right about it. We know they have a nuclear weapon, but can they deliver it accurately and in a manner that doesn’t kill its own people? Until the world is ready to accept casualties on the level of what was seen in Europe and Asia in the Second World War, the military option is really not on the table.

Army Major Mike Lyons (Ret.) is a Senior Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and is a military analyst for CBS News.


As noted, the continued non-stop wargaming by the US and allies with North Korea that involve larger and larger forces each year could trigger a North Korean attack even if the US is not intending invasion or bombing and such. So, I think Mike Lyons is trying to...as tactfully as possible say: 'look you clowns, war is not a fucking game! Especially if you're talking about attacking and invading a country that has at least a few nuclear bombs at its disposal!
Thanks from imaginethat
right to left is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
end, korea, policy, strategic patience, tillerson, warns



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yankee Go Home: North Korea Praises "Wise Politician" Donald Trump imaginethat Politicians 25 June 2nd, 2016 09:50 AM
Gun Sales Surge In Switzerland - Army Chief Warns "Arm Yourselves" excalibur Current Events 17 January 2nd, 2016 11:34 AM
"James & Seth Go To North Korea" Medicine Man Current Events 0 June 25th, 2014 06:22 AM
New "Underground Railroad" Outta North Korea!!! Medicine Man Current Events 0 December 28th, 2013 08:45 AM
Treasury secretary warns Congress: "Nothing good" will come of failure to raise debt intangible child Current Events 6 October 7th, 2013 12:30 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.