North Korea
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=182077
Printed Date: 22 December 2024 at 10:58am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: North Korea
Posted By: oldsoldier
Subject: North Korea
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 11:38am
|
Well more and more it appears that the nutjob in charge of North Korea is determined to go out with a "bang" and a few mushroom clouds, as North Korea threatens a nuclear war on the Penisula. We, as well as UN allies are still technically "at war" with North Korea, since it only was an "armistace" signed in 1953. Should we pre-empt the ineviable nuclear release and strike from North Korea to "celebrate" Dear Leaders dream of domination of the Korean Peninsula before his passing, or wait and clean up the mess afterwords? Either we will be "wrong" depending on the media bias of the reporting, so as long as we are going to be "wrong" anyway, which do we choose?
The war drums are getting louder, nad North Korea continues to push buttons to guage the worlds response before it acts. Predict just a matter of time before some form of military confrontation, and the 23,000 US troops in Korea are only a "trip wire" if anything happens and it could again be a 1950 scenario before the world responds. And the USS John McCain had its towed sonar array delibertly struck by a trailing Chinese submarine. It is not like with the technology available in the more modern Chinese submarines the Comrade Captian Whoever did not know what he was doing and where the array was in relationship to the US ship. Looks like the next couple of weeks are going to be fun and interesting. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 11:46am
|
A friend of mine has been stationed in SK for the past couple months. Things are getting pretty tense and preparations are being made for the worst case scenario. Good times will not be had for a while in the region.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 1:46pm
|
Clearly, it's time to open a new war front.
------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 2:16pm
|
Give China like... a week.
------------- 
|
Posted By: rednekk98
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 3:27pm
|
If there's any nation that deserves to have some sense nuked into them, it's NK. China does not want to have a refugee problem, so they'd rather not let the country fail under sanction(and with these new sanctions, they may be backed into a corner seeing as how they can't sell weapons, which is their only export of any value. Kim Jung Il can't back down on nukes without completely losing face at home, and this stroke may have cost him whatever sane judgement he had in the first place. With the US in the financial straights we are, and can hardly see us being able to buy the suckers off. The first time China uses its political capital on reigning in NK, they've lost it. If they pressure them and they refuse, they lose face. I doubt China will do anything unless a shooting war is immenent. Either we tolerate a nuclear South East Asia (Japan would need to ammend their constitution and withdraw from the NPT, but could produce their own nukes rather quickly) , find some sort of political solution(less likely by the day), or wait until it escalates enough to warrent military action, then cream them fast, which would almost surley require a nuclear strike(or Rods From God on all of their nuclear sites and the biggest conventional bombing campaign since Viet Nam). Currently all of the options look bad. Hopefull they'll spend whatever money they have left on a nuke program in hopes of negotiating on their own terms, and it can be settled peacefully, and/or KJI will croak and leave a slightly more sane successor. With troops leaving Iraq, Al-Queda vacating Pakistan for Somalia amid rising local opposition, and things ramping up in Afghanistan, I think the chances are decent we could put more troops in the region relativly quickly. I doubt China would get involved, but the status-quo works in their favor. The only thing we can do is say we would no longer need bases on the Korean Penninsula if Korea were reunified after the North goes under. |
Posted By: TheDude
Date Posted: 14 June 2009 at 3:54pm
|
I have a few friends that went army, marines, and air force after high school, they're all going to Korea now, and they're supposedly on combat alert, or whatever they call it when the wall across from the fan is about to get smeared with pooh.
------------- "According to Sue Johanson, theres nothing that can increase your manhood, trust me I've already looked into it for myself." -Zata <keep the sigs friendly, please> |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 11:39am
|
Keeps getting better and better. Most of this kind of crap I rack up to saber rattling, but this guy is seriously off his rocker. I can see him nuking Japan just to prove his point.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_koreas_nuclear
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 12:00pm
|
Apparently China had the "dear leader" over for a little chat last week and told him to shut his whore mouth and stop playing with nukes.
Personally, I don't see the Obama administration opening up a new front however justified it is. A shooting war will have to start before we get involved. It's been the case with almost every democrat in office since the turn of the last century. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 12:10pm
Dis man, he speaks da' truf. If NK actually goes to war, I could see myself enlisting. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
tallen702 wrote:Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 12:29pm
Really? What branch of the service? ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 12:36pm
| I'd go airforce. :P |
Posted By: Elysium
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 12:58pm
|
If war breaks out. I will sign up with the Army or the Marine Corps. ------------- What we do in the dark, will come to light. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 1:22pm
I realize China has some pull with NK, but I just think he's a loose cannon. As OS said, he seems like someone that want's to go out with a bang and be immortalized, doesn't matter how.
|
Posted By: ammolord
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 1:45pm
as annoying as you are, i agree. my dad is USAF and i realy would join if i had to. ------------- PSN Tag: AmmoLord XBL: xXAmmoLordXx ~Minister of Tinkering With Things That Go "BOOM!"(AKA Minister of Munitions)~ |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 2:50pm
Man you guys have short memories... http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181911&KW=DPRK&PID=2601411#2601411 - link
I didn't say I didn't think he'd do it, just that even China is getting in on the act when some were saying that they wouldn't/couldn't. China can't control the DPRK and its leadership any more than we can. I just find it funny that OS started a thread on a subject saying the EXACT SAME THING that I said two weeks ago.... ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 3:34pm
|
All the nuclear powers with ICBM's should get together and agree to test their delivery systems on NK :)
KBK |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 3:38pm
Marines. I'm pretty sure I could score high enough on the entry test to just go straight to OCS afterwards, so I'd probably end up being an officer even if it happened in the next 3 years before I graduate. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 4:37pm
If you flunk out of OCS, the Corps sends you to Parris Island to learn basic. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 4:37pm
| Yeah, I don't see the US making the first move in anything military related right now. Not saying they would ignore a situation, but I don't see them headed out there to prevent one. Far too many people would cry about how GWB would have never wasted money on an iffy war. |
Posted By: Monk
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 5:05pm
I do not believe they are a direct threat to us yet. Plus, I'm sure by now we are getting good intel on what is going on there to make an informed decision. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 5:37pm
| I think we would be forced to participate if South Korea was attacked, or Japan for that matter. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 10:21pm
|
Oh, we'd be obligated with both countries actually. Treaties and constitutions and whatnot. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 10:21pm
In the unlikely event that this happens (considering I'm already 1/4 of the way through actual college classes, I pulled a top few percentile score on the SAT, and I know one of my ex-teammates who is borderline retarded and who barely finished high school qualified to go straight to OCS, and passed with flying colors), I'd just have to spend a few weeks showing that I'm in way better shape and smarter than most of the other stupid grunts around. Also, it would require us to go to war with NK, which is more unlikely than the above events multiplied by each other. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 10:44pm
You're going to be the victim of friendly fire one day. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 17 June 2009 at 10:48pm
That's how most Butter balls LT are untill some Sargent Major or a Gunnie straightens their arse up. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:28am
or his own squad mates will show him the error of his ways.....I see a meeting between you and the M67 real quick in the FMF with that attitude. Try looking up Lt. Hawkins on Tarawa or Chesty Puller for an example of a Marine Officer. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:38am
|
http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm - http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm a view into N Korea. -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:47am
|
my question is this: does north korea have any allies? if so, do they even pose a threat to us if NK decides to strike? my thinking is if they have no allies, just bomb the poop out of their missile launch facilities. my buddy is doing CLTC (basically an internship through ROTC) over in South Korea in the next few weeks, so it should be interesting. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:15am
If this was 10-20 years ago, I'd have said that China would have backed the DPRK with military might and manpower much like they did during the Korean War. Russia would most certainly supply military materiel for a price, but no manpower. Nowadays, China is too tightly tied to the US economy (especially right now in the recession) to risk war with us. If they did fight, we'd declare that their ownership of our debt was invalid and that would pretty much sink them economically right now. Furthermore, the Chinese military has no deep water or even littoral navy to speak of. They have some landing craft and quite a few PT style boats, but not much else in the way of preventing allied landings. Furthermore, while their air force has been improving, they have no way to match the capabilities of our air-superiority fighters and their SAM capabilities (both China and the DPRK) are essentially useless against the JSF-35 and F22 airframes. So, with both air and sea bottled up, the Chinese would only have one way of arriving at the battle, across the Yalu river and down the peninsula, a move which would not only require a lot of staging time, but would force them into a bottleneck where our modern fighter-bombers and mechanized artillery would be able to blast them to pieces. That is, of course, assuming that the US lead coalition forces punch through the DMZ and route the DPRK's forces rapidly like they did after the Inchon landings last time. So, short answer, yes the DPRK has allies. Long answer, none that are willing to die for them. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:33am
|
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090618/AS.Koreas.Nuclear/ - http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090618/AS.Koreas.Nuclear/ ------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:41am
Seriously though, there's a huge difference between knowing you're smarter and stronger than most of the people around who aren't professional athletes or MIT students, and making bad command decisions. I've always been at the top of everything I've done, whether it's crew, school, or pretty much anything I remember. And they wouldn't have ended up being grunts if they were smarter. That's the whole point of OCS. That doesn't mean they can't be an effective team member. It just means that they don't have command over anyone, which is reasonable enough when you consider that most 20 year old privates or LCpl's have probably never had to take any serious responsibility in their life. Hell, half the point of OCS is to teach that, since most of the people coming out of it are only maybe a few years older on average.
The Chinese have been assembling a carrier task force around their very first carrier (originally the USSR's Varyag) for five years, and the only thing it would take to make it operational at this point is some more Su-33's from Russia, for which it has already signed a contract. If they decided to drop that into the melting pot against our forces, it would probably become difficult to even supply our forces in the ROK. Granted, it seems highly unlikely that they would take that step.
That's simply not true. While 5th-generation aircraft have significant advantages over both 4th-generation aircraft, both of those airframes have a larger radar cross section and infrared signature than the F-117, which has been shot down, either by a variable-range radar, or an optically guided missile (there's some disagreement between experts and the commander of the unit that shot it down, the likelier one is the latter method). While they would probably fare better than 4th-generation fighters, they are far from invulnerable, either from DPRK fighters or air defenses.
The Chinese airforce is large enough, and has more than enough 4th and 4.5th -- not to mention, is in the process of acquiring 5th -- generation aircraft to represent a serious problem if they decided to work with the DPRK. They also have a lot shorter distance to move their troops than we do, as well as an absolutely overwhelmingly sized army. Essentially, we cannot afford to have China on the other side of the wall. If they're neutral or on our side, I'd say that the DPRK is screwed beyond belief. But a war with China is not something we could win, or something that would be worth anyone's time. I'm not saying it's likely, and I agree that there are a myriad of political and economic reasons for them not to, but they have one of, if not the most powerful military in the world beside our own, and even that might be a toss-up. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 11:26am
|
Again, Read up on Lt Hawkins, Pariel. Attitude is everything, crappy and arrogant ones get people hurt and killed. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 11:53am
| tallen- hell of a post, good stuff. one downside though....last i heard the F22 was scrapped from mass production due to the F35 coming into the picture with better avionics and what not...sort of further killed my dreams of being an F22 pilot. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 12:08pm
|
They haven't been fully scrapped, just scaled back from what I understand. the F35 is going to be pushed to the forefront which, in all reality, is a good thing as it is essentially a better all around airframe.
Pariel, Carriers aren't worth crap without a supporting force which China still doesn't have. Also, it's far from operational. The DoD places the operational date for their first carrier to be somewhere around 2015. Upon completion and trials, the PLA is then looking to move forward with production of multiple carriers and support vessels by 2020. Furthermore, they have only older generation diesel-electric subs which cannot offer enough protection to a carrier group to make it a tough target for our missile boats. The PLA's air force indeed does have some 4th and 4.5th gen fighters, but the vast majority of their airframes are still 3rd generation or older. Less than 300 operational 4th gen airframes are in their hands right now. The most prevalent of their airframes are the Su-15 and MiG-21 variants which we faced in both Iraq wars and subsequently decimated. The Chinese still rely heavily on their manpower, a strategy leftover from the old soviet doctrine. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: ham8legs
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 12:15pm
|
i think we should bomb them all and get it over with -------------  |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 12:19pm
yea cuz that would turn out great -------------
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 12:23pm
|
Just the act of pointing the missile and declaring it is being fired towards Hawaii should have alarm bells ringing somewhere. I would shoot it down as it clears the platform or whenever over N Korea to show the N Korean people what is in store for them if this lunitic continues his ways. In 1976 when the Panmunjan tree incident happened, and N Korea was not going to relent, a few B-52's up high and a telephone call to Dear Leader to look up, as the 52's were told to cut contrails, that was all that was needed. The tree came down, the apologies were made and N Korea backed off its aggressive stance for awhile. There is going to be a war, when and where it starts, and how many innocent civilians get killed on N Korea's initial action is going to be on someones responsibility plate. The UN technically is still at war with N Korea, only an armistace signed in 1953, let them know it is N Korea vs the World, and if he still wants to play war for his legacy, it will be short and quick, if we are allowed to do it rights.
Was on the DMZ in 76-77, not a place I would like to fight a ground war, read up on the hill fights of 52-52 and see what the problems were and still are. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 12:27pm
The F-35 uses a lot of technology from the F-22, which is why it brought costs down to buy it. There are only a few more than a hundred F-22s being bought, but the F-35 has the advantage of being a multi-role fighter, whereas the F-22 is an air superiority fighter.
I'm gonna go ahead and bet you can't name a book about the US military I haven't read, so quoting examples to me means absolutely nothing. Lt. Hawkins is one of the rare examples of battlefield commissions, and the US military was a far different apparatus during WWII than it is now, so he's not even a particularly good example. Honestly, I think I could be a good officer. I don't think that's what I want to do with my life, but I have leadership skills, a relatively large amount of knowledge, strength, and intelligence, which covers the majority of the skills I think would be necessary. Frankly, if you don't think so, that's fine. It means nothing to me. Given the opportunity, I'm more than willing to prove myself. I hope and doubt that opportunity will arise.
I'll direct you to another forum I frequent: http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-military-technology/61676-chinese-aircraft-carrier.html - here . It should be ready for launch in early 2010 or so, from what I've read, not 2015. If you'd like to point me to the DoD's analysis, I'll gladly look at it, but I didn't find anything on it from them. As you'll notice, they have almost completed work on the carrier, they have a full battle group to deploy with it, and the only thing left for them to do is actually move the Su-33's from Russia to China, should they choose to take them in their current form, rather than a modified one.
Their number of 4/4.5th generation aircraft is closer to 500, actually, at least according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Liberation_Army_Air_Force - Wikipedia . The fact is, 3rd generation MiGs in large numbers (which they have -- almost 1000) would still represent a serious threat to our fighters. They would be fielded in larger numbers, and flown by better pilots than Iraq fielded. I'm not saying they have the capability to knock us out of the air entirely, but the fact is, we can't put hundreds of aircraft into the skies over Korea in a matter of hours. They can. We would sustain serious casualties even fighting the PLAAF, much less wiping them out, and it simply wouldn't be worth it in terms of a military investment. Again, I seriously doubt it's something to worry about, but it's not something we could afford to do. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 12:44pm
|
I believe that the F-22 is still ahead of the F-35 when it comes to BFM. However, as mentioned the F-35 is cheaper because it uses stuff from the F-22. The other thing is the F-22 is meant to fight A to A, whereas the F-35 was built for both AA and AG missions. I'd still like to see a good sized F-22 fleet along with a big F-35 fleet as both have their strengths and weaknesses. The Ruskies already have an aircraft that can outmaneuver the F-22 (and thus the F-35 as well), which is their SU-27, 33, 37. None of us know enough to say for certain what should be done. |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 1:19pm
Let me promise you that your attitude is EXACTLY what leads to bad command decisions. This is true in any field, not just military. You aren't a good leader because you are smarter/stronger - you are a good leader because you are a good leader. Confidence in your personal attributes can be a hindrance as much as a help in this regard.
"Knowing" you are smarter/stronger/whatever than most people around does make you a bad leader. That isn't confidence; it's arrogance. And arrogance and leadership do not go together. Arrogance also sets you up for a rude awakening when suddenly you discover the falsity of your "knowledge."
We all hit the wall eventually. We keep being selected for our strengths, which means that every time you pass through a hoop you are surrounded by people that passed through that same hoop. Enough hoops, and you are no longer smarter/stronger than anybody in particular, and struggling just to keep up. Quite humbling, let me promise you.
I'm an arrogant civilian and even I am offended by this statement. Shockingly, many people CHOOSE to be grunts. I know some very smart people who declined commissions. Moreover, failing OCS doesn't mean you aren't smart - I suspect there are numerous ways of failing OCS that have nothing to do with intelligence.
Most importantly, however, neither failing OCS or being a grunt makes you any less of a person. And THIS is where you are on the path to poor leadership. Your misplaced idea of your own superiority combined with your misplaced idea of the value of rank or specific accomplishments will set you up for spectacular failure as a leader in any field.
As someone who has climbed the ladders of rank and leadership in a few different arenas, let me offer you the key to GOOD leadership: Humility. There are many other requirements, of course, but humility is at the center of it all. And right now you are displaying a pretty complete lack of humility, which pretty much guarantees that you will not be a good leader unless you change your attitude.
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 1:23pm
|
I think I'll use my positions and success in my life as a judge of my leadership capabilities, rather than your interpretations of my posts. But have fine analyzing them more, if you'd like. I'll leave this out here though: you're wrong about me. Granted, probably not everything. But the very premise of your argument there is faulty, Rambs. I wasn't saying I'm a good leader because I'm smarter and stronger. I'm saying that I'm a good leader because of my experience actually leading -- the other traits are separate, but important ones for a Marine officer. The one thing I will agree with is the end of your post. I am far less arrogant in real life than I am on this forum. You don't have to believe me -- as I said before, it doesn't matter what you think. It does matter what the people I interact with on a daily basis think. However, I am more than a little confused by the hoops comment. I do things I'm good at, because, well, I'm good at them, and mostly I'm good at them because I enjoy them and work hard. The vast majority of the things I choose to do with my life -- study engineering and rowing being the most important -- I chose because I have skills to do them. The rare things I'll have to do regularly which require skill sets I don't have is the reason there are professionals -- doctors, mechanics, etc. -- to help make decisions. So, I'm not entirely sure where I'm gonna end up surrounded by people so much better than me that I'll give up or some such. Frankly, I row with and against people who've won international events in rowing, and next year I'll be rowing against some of the best rowers in the world, and may even be rowing for the US National team. It's not like I'm only trying myself against the least common denominator. My goals are ultimate success and my competitors are the best in the world. I honestly believe that most enlisted soldiers, and for that matter, most people, do not set or achieve goals at the level I do, and that's what sets me apart. So, I will take your personal analysis of my online posts, and chuck about 90% of it in the garbage.
Then, frankly, they weren't that smart. Enlisted soldiers get chewed up, shot up, and spit out by the army. If you're an officer, you at least give yourself a chance. As you said before, intelligence =/= leadership. But it's a pretty important characteristic for an officer.
Bwahaha. OK. Again, I'll let me life, rather than my posts on the internet, do the talking here. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Ceesman762
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 1:26pm
|
Rambs, very well said.
Pariel would never make it pass the first 2 weeks in Quantico and by some off hand reason he did make it, he would more than likely be a pogue. ------------- Innocence proves nothing FUAC!!!!! |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 3:15pm
| Pariel, even if you have the strength and knowledge, your attitude is all wrong, and that is important. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 3:17pm
|
Leadership is not a learned skill. All leadership training imparts the ideas and therories of leadership. It is the individual who make the leader. West Point graduates "leaders" and many once they get into the real Army and have to deal with the day to day leadership challenges, many fail miserably. The "Long Grey Line" a book about the class of 66, and how they faired details the leaders who excelled in combat in Vietnam, and those who failed miserably. Officers tend to micro-manage and refuse to delegate to or trust thier NCO's. I found this to be the problem we faced in the early 90's before I retired. During Desert Shield the Officers were too involved and micro-managed daily troop activities, taking the NCO's out of the loop. Once we crossed the berm and the company officers found themselves in a constantly changing combat enviornment thier shortcomings in leadership began to tell.
ROTC and the Academy's give you the information, not the ability. Great Leaders are born to lead, one of natures quirks unfortuanatly. Once you do finally see combat, you will be able to tell the natural leaders from the book leaders, it will not be hard, BTDT on several occasions. -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 3:31pm
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8108313.stm - U.S. 'prepared' for N Korea missile
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 4:02pm
|
Argh!!!! I had a great retort to Pariel's post calling my figures into question but clicked the wrong "close tab" button and now it's all gone!
I'll reply again when I get off work. It was a frikken essay! Some teasers though:
And since Pariel is resorting to Wikipedia.....
Uh-oh!!!! Rooks Rike Tarren ras right! ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 4:58pm
I hate to say it Tallen, but you're still wrong. Both those discuss vessels produced in China. The Varyag was bought from, IIRC, the Ukraine, and if you look at the link I posted, they clearly already have the ships to create a carrier task force. Again, if you have a link to an actual Pentagon analysis, I'll be more than happy to read it. But, I've spent quite a while already looking at this stuff in the past two days, and everyone says that the Varyag will be ready way before 2015.
Again, I will assume that my experiences in leadership in real life are a better analysis of my leadership skills than the analysis of one comment, which, while possibly in bad taste, had almost no relevance to the way I work with other people. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 5:29pm
|
Parriel I scored an 92 on the ASVAB and English at the time wasn't my Primary language. I had every MOS open to me that the Marine Corps had to offer. I chose to go 0300 Infantry. I enlisted at 17 fresh out of High School.
I at the age of 19 as a LCpl had been in charge of a few Billion Dollars worth of Ordnance. The Personal Safety of an US Ambassador and his Family, I trained Foreign troops on Night Time Operations. I trained British Royal Commandos on the Use of the Mk-19 Full Automatic grenade Launcher. Also in the Marine Corps the command structure revolves around the Small Unit. The Officer get the orders then the Mission is handed down to Platoon Commanders who in turn develop the Mission plan with the Platoon Sargent, Squad Leader and Other Section leaders depending on what Attachments the unit has. I don't know how many books you read but it seems you missed the whole Point of the Marine Corps. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 5:34pm
|
The Varyag was a Russian carrier docked in the Ukraine and towed to China. It was never completed and essentially abandoned around 60% completion. It's years of neglect called for a complete re-fitting and essentially it meant that the vessel was a hull and bulkheads in need of everything else.
Don't worry, once I get off work, the smackdown will ensue. Jane's has reported that the Varyag is in dry-dock and they JUST started engine work on it last month. It was originally slated to begin early sea trials by the beginning of last year, but that obviously never happened. The chances of the Chinese ever using the Varyag as an active carrier rather than a training vessel is also slim given that the Chinese will be able to produce boats ready for sea trials in the next 10 years. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 5:40pm
|
China has nothing to gain by backing their NK ally. Thou there is the Issue with Literally hundreds of Artillery Pieces in Reinforced Concrete bunkers aimed at all the DMZ are Villages and Cities such as Seoul, Poh Hang, Inchon and so on. Even with out high tech bombs there is just no way to take all of those out before a few dozen hundred HE or low powered nuclear rounds into the heart of many south Korean cities. You'll have casualties in the thousands. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 5:52pm
See, this is the problem: you're taking one comment I made, and extrapolating it like it's everything I've ever said. Will this make you feel better? Marines, both enlisted and commissioned, like everyone else, have a wide variety of abilities, personal skills, and levels of intelligence. I think that I am smarter, stronger, and have better leadership abilities than most people. I will even amend my original post if you'd like. Or you can continue your ridiculous extrapolation from a single sentence, which will continue to be frustrating for you, and amusing for me. Also, frankly, your record isn't impressive to me, at all. I've worked with a guy who is ex-Force Recon, and another guy who is a member of the President's Honor Guard, both of whom finished top three in their class at Quantico. If you want to go around spouting how impressive your record is, feel free. But know I won't be impressed.
I think that's key, but I still think that Tallen's characterization of their military power is incorrect. Also, ESL or not, you can stop capitalizing every other word.
So, alright, maybe it won't be absolutely combat capable, but it could be used in an emergency as a pretty powerful tool to push back US sea power. All your previous comments relating to 2015 have been that China cannot build an aircraft carrier before 2015. But the Varyag still represents a serious possibility of a Chinese carrier group by 2011 or 12. From what I've found, they think that it'll be finally undergoing sea trials in 2010 some time. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 6:12pm
|
Define- tool
: 1. That guy who makes us shake our head in disbelief but at the same time makes us feel better about ourselves since we are not him. 2. Someone who thinks he's cool, but he just isn't. He usually looks like a possum and says he's the man. 3. A guy who pops his collar, goes tanning, and wears shirts five sizes too small. Very often, they can be found sporting growing-up-Gotti haircuts with pencil thin facial hair to match. Most of these guys prefer to drive a hot car, one that equally shallow girls will swoon over. They also prefer to listen to bad music. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 6:38pm
Truth or not, it's all the more ironic coming from you. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:05pm
I have to disagree with you on this point. The JSF-35 and F-22 both have stealth capabilities which have a radar signature of a small bird, therefore are extremely hard to track with radar. The JSF-35 (and i think the F-22) have radar jamming instuments on board to also disable an enimy's radar. Since were going by wikipedia in this thread:
|
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:15pm
|
Long post follows... My frustration shineth through.
That was not my premise.
I (and everybody else here) am saying that you are on a path towards poor leadership based on the overwhelming arrogance that fills your posts on the subject - including this very post where you were proclaiming my mistake.
Here's one:
A good leader wouldn't make this statement. A good leader would know that at your age your "positions and success" means that you are pretty good for a rookie, and that you still have a lot to learn. Moreover, a good leader would know enough to take seriously advice and pointers from people with more experience than you - which is most people in this thread.
Instead, you declare that you know better. That is not what good leaders do.
Simple - everybody else is ALSO choosing those things because they are good at them. When you go to study engineering, everybody else in the classroom chose that field because they are good at it. When you work as an engineer, if you do well you will be promoted to a new rung - and everybody else at that rung got there by being good as well. If you are better than them, you get promoted again. But suddenly you will be at the highest rung you can reach. Suddenly you are NOT better than the other people who got promoted along with you. That is the wall. Suddenly you go from being the best to being merely average - at best.
Bottom line - it is simple reality that only a very, very few are truly the "best" at anything. The second-best is in the end still a loser like the rest of us. Chances are therefore overwhelming that eventually you will discover that you are not the best, and that in fact there are a whole bunch of people just as good or better than you at any given task. You will have been the best in the room your whole life, and suddenly you are average or worse.
And that's great, and a worthy accomplishment. But I bet most people in this thread can point to a couple of things in their resume where they were at the top of a given field - except we did it decades ago. Strictly been there, done that. Not "will probably be doing next year," but "did that 20 years ago." I have no doubt that you are a better rower than me, and I respect your rowing ability. But unless we are in a rowing contest, it will not impress me.
More importantly, the same is true of many of your Marine colleagues. You will be "commanding" men twice your age, who very definitely have been there, done that. They will not be impressed by your resume.
The problem here is your arrogance, and regardless of what accomplishments you have, the arrogance will remain a problem.
I believe you are right that most people don't set world-class goals for themselves. But it doesn't set you apart from the people you are ACTUALLY competing with, which is other people who also set world-class goals - and there are millions of us. And when you keep achieving, you narrow your surroundings to where, as I described above, you suddenly will struggle to be merely average.
But more importantly, setting world-class goals, and believing that it sets you apart from others, is another manifestation of that arrogance that makes you a bad leader. A good leader isn't apart from or above his people. A good leader isn't "better" than his people - he IS one of the people.
Refer to my earlier point about the arrogance of dismissing the advice of wise elders, who have a lot more leadership experience than you.
You seem determined to prove me right. Failure to understand or acknowledge differing values is another hallmark of a bad leader. This is just a horrible, horrible, statement to make on your part.
Again with the arrogance. You don't understand. I could be wrong here, but I very seriously doubt that any of your life accomplishments to date could impress us regarding your leadership skills.
Not one comment - almost every post. Chock full of arrogance. And here as well. I must admit to some curiosity now as to your leadership experiences, but the simple truth is that I, and others in this thread, have far more leadership experience than you. And we look at your arrogant refusal to accept advice, and we see bad leadership.
See, a good leader would have responded to Ceesman's post with something along the lines of "please tell me why you think I wouldn't do well?" After all, he has been through the training and you have not. He has relevant experience and knowledge that you do not. A good leader would take this learning opportunity.
Instead, you responded with "nuh-uh." Very, very bad leadership.
Ok, that's a good start...
... but it didn't last long.
And then it gets worse:
Definitely not good leadership. EE wasn't trying to impress you with his record. You thoroughly and completely missed his point - because of your arrogant refusal to learn.
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: Rambino
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:20pm
I agree and disagree. Certainly good leadership requires certain born qualities, but I don't think they are particularly rare qualities. Moreover, I do believe that leadership can be taught. Not everybody can learn, but not everybody can learn calculus either. Leadership is a skill. It requires some basic personality features, coupled with practice and learning.
------------- [IMG]http://i38.tinypic.com/aag8s8.jpg"> |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:22pm
I don't disagree with anything you said. I'm not saying the DPRK would be able to prevent us from staging a significant, and necessary, air war against them. I'm just saying that Tallen's characterization of the F-35 and F-22 as nigh invincible is exaggerated. We would absolutely take casualties. Also, while we do currently have F-22s, and are taking delivery of something like 20 a year until 2011, the first four F-35s won't even be delivered till 2010. Granted, 100 F-22s would probably rapidly remove the DPRK's air force, but we're almost guaranteed to see some losses, especially in the Navy's F-18s and all the strike craft that would be required to wage an actual air war over the DPRK. Just given the failure rate of the F-22s in peacetime use, we would probably lose F-22s over the DPRK even if the enemy never fired a shot at them. *EDIT* Rambs, I will refer to one of the "older and wiser" members of this forum, who I believe once used the phrase "don't mistake confidence for arrogance". You can think I'm an arrogant son of a gun all you want. It doesn't make me one, and my posts on this forum don't make up who I am. I leave you free to judge me as much as you'd like, because, frankly, I write like an arrogant prick. I'm more than happy to continue doing so. But, you don't know me, you don't know how I act towards other people, and I'll let the people who go to school with me, work with me, and row with me decide if I'm a prick or not. If that's arrogance, then fine. I will gladly continue to be arrogantly better than anyone I need to be better than. Also, I laughed out loud at me "learning" from this forum. I come here to waste time. Lately, I've got a lot of it. Given the choice between learning from Nobel prize winners at school, Olympic gold medalists at my boat houses, and from the general refuse that is the internet, I think I will take the ones I already pay attention to. I don't honestly think that your characterization of hoops is one I identify with at all. Maybe that will change as I go through life, who knows. I'd much rather work hard to get with the people who are the best at what they do, and seem "average" compared to them, because the average of the best people is still "best". My comparison of success is always going to be with the highest performer -- if I'm farther below him and doing better than the masses I'm not better off than being next to him and challenging his abilities. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:24pm
I know that we are not ready as far as 5th generation aircraft goes, but again they are pretty dang good even with the small numbers we have now. As wiki said they are 4 times better than the 4th generation. I agree that we would most definitely take casualties but not in the MASS NUMBERS that you are portraying.
Please elaborate. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:28pm
Indeed just look at all the things that went wrong with Serpentor.  -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:38pm
I agree, not in mass numbers, not against the DPRK. When we were discussing the use of our 5th generation fighters before, it was in the context of a war with the Chinese air force, against which we would see much greater losses. We've lost 2 F-22s in crashes already, in peacetime. In war time, we're not going to be losing less, we'll be losing more, just given the greater demands on the aircraft. Losing a half dozen $138 million dollar fighters would be a big deal, especially when they've gotta last at least 10 - 15 years. Or, I guess we could just keep funneling more money into the military. That seems like a smart move. Not. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 7:58pm
|
Combat has a tendancy to sort out the true leaders. The man who when turning to charge the hill who does not have to turn around and check to see of his men are there at the command of "Follow Me", is a leader, the one who has to intimidate and force his men to follow usually does not get far. Stress and fear are the true indicators of a leader, one who leads and can make the hard decesions under these conditions usually excell, those who hesitate, infect the men with the same fear the leader feels at that moment. I have had Lt's that I would not trust to lead me to the latrine, who were West Pointer's and just too full of themselves and saw his men simply as career stepping stones. And I have had young Lt's that were willing to listen and learn, and climbed the ladder more successfully than the previous type. It is the strong quiet but resolute leader than can inspire his men to great things, the boa**edited**ll better than the rest of us type, usually end up in a body bag.
-------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 8:09pm
I sense a great negative attitude towards our technological advances in our military or at least our air force from you. It's this same mentality that can keep us from excelling into tomorrow. In Canada, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien never kept the military up to date and now Stephen Harper is finally doing that. Part of the reason why Canada has a bad reputation for a weak military is because of bad (liberal) Prime Ministers that can't defend the country. It does take money, but at what cost for freedom? There are a lot of bad people who would like to take that away from us. Our defense budget is $651.2 billion. Is that too much? Obama's stimulus plan was $787 Billion. So I don't think it is too much. EDIT: I love how war and politics can mix.  |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 8:11pm
I never said we wouldn't take losses. What I said was that we would achieve air superiority over the battle field, which we would given the fact that we wouldn't actually be fighting on foreign soil to the extent that we have been since WWII. We have established, permanent bases in the ROK and Japan and don't have to rely on long supply chains given our current stockpiles in those areas. Furthermore, our naval anti-air capabilities in littoral waters give us a marked early-warning and action advantage over the Chinese AND the DPRK. It wouldn't be the turkey shoot that we had in Iraq, but it'd be pretty damned close once we knocked the current/last gen air superiority fighters out of the sky. I guarantee you that we wouldn't be required to do a lot of dog-fighting given the current SAM capabilities of the ROK/US forces and the SAM capabilities of our naval vessels. Not to mention the BVRAAM capabilities which would aid our fighters in combat. While the PRC and DPRK have limited BVRAAM capabilities, most of theirs rely on active heat-seeking capabilities with limited radar guidance. The fact of the matter is that he who controls the skies controls everything else these days, and despite the impressive specifications of the Sukhoi based airframes, they go down just as harshly as a MiG-21 when nailed with an AMRAAM or BVRAAM from over 20 nautical miles away. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 8:29pm
|
Do not discount N Korea's vast AAA arsenal. Throw up enough BB's and one is bound to hit something important. There is still no way to jam the MkI eyeball behind a ZSU-23,57,85. And N Korea has a boatload of AAA pieces from individual AK's to 122mm. I never really feared the bullet with my name on it, but more the bullet marked, to whom it may concern.
There was a line painted on the highway between Camp Casey and Camp Hovey that showed the limit of N Korean Artillery range. The ASP's were dug in just outside that line. -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 8:33pm
|
But if the aircraft is stealth and flies at night then they would have no idea where to shoot because they can't see the damn thing. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 8:54pm
|
If you put up enough BB's, even in the dark....Mr Murphy is out there no matter how stealthy your aircraft is. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:05pm
4 words: High Altitude Carpet Bombing If we were to go to war with the DPRK, it wouldn't be anywhere near as humanitarian as the last few wars we've fought. Civilian casualties would almost have to be encouraged given the fact that the vast majority of the country actually believes in their leader's message. It'd be like fighting the Japanese in WWII all over again, but without a supreme leader like Hirohito that actually has some bit of compassion for his people. Funny enough, our cold-war weapons are better suited for a war against the DPRK (so long as China doesn't get involved) than most of our current generation stuff. Back then, it was about taking on a force of superior numerical strength. Today it's about precision. We'd be fighting a war of brute strength just like the old days. the B-52 with cluster bombs would be the great equalizer. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:12pm
| I was going to say that but I threw in the China equation. But most AA guns rely on radar to track the target. |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:16pm
how are we to counter North Korea's Advanced Hovercraft program?
fixed -------------
|
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:30pm
"they just float over the mines!" |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 9:41pm
I am wary of $138 million dollar aircraft, mainly. Seriously, what can you do with $138 million? A lot, that's what. That said, there's a good chance I'll be designing 6th-generation aircraft when I get out of college, since my major is aerospace engineering, and military aircraft would really be the only thing I'm interested in. We spend 20% of our budget on the military, and we spend half the world's military budget. That seems hugely significant to me. Personally, I'd prefer not to be able to project force as much. Make the UN more powerful, work with NATO, whatever it takes. We really should not be the world's policeman like we have been since '91.
I'd definitely agree with that.
Against the DPRK, I think we'd have a pretty rapid air victory. Frankly, the newest planes they're fielding would have trouble against the planes we're phasing out (ie: F-18, F-16). In terms of missile technology, well, we're well ahead. But, as OS noted above, AAA and surfaced based AA missiles still represent a threat, even to 5th gen. aircraft. If anything, I'd expect them to down more aircraft than the KPAF.
Can't disagree with that. Given how well the F-22 is doing in exercises against our own fighters, I can't imagine the DPRK fighters would present much of a threat, but they would probably have the home court advantage, and as the USAF learned over Hanoi, that's just bad for business. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:07pm
rightttt -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:16pm
|
I now realize that I pretty much wrote an essay in the course of one day...in this thread. And you can criticize all you want slacker. The irony stays. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:20pm
The 6th generation aircraft wont have pilots. Combat UAV's are cheaper and can out preform any human piloted aircraft.
 -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 18 June 2009 at 10:59pm
I like the picture choice. I hope that next generation UAVs will be far more interesting than the Predator though. That thing could give watching paint dry a run for it's money in terms of design interest. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:00am
|
My guess is that newer UAVs will have vectored thrust and active canards to give them even greater mobility. However, the overall shape is determined by the needs of the airframe. Distance, payload, speed, and stability will ultimately dictate design which, more often than not, is pretty ugly but efficient. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 12:55pm
Is this a serious statement? We already pay a HUGE percentage of the UN's budget, and the UN doesn't have the force to be the world's "police." That's why you will rarely, if EVER see them out of their blue helmets, no matter where the troops involved are from. The UN is a joke, and needs to be reworked. Whether or not it's a good thing, we ARE the world's police, only for now, we've made the decisions mostly about where we act. The UN steps in by using the forces of it's member countries. Where do you think most of those troops will come from if the UN decides to act en masse? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:08pm
| Suborbital vehicles get my vote for the next gen of aircraft! |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:16pm
|
Since 1945 American military power has been the dominant UN military force, up until 1949 most European nations did not even have any form of effective and current militaries. And now only small forces relieing on the US military as thier "proxy" force if a military action is ever needed. One of the reasons for the quick economic recovery of Germany and Japan after WW2 was we carried thier military load and protection against aggression by the Soviets well into the 1970's.
The UN hates America until it needs our money or our military, whwn is the last time in a disaster area that you saw a UN aircraft with relief supplies, it is always that big USAF transport, with the hated Americans on board, overhead. If we pulled out of the UN, told them to move thier HQ to Geneva, they would be on thier knees begging for us to reconsider. Many of the mud hut country ambasadors, as well as those from other countries that "hate" America, love living cost free in NYC, considering thier options at home. -------------
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:39pm
|
That's a pretty arrogant point of view there, OS.
------------- 
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 1:57pm
Yes, it was a serious statement. I don't think that a smaller US military budget, and more cooperation from other countries in the UN are diametrically opposed, for that matter, they're inherently linked. As I said, we need to give them more power -- not more US troops, not more money -- more political, legislative power over member countries.
And I'm saying we shouldn't be. That's not our job, and the job we've done in Iraq shows that we clearly can't be trusted with that position. If the UN had made a decision to invade Iraq, we would most likely be seeing British, Australian, German, French, and Italian troops (many of whom have deployed to Afghanistan) working in the country. Giving the UN power to actually require troops from member nations, rather than allowing member nations to produce token forces that dawdle around doing next to nothing (as the German forces in Afghanistan are well known to do -- their elite KSK unit was recently forced to let a known terrorist escape because they are not allowed to fire their weapons except in self-defense) would allow real problems to be solved, rather than to be created, as we've done in Iraq.
So, are you saying we should continue with this as the norm? We've pulled out of a significant portion of our bases in Europe and the Middle East (other than Iraq, obviously), and I think we should continue doing that to a great extent. If the UN has real political and military power through its member nations, we will not be required to respond to every crisis around the world, and if we had to deploy we would be able to use other member nation's bases. As a simply financial calculation, this would benefit us. More importantly, it's a necessary moral and political concession. America cannot, and should not, continue to be the world's policeman if we want to develop a stable world.
I could be wrong here, but I don't believe we could actually ask, or tell the UN to leave. The building and grounds of the UN in NYC are sovereign territory of the UN, as are the consuls of any country. You can bash on other countries ambassadors to the UN all you want, but the fact is, they are and will be key to developing Africa to the point where it can join the first world. We can continue to waste their, and our time, or we can engage them in meaningful discussion. If that means getting over the fact that most (including US) ambassadors live a life of privilege, then that's what we'll have to do. I think it's hard to criticize their nations when our ambassadors are so richly rewarded though.
Possible, but I wouldn't count on it. Unless we can develop successful ram/scramjet technology in the next 15 years, it isn't likely. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: WGP guy2
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 2:21pm
Uhh...Do you know what a ramjet is? You could go build one right now in 10 minutes. (SC)Ramjets are the simplest form of jet engine in existence. Besides, ram/scramjets us oxygen from the atmosphere and thus wouldn't work too great at suborbital altitudes. |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 2:58pm
Without a ram/scramjet, attaining orbital/suborbital flight as a common, everyday thing, even for the military, costs way too much energy. Building a ram/scramjet is easy, making it work for you is hard. You need some serious speed -- so you need an engine to get you up to those speeds. You need a spot on the plane for the ram/scramjet. To date, there has been one mass produced commercial or military ramjet, and it was on a missile that didn't actually go into production. All the rest of them have been one-offs. Hence, highly unlikely that the next generation of aircraft will be suborbital. Not to mention that, as the Predator and other UAVs have shown, sometimes higher up isn't better. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 3:18pm
That's a lot of wishful thinking. After WWI we stopped advancing militarily and because of that we were not ready for WWII. The Germans kept going and they had the best technology and they crushed Europe before we were attacked and forced into it. That goes to show that you can't put all of your faith in the UN because one country could overpower it. Even though the UN wasn't created, the Allies were kind of like the first UN because it was multinational effort against the Axis power.
If the UN had sent all of their countries in to do nothing then would it be all of those country's faults too? What is this fault that we have done? Ridding the world of a ruthless leader that performed mass genocide on his own people? The UN has it's own power and it is the one that makes it's own laws, those countries don't want us, they only want our power.
Instead of trying to change things all the time we could improve what we already have. That's the backwards thinking I thought of you earlier. Also the world cannot be trusted because other countries want to do their own thing, thus there will never be a stable world. More wishful thinking.
Talking doesn't mean a thing to hostile countries either. So what if you talk for 5 hours? They still have nukes and are still crazy. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 5:39pm
|
The problem with machines doing the fighting is it can and will eventually take the humanity out of war. And the ones with the most powerfull war machines will have no compunction in not using them. It is man who makes the decesion to kill, be it pull the trigger, hit a HOTAS button, or plung a knife in anothers heart, and only man can refrain from doing that. A machine launched weapon like a ICBM is not able to turn back, and yes maybe someday we will be like the old Star Trek episode where we fight with computers and loses line up at disintagration stations, or even cyberdyn styled war machines finally gaining a will to survive.
Einstein was asked what was the next weapon after nuclear weapons, and he stated the stone....for as man climbs from the rubble of his civilization, he will take up the stone to take by force what his neighbor has for his own survival. -------------
|
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 19 June 2009 at 5:55pm
I'm not saying we disarm. I'm not saying we discontinue being the most militarily powerful country on earth. What I am saying is that when we wage war, we are not creating permanent solutions. The only way we are going to create permanent solutions is occasionally going to be through warfare. But the fact that we refuse to work within a coalition of countries, refuse to attempt to improve other countries through non-military means, and do our own thing isn't making the world any better.
If the UN had decided, we wouldn't have gone. We went under false pretenses, we made a mess, and the Iraqi people paid for it.
Clearly, the civil war, mass disappearances and hundreds of thousands of dead are a better option. I would hardly call the Kurds Saddam's own people, and ask Turkey how the feel about them. As the world's largest ethnic group without their own country, the Kurds will always be a problem. Since we clearly have not solved the Kurdish problem with our invasion, I would hesitate to say we've improved their lot. Saddam was a bad dude, but there were other ways to resolve the situation.
The UN has no power to enforce laws on member nations, require troops from member nations, or really enact anything.
So, we should continue to murder our way to what we want? People have been waging war for thousands of years, and it hasn't got us much of anywhere. Giving the UN, or a similar global council, meaningful power to enforce compromises is going to be key to world stability in the next century.
I'm not talking about meaningful discussion with hostile countries, I'm talking about discussions with other member countries, where political compromises are worked out, and things actually get done.
Oops, too late. We've already got a dozen or more robots on the front lines -- from UAVs like Predator, to pack animals like Big Dog, to sentry robots with machineguns, and the Talon urban combat robot. Frankly, if it means taking soldiers out of the line of fire, the American military is going to do it every time, because the only thing stopping them from constantly being on the offensive is that every time the media reports a dead soldier, the American public says it's time to come home. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |