Trump armada sent to deter Kim can't shoot down his missiles

The capability of the US military?

So we won the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korean War?

Does anyone believe we actually won these conflicts by any measure?

All of our tech is a joke in terms of modern warfare. It's all conventional and its all show.

50 years now or more of this nonsense. Nothing is going to happen and I really do mean nothing.

a reply to: FlyingFox

The tech is feasible, except for the minor fact of having to park a slow as hell 747 over hostile territory to be able to hit the target.

originally posted by: SR1TX
The capability of the US military?

So we won the Iraq war? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korean War?

Does anyone believe we actually won these conflicts by any measure?

All of our tech is a joke in terms of modern warfare. It's all conventional and its all show.

50 years now or more of this nonsense. Nothing is going to happen and I really do mean nothing.

In a conventional sense, we did "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan in that the hostile governments were deposed and their militaries largely destroyed. Both nations were then occupied by US and Coalition forces.

Where the trouble begins is that those victories weren't finalized (same can be said for the first Gulf War).

Obviously, this is a complicated issue and the above is a simple answer, but I don't think anyone would say the US "lost" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That being said, there is still some work to do...

Finally, just out of curiosity, who has better war-making tech than the USA?

I don't think Trump's armada is the main focus point at the moment. The main focus point is SS-28 Saber being effectively deployed in Syria. Yesterday the Israelis bombed some decoys close to Damascus airport. SS-28 are not even close to that airport.

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
Hopefully I'm missing something here.....but why would you send ships incapable of shooting down ballistic missiles to goad Nk into shooting ballistic missiles at you? Please just google the title and this will come up on Bloomberg Politics . Sorry , I don't know how to bring this info to this thread. This article clearly states that the Vinson strike group escorts don't have the ability to intercept ballistic missiles fired at them. Is this a false flag just waiting to happen....or what?

Don't need to...If Trump takes the first strike advantage with numerous nukes there won't be anyone left in N. Korea to push the button...

If Trump takes the first strike advantage with numerous nukes there won't be anyone left in N. Korea to push the button...

People are up in arms over the fact that NK could have the ability to use a nuclear weapon so the answer is to nuke them.

And some wonder why other nations want nuclear capability.

originally posted by: Iscool

originally posted by: conspiracytheoristIAM
Hopefully I'm missing something here.....but why would you send ships incapable of shooting down ballistic missiles to goad Nk into shooting ballistic missiles at you? Please just google the title and this will come up on Bloomberg Politics . Sorry , I don't know how to bring this info to this thread. This article clearly states that the Vinson strike group escorts don't have the ability to intercept ballistic missiles fired at them. Is this a false flag just waiting to happen....or what?

Don't need to...If Trump takes the first strike advantage with numerous nukes there won't be anyone left in N. Korea to push the button...

That was post # 666 for you lol.

You're ok with millions of North Koreans dying in the nuclear strike?

Armchair quarterbacks....

a reply to: conspiracytheoristIAM

As I am understand it unless you hit them very early in the boost phase we have nothing to hit them with.

That part of threat of icbm's isn't it?

Only in fiction novels novels has it been suggested that the aegis system could do.
Edit:
Just read about Thad , I'll stand corrected.

On the other hand the f 35 can track from launch so I am may be there are lots of ways to do it.

a reply to: Xtrozero

LOL
Hopefully very true.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

At least the left doesn't want to beat up their neighbors for right wing reasons.

a reply to: SmilingROB

No. The easiest time to hit them is in the boost phase, while they're slowest and still accelerating. We have the ability to hit them in the mid course phase, while they're coasting.

The Aegis system can only stop theater and medium range missiles, but has the ability to hit them at either mid course or the terminal phase depending on the missile type on board.

a reply to: SR1TX

Thats funny.

And I am thought that for the last 50 years or so that un, US , nato (the westerners generally) had not tried to take over and OCCUPY and CLAIM AS THEIR OWN any country's.

There have been police actions etc. But the only country to try and part of another country is Russia.

They did take over a large chunk of the Ukraine.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's the proof of concept platform, isn't it? I thought that the actual system itself was, once ready, going to be mounted on something with a bit more zip to it...

a reply to: Zaphod58

The devil is in the details.

How much of Dale Brown should I am belief?

Thanks for the info!!!

a reply to: seagull

There are multiple laser programs right now. Everything from CIWS, to the AC-130, to LAIRCM. The YAL-1 was going to be a full up program, but they found out, again, about the big problem with lasers. The only way to hit a missile in the boost phase, which is the only time it could, was to get really really close. And the laser mounted was so big that only a 747-400, or larger, could carry the fuel and targeting systems for it.

Add to that the fact that the chemicals used in the laser make hydrazine look healthy, and the limited number of shots it could fire for the amount of chemicals it had to carry, and you have the latest anti ICBM failure sitting in the Boneyard.

a reply to: SmilingROB

Some. Not a lot.

a reply to: Iscool

Nuclear war is the answer to prevent a nuclear war...

Hmmm...

There's something just a little bit wrong there...can't quite put my finger on it.


Oh, yeah... The millions of dead people, north and south.

I'll just leave this here, the mods can extract their vengeance upon me....



In a pinch, the WOPR is failsafe.

originally posted by: roadgravel

If Trump takes the first strike advantage with numerous nukes there won't be anyone left in N. Korea to push the button...

People are up in arms over the fact that NK could have the ability to use a nuclear weapon so the answer is to nuke them. And some wonder why other nations want nuclear capability.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Iscool

Nuclear war is the answer to prevent a nuclear war...Hmmm...There's something just a little bit wrong there...can't quite put my finger on it. Oh, yeah... The millions of dead people, north and south.

Who said the US is going to nuke anybody? It has never been suggested by any US policy maker or official that the US will nuke Korea. The only place that has come up is right here by people with active imaginations. In fact, I will go so far as to say if there IS a strike on N. Korea, it will be with conventional weapons against military targets designed to eliminate Korea's nuclear capability.

More likely that MOABS would be used against NK (I figure that's why the recent attack on the Taliban cave system used one, as an example).

They may even work to knock out the artillery hidden in the mountains that's pointed at SK population centres.