It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

N Korea Shows Off New Tank Amid War Games

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Regensturm
 


Because it is not obsolete for everyone.

Sure Shermans could still be used on the battle field. They won the 6 day war for Israel. It matters how they were equipped. And the Israelis equipped them better.

Ok. Inferior. But like I said, inferior equipment in war gets you killed and is therefore obsolete. I'm sure the polish calvary killed maybe a few germans in ww2. They were certainly inferior. But once the tanks rolled out it was slaughter. obsolete.

They are still wars, these pop shot conflicts. But they are not testing the power of the US military. They are testing their training. How do you think the US defeated the Barbary pirates in under Jefferson and virtually walked through Vietnam in WW2? Better training. US training has improved in some places, but in others it has not. And for that reason these little wars are not profitable and not able to be won. Because the only way to win is total war, but we are too civilized for that. Weather that's a bad or good thing is up to you. I beg to question why enter a war you can't win without total war if you won't use total war. And for that reason we look weak. When in fact, if we went all out against a nation like China, we would probably win, but it would take years of all out war with total disregard of life.



The current wars are profitable, if one looks closer at the geopolitical and geostrategical positioning of such wars. Mainly Central Asia.


The wars are only profitable 30 years later when you have a civilized trading partner like Vietnam. You won't see a single profit from Iraq or Afghanistan for a looooong time. I doubt Afghanistan will ever show a profit.

Look it up. Most f the oil goes to Asia. We get a bit extra. We'd get more oil from Canada and Mexico at half the price than from these wars.



The very same was said prior to WW1, when we had old enemies the UK and France cosying up, Germany trading with the US, and when we had the League of Nations before WW2.


There's a difference today. And that is the flow of information and the the pax terra. Much like Rome in the pax romana, Europe, Asia, and America have no interest in war because their people would revolt in the process. If the P5+1 went to war, their people would not fight it, would not support it, and the instability from it would collapse themselves.


For that I have to give you credit however. It is very well within the possibility that China may be using N Korea an Russia may be using Iran to stretch out the US forces. Right now the only thing in the way of Chinese and Russian expansion is the US. They have an inherit desire to shut down the US. But in a war they know they would lose. So the only way would be a on-direct attack on the US.

For that I'm going to post the storyline of a video game. I think you'd like it. If you remember Red Dawn, it's something like that.




Now that's a conspiracy! It also makes sense of the seemingly imbecilic actions of the government.



All armies that can afford to modernise and do research into modernising will do so. The US is not alone in this regard, and the US should not, and I most surely presume does not assume that it is the only one doing so.


That's why it's upgrading its army.

The US is basically trying to make itself into a modern Roman Army. Small numbers, well trained men, and technology. Yes the others are advancing. That's why the US is doing so.

When the USSR fell, the US knew that a bunch if nations that would otherwise have nothing to defend themselves would now have access to the whole of the Russian army in a firesale. So the US upgraded. Now the same thing is happening again. The US has been dragging behind and wants to upgrade. By 2016, assuming the government is still around, the US will be in the same position it was in before WW1.

My fears? That the US collapses, and two armies take the tech and fight each other. What do you think would occur if the US split in half or more pieces and the full force of their technological superiority was unleashed on themselves? This is what I fear. Because whoever wins will be 30 years ahead of the US when it fell. That small group of surviving victors of the US civil war will be powerful enough to do with the world whatever they want. And if you think anybody will intervene I honestly doubt it. I mean, it's obvious Mexico and Canada would get sucked in. But the rest of the world would likely laugh and either fight each other or go on with themselves. I think limited fighting.

In the end, that's my fear. Think like what Tesla said. As long as the few have the technology, wars will happen. The only way to peace is for everyone to have the same technology. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but you get the point.

Because where there is conflict, there is profit. If North Korea gained more capable weaponry, the war would go on longer, and become more profitable.




Because where there is conflict, there is profit. If North Korea gained more capable weaponry, the war would go on longer, and become more profitable. Such scenarios of a conflict would include a possible new Korean War, or a civil war in North Korea between rival factions in the wake of Kim's death.


Not likely. We aren't talking about China or Iran here. We are talking about a resource barren land mass maybe the size of the North East US. It can't be made into a long war. It's not even like the middle east where there are many groups of people. Communists there made sure to divide everyone between in and out of the country.

I could see a split between heirs, but there is only one accepted heir whom is named.





Well, that depends on where their spending would be focused, and whether they could balance such spending to provide capability that is not lop-sided and leave other areas vulnerable.


There are already reports of people growing angry. They can't increase their gdp and they can't lower the people's funding anymore.



WW1 Germany nearly took Paris. It was in range of German artillery fire. Germany made advances into Belgium and France and on the Russian Front. They came many times close to victory.

As did France. That was the whole point. There was a no mans land that the front lines always moved between. It was nearly impossible to breach either side's push. So the Americans bounced in and ended it.



But even an army generationally behind can challenge that theory if deployed and utilised correctly to counter it's short-comings.

Yes. As I said training is important. It is a fact that the Romans had the best training in the world. But who is closest to this? The Europeans and Americans and maybe the Russians. N Korea does not have this kind of training. They have propaganda. Propaganda fails once you realize that the god your leader is told to be is an average man. Russia ran into the same problems in WW2. Their solution was simple, add more men, charge the old men into the front lines. You basically had a kind of wheel-styled advancement. Everyone died eventually, and you were simply replaced. Only difference is that N Korea does not have the manpower to do that. Russia did because of its sheer size.



For the most part very true. The same for the space programmes.


And car engines, and so much more. It's ridiculous how much the army is like the Nazi army. We basically stole the whole design. And do you know where the Nazis got their design and ideas from? Roman army. Of course not tanks, but the basic idea behind the army structure.



Actually it was because Hitler became paranoid and restricted his Generals from making any big autonomous decisions.


Yep. And that was because he was a druggie and going nuts. Much like N Korea's leadership.




Again this insistence that the Tank is obsolete when it's quite clearly not. Tank on Tank engagements happened in 2003 in the Iraq War.


And the US won them. Again, it's like comparing biplanes against f16s. It's not an engagement. It's a containment and cleaning up operation.



I think it will be anybody's game whether the US government falls or not. The US is in decline, and there will come a time when there is the changing of the guard. Just as the British handed over 'superpower' status to the US after WW2, so the US will eventually hand over it's 'superpower' status. The important question is this: Will it go quietly, and accept it's new position in the world like the UK, or go down dramatically?


Both, honestly. Because the next superpower will have to show its force in a war.

I honestly foresee China as taking the superpower status within the next 5 years, But then something liek 20 years later, the US coming back into the game and a return to the cold war. But not a bad cold war. It will be like a 2001 space odyssey cold war. Two powers going ahead together into the stars.

I doubt a world government will ever show its face on Earth. There will always be nations on this planet. But the only way they're going to space is together. Because you'd be crazy to imagine a warp ship to be built by one nation.

I can Imagine a fleet of unmanned exploration warp ships built by the Chinese and Americans together going out and finding a few dozen habitable worlds, then the two funding for most of the colonization procedures. And I'd put money on 20 years after that the two of them building manned war-worthy warp ships against some common foe out there.

Yes the US will fall, but what separates it from the other nations is that it was designed to fall. There have been many United States in history. And there have been a number of collapses. And we get right back up with a new government and once again a superpower.




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Woh. To get back on topic, basically N Korea is a puppet of China and a buffer-state. They won't do anything until the US is out of the picture. And if N Korea gets attacked, you can bet an angry China would get ready for something big.

It's like a Venus fly trap. Hit one hair and nothing happens, but a timer is set. Hit the second and it activates. NK is the first hair. I don't know what the second hair is to get China on the warpath.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Logarock

The thing about Sun is he talks as if his foes are stupid. His stuff may still hold on the field to a large degree but this is a big time spy world making a point of good assessments of weakness and strength.



SUN TZU said:
For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.


Yes this sounds good and can be demonstrated as having been done but the the guy thats always got to play games is never sure if the giant is really asleep. To subdue the enemy without fighting is really not subduing him at all.

North Korea may have some bite but is a yaping little welp on a leashe. Know your enemy. Big talk out of Iran is like big smoke out of baby dragon.

I love the way the west appears as if they must deal with proxies....and the dumb proxies actualy buy into it. Whos really gaming who here?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
Uhm, the M1A1 is still the most advanced tank in the world; I think that's what you're trying to say...but the M1A1 is a bad-a tank.


In all honesty... The Germans and Britt's have some very good tanks. The Abrams and them share many of the same Tech.


[edit on 20-8-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Wow, based on the T-90!!

I hope they fixed that autoloader. You know, the one that likes to snip off the arm of the loader. That's sorta painful.

Or has been known to misload the ammo, leading to a pretty big bang in the turret. Ruins everyone's day.



new topics

 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join