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.

 

Analysts say new north korean missiles at parade are fake

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by QQXXw

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
reply to post by Tifozi
 


None of what you posted is true concerning vulnerable warships.
A nuke would have to land literally right on the deck of a carrier to sink it, anything less and it still floats.
Torpedoes wont sink it and the other ships are only there to protect the carrier, it they take damage it is by design.



You really are brainwashed if you believe a carrier can withstand a nuclear strike

A carrier is already extremely vulnerable to conventional torpedoes or anti ship missiles, a nuclear strike would obliterate it


edit on 26-4-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2012 by QQXXw because: (no reason given)


I said sinking the carrier, and yes it will not sink unless a nuke is detonated on its deck. NK can't hit the broad side of a continent with a missile, it has zero chance of hitting a single ship in a massive ocean.

You are naive if you think anything that launches a torpedo would survive getting in range of a carrier.



a nuclear strike anywhere near its vicinity would simply obliterate it there is no debate about this

do you have even the slightest idea of what a nuclear strike does ?




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 



China is, and they appear to be in violation now. The young dictator ratted them out by showing the chassis.


China isn't violating anything. By the treaty, they are prohibited to deal any military warfare related to nuclear capability. Which they haven't done.

A chinese company provided a chassis for a vehicle that could be carrying nuclear missiles or giant baby-bottles. If we are going down that path, then the U.S. has many more violations than China.

And that's how world politics work. There are things that are acceptable, and what China did is still considered acceptable. That's why nobody has made a serious threat to China because of it. They know they don't have the moral background to do so...


None of what you posted is true concerning vulnerable warships.
A nuke would have to land literally right on the deck of a carrier to sink it, anything less and it still floats.
Torpedoes wont sink it and the other ships are only there to protect the carrier, it they take damage it is by design.


I think you don't quite understand what happens when explosives are detonated underwater. I'm not trying to offend you, I say this with utter respect.

I advise you to see this video:



The video is great part of archive research film done by the U.S. Navy, under the project name "Project Crossroads".

It was meant to research and come to conclusions as to how ships are damaged by nuclear explosions near task-forces. They used both US and Japanese ships to do the tests.

There was a US carrier present, the USS Independence. It suffered serious damage, and the blast wasn't under it. Bare in mind that this is also a light carrier, which means a heavier carrier would be more susceptible to the steam column that rises, making it more prone to break up by the massive dislocation of water.

Now, we can argue all day about the possibility of modern carriers being designed to withstand a nuclear blast. But honestly, I don't think it's something you want to consider or take seriously. A well placed nuke would most provably disable any of the current aircraft carrier that the U.S. has.

If it would survive, it would be by luck factors like the ones present at Bikini (the humidity in the air made the blast weaker, compressing the blast downwards).

But we are talking about complete destruction. In the best case scenario, the carrier would be at least disabled. The radiation filled water that would fall on top of all surrounding ships would make them nearly useless.

Can you imagine a carrier crew working on top of a deck completely wet with radioactive water? No planes being launched, no crews doing surface works. Everyone would be confined to the interior of the carrier, all planes or top would be abandoned and the carrier would take his azz out of the area ASAP.

And this is considering ONE nuke. Let's just assume that the attacker has the luck to launch several, and you can see the nightmare it would cause to any military naval force.
edit on 27/4/12 by Tifozi because: added last paragraph



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by QQXXw
 



What makes you think that the North Koreans depend on food aid from the U.S when China and Russia are literally next door with plenty of food ?

We have no real Idea why the U.S is giving food to north Korea, they could certainly get it much closer to home without any trouble.


China does give aid to North Korea. They haven't even tried to hide it. They do supply food aid, but they also supply other means, like business trades for oil and other resources that are under U.N. embargo, but are accepted under aid pretexts.

I'm not sure about Russia though. North Korea is important to China because it's a buffer zone for U.S. international influence (which is close to home because of South Korea). But I'm not so sure about Russia. If anything North Korea is a political ally, because "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Other than that, I don't see many reasons for support being given by Russia.

However, if such aid is given, is not enough. It's pretty much clear to anyones eyes that they have severe starvation problems. North Korea is open to tourism, but it's controlled by the tour guides. You can't even leave their sights. But even so, people seem to recognize problems, even with all the attempts to hide them from foreign tourists.

The main reason for the U.S. to give food to North Korea is to buy influence. It's like gaining political leverage to support a peaceful and handy (to the west) reunification of the Korea territory. The U.S. believes that by supplying aid, and something as basic as food, they would be able to control NK's minds. But I also have the opinion that they lose a lot of that leverage because they often threat to cut down the aid, and they have done that in the recent past.

Like I said earlier, that could be used against the U.S., since China claims it will support North Korea when nobody else will.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   
N Korea can't even hit outer space with a missile, the most massive target of all, it has zero chance of hitting a ship in the ocean.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


You do realize that both the U.S. and the Soviets had severe problems when developing their missiles, don't you?

Constant failures, several deaths related to the space program and malfunctions were just some of the problems that hunted the americans and soviets while developing the technology.

It would be horrifying to think that someone like NK would get it right at their first shot.

Have you considered what they have learned from the failed launch? Let's just assume for a second that they found out what the problem was, and solved it, either by looking at the data, or by advice from other experts...

...that fact alone could turn out really bad.

It's not a matter if they can hit. It's a matter of them getting just one lucky shot and causing massive casualties. Things would stop being funny really quick.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Tifozi
 


In rocket science you don't get lucky, you get it right or you don't. They can't get it right. They don't have the massive expenditures of the size economies the Soviet Union siphoned from or that of the US. Many more mini Kims will come and go before they expend enough to get it right, or they go belly up trying.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 



In rocket science you don't get lucky, you get it right or you don't.


No, you don't get lucky. That's why so many people died during the american and soviet space race.

But it's a learning process of getting wrong's and right's.


They don't have the massive expenditures of the size economies the Soviet Union siphoned from or that of the US. Many more mini Kims will come and go before they expend enough to get it right, or they go belly up trying.


They don't need them. North Korea has enough money to develop anything they want. In case you didn't notice, they have functional nukes. Still in development, but they have achieve most of the major steps, one of them goes around obtaining the fusion material, which they have.

All those processes could fall under your argument that they don't have enough money. But against all odds, they succeeded.

Nobody can say with certainty that they won't repeat that feat. Much less if they have foreign assistance in achieving those goals.

For China it would suit like a glove to have a North Korea armed to the teeth, stopping US influence from entering the country.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   


www.youtube.com...

pretty sure by evidence of this old film that yeah boats and nuclear explosions arent to kosher(or at least i would not want to be on any of those vessels) so yeah nuclear weapons and closely packed fleets= a problem

but as we are unsure what range and or capability the north koreans may possess it would be unwise to underestimate any enemy let alone one that may or may not have functional icbms,potental nuclear artillery shells and or free fall gravity bombs .and more on topic i think this might be a tactic of sorts in the sense that they have almost done what the Israelis have done with their nuclear program.IE we know the isralies have a program and an estimate of their warheads and capabilities but no accurate count of what type of war heads are where and i think this might just be a North Korean version of Israels "nuclear ambiguity" policy.
edit on 27-4-2012 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2012 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)
better video


www.youtube.com...

edit on 27-4-2012 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join