Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

U.S. B-2 stealth bomber conducts first-ever firing drill in Korea.

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Strawberry88
 



All I see in NK related threads is a collection of the most retarded, macho tough guy "we're invincible and don't care about the local population" replies.

Someone please xplain to me why an entire nation should be punished for it's being brainwashed and horribly mistreated by it's crazy leader?


We're not going to nuke NK.

IF we have to fight, we will continue using our modern methods of surgical strikes on military and infrastructure targets. (which only get more precise as we go along)

The MOP I mentioned is for use on hardened bunkers, not civilian targets. We developed it strictly for use when a tactical nuke is politically off the table.

We would ALWAYS strive to minimize civilian casualties.

Sure, many armchair generals will be talking smack about turning it to glass, nuking the place, etc., but our leaders, dumb as they may seem, are smart enough to know that when you can do the job without massive civilian casualties, the political cleanup is much easier. Likewise, using nukes is simply, politically, out of the question (which sucks because we could use low yield tactical nukes to destroy bunkers easily, without the fallout issues, etc....but we won't, as it would tick off SK and China, and Japan, etc.)

And a fight with NK will not be like our recent actions. We will see some naval casualties, and some massive SK civilian casualties. We'd also see more aircraft casualties. Yes, NK has some old tech, but they have a LOT of it, and an old gun can still kill you, just like a new one can.




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 



"We would ALWAYS strive to minimize civilian casualties."

This is a joke, right? Like in the middle-east? Propaganda has made it so that most of the western world would not have a problem with civilian casualties, where have I seen this before? Oh yes, that's right, the ME... Muslims are terrorists, North Koreans are all big fans of their great leader and thus crazy,...

I remember very clearly the reports about all the "crazy NK people" grieving over the death of KJ Il, it was the people that were weird/crazy, not the regime that
made them that way, and I'm sure that's what most people see when they hear talk of NK, acrazy dictator and a crazy population.

@reply on previous page; if you are offended, I guess you shouldbe if you feel I was talking about you... It was obviously directed at the "go USA, bomb the # out of them"-people, if you're one of them, I dont see why I should feel bad about the harsh words, its how I genuinely feel about people who are so blind to wish death upon strangers who are more a victim than the big boys with the big words will ever be.

I agree that perhaps something should be done, but I dont see how provoking them will work, let alone bombing them, IF and only IF it comes to that.

(BTW how will the US determine what/where to bomb? Do they have GPS on Un and co.? If you read about the tunnel complexes, underground facilities, factories,... They'd basically need to bomb the entirety of NK to get him)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
With the technology and satellite capability we have, I would bet the military knows where the bunkers are and where Lil' Kim will be hiding. Those will get the first shots, along with key command bunkers. Politically, they will need to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Humanely, let's hope they can. I don't put it past the NK generals to have their hidey holes in populated areas.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Catch_a_Fire

Originally posted by Strawberry88

You're a braindead piece of filth if you hope NK gets bombed, if you do, you deserve retaliation in the form of a counter attack hitting nothing but civilians as well, but I'm not that sick to actually encourage such a thing, unlike many here. You disgust me.


I think this may have been a little strong.

If your reading the thread properly you'll see that a lot of what is being said is directed at the regime, not the civilians. Fact of the matter is if Pyonyang was bombed, it would be mainly be people with direct ties to the regime that would suffer as the real people of NK cannot afford to live there. These real civilians live in the country like animals, they dont have the shelter of a city.

But you go ahead and label us all like you have.


Though I already replied in my previous.post, I want to ask how "having ties to the regime" justifies being killed as well? It's either follow orders or be a poor.peasant like the rest of the population, I actually can't blame the staff as they;

1. Dont have many options
2. Are probably just as brainwashed

But lets turn this around shall we? I'll take your position, but in the Iraq war; US soldiers surely deserve death, as they are all tied to the polotical leaders that pushed the invasion? I dont think so, but its pretty much what you're defending, never mind that they have little to say about their deployment, their involvement,..
They're related so they deserve death,huh? But ohh well, you proved my point, thx.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
I dont noramly post here but I have been following this North Korea debarcle for a while so I thought why not


Here is my opinion.


1.) I think it was a right for America to fly the B-2 over South Korea because when a little tin pot dictator tel you not to do something or he will fire his load at you then what you do is you do exactly that but with bigger bullets
Dont let the spoilt baby get his own way just give him a slap and if he continues to scream or throw his dummy out of the pram a slap is in order. This applies to failing comunist dictators only!

2.) Why now all of this bluster and dummy rattleing? Well lets look on it this way there is a load of poop going on in the far east that if North Korea did start something then the chances are something would realy kick off and then big names would be drawn into the battle meaning that little Kim would first start a major conflict that would bolden his leadership and second it would mean the greater world would be watching something other than failing countries on the news.

I have my suspisions on North Korea as I do not trust them (who does?) they are throwing a lot of bluster out and playing a very dangerous game of poker that wil lead to only one conclusion becauce dear Kim has no hand to play so he has nothing to loose.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Strawberry88
 



This is a joke, right? Like in the middle-east?


You should check the statistics, and compare them to ANY other war, for civilian casualties. I never said there were no civilian casualties, but yes, we did strive to completely minimize them. Even with all the laser precision, etc., there will always be some...but we aren't deliberately going to target civilians.

If you remember, in the ME, many of our targets were using human shields also.

I know who you were attacking (and I'll agree, that those screaming for the death of innocents deserve no better), but I did want to assure you that to my knowledge, our modern doctrine is always to strive for as little civilian damage as possible.

As for getting at them in the tunnels and bunkers...check the maps...these are largely in remote and mountainous terrain, not cities or villages. We'd hit the command & control, production, etc. areas of these. You bomb the factories, not all the roads.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by DAVID64
With the technology and satellite capability we have, I would bet the military knows where the bunkers are and where Lil' Kim will be hiding. Those will get the first shots, along with key command bunkers. Politically, they will need to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Humanely, let's hope they can. I don't put it past the NK generals to have their hidey holes in populated areas.


I thought this was a good read, and to me, an eyeopener to why even strategical bombing wont work.

And still, I highly doubt Un calls the shots, he might be killed, as long as his puppeteers are alive and have an army+arsenal, I dont think anyone will be surrendering. The have underground factories for tanks and weaponry ffs...


On my phone, forgot link,, sorry!

m.vice.com...
edit on 28-3-2013 by Strawberry88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 



With the technology and satellite capability we have, I would bet the military knows where the bunkers are and where Lil' Kim will be hiding


Have you researched this? No, we won't have a clue where he is. Our satellites cannot see through 80m of rock. They even use dummy vents, etc. to misdirect bunker locations. Because it's a closed society, our intel is limited. We'll simply be bombing the hell out of every main bunker we can locate. The only way we'll even know we got him, is when the C&C structure is no longer operating (and even then, if I were one of his generals, I'd pretend he was still around, giving the orders).



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I mostly agree with what you're saying but I feel that even a single civilian is one too many. We're talking about a suppressed people that doesn't deserve what theyre getting now, let alone what is very likely coming their way... I admit I cant propose a solution, but there must be a better one than precise bombing etc, as there will, imo, always be too many casualties, be it civilian or indoctrinated followers.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by DAVID64
 



With the technology and satellite capability we have, I would bet the military knows where the bunkers are and where Lil' Kim will be hiding


Have you researched this? No, we won't have a clue where he is. Our satellites cannot see through 80m of rock. They even use dummy vents, etc. to misdirect bunker locations. Because it's a closed society, our intel is limited. We'll simply be bombing the hell out of every main bunker we can locate. The only way we'll even know we got him, is when the C&C structure is no longer operating (and even then, if I were one of his generals, I'd pretend he was still around, giving the orders).


You say what I've been trying to, so starred your post. This is what concerns me, they WILL have to bomb half the country and It WILL result in lots of casualties and destruction, and to what end? We'll be a long way in before we can start thinking it might be over, I repeat myself when I say I think Un is nothing but a puppet, even if he's dead we wont know where we're at...



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strawberry88

@reply on previous page; if you are offended, I guess you shouldbe if you feel I was talking about you... It was obviously directed at the "go USA, bomb the # out of them"-people, if you're one of them, I dont see why I should feel bad about the harsh words, its how I genuinely feel about people who are so blind to wish death upon strangers who are more a victim than the big boys with the big words will ever be.



Well im not one of those people as such, my grievences are solely with the regime of NK. I dont expect you to "feel bad about harsh words", everyone is entitled to their opinion. Although to me, it appeared as though your post was aimed at anyone agreeing that strikes would be the appropriate measure to take.

If you could come up with an alternative way to free the NK people and world of this regime, without bloodshed, without threats of war, im sure there'd be so many people here that would listen. It would be a much better way to handle things than to start calling and labelling people as you did.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Catch_a_Fire
 


I just admitted to not having a solution, I dont see why I should have one either, all I know is that I find "just bomb them" to be a disgusting attitude and I loathe the people who see this as the solution, no matter if it's even an option tpo those in command, the idea alone is enough to make me feel sorry for the ones who WOULD consider it.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Ouch...... That was beyond unnecessary. As if anyone in the world needs to see them to know they have the range to be anywhere across it. I mean Kim's being a child with a tantrum ...but if the child's holding a knife or a gun, it's not really wise to push their buttons so hard they snap like a dry branch, either.

Saving face is a huge thing over there...as I understand it? Obama's fast leaving Kim no way out with moves like this. The logic escapes me. At least the B-52 could be debated as having lots of other uses. Iraq saw it far more often than I'm sure they wanted to in 1991. No nukes...just rains of thunder. The B2 tho? Gee.. Why don't we pop a test shot at Johnston Atoll while we're at it. Didn't some idiot do that during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Nothing like a nice road flare in the gas tank to warm things up.


Aside from the fact the B2 is more versatile than you think, I agree 100% with you. This comes across as pure provocation and I'm quite surprised by it. I believe it was announced a while ago that B2 would be taking part in the drills, but still.......talk about fanning the flames. We've basically said to NK "OK - how can you top that?" - which is a dangerous game to be playing with such an unstable regime.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Strawberry88
 


Its a catch 22 situation, if we bomb them we're wrong, if we dont bomb them we're also wrong as the people will continue to suffer.

I dont know what you want me to say, clearly anything i say will be wrong.....in someones eyes.




posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Strawberry88
 



I mostly agree with what you're saying but I feel that even a single civilian is one too many. We're talking about a suppressed people that doesn't deserve what theyre getting now, let alone what is very likely coming their way... I admit I cant propose a solution, but there must be a better one than precise bombing etc, as there will, imo, always be too many casualties, be it civilian or indoctrinated followers.


All the more reason to bring him to the table. However, in order for it to work, HE has to be the one to blink and ask for it. HE's the one who is in defiance of the UN.

Our actions are intended to send the message loud and clear that these recent sanctions WILL be in effect, if he doesn't do what is asked of him, even by his staunch ally China. HE has to figure out a way to get to the table without losing face, and he knows that the more it escalates, the more his chances of doing that are reduced.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


We will NOT go nuclear in NK, even if he uses them...you can take that to the bank.


That is a scary thought to me. I have NO desire to see massive above ground detonations with people down below. No need for that to respond with the statement which has to follow a nuclear weapons release by anyone in the world, in my view. I'd want to see it very targeted, very carefully deployed and with the smallest yield possible to get a job done. Preferably with a tunneling weapon like the Bunker Buster plowing the path and a very small (by relative standards) tactical nuke following it down to literally erase Kim from existence. I'll live with no body ever being found.

Now..that's only if Kim somehow found a way to deploy what really must be nothing more than gravity bomb type delivery, at best. No one's suggested he has anything advanced to world standards so I've never given any serious credit to the missile based nuclear warhead. Not for a good number of years anyway.

The thing is? No nukes have been used since 1945. So, the first to break the taboo anywhere or for any reason, opens the gates to everyone else merely being a "...and after that initial return to use...." in the history books. No one wants to be first (except maybe Kim in a real insane moment), but I'd be happy to see all 3 major world powers (US, Russia and China) clobber him TOGETHER if nukes got used by him. It's a world survival thing to make a statement remembered for generations ....to keep that taboo intact. Just my take.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Catch_a_Fire
 


He just wants the US to sit in the corner and cry while other countries go off and make threats.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by iwan2ski
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
At least the B-52 could be debated as having lots of other uses. Iraq saw it far more often than I'm sure they wanted to in 1991. No nukes...just rains of thunder. The B2 tho?


As a prior crew chief on the B-2 bomber, I can tell you that munitions wise, they have the same capability, both carry conventional, smart and nuclear bombs. The only big difference is that the B-2 can get there undetected. Also, the B-2 only carries nukes while flying if they are actually given the order for a real world possible attack...or accidentally left installed after an extensive nuclear assurancy drills (which happened once and now results in new guidelines, training and tighter restrictions).

edit on 28-3-2013 by iwan2ski because: (no reason given)


Just for the record.. I know the B-2 has been a busy bomber since the wars began and hasn't carried a single nuke in anger for the whole duration. For that matter, the Ohio Class nuke boats aren't even carrying 100% nuke loads anymore and seeing one of them launch isn't the same "Game Over" feeling it once would have meant in years gone by.

It's hard to argue the statement it makes though, and then..of course.. we have the literal statement made to remove all possible doubt for it being used here in the exercise as a long range, penetration platform for strategic use of nuclear weapons. That bat in the sky would seem to have meant to say to kim....'it can be over your personal residence and making you melt like snow if you don't knock it off'

That would likely be all the message 99% of the world would need to see whoever runs the U.S. Government at any given time has reached a moment of total impatience and sending one of the last clear messages the US has in it's toolbox to send. What else is clearer, after all? Literally...not much I can think of. Nowhere much left out go with this now but to shooting. Let's hope Kim has a moment of clarity and urgent feelings of self preservation.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Preferably with a tunneling weapon like the Bunker Buster plowing the path and a very small (by relative standards) tactical nuke following it down to literally erase Kim from existence


Tactical nukes are actually better at bunker-busting than "bunker busters". Bunker busters offer a conventional alternative, but they aren't near as effective. Our newer MOP is though, penetrates up to 61m (the previous version was 30m), but a tactical nuke can easily go much deeper. Problem is, the actual and political fallout.

If they were to be used, they'd be used for what they are good at...bunker busting. We won't use them though. The whole reason we developed the MOP was to have a conventional alternative when nuclear is off the table politically.


Just for the record.. I know the B-2 has been a busy bomber since the wars began and hasn't carried a single nuke in anger for the whole duration.


If I recall, the B-2 can carry two MOPs though, in it's bay...
edit on 28-3-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Obama's fast leaving Kim no way out with moves like this. The logic escapes me


Isn't it obvious?

The more it escalates, the more likely Kim is to either do something stupid, or come to the table to talk. Either way, we win politically.


Seems there are a few here that think B-2 in nuclear terms when it is obviously capable of so much more. A good precision munition down the chimney or in Little Kim's window will make him see the light... even if only a flash.


Another use of the B-2, is delivery of the MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator). Unlike the previous bunker busters, which could do 30m, the MOP can do 61m depths. However, some of NK's installations are rumored to be 80m deep, so may take two hits per target. Luckily, that is the payload of the B-2...


We will NOT go nuclear in NK, even if he uses them...you can take that to the bank.
edit on 28-3-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)


Yes... and so much more. I don't think that the nuclear option will be used either. Too messy and politically hazardous especially if he tries something stupid and the US shows nuclear restraint. Like Israel did when Scuds hit their soil. China and Russia also would be standing over the corpse looking at Uncle Sam saying What the Hell man?

Too messy.

I don't think it occurs to Un just what forces can actually be lined against him on many fronts. I just think he sees himself as like a rock star to his people. They may starve but it isn't Un's fault but if it rains on their crops it surely came from Un's Blessing. Madness. They know no better in rural areas and if they happened to see missile contrails rising from their nation I am sure they will feel pride and patriotic, even while the stomach grumbles.

It can really turn out messy. No nukes. No mass carpet bombing of populations. Either diplomacy or constantly looking over your shoulder for that next long range Tomahawk





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join