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.

 

More US Deployments

page: 4
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I've heard mixed reports on the Whiskey. Some say there are still at least a couple in service, others that say they are retired.

I don't remember the Whiskey having a missile capability, but they had the ability to fire mines and nuclear torpedoes. They also have some upgraded Romeo class boats from China, but again, no missile capability. I'm not sure how they changed the specs from the original Romeo class though.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
For those who say no way I would point out the US IS PIVOTING from a middle eastern posture to cover the pacific starting LAST YEAR.They need a war so they can again start a draft and establish more control.Laws are different during a declared war of suitable magnitude.I think that is what we are seeing here ,in fact I thought they would have pushed harder on the women in combat thing.
edit on 5-4-2013 by cavtrooper7 because: missplled



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yep, there are 3 options (cruise missiles) if I recall correctly, a single cylinder, a double, or a rack of 4 missile cylinders. I have to find a link to the article, but as I recall, when they bought them, they did so without any cylinders or firing mechanisms for them. Just torpedoes and mines. But, I wouldn't put it past them to modify them.

This is for the Whiskey, mind you. The Romeo and other subs they have, have no such capability.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yep, there are 3 options (cruise missiles) if I recall correctly, a single cylinder, a double, or a rack of 4 missile cylinders. I have to find a link to the article, but as I recall, when they bought them, they did so without any cylinders or firing mechanisms for them. Just torpedoes and mines. But, I wouldn't put it past them to modify them.

This is for the Whiskey, mind you. The Romeo and other subs they have, have no such capability.
edit on 5-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

How about a delivery system that would not include a rocket or missile?

A submarine drops a package off with an infiltration team (something the NK's are known for) on the Canadian coast, the nuclear device is delivered via truck to a destination inside the US.

Just a thought.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Good luck getting one of those old subs across the Pacific without being detected though. The US might not have the best record at tracking diesel submarines, but the Whiskey and Romeo are based on late/immediately post WWII designs. That means they're noisy as hell, and have to spend a lot of time on or near the surface snorkeling. That means a lot of noise that can be picked up a long way away.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


Yeah, that sounds familiar now. It's been so long since I've studied up on the old boats that I forgot. They were one of the first capable of firing any kind of missile system IIRC.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Yep, they have to surface, a LOT. Not to mention, there are other, more viable methods. (After Red October, I was obsessed with Soviet Subs for a bit)... A few years ago maybe, we hard difficulty with diesel subs, but not these days, thanks to a few advances in computing power. Even then, the systems could detect them easily enough, but the analysis took forever, now, it's real time....

To another poster:


How about a delivery system that would not include a rocket or missile?


That is really their only option. Such as smuggling a nuke aboard a cargo container on a shipping barge, etc. However, once one nuke is attempted, the regime is toast, and Kim knows it. At that point, nearly all the velvet cuffs are off, internationally, and we'll have near carte blanche to send their war machine back to the stone age (which, admittedly, is a short trip).



edit on 5-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok
 


I see the DPRK government as being insane, but not stupid. They want to retain power, and the worst thing they could due is use nuclear weapons. That would guarantee that they are gone. If there is a conventional war there is at least a chance that they can keep power after a negotiated settlement.

As for the diesel subs, it also helps that we had what, three years?, with the Swiss AIP boat that is ultra quiet, relearning how to detect diesel subs.
edit on 4/5/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Good luck getting one of those old subs across the Pacific without being detected though. The US might not have the best record at tracking diesel submarines, but the Whiskey and Romeo are based on late/immediately post WWII designs. That means they're noisy as hell, and have to spend a lot of time on or near the surface snorkeling. That means a lot of noise that can be picked up a long way away.

true.
But there are options, such as a tag-along with a noisy old cargo ship (or even towed), then cutting away for the drop-off.

I agree that it would be a stupid move for NK, but there is no accounting for crazy. With what we have seen for years with three generations of Kims, I wouldn't say never.
edit on 5-4-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Yeah, but that's a really dangerous thing to do. You have to be REALLY close to the cargo ship to hide your signature completely. Doing that over a 5000 mile trip is asking for a lot of risk. There are far better ways to do it than to try to hide it on a submarine and sneak it across the Pacific.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Goes for biologics too. Politically, using biological weapons is almost as bad as nukes, and would have the same fate for the regime. Like Zaphod58, I strongly believe they want to stay in power, and actually believe we will back down, and why shouldn't they? We always have in the past, and given them a cookie to pacify them. I'm hoping this time we keep the cookie jar closed, unless they are willing to put away their toys first.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Both sides have backed off a lot over that whole situation. There were talks scheduled,


Oh I thought that was the "whole situation". Tit for tat? Funny how we forget.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I suspect that's why North Korea started barking when they did. Either A) they weren't getting any attention anymore, or B) China wanted a distraction that allowed both sides to back away from that without the need to save face, so they told them to make noise. And then North Korea being North Korea, it spiraled way beyond what was needed to this point.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
A whille back I saw a Whiskey class sub for sale in Long Beach. They wanted $500,000 for it. I have no idea if it was even operational or if it was actually real.

I thought it would be way more awesome than buying a private island.

Hell yeah, my own submarine.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Ive also wondered what the true reason is for all this, this goes much further than any dispute over sanctions. Im wondering if the US gave China an ultimatum when NK kicked off last time. Something along the lines of "we'll let you deal with it this time, next time he's toast". After the sinking of the cheonan, you can imagine it being said that that was the final straw and no amount of bargaining would save NK next time.

I worry about China's true intent, when i think of how they are playing this it seems too good to be true that they go against NK.

I really think we will all get a shock if it comes to real blows.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   
You made it on zero hedge OP, good job!
www.zerohedge.com...



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Wow. Imagine a military anywhere in the world actually preparing for by doing military exercises at any time !!!.

What has the world come to.




Nothing will happen. It's just precautions because of a stupid kid given responsibility before his brain is developed. Ohhh, ok, that does make him dangerous. Now he can launch not one but two untried missiles. Based on previous experience they should get....ohh I don't know... 10 miles out to sea?
edit on 5-4-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 06:26 PM
link   
For those of you who are afraid of China backing North Korea if war should break out:

China will do nothing of the sort. They may secretly send financial aid, but that's the most they'll ever do. China, along with Russia, has been pulling support, denouncing certain activities and proclamations the North Koreans have been making, and have an overall "we all just need to calm down" kind of attitude.

The last thing China wants to do is get involved in a war. They want peace as much as any other country.

EDIT: Somebody told me, can't remember who, that China and North Korea are like two kids who grew up together making trouble for everybody around them. China grew up, went to college, got a job, got married, and had kids, while North Korea joined a gang, sold drugs, and beat up people. North Korea's been coming to China for some time whenever they get into trouble, but eventually China just shook his head and said, "No, I can't help you anymore, man."
edit on 5-4-2013 by FollowTheWhiteRabbit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I hope the enemy doesn't sneak up behind you. WATCH YOUR 6!



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by lcbjr1979
Sounds like our troops are getting ready for a fight in the Pacific, and or a preemptive strike.


I have been listening to the MSM on various channels these past few days...and the 2 words (preemptive strike) have been said a lot; I think that the U.S. may be headed in this direction.




top topics



 
52
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join