BF2S Forums North Korea threatens nuclear war

usmarine wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

usmarine wrote:

turq....stop.  nobody really knows what they have.  thats a fact.  NK is prolly the least known country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2

While it is true that North Korea is a hard nation to get intel on, what we do know suggests that we could bomb them into oblivion, if we wanted to.

i know we could bomb them flat.....nObama wouldnt do that.  hence the defense.

I think you underestimate Obama's moral flexibility.

He has mostly shown himself to be a pragmatist.  With international support, I see no reason why he would refrain from destroying North Korea if it proved necessary.

The catch is getting international support.

actually most right people i see on TV are bitching about him not doing enough but ok

Ottomania wrote:

imortal wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good point...

This may be a better way of putting it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWtQ4lfU … re=related

-or-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sks6D2l8 … re=related

B-52 shouldnt be used since B-1 Lancer and B-2 Spirit exist.

The B-1B is a low-altitude medium bomber, true.  The B-2 is a stealth bomber, used for highly defended targets or in the opening phases of the war to open an alley for follow-on forces.  Neither of them do we have in the number like we do the B-52s.  The B-52 tops the charts in bomb load, which gets really cool if they are all JDAMS or ALCMs.  The B-1B and the B-2 are really cool, but are kinds of specialized.  While there is most definately an application for them in any planed campaign, the workhorse of any bombing will be the ugly, boxy, old B-52.

Mekstizzle wrote:

I was reading the other day and I found out that the Russian Tu-160 actually has a bigger payload than the B-52. I was like wow, supersonic swing wing with a bigger payload than the massive B-52

Is that internal payloads only, or does that include the B-52s ability to carry external hardpoints as well?  I only ask because I don't think a sweep-wing design lends itself well to carrying too much external loads (on the wing as opposed to the fuselage).

EDIT  Okay, the Russians know how to build big planes!

In a hunt to find something better about the B-52, I noticed the Stratofortress has a better range and the fact that we have more than twice as many.  (yay!)

Last edited by imortal (2009-06-14 12:53:51)

Mekstizzle wrote:

imortal wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

I was reading the other day and I found out that the Russian Tu-160 actually has a bigger payload than the B-52. I was like wow, supersonic swing wing with a bigger payload than the massive B-52

Is that internal payloads only, or does that include the B-52s ability to carry external hardpoints as well?  I only ask because I don't think a sweep-wing design lends itself well to carrying too much external loads (on the wing as opposed to the fuselage).

I dunno, according to the best source ever the Tu-160 has an internal payload of 40,000Kg whilst the B-52 has upto 31,500Kg of ordinance, but wiki doesn't talk about internal or external nor does the website it references to:

http://www.minot.af.mil/library/factshe … sp?id=3724

I think this aircraft actually out-bombs the B-52

Boeing says it lists the 70,000 pound capacity as internal and external, while it appears that the Tu-160 is internal only.  Very friggin impressive, to be honest.  However, there are only 17 of the Russian bombers in service to the 72 US B-52s. 

Also, while it is a matter of supposition and not deduction, I wonder if you would run out of internal volume for bombs before you maxed out your bomb weight?  I know that happened to the B-52, hence the external hardpoints.  That huge capacity is most likely for the carrying of much heavier nuclear weapons.

EDIT Then again, maybe not. 

Weapons are carried in two internal bays, each capable of holding 20,000 kg (44,400 lb) of free-fall weapons or a rotary launcher for nuclear missiles; additional missiles may also be carried externally. The aircraft's payload capacity is 45,000 kg (99,208 lb), making it the heaviest bomber ever built. However, no defensive weapons are provided; the Tu-160 is the first unarmed post-World War II Soviet bomber.

wiki

Last edited by imortal (2009-06-14 13:00:57)

Well, goes to show I was in the Army, and not the Air Force.  Another big friggin plane.  And your argument on cost is an appropriate one.

South Korea is getting pissed... Could be a wild summer if North and South Korea go to war and the Iranians overthrow the aquavelvajihad regime....?   and American idol doesn't get picked up for a new season...

Poseidon wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Guys, guys guys...we have to wait til they attack first.  The is what Lord Obama has ordained, and so will it be.

You'd rather go into ANOTHER war without us or one of our allies being attacked first?

Against China's ally no less.

Poseidon wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Guys, guys guys...we have to wait til they attack first.  The is what Lord Obama has ordained, and so will it be.

You'd rather go into ANOTHER war without us or one of our allies being attacked first?

We kinda learned at Pearl Harbor that waiting can be kinda expensive.  If you don't attack first, it may be hard to attack at all.

Well, kinda learned.  Some people learned, others choose not to.

Depending what you hit, the first hits can be some of the most critical, and can cut a fight short, rather than rawing it out into a slugging match.  Of course, Japan thought the same thing when they hit Pearl Harbor, so sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

I sure hope we and or South Korea make the first move... this Kim Jong il guy wants to go out with a bang...
It would suck to see most of South Korea and North Korea obliterated for a kook like Kim
Take out his missiles on the pad...

"NKorea warns of nuclear war amid rising tensions"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090614/ap_ … as_nuclear

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-06-14 19:17:51)

Poseidon wrote:

imortal wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

You'd rather go into ANOTHER war without us or one of our allies being attacked first?

We kinda learned at Pearl Harbor that waiting can be kinda expensive.  If you don't attack first, it may be hard to attack at all.

Well, kinda learned.  Some people learned, others choose not to.

Depending what you hit, the first hits can be some of the most critical, and can cut a fight short, rather than rawing it out into a slugging match.  Of course, Japan thought the same thing when they hit Pearl Harbor, so sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

See now, if our military wasn't aa bit busy with two wars already, I could understand that.

But right now I can not, in any way, justify attacking NK.

Bahh, the DMZ is there for a reason.  Hold the line and let the Air Force play.  Remember the Desert storm 'Highway of Death?'  Just turn the DMZ into an updated version, use the 2ID to clean up the leakers.  Send the AF north and take out all the power stations (ever see a satalite pic of N. Korea at night?), bomb the hell out of every military instalation, ADA site, and possible hiding spot for the HMFIC.  Basically like we did in Gulf War 1 and 2, just with a better fallback position in case of counter attack.  All that mountainous area means that the heavy vehicles have to stick to nice, predictable roads for easy targeting and bombing.  Let the Air Force play. I think we have enough of them for that.

Narupug wrote:

Let's hope Obama does whatever neccessary to stop an attack.

What could he possibly do?  And remember he already went to the U.N. Security council to increase sanctions against North Korea. 


Edit: And if those sanctions are enforced North Korea already said they would attack South Korea.

Last edited by Harmor (2009-06-14 20:41:06)

imortal wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Guys, guys guys...we have to wait til they attack first.  The is what Lord Obama has ordained, and so will it be.

You'd rather go into ANOTHER war without us or one of our allies being attacked first?

We kinda learned at Pearl Harbor that waiting can be kinda expensive.  If you don't attack first, it may be hard to attack at all.

Well, kinda learned.  Some people learned, others choose not to.

Depending what you hit, the first hits can be some of the most critical, and can cut a fight short, rather than rawing it out into a slugging match.  Of course, Japan thought the same thing when they hit Pearl Harbor, so sometimes it works, sometimes it don't.

We needed the attack at Pearl Harbor to be damaging enough to freak out the general populace while still being not damaging enough to significantly affect our strength in order for us to properly enter the war with public support.

Nowadays, this can be garnered with far less damage done.  The current populace is much more willing to go to war with North Korea than our populace was willing to go to war with Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

In addition, if we let North Korea strike first, it makes it easier to get international support, because the war can be seen as defensive.

All it takes is one ship to be attacked.  That's really not that hard.