Korea : First Strike Capability with Conventional Weapons

Originally posted by Gazrok

I believe these are the primary reasons that although we aren't ready to budge on pushing for a non-nuclear NK, we are also trying to resolve this peacefully, as long as it takes...because time is just time, but lives are more important.

why was this Logic not used for Iraq and Afghanistan
with those two in mind does the US *government* actually care about lives?

reply to post by bodrul

why was this Logic not used for Iraq and Afghanistan
with those two in mind does the US *government* actually care about lives?

A simple, if not very kind answer.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the lives concerned, were not our allies.

In addition, there wasn't the complication of those nations being so joined at the hip with two other major world players (Russia and China). This complication requires some velvet gloves.

reply to post by bodrul


You guys live in fantasy land just hoping someone beats America ..

But its North Korea,what are they the size New jersey? You wanna bring up Vietnam and the korean war these were wars that were 50 years ago.. Hell the us military then wouldnt stand a chance against the us military now

Wecan rain down bombs from boats 300 miles off their coast with pinpoint accuracy and cameras mounted on them lmao

Keep living in your fantasy world cause thats the only world NK wins in

reply to post by pheonix358


Great info Pheonix! Man the names of their missiles just get me laughing!!

The No dong 2 is believed to have a smaller warhead, a longer range

So the No dong 2 has a longer range! Man this stuff just makes me laugh.....It is no laughing matter but shouldn't the no dong 2 have little to no range?

I keep thinking a preemptive strike would be best, with NK declaring war with the USA, it might be smart to take out their weapon cache and some important sites to set them back quite a while!

I would hate to see this just slow down and be forgotten about, in the meantime NK has a lot of time to actually make a warhead that can reach the USA and become a lot more threatening for generations down the road....I am not about war, but this is scary for our children.....Where as it might be smart to end this problem now.

Originally posted by goou111
reply to post by bodrul

 

You guys live in fantasy land just hoping someone beats America ..

Ah if only I said anywhere in that reply that North Korea would beat the US
it seems someone is getting words out of their imagination here and fantasizing

but if you like here is one to make you happy to add to your little fantasy Land reply
No Empire Lasts forever
Economies crumble
Military Might falls (look at US cut backs to Air force and so on)

for reference for others and why his reply is kind of pointless

you know one great thing about relying heavily on technology it only takes someone with a lot of time and talent to hack and use that against you aka the taliban using off the shelf laptops and other gear to see what the US see with their drones.

as mentioned before firepower wise the US is king of the Hill, when it comes to urban warfare where they have to fight gorilla style warfare they tend to be on less then level playing field as they lose the advantage (short of bombing the block)

also to add, North Korea was to use its diseal subs and pulled off what China did when it shadowed the US carrier without being detected, that's one hell of a trophy target just because one has a bigger gun does not mean someone aka north Korea with a tiny ass gun cant do something

Ok, I was just watching Faux News, and they had a guy on talking about N. Korea not having the capabilities of hitting the US, and it was said they do not have nuclear capabilities. In the NEXT breath, so to speak, he went on to say N. Korea has 6-8 nuclear warheads. I know I'm polish, but if someone can explain to me how in the hell they can go from no capabilities, to 6-8 warheads in a matter of seconds, I'd really appreciate it.

I know Fox news isn't the straightest shooters on the facts, (don't watch in depth) But if someone like me can catch that, how on earth can the common sheeple not catch on to it?? Does anyone NOT pay attention anymore? I think this affliction (not paying attention) is causing us more harm than good.

Sorry, my sarcasim on the news..........

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by bodrul

 

why was this Logic not used for Iraq and Afghanistan
with those two in mind does the US *government* actually care about lives?

A simple, if not very kind answer.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the lives concerned, were not our allies.

In addition, there wasn't the complication of those nations being so joined at the hip with two other major world players (Russia and China). This complication requires some velvet gloves.

edit on 15-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

so basically for the United States as long as the lives don't effect their image to their people
the value of the lives lost is basically less then those who are Americas Friends/Allies

now to quote Thomas Jefferson and something which is written in the US Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

then again The US government follow what they like and that quote could just mean the lives of Americans

reply to post by bodrul

so basically for the United States as long as the lives don't effect their image to their people
the value of the lives lost is basically less then those who are Americas Friends/Allies

Is this not true for any group?

Is the value of your family's lives more than those of strangers? Of course it is.

It does not mean you see them as not having value....I myself would certainly try and save a stranger's life if I could...but if it was a choice between saving a family member or friend, vs. a stranger? Can you honestly say you'd choose any differently? I didn't think so.

No other nation has ever before or since spent so much money on precision weaponry to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage than the US military.

then again The US government follow what they like and that quote could just mean the lives of Americans

Did the Declaration of Independence apply to any others, other than Americans? No....

As for the Chinese sub issue, apples and oranges. It was a nuclear sub, not a WWII era diesel. (and this was quite a few years ago, 2007 I believe?)

Originally posted by Gazrok
Is this not true for any group?

Is the value of your family's lives more than those of strangers? Of course it is.

It does not mean you see them as not having value....I myself would certainly try and save a stranger's life if I could...but if it was a choice between saving a family member or friend, vs. a stranger? Can you honestly say you'd choose any differently? I didn't think so.

No other nation has ever before or since spent so much money on precision weaponry to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage than the US military.

I fail to compare the two

you cant really compare the United states (along with Britain) Invading and being responsible for the deaths of so many to "Is the value of your family's lives more than those of strangers"

The US changed its stance on IRAQ from ghost WMDs to Liberation of the Iraqi people
yet stands idle when a far worse dictator who threatens its security and that of its allies
locks up decedents and has a brutal track record on how it treats its people.

The US has precision weaponry?
say that to relatives of entire families who have been wiped out because of Human error when they drop hellfire missiles from drones or those that are born with birth defects when the US uses depleted uranium rounds.

there is a fine line between valuing ones family and choosing if you want to go out your way and bomb someone because you value them less then your family or friends

The United States along with our government fabricated so much crap to go into one country which didn't pose a threat to us and yet when it comes to North Korea all the sudden its going ethical on lives?

reply to post by bodrul

I fail to compare the two

you cant really compare the United states (along with Britain) Invading and being responsible for the deaths of so many to "Is the value of your family's lives more than those of strangers"

You do recall that Iraq invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours first, correct? I must have missed where you said that...

The US changed its stance on IRAQ from ghost WMDs to Liberation of the Iraqi people
yet stands idle when a far worse dictator who threatens its security and that of its allies
locks up decedents and has a brutal track record on how it treats its people.

Politically, our hands are kind of tied here. NK is allied with our landlord. Iraq was not. As for WMD's, he did have them. We know, because we sold them to him. We also gave him 2 whole months to hide and move them. Even then, nobody with half a brain believed the WMD reason anyhow. It wasn't about oil either. Are we profiting from Iraqi oil wells? No. It was about Saddam trying to tank the dollar. Sorry if I'm still ok with taking him out.

The US has precision weaponry?
say that to relatives of entire families who have been wiped out because of Human error when they drop hellfire missiles from drones or those that are born with birth defects when the US uses depleted uranium rounds.

there is a fine line between valuing ones family and choosing if you want to go out your way and bomb someone because you value them less then your family or friends

Nothing can eliminate ALL collateral damage, but we've spent billions to limit it. If you compare civilian casualties for these actions to ANY past war or any current war involving others, there isn't even anyone else in the neighborhood. The percentages are in the basement. I'm with you on the DU rounds though. There is no call for using those in Iraq or Afghanistan when in populated areas.

The United States along with our government fabricated so much crap to go into one country which didn't pose a threat to us and yet when it comes to North Korea all the sudden its going ethical on lives?

Posed a threat (and made good on the threat) to our ally. ALL wars are built on fabricated nonsense. They are all about resources, whether the crusades, or one caveman tribe taking up clubs to get another tribe. In Iraq, it was about the preservation of our resources, namely our currency base. What is Kim basing his rhetoric on? Some belief that the Koreas should be united? Fabricated nonsense...they are two distinct people now.

Originally posted by Gazrok
You do recall that Iraq invaded Kuwait, an ally of ours first, correct? I must have missed where you said that...

Iraq invaded Kuwait again? did I miss something O_O
ah thanks for highlighting that and there I thought this time around the invasion was on the grounds of WMDs and Freedom

Originally posted by Gazrok
Politically, our hands are kind of tied here. NK is allied with our landlord. Iraq was not. As for WMD's, he did have them. We know, because we sold them to him. We also gave him 2 whole months to hide and move them. Even then, nobody with half a brain believed the WMD reason anyhow. It wasn't about oil either. Are we profiting from Iraqi oil wells? No. It was about Saddam trying to tank the dollar. Sorry if I'm still ok with taking him out.

yeah kind of Sad fact a % of Americans still buy the WMD crap
Past Tense he HAD them.
the whole we gave him two months to hide wmds is complete utter crap

Originally posted by Gazrok
Nothing can eliminate ALL collateral damage, but we've spent billions to limit it. If you compare civilian casualties for these actions to ANY past war or any current war involving others, there isn't even anyone else in the neighborhood. The percentages are in the basement. I'm with you on the DU rounds though. There is no call for using those in Iraq or Afghanistan when in populated areas.

sure it can, dont go into someones backyard blind and shoot everything you perceive as a threat
most collateral damage is from US bad Intel and knowledge of the area.
to most drone pilots its just a video game

Originally posted by Gazrok
Posed a threat (and made good on the threat) to our ally. ALL wars are built on fabricated nonsense. They are all about resources, whether the crusades, or one caveman tribe taking up clubs to get another tribe. In Iraq, it was about the preservation of our resources, namely our currency base. What is Kim basing his rhetoric on? Some belief that the Koreas should be united? Fabricated nonsense...they are two distinct people now.

Iraq did not pose a threat, its army was depleted and its armed forces moral was low,
years of sanctions and air campaigns left Iraq no threat to any of its neighbors unlike North Korea is to its
and I didnt realize we were still living in the dark ages of crusades (Great term to use though)



also caps locking certain words doesn't really effect your tone, just find it annoying

reply to post by bodrul


The second time into Iraq was to clean up from the first time, and Saddam not living up to the terms of the first action. You're trying revisionist history by ignoring the event that started it in the first place, and ignoring that it was a UN force, not US, and done with a UN resolution backing it.

the whole we gave him two months to hide wmds is complete utter crap

How? I remember it quite well, he had PLENTY of time, and even succeeded in burying planes in the sand, moving them to Syria and Jordan, etc. I even remember reports of Iraqi ships that left and were never inspected, etc.

Iraq did not pose a threat

I'm sure the Kuwaitis dipped in tubs of acid would disagree.

Of course, all of this is getting away from the point that this is about NK, NOT Iraq or Afghanistan...and currenly, we're in the middle of a terrorist attack in Boston (and likely from a group trained or based out of these beloved countries), so pardon me if I'm not a bit more sympathetic...

reply to post by Gazrok


Hi Gazrok

One thing people overlook is the time factor. If NK open fire they will take out the runways of all SK airbases. You said in another thread that NK would likely use their older fighters to then take out SK aircraft on the ground. I agree 100% The have to use the older aircraft in the opening minutes while they have a short window for air equality. They will never have air superiority. If every old fighter takes out one new fighter on the ground they are well in front.

The US will respond with things like the F/A 18. But how long will it take. This window of time is critical. It takes time to get fighters in the air and if you have to re-arm them because they were armed for anti-ground targets and now you need them for air to air, well you need to re-arm them.

Carriers can launch 4 aircraft in quick succession, it still takes time and then these fighters coming to the rescue still have to fly to NK , find the older fighters and have a field day taking them out of the picture.

But consider that the aggressor gets the jump. Those older fighters could be home by the time the F/A18 get there with terrible damage already done.

The second time those older fighters go up, it will likely be to bring the F/A 18s into range of NK anti air defenses and while the 11,000 anti air artillery may not be up to the job, the local S300 system may well be.

If the US goes into this thinking it will be a cake walk they will be in for a surprise. I don't think they will. That means they have to go slow and steady to probe for the enemies strengths and this will take time.

Incidentally, 60 years is a long time to prepare defenses. Don't be surprised if the tactics employed by NK include a mass panic charge to the rear in the face of the first US counter attack. It could all be a 'bring them to our short range hidden guns' style of warfare.

With the US attacking country after country, NK has to know it is next. No-one has just surrendered yet so from NK's perspective they need that response time lag that being the aggressor gives them. They will be a fool not to use it and they are fighting a war that they see as happening anyway.

Not a good prognosis.

P

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Carrier groups maintain sorties in the air.

They also configure these sorties so that fighter craft have a versatile array of weapons at their disposal to meet any missions demands that might be targets of various nature (air or surface).

How much time for the air group to leave the carrier group and reach Korea? Not very long, because they are already in the air.

The best time for NK would be when the air group needs to land and a new group has to take off, but then, they would need to know when that is happening and what the air group's schedules are. Something that's not advertised. Just like ships movement is classified as "Secret".

While I understand where you are coming from, please understand how US Naval operations work. You don't keep your jets sitting in and on the carrier when you reach your theater of operations. The air craft are in the air and swap out. And the more heightened the alert status, the more are in the air.

I know this from spending 10 years doing this with the US Navy.

Keep in mind also that it doesn't take only jets to down other jets. Missiles work great too. Surface to Surface missiles are also great at taking out enemy surface positions as long as coordinates are given. The range of some of these missiles and for sure the radar systems of the US Navy can reach quite far.

We have a saying in the US Navy: "In god we trust. All others we track."

reply to post by eriktheawful


Nice reply, my thanks.

However Last I checked that Carrier was off the coast of Japan and was not in a condition where large numbers of fighters are constantly in the air. NK has hundreds of older aircraft to deal with.

Yes, I hear you on missiles. But those missiles are, right now, out of range if the NK attacked today. This is my thinking of the initial window of opportunity.

Hey, if I wrong then please and by all means educate me.

P

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

Nice reply, my thanks.

However

Last I checked that Carrier was off the coast of Japan and was not in a condition where large numbers of fighters are constantly in the air. NK has hundreds of older aircraft to deal with.

Yes, I hear you on missiles. But those missiles are, right now, out of range if the NK attacked today. This is my thinking of the initial window of opportunity.

Hey, if I wrong then please and by all means educate me.

P

First I would ask: How do you know exactly where the carrier groups are (carriers are not by themselves)? There exact position when at sea is classified..

Second: how do you know what alert condition the carrier and carrier group are at? That is also classified.

If you do know these things, then someone has seriously violated OPSEC.

Unless you're there you won't know. I can hazard a guess having been in situations like this (I was in the first Gulf War), and I can tell you right now that they are not at "peace time steaming" as it's called. However, I also don't know if they'er weapons status is White and Tight. More than likely they are at Red and Tight (Red and Free is they'er authorized to go in and shoot).

I can also tell you that there are eyes in the sky using radar to watch what is flying around over there. Anything that originates out of NK and heads south is going to be seriously looked at. Anything that shows no signs of deviating from the DMZ and turning around will cause what jets are up to be sent rather quickly (and at about 380 miles from the center of the sea of Japan to the center of the DMZ, doesn't take very long for fighter air craft to get there).

Bases like in Osan and Pusan (they call it Busan now) would also have more than enough time to react and get things off the ground, because of all the monitoring that is going on over there.

When I was in the first gulf war, I could set my screen resolution to well out past 400 miles and see what was there in the air. Not because my radar system could see that far (the AN/SPS-48C only sees out to 220 NM), but because of ALL the radar systems there were out there, including those that were in the sky (EWAC) all tied into our data systems.

That was 1991. Trust me when I say things have come a LONG way since then.

I'm not saying that we'd keep anything from happening, but I'm afraid that you guys have really underestimated the reaction times of our forces over there. You are acting like no threats have been made, and everyone is kicked back on shore leave and doing peace time steaming.

Instead, if you could float a balloon over NK with a flourescent light dangling from a string, it would more than likely light up from all the RF energy of the radar systems watching things right now.

reply to post by eriktheawful


OK, thanks for that. A balloon eh? Maybe they should put a couple of thousand up there. Light up their homes. How many fighters would a carrier have in the air at one time at this stage?

P

Sorry for the late reply as I'd gone to bed.

Modern carriers can carry around 90 aircraft or so of various types.

More than likely they have at least 2 EWACs up in the air or more at all times. They can provide tanker abilities for the fighter aircraft too (refueling).

Each carrier could have a minimum of 12 fighter crafts up in the air performing exercises and patrolling. They can stay up in the air for quite a long time, especially if they do refueling in air. However they do need to land so that the pilots can get rest.

Since we do not know what their actual alert level is however, that number could be a bit higher. They could just as easily have 36 up in the air.

But we don't advertise this as neither you nor I have a need to know.

Don't forget about other air bases in the area also having craft not only up and about, but on standby.

I really like the info that you and Wrabbit dug up and posted. Just keep in mind however that if things go hot, neither the US nor SK are just sitting there kicked back. We are at a heightened state of readiness.

When I was in the Gulf, our Terrier missile system was able to get two missiles in the air and on their way in 17 seconds. And that's old tech.

reply to post by eriktheawful

I really like the info that you and Wrabbit dug up and posted. Just keep in mind however that if things go hot, neither the US nor SK are just sitting there kicked back. We are at a heightened state of readiness.

Please don't get the idea that I do not grasp what you are saying. I do. I also appreciate the information your experience brings to the discussion.

I know full well it may appear as if I am leaning too far to one side, I am just trying my hardest to get many to open their eyes and see that this conflict will cost both sides heavily and we have no bloody idea where Russia or China truly stand if the dogs of war are let loose.

In other threads I have made plain what I think those two will do but my opinion is simply that and nothing more. Still, neither Russia or China will allow the US to take over NK. It would never happen. It puts the three biggest players occupying the same block. That would be a disaster.

P

reply to post by pheonix358


Numbers are just that: numbers. We can draw on past experiences and things that have happened. However, reality teaches us that many times what we expect to happen, may not be what reality brings. Let me give you a good example:

Working for the department of corrections in my state, we had to install a new security camera on a cell block. This camera cost around $3,000. It could zoom, pan, and was encased in a shatter proof plastic dome to prevent inmates from damaging it.
The camera was positioned quite high, well out of reach of any inmate without access to a very tall ladder.

The reason for this new camera was to try and find out how the inmates were defeating the security locks on their cell doors and were able to leave the cells and be out in the cell block after lock down at night.

The camera was working fine, but ended up also being defeated.

How?

A large wad of wet toilet paper is how. Inmates threw large wads of this, and they stuck to the dome of the camera housing and completely blocked the view of the camera.

$3,000 dollar camera defeated by a 50 cent roll of toilet paper.

Lesson of the story is: while we do have a very large technical advantage over NK, and yes, our response time will be quick to anything, it would not surprise me to see something low tech defeating or interfering with our high tech weapons.

Another case in point: Harpoon cruise missiles.
These missiles on surface ships are encased in a metal canister with rubber covered ends. They are normally stacked 2 high and 2 across, giving a total of 4 missiles per launcher. When launched, they blast out of the canister on a booster that fires for 3 seconds and blows off. The missile tips over and dives down, helping ignite it's ram jet engine. The missile then goes into horizontal flight using aircraft fuel to fly very low over the water (I could be more specific, but a lot of info about them is still classified, and I signed a piece of paper before I got out of the Navy that said for the next 50 years, going on 31 more year now, if I revealed any classified info, I agree to have my butt locked up pretty much for the rest of my life, heh). Once in flight, the missile arms itself. Prior to launch it has a plan uploaded to it's MGU (missile guidance unit), and will turn on it's search radar at a designated point.
It's a anti ship missile and quite deadly.

Now to my point: for the longest time, any fool with a .30 cal rifle could have devastated a ship with these missiles on it. All one had to do is aim at the canister and shoot. The round would go through the canister and hit the missile. The rocket fuel in the boosters is NOT something you want to shoot at. The warhead would not detonate because of what it's made of. But shooting the booster would have been very bad.

Good example of low tech taking out high tech.

BTW - the "thin walled" canisters are no longer used. They have a "thick walled" ones that they use for those missiles and can take up to a .50 cal round now.