First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Russia Threatens Invasion If North Korea Nuclear Rhetoric Continues
27273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 3/9/16
I find reading comprehension of that article rather poor...

If one reads even halfway carefully one would notice that Russia is only hinting invasion by "the international community" and not actually Russia proper, and even though Russia technically belongs in the said "community", its threat is mostly targeted at an invasion by a western coalition.
3488 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Chapel Hill, N.C
Offline
Posted 3/9/16 , edited 3/9/16
Somewhere the ghosts of Nixon and Reagan are saying "I'd never thought I'd miss the USSR" when they see how crazy NK is.
17765 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / outer wall, level...
Offline
Posted 3/9/16
yeah a EMP strike could cripple an entire coast.
Posted 3/10/16 , edited 3/10/16

outontheop wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Our bombs still won't reach them.


Look out, professional military personnel, PV the 19-year-old military analyst is here to tell us what our weapons can and cannot do, regardless of entire development lines being dedicated to this exact, specific target set. *rolls eyes*


If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong, but don't mock me for my age. Although you are correct, we are developing ways to actually penetrate these bunkers, of which Iran and North Korea are pros at.

https://www.rt.com/usa/246753-pentagon-ugraded-bunker-bomb/

https://www.nknews.org/2015/09/pointing-the-worlds-largest-bomb-at-north-korea/

So forgive me if my info is a bit outdated, as these articles were recent.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/10/16 , edited 3/10/16

outontheop wrote:
But none of that really matters, because why would you spend billions for an orbital delivery launch when a) it's impossible to launch ENOUGH of them to service all the targets in a timely manner, and b) there's no point, because all you need to do is render the contents of the tunnel inaccessible?

Also, I'm not sure there's enough (accessible) tungsten in the WORLD to make enough warheads to suffice -.- edit: ok, 61,000 tons produced annually, so supply wouldn't be impossible, but it would still be ridiculously expensive and inefficient.


The (only) selling points are delivery time and difficulty of detection/interception. 10-12 minutes, any target on the planet, with no launch signature. The system is intended to take out nuclear bunkers and silos without warning. Highly impractical for any other purpose.

The SALT treaties don't really define WMD, aside from nuclear, leaving interpretation open. The UN does offer a definition, which is the most commonly used, but dozens of alternate definitions are in common usage. Basically, the term means whatever best serves the user at that particular moment. According to the UN:


[WMD are] . . . atomic explosive weapons, radio active material
weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any
weapons developed in the future which have characteristics
comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or
other weapons mentioned above.9


The segment on future weapons is undefined, leaving the classification of kinetic energy weapons up to the developer. The particular system discussed delivers an energy equivalent to 11 tons of TNT. Well within the range of conventional weapons, simply possessing characteristics that make it ideal for rapid global deployment and neutralization of hardened targets.

24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/10/16 , edited 3/10/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


outontheop wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Our bombs still won't reach them.


Look out, professional military personnel, PV the 19-year-old military analyst is here to tell us what our weapons can and cannot do, regardless of entire development lines being dedicated to this exact, specific target set. *rolls eyes*


If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong, but don't mock me for my age. Although you are correct, we are developing ways to actually penetrate these bunkers, of which Iran and North Korea are pros at.

https://www.rt.com/usa/246753-pentagon-ugraded-bunker-bomb/

https://www.nknews.org/2015/09/pointing-the-worlds-largest-bomb-at-north-korea/

So forgive me if my info is a bit outdated, as these articles were recent.


If you're not an expert in the field, don't repeatedly make one - line assertions in the face of (likely more experience-based) dissenting opinions, and it will be much less likely someone will feel compelled to put a very fine point on the matter of calling you out
27282 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/10/16
russias lame..
19921 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / A town called "Ci...
Offline
Posted 3/10/16
Hey, North Korea, remember your old pals, the Russians...?
17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 3/10/16 , edited 3/10/16
It would be nice if they cleaned up the damn mess they made ~60 years ago, I really hope to see a unified Korea in my lifetime.


outontheop wrote:

If you're not an expert in the field, don't repeatedly make one - line assertions in the face of (likely more experience-based) dissenting opinions, and it will be much less likely someone will feel compelled to put a very fine point on the matter of calling you out


Calm down and give the guy a break. This is Crunchyroll, not an academic forum, you shouldn't be telling him what he can and can not say.
Posted 3/11/16 , edited 3/11/16

outontheop wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


outontheop wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Our bombs still won't reach them.


Look out, professional military personnel, PV the 19-year-old military analyst is here to tell us what our weapons can and cannot do, regardless of entire development lines being dedicated to this exact, specific target set. *rolls eyes*


If I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong, but don't mock me for my age. Although you are correct, we are developing ways to actually penetrate these bunkers, of which Iran and North Korea are pros at.

https://www.rt.com/usa/246753-pentagon-ugraded-bunker-bomb/

https://www.nknews.org/2015/09/pointing-the-worlds-largest-bomb-at-north-korea/

So forgive me if my info is a bit outdated, as these articles were recent.


If you're not an expert in the field, don't repeatedly make one - line assertions in the face of (likely more experience-based) dissenting opinions, and it will be much less likely someone will feel compelled to put a very fine point on the matter of calling you out


I'm only repeating what other people have said, and I trust them in their fields. My opinion might be a bit outdated, but that is where calm disagreement comes from. You don't just call people out and rub it in their face, even if they are wrong. That's rude.


I admit, I am wrong. Stop being such an ass about it.
15259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 3/11/16
Mere sabre rattling, no-one is going to invade anyone (unless they have a casus belli, never invade without a casus belli)
37379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/11/16

Dariamus wrote:


outontheop wrote:
But none of that really matters, because why would you spend billions for an orbital delivery launch when a) it's impossible to launch ENOUGH of them to service all the targets in a timely manner, and b) there's no point, because all you need to do is render the contents of the tunnel inaccessible?

Also, I'm not sure there's enough (accessible) tungsten in the WORLD to make enough warheads to suffice -.- edit: ok, 61,000 tons produced annually, so supply wouldn't be impossible, but it would still be ridiculously expensive and inefficient.


The (only) selling points are delivery time and difficulty of detection/interception. 10-12 minutes, any target on the planet, with no launch signature. The system is intended to take out nuclear bunkers and silos without warning. Highly impractical for any other purpose.

The SALT treaties don't really define WMD, aside from nuclear, leaving interpretation open. The UN does offer a definition, which is the most commonly used, but dozens of alternate definitions are in common usage. Basically, the term means whatever best serves the user at that particular moment. According to the UN:


[WMD are] . . . atomic explosive weapons, radio active material
weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any
weapons developed in the future which have characteristics
comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or
other weapons mentioned above.9


The segment on future weapons is undefined, leaving the classification of kinetic energy weapons up to the developer. The particular system discussed delivers an energy equivalent to 11 tons of TNT. Well within the range of conventional weapons, simply possessing characteristics that make it ideal for rapid global deployment and neutralization of hardened targets.



M.O.P. or M.O.A.B. type weapons are not comparable to atomic weapons. Although their destructive power is very great, they do not leave radioactive debris that can keep spreading its killing range as the wind carries its smoke clouds for thousands of miles around the globe, nor keep on killing for thousands of years after the weapon has been used.

I think this clause is for weapons that really have a real long reach. For example. A "Time Bomb." A weapon that when exploded, erases events that had occurred for tens of years into the past. Or a weapon, when exploded, kills everyone with a specific DNA make up. Selective ethnic cleaning. A bomb that kills millions of people based only on their DNA. Those are the kinds of weapons that this clause is aimed at. I just made up some science fiction bombs, but you know, science is always catching up to fiction...
48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 3/11/16
I hope Russia is planning to use a lot of air strikes. Because in a land based invasion, North Korea would kick the shit out of Russia.
37379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/11/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

I hope Russia is planning to use a lot of air strikes. Because in a land based invasion, North Korea would kick the shit out of Russia.


No... They would not. N.K.'s stuff is old and out of shape. However, it doesn't mean it would be easy for Russia. However, N.K. would, out of spite, invade S.K., just to destroy Seoul.

No matter what scenario you imagine, Seoul will get trashed. So, if you plan on taking down N.K., you got to plan for losing Seoul...
30236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 3/11/16
Putin expands his insecurities to include NK.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.