First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Russia Threatens Invasion If North Korea Nuclear Rhetoric Continues
Tantic 
3198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / England
Offline
Posted 3/11/16
Problem with NK is it's only ally - China.

China would never help NK in an offensive war, but if Russia makes the first move... I don't know.
72 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/11/16
The effectiveness of North Korea's military is questionable. What equipment they have is literally being held together with spit and vinegar. What it really comes down to is the willingness to bleed. Every war has a butchers bill for its cost. Russia would of course crush them. I would be curious to see though as to what the South Koreans would do. It would be an opportunity too good to pass up. North Korea would be busy in the north and unable to put full weight on the 48th parallel. A harsh and fast assault from the south. South Korea could actually liberate their people and unify the nation for the first time in over a century.
24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/11/16

DeadlyOats wrote:

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...


No, but orbital-entry kinetic weapons are. If you're liberating energy greater than that of a small nuclear warhead, a reasonable assessment would call that a weapon of mass destruction. If you extend the process to it's logical conclusion, it would mean you could collide an extinction-level asteroid into the Earth, but that wouldn't satisfy the requirement to be a "weapon of mass destruction".

Longevity of residual effects, and selectivity of the effects are not really key features of a WMD. For example, chemical munitions are in fact easier to protect against than an HE projectile, requiring only relatively easily designed and donned chemical protective suits, while no wearable ensemble can protect from an HE burst. Non-persistent agents break down in a matter of minutes, leaving no residual effects whatsoever. However, chemical weapons are considered WMDs.

An explosive device that liberates as much energy as a nuclear weapon, but has no radioactive fallout would still be a WMD, whether the mechanism of that destructive force was via kinetic impact (conversion to heat) like an orbital projectile or by radiative energy absorbed by the surrounding medium (conversion to heat) like a nuclear bomb. Kind of academic.

But if you want to get technical, the Space Treaty says "weapons of similar destructiveness"
37289 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/12/16 , edited 3/12/16

outontheop wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:

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...


No, but orbital-entry kinetic weapons are. If you're liberating energy greater than that of a small nuclear warhead, a reasonable assessment would call that a weapon of mass destruction. If you extend the process to it's logical conclusion, it would mean you could collide an extinction-level asteroid into the Earth, but that wouldn't satisfy the requirement to be a "weapon of mass destruction".

Longevity of residual effects, and selectivity of the effects are not really key features of a WMD. For example, chemical munitions are in fact easier to protect against than an HE projectile, requiring only relatively easily designed and donned chemical protective suits, while no wearable ensemble can protect from an HE burst. Non-persistent agents break down in a matter of minutes, leaving no residual effects whatsoever. However, chemical weapons are considered WMDs.

An explosive device that liberates as much energy as a nuclear weapon, but has no radioactive fallout would still be a WMD, whether the mechanism of that destructive force was via kinetic impact (conversion to heat) like an orbital projectile or by radiative energy absorbed by the surrounding medium (conversion to heat) like a nuclear bomb. Kind of academic.

But if you want to get technical, the Space Treaty says "weapons of similar destructiveness"


You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None.

High Explosive Artillery can cause damage and destruction, but nothing like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CgqXifzYKs

According to your ill informed ideas, they should have been able to "easily defend against it." However, as you can see, they could not. Over 5000 dead, and over 10000 wounded, from a single artillery barrage that lasted a couple of hours. You can't do that much damage with an HE artillery barrage.

Sure, there will be a lot more destroyed buildings, but most people would have fled. Deaths would have been in the hundreds, with hundreds more wounded. Nothing like what that chemical attack produced.

Also, there are two classes of chemical weapons, persistent, and non-persistent. Non-persistent chemical weapons are used to quickly cause wide spread deaths and injuries. The chemicals are designed to quickly dissipate, so that the forces of the ones who used those weapons, can quickly sweep into the area to control the area. Persistent chemical weapons are designed to linger for hours days, or weeks, to quickly cause wide spread deaths and injuries, and to keep on killing and injuring over the lifetime of the chemicals in the area. This is to deny an enemy access to an area. To control an enemy's ability to maneuver, in an area, and simply to keep an area unoccupied. People who survived an escaped, would return to their homes, only to be killed subsequently.

Military units trained and equipped for chemical warfare, still cannot easily defend against such an attack. A unit that had been attacked would be forced to withdraw from the battlefield and find a safe place to spend hours, days, and weeks decontaminating all of their equipment, supplies, etc, etc. During this time the unit will continue to sustain casualties as mistakes will be made during the period they were cleaning up. Additionally, chemical protective equipment have only a short duration of effectiveness, once contaminated.

Chemical weapons used on civilian targets, such as towns and villages, will cause many thousands of casualties.

M.O.A.B., M.O.P. and other such weapons are used to attack very specific targets. If such a weapon were used to attack a civilian target, such as cities, villages, and towns, then one could make a case for it being a W.M.D. However, most cities are not built deep in the bedrock of a mountain. These weapons are designed to bust bunkers. Or attack large military targets, like an army dug into trenches and bunkers, not to destroy cities to kill mass numbers of people.

24563 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 3/12/16 , edited 3/12/16

DeadlyOats wrote:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None.



Oh, man, I LOVE when people have no idea who they're trying to talk down to.

I have been a field artillery officer for 12 years. I am a graduate of the Joint Firepower Course, the Joint Targeting Course, and served in Korea two years. I know a thing or two about weaponeering and the effects one can expect from any given air- and surface-deliverable munition.


DeadlyOats wrote:

High Explosive Artillery can cause damage and destruction, but nothing like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CgqXifzYKs

According to your ill informed ideas, they should have been able to "easily defend against it." However, as you can see, they could not. Over 5000 dead, and over 10000 wounded, from a single artillery barrage that lasted a couple of hours. You can't do that much damage with an HE artillery barrage.


Yes, if they had access to any manner of protective equipment, they would have. Incidentally, a "Couple hours" of HE/delay would have killed just as many AND destroyed the structures in which they sheltered. Eyewitness reports indicate it was a five-hour attack, which included at least 100 sorties of aircraft (14 waves of 7-8 each). Those aircraft alone would be able to deliver, assuming they were very lightweight attack aircraft, 5,000 pounds of ordnance each. That's 2-10 buildings per sortie completely flattened, depending on the ripple timing of the drops (and given that they were going for "mass destruction" rather than "pinpoint targeting", more likely the latter). As few as five people per building and you're already exceeding the death toll of the chemical munitions as used.

Either way, 5 hours of surface-delivered chemicals and 100+ aircraft sorties, and "only" 5,000 killed. Tellingly, twice as many were injured as killed, and much of the population escaped despite. Being exceedingly conservative (ignoring the surface-delivered agent and assuming only a fairly light 5,000 payload capacity per aircraft), this means 1 killed per 100 pounds of munitions delivered.

Oh, wait, I can cherrypick examples, too: let's compare this with a 279-aircraft raid on Tokyo 09-10 March. 90,000+ killed. Assuming maximum payload (a liberal but safe assumption, as the raid called for all defensive guns to be stripped from the B29s to lighten them), this means that one person was killed per 62 pounds of munitions delivered.


DeadlyOats wrote:
Sure, there will be a lot more destroyed buildings, but most people would have fled. Deaths would have been in the hundreds, with hundreds more wounded. Nothing like what that chemical attack produced.


Really? I just thoroughly debunked that. I could give other examples from WW2 or portions of the battle of Elsenborn ridge in which more than 5,000 were killed in under 5 hours by conventional explosives, and those are not unwitting civilians, they were professional soldiers in prepared defensive positions.


DeadlyOats wrote:
Also, there are two classes of chemical weapons, persistent, and non-persistent. Non-persistent chemical weapons are used to quickly cause wide spread deaths and injuries. The chemicals are designed to quickly dissipate, so that the forces of the ones who used those weapons, can quickly sweep into the area to control the area. Persistent chemical weapons are designed to linger for hours days, or weeks, to quickly cause wide spread deaths and injuries, and to keep on killing and injuring over the lifetime of the chemicals in the area. This is to deny an enemy access to an area. To control an enemy's ability to maneuver, in an area, and simply to keep an area unoccupied. People who survived an escaped, would return to their homes, only to be killed subsequently.


No kidding? If you note that I specifically referenced non-persistent agents earlier, you might realize I am already fully aware of the existence of persistent agents, otherwise I would have just called them "chemical agents". Persistent agents still tend to be far less lethal, because they must be less chemically reactive, they tend to be liquid agents (and therefore easier to avoid exposure to), and break down fairly quickly in UV light or inclement weather. Either way, the point I was making was that non-persistent agents are still classified as a WMD, despite their utter lack of persistence.


DeadlyOats wrote:
Military units trained and equipped for chemical warfare, still cannot easily defend against such an attack. A unit that had been attacked would be forced to withdraw from the battlefield and find a safe place to spend hours, days, and weeks decontaminating all of their equipment, supplies, etc, etc. During this time the unit will continue to sustain casualties as mistakes will be made during the period they were cleaning up. Additionally, chemical protective equipment have only a short duration of effectiveness, once contaminated.




DeadlyOats wrote:
Chemical weapons used on civilian targets, such as towns and villages, will cause many thousands of casualties.

M.O.A.B., M.O.P. and other such weapons are used to attack very specific targets. If such a weapon were used to attack a civilian target, such as cities, villages, and towns, then one could make a case for it being a W.M.D. However, most cities are not built deep in the bedrock of a mountain. These weapons are designed to bust bunkers. Or attack large military targets, like an army dug into trenches and bunkers, not to destroy cities to kill mass numbers of people.


You could say the same about the current nuclear warheads: they are *designed* to be used against hardened military targets; otherwise why would the latest iteration of Minuteman have a surface-burst-delay fuzing option and accuracy in the tens of meters? By that logic, they are not WMD unless used to attack civilian targets such as cities, villages, or towns.

That's not how it works.

8728 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Behind you!
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
Rods from God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKf5r_JMAo
Good idea how it works, but I think it is way over blown for cinematic effects in the movie. Smaller area of destruction then a nuke when it hits I think, a bunker would probably collapse or be sealed for a good long time if hit directly. On the upside, less collateral because it doesn't really have the blast wave out (probably a small wave for the rod, not comparable to a nuke) or mushroom cloud associated with a nuke like an aerial burst that hit Japan twice. Most damage would be similar to a localized earthquake causing things to shake, you won't see a destroyed city unless multiple strikes are carried out. But I am not a scientist or engineer, I just speculate that its overhyped destructive ability to be "city busting" is not as big as it sounds and under utilized at how effective it could be in a tactical manner for important targets like bases or bunkers (R.I.P. civilians near it, but not the entire city).
37289 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

outontheop wrote:


DeadlyOats wrote:
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. None.



Oh, man, I LOVE when people have no idea who they're trying to talk down to.

I have been a field artillery officer for 12 years. I am a graduate of the Joint Firepower Course, the Joint Targeting Course, and served in Korea two years. I know a thing or two about weaponeering and the effects one can expect from any given air- and surface-deliverable munition.



I'll still have to disagree with you. My experience comes from my military training in Nuclear Biological and Chemical warfare. I was trained in how chemical weapons work and how they are deployed. Their effectiveness against military targets is quite limited because military units have protective equipment, and are trained to avoid those hazards. Against military targets it is effective, as I have stated earlier, in removing them from operations (because they have to withdraw to decontaminate), and harassment (it affects morale, and has a psychological affect against troops). It is used to control the battle field by denying areas to the enemy, etc.

Civilians, on the other hand, are completely vulnerable. It is why there is such a terrible casualty rate. Against Civilian targets, those weapons have horrific effect. They are lethally effective, and there is no counter measures that civilians can use against them. They don't have the means nor the training to protect themselves, nor the means to clean off the contamination. They don't know that going back to an area that has been chemically attacked could be dangerous. They don't know that the left behind can still kill them, only after more casualties occur will they understand this. The people in that video were lucky that non-persistent agents were used. They returned after the attach had halted.

This is why chemical weapons are they are classed as WMD.
82916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / WA
Offline
Posted 3/12/16 , edited 3/12/16
Putin world leader, Obama ...golf pro.
37289 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

Reiter01 wrote:

Rods from God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOKf5r_JMAo
Good idea how it works, but I think it is way over blown for cinematic effects in the movie. Smaller area of destruction then a nuke when it hits I think, a bunker would probably collapse or be sealed for a good long time if hit directly. On the upside, less collateral because it doesn't really have the blast wave out (probably a small wave for the rod, not comparable to a nuke) or mushroom cloud associated with a nuke like an aerial burst that hit Japan twice. Most damage would be similar to a localized earthquake causing things to shake, you won't see a destroyed city unless multiple strikes are carried out. But I am not a scientist or engineer, I just speculate that its overhyped destructive ability to be "city busting" is not as big as it sounds and under utilized at how effective it could be in a tactical manner for important targets like bases or bunkers (R.I.P. civilians near it, but not the entire city).


I don't think it could work. The penetrator is in orbit. I can't just be "dropped." It has to de-orbit, that means rockets to slow it down so that it can fall to the planet. It would need to have rockets to seperate from and leave the satelite that lauched it, and it would need rockets to slow it down, to get out of orbit, and then to and guide it to it's target.

I've read about penetrators before, but those were ballistic weapons. An intercontinental ballistic missile would launch the penetrator and a nuclear warhead into a ballistic trajectory. The penetrator would be just ahead of the nuke. The penetrator would punch the hole, and the nuke would follow it in and then detonate just before it hit something. I think those were theoretical too, but a ballistically launched penetrator could be effective against bunkers, too. However, Russia, China, and others might think it's a nuke and would probably blow a gasket...
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
People take Best Korea seriously?

I'll believe Best Korea when they actually attack someone.
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
Am I the only person who just wants to watch tv, read books and enjoy life? Why is everyone so hellbent on bringing about the end of the world? For fucks sake...just chill out and leave each other alone!
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 3/12/16

eclair-lumiere wrote:

Am I the only person who just wants to watch tv, read books and enjoy life? Why is everyone so hellbent on bringing about the end of the world? For fucks sake...just chill out and leave each other alone!


I'm with you.

Let's just read books, watch tv and gossip instead of 'LETS KILL EVERYONE! KICK OUT EVERYONE!BOMB EVERYONE! BUILD A WALL!
10228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 3/12/16



I'm with you.

Let's just read books, watch tv and gossip instead of 'LETS KILL EVERYONE! KICK OUT EVERYONE!BOMB EVERYONE! BUILD A WALL!



My thoughts exactly. I'm quite happy just enjoying my own company and living a quiet existence. I have no desire to invade a country or start a revolution. It makes the world so depressing to be in when people constantly threaten each other like this.
16371 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / east coast. Let t...
Offline
Posted 3/12/16
I just imagined Donald Trump as president in WWIII
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.