|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
javis
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:31 am Post subject: Re: U.S. flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over SK |
 |
|
| No_hite_pls wrote: |
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON (AP) � The United States is flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers on training missions over South Korea to highlight Washington's commitment to defend an ally amid rising tensions with North Korea, Pentagon officials said Monday. |
Good. It makes me feel a bit safer. |
Then how does this news from last month make you feel? http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/15/16978049-russian-nuclear-bombers-intercepted-near-guam?lite |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over SK |
|
|
I've had a "Nuclear Capable" Russian aircraft fly over my head at an airshow. The term doesn't mean jack.
Cat and mouse games are common for the world's air forces. And pretty much any modern combat aircraft, or even aged ones are "nuclear capable" in that they could drop a free-fall nuclear bomb. They don't require some sort of magical modification to drop a 2000 lb. bomb. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
javis
Joined: 28 Feb 2013
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: U.S. flying nuclear-capable B-52 bombers over SK |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
I've had a "Nuclear Capable" Russian aircraft fly over my head at an airshow. The term doesn't mean jack.
Cat and mouse games are common for the world's air forces. And pretty much any modern combat aircraft, or even aged ones are "nuclear capable" in that they could drop a free-fall nuclear bomb. They don't require some sort of magical modification to drop a 2000 lb. bomb. |
I just thought it was interesting that it has been known for over a month that B-52s could be participating in Foal Eagle, but nobody was freaking out until the actual day that it occurred.
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2013/02/21/3/0301000000AEN20130221003151315F.HTML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
falco
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| As for B-52s carrying nukes, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they are carrying them during training exercises as the loss of one during an accident would necessitate a costly recovery operation and could trigger a diplomatic crisis. |
How can u be absolutely sure the B52 WASNT carrying nukes? Truth is you cant. Yes, this isnt the cold war but its the next best thing. The Norks have repeatedly stated they will nuke S.Korea and the US. Yes, its almost certainly hyperbole but what is the US to do....just ignore it?
The OPS post wasnt fear-mongering. Was just relaying a news story. Nuthin wrong with that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| falco wrote: |
| Quote: |
| As for B-52s carrying nukes, it is HIGHLY unlikely that they are carrying them during training exercises as the loss of one during an accident would necessitate a costly recovery operation and could trigger a diplomatic crisis. |
How can u be absolutely sure the B52 WASNT carrying nukes? Truth is you cant. Yes, this isnt the cold war but its the next best thing. The Norks have repeatedly stated they will nuke S.Korea and the US. Yes, its almost certainly hyperbole but what is the US to do....just ignore it?
The OPS post wasnt fear-mongering. Was just relaying a news story. Nuthin wrong with that. |
I'm not sure any of the aircraft in the exercise were carrying nukes or not. The point is that there is nothing significant about B-52s being used. The F-22s/15s/16s in the exercise MIGHT have been carrying free-fall nuclear bombs or nuclear-tipped AGM-84s. Who knows? How can we be sure that pretty much ever U.S. warship in the vicinity wasn't armed with nuclear weapons, after all they are pretty much ALL nuclear capable because they can either launch nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, nuclear torpedos, or carry aircraft that could drop nuclear bombs.
And no these things don't require "Massive modifications". A free-fall nuclear bomb is still a free-fall bomb. A Harpoon/Tomahawk cruise missile is still a VLS-deployed cruise missile, regardless of warhead.
As for the Norks repeatedly stating they'll "nuke us" that's pretty laughable. They quite simply don't have the delivery systems and unless their regime suddenly decides to become suicidally insane, they won't nuke us anyway. I don't think there's anything in North Korean ideology that would back nuclear suicide.
Yeah, the article AND the OP are just spouting drivel. Anyone with half a clue about military hardware knows that making a big deal about a "nuclear-capable" U.S. aircraft being deployed is a joke because, as I have repeatedly said, pretty much every combat aircraft is "nuclear-capable". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
falco
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, my bad. I didnt realize that as well as being a teacher, your the current military advisor to Dave's ESL cafe and well as being a recognised expert on North Korean nuclear warhead delivery systems.
Aint many people around these days who can hold down two occupations, let alone three. Have to say I'm real impressed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| falco wrote: |
Sorry, my bad. I didnt realize that as well as being a teacher, your the current military advisor to Dave's ESL cafe and well as being a recognised expert on North Korean nuclear warhead delivery systems.
Aint many people around these days who can hold down two occupations, let alone three. Have to say I'm real impressed. |
You're making it sound like I'm making wild claims. Actually this is basic knowledge. It's like someone saying that Papa John's employs more people and generates more revenue than McDonald's (an obviously bad claim) and me pointing out earning reports and employment statistics and then you going "Well I didn't realize that we have someone from McDonald's HR Department here on Dave's". Or say maybe someone started spouting garbage about rock bands, you corrected them, and then I came on and said "Well I had no idea we had an agent and record executive here on Dave's".
You can also project things like development times and current capabilities. You do realize that North Korea can't have some sort of magic cloaked testing area for its missiles and nuclear weapons. Any test they conduct will be known to the U.S. thanks to our technology. What is known is that NK's nuclear capability is pretty primitive at this point.
The article and the OP's post are garbage. For the umpteenth time "nuclear-capable" is pretty much any combat aircraft the U.S. has and pretty much any warship. And no, the Norks do not have the capability to wage full-scale nuclear war against the U.S. That's blatantly obvious to anyone who has any clue about military affairs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stilicho25
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While full scale nuke war is not a norm capability, it would be easy for them to put some in subs and light them off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| While full scale nuke war is not a norm capability, it would be easy for them to put some in subs and light them off. |
North Korea doesn't yet possess ICBM capability and you seem to think they could easily possess SLBM capability? It took us a bit to acquire that capability and to develop the Polaris SLBM.
Not to mention the most important fact is that the Romeo-class subs are 1950s Soviet-era dinosaurs that would be fish-food when dealing with the American navy.
So no, the Norks don't have the plausible capability to load nukes in a sub and hit LA. That's just a fantasy. Please people, stop imagining and start learning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
falco
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The article and the OP's post are garbage. |
Nope, that comment is garbage. The post is a regular news release that doesnt sensationalise the fact that the B52s are nuclear-capable. Its just states they are nuclear-capable. The OP was just reposting the info here.
| Quote: |
| So no, the Norks don't have the plausible capability to load nukes in a sub and hit LA. That's just a fantasy. Please people, stop imagining and start learning. |
The point is, they could put a nuke inside a sub and use it in a terrorist type attack. Very plausible if the situation was desperate enough.
| Quote: |
| I don't think there's anything in North Korean ideology that would back nuclear suicide. |
Again you fail to understand the nature of the NK regime. It doesnt have an 'ideology' that it follows to the letter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Nope, that comment is garbage. The post is a regular news release that doesnt sensationalise the fact that the B52s are nuclear-capable. |
The OP puts the line about the B-52s in bold and makes it the title of the thread. That was not the title of the article.
And again, if this is news, then every single training flight by a U.S. Combat aircraft in Korea should be news because pretty much every single U.S. combat aircraft is nuclear capable. Anytime a U.S. warship is in the area it should have some headline about "U.S. dispatches nuclear capable warships to Korean waters".
It's a garbage article and anyone with a clue about military affairs knows that its just an attempt to drum up hype. It's the military equivalent of a TMZ article like "Is Justin Bieber Breaking Down?"
| Quote: |
| The point is, they could put a nuke inside a sub and use it in a terrorist type attack. Very plausible if the situation was desperate enough. |
So the Norks are going to load one of their handful of nuclear weapons inside a 40-50+year old Romeo-class submarine and hope that it magically slips by the U.S. sub force in a terrorist attack?
The problem with these Nork threads is that people don't get the difference between imagining something and projecting/analyzing. That kind of thing is ludicrous.
Somehow this noisy dinosaur of a sub will slip past U.S. ships around North Korea, past any sonar stations in the Pacific, operate at a long range for the first time ever in its service life, and somehow conduct a nuclear attack? You do know that those subs have to periodically surface in order to recharge their batteries, right? They aren't powered by nuclear reactors but diesel engines.
If war ever comes, NK will be completely cut off in terms of naval activity. They won't be able to leave the coasts and I'd give decent odds at a rapid fleeing of their ships to China and a neutral port ala the Iraqi Air Force in Desert Storm.
| Quote: |
| Again you fail to understand the nature of the NK regime. It doesnt have an 'ideology' that it follows to the letter. |
Partially true. Basically you have something in between The Sopranos and The Borigas wrapped up with Communist trappings.
But please, before endorsing crackpot schemes why don't you read up on the DPRK Navy, what vessels they possess, and the capabilities of those vessels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
falco
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's a garbage article and anyone with a clue about military affairs knows that its just an attempt to drum up hype. |
No its not. The US is emphasizing its committment to the S.Korean nuclear umbrella, hence the use of B52s. Good informative news article.
| Quote: |
| So the Norks are going to load one of their handful of nuclear weapons inside a 40-50+year old Romeo-class submarine and hope that it magically slips by the U.S. sub force in a terrorist attack? |
No-one said anything about slipping past US forces to attach the US. Whos imagining now? - lol. Its quite conceivable a NK sub could be used as a submerged nuclear bomb against ROK/US forces in Korean waters. Could even be used as a type of suicide device. The Norks have done such operations before (albeit not with nukes but such a thing is not too far-fetched) as u presumably are aware.
| Quote: |
| If war ever comes, NK will be completely cut off in terms of naval activity. |
Not neccessarily. Again your boldly passing off what are your personal opinions as cut and dry facts. Ever heard of China? Are they going to idly by and watch their allies' sea-based forces get totally cut off? Possibly but then again probably not.
| Quote: |
| Basically you have something in between The Sopranos and The Borigas wrapped up with Communist trappings. |
Very true.
| Quote: |
| But please, before endorsing crackpot schemes why don't you read up on the DPRK Navy, what vessels they possess, and the capabilities of those vessels. |
Nope, never 'endorsed' any scheme, crackpot or otherwise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you're missing his point, which is that mentioning that B-52s are nuclear capable is in itself sensationalism. Why didn't the reporter mention instead how much cargo a B-52 can carry? Because it doesn't grab one's attention like "nuclear capable". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
falco
Joined: 26 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Because the US is emphasizing its committment to the US nuclear umbrella for S.Korea hence the words 'B52' and 'nuclear' perhaps? Mentioning how much cargo can be carried would be kindof off-topic would it not?....lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| falco wrote: |
| Because the US is emphasizing its committment to the US nuclear umbrella for S.Korea hence the words 'B52' and 'nuclear' perhaps? Mentioning how much cargo can be carried would be kindof off-topic would it not?....lol |
You're seeing too much in to it. Reporters are in the business of drawing attention in order to increase ad revenue, and sensationalism is an increasingly popular tool they rely upon. Although the story may not have been overly sensationalistic, it's part of a bigger editorial theme. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
