• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

War/military action against North Korea predictions

Is US military action against North Korea imminent?

  • No. Kim Jong Un will calm down or Obama will ignore him.

    Votes: 35 66.0%
  • North Korea will be hit with US air, drone and missle strikes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A full land invasion of North Korea by US forces is coming soon.

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 32.1%

  • Total voters
    53
N. Korea is aware that we currently have a socialist regime in office and is only trying to get money/concessions. It would be stupid, on many different levels for him to actually strike. First, he will lose. He cannot take out our full nuclear capability, so, poof, there goes him and his country if he wants to go nuclear. Second, if his missiles were to actually get through, with the exception of Austin, he would be hurting socialism in America with the cities he has targeted. Again, excepting Austin, he would kill maybe 20-30 million, 85% or so that are socialist also, it would stir up anti-socialist tendencies in the US and pretty much end Dems from getting the White house for many years to come, thus killing off or suppressing any tendencies towards socialism in the US for a very longtime. Considering the number of socialist both here and there that would die, it would be a very good thing for the world if he would actually do it and our defense systems were not capable of stopping it. If China is stupid enough to back him going nuclear, then we could really put a dent in socialist world wide, again, a very good thing for mankind.
 
Where do I start ?

How about with my point instead of going into a class on past weaponry. Complain all you want about the F/A-22, but the simple fact is that dogfights have not been a feature in any war since Vietnam. It has been a program to line pockets and provide jobs. That's it.

The Iowa has no place in today's or the future's battlefield. The troop needs systems that can hit targets much further than 24 miles away and we have bombs that do considerably more damage.

There was a time that the bow and arrow ruled Asia. There was a time that the skirmish ruled the ground battles. There was a time when great naval battles sought control of the seas. There was a time when air combat gained air superiority and paved the way for bombers. It is now 2013. Instead of praising technology that was meant to win past wars, embrace the future. You keep avoiding the point.

Despite what older systems could do, we have current systems that do better.
 
The biggest vulnerability to the Iowa Class BB was the rudder, propeller area. Take out the ability to steer and she is severely limited in what she can do. if she is DIW, breaking the keel is a moot point.

That's true with any ship.

The Iowa's always had destroyer escorts.
 
Kim Jong Un will make up with his estranged lover, start getting some and the US + S Korea will be a memory
 
How about with my point instead of going into a class on past weaponry. Complain all you want about the F/A-22, but the simple fact is that dogfights have not been a feature in any war since Vietnam. It has been a program to line pockets and provide jobs. That's it.

The Iowa has no place in today's or the future's battlefield. The troop needs systems that can hit targets much further than 24 miles away and we have bombs that do considerably more damage.



.

Yesterday I said that Obama canceled the Navy's new 155MM gun, I was wrong, he canceled the Navy's rail gun.

The new 155MM gun will be able to deliver guided ordnance out to 60 miles. What's the weight of a 155 MM projectile ? Usually around 100 lb.s, like the Hellfire missile, only effective against a small target.

The Navy's 155MM gun is planned to be the main gun and only gun of the new Zumwalt class DD. We plan to build three of them. That's right, I guess Obama believes we only need three Zumwalt class destroyers.

So it was interesting looking at the naval blogs and forums yesterday to see what the real proffesionals were saying. It was interesting how many brought up the Iowa class BB's. that it was a huge mistake turning these weapons platforms in to museums.

>" During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations. USS MISSOURI alone fired more than one million pounds of ordnance. Using Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Marine spotters ashore, targets included artillery, mortar and missile positions, ammunition storage facilities and a Silkworm missile site. USS WISCONSIN's RPVs provided on-site reconnaissance support from 11 nautical miles out for advancing Marines. On 03 February 1991 the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) fired eight 1.25-ton shells from its 16-inch guns at prefabricated concrete command and control bunkers Iraq was moving into Kuwait, destroying the bunkers. The barrage, totalling 18,000 pounds of high explosives, marked the first combat firing of the MISSOURI's 16-inch guns since the Korean War, and was in support of Marines and coalition ground forces. This also marked the first use of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) for gun fire spotting in a hostile environment. And on 03 February USS MISSOURI destroyed an Iraqi artillery emplacement. On 06 February USS MISSOURI destroyed 4 artillery emplacements and a command bunker with another 16-inch gun barrage in support of Marines. In a second salvo, the MISSOURI fired 28 16-inch rounds against a radar control site complex, completely destroying it. 5-inch batteries also engaged. MISSOURI had fired a total of 112 16-inch shells and 12 five-inch rounds in 8 fire support missions over 48 hours.


Within two hours of relieving its sister battleship, USS WISCONSIN (BB 64) conducted its first naval gunffre support mission since the Korean War, firing an 11-round salvo with its 16-inch guns and destroying an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait. Secondary explosions reported. USS NICHOLAS escorted the battleship. USMC OV-10 called in the fire mission. On 07 February USS WISCONSIN pounded Iraqi artillery, electronic warfare and naval sites with its 16 inch guns. 50 rounds sunk or severely damaged 15 boats, destroyed piers at Khawr al-Mufattah Marina. 19 rounds also fired at artillery and missile sites. On 08 February USS WISCONSIN attacked a dozen Iraqi artillery emplacements with 36 rounds of its 16-inch guns in support of a Marine reconnaissance probe into occupied Kuwait. Using its remotely pilot vehicle to visually relay pictures and gun-firing coordinates of targets, the battleships's harassment and interdiction mission was designed to pin down and confuse Iraqi gunners during the Marine attack. Off Khafji, Saudi Arabia, WISCONSIN also blasted bunkers, troops and artillery sites, and continued its naval gunfire missions responding to calls for fire from U.S. and coalition forces on 09 February. Then on 12 February USS MISSOURI, USMC aircraft/artillery, and Saudi artillery mounted a combined arms attack on multiple fixed-position targets (Iraqi troops, artillery, a hardened command bunker and tanks) in southern Kuwait. The battleship expended 60 rounds in 9 naval gunfire support missions. On 21 February USS WISCONSIN destroyed a command complex, firing 50 rounds from off Khafji. RPVs spotted targets and provided coastline reconnaissance. Two days later USS MISSOURI destroyed targets on Favlaka Island off the coast of Kuwait City. On 24 February CINCCENTCOM announced the initiation of the ground offensive, and USS MISSOURI and USS WISCONSIN fired at targets in occupied Kuwait in support of the ground offensive. The next day USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI continued naval gunfire support, with MISSOURI alone firing 133 rounds or 125 tons of ordnance on targets. "<


Naval Gunfire Support: what if we must land troops?

navalgunsvietnamwarrethink.jpg

Consider that firing the main guns alone, and using light projectiles, an Iowa-class battleship can deliver 34, 200 pounds of ordnance per minute. That's 513 tons in a half hour, or the same as two full carrier strikes (72 F/A-18 aircraft) that take several times as long to deliver, assuming "the (fighter-) bombers will get through". The 1983 air strike debacle reminds us against an alerted and ready enemy with fully functioning Integrated Air Defense system, short of full-scale nation-state war to take out the air defenses, the ability to surgically strike while hoping in the aftermath to stay at a quasi-peace requires ordnance that delivers itself to the target. In over one hour's bombardment, an Iowa can actually dish out more surgical or area firepower than several Nimitz class carriers, and with the relative cost of the 16" shells, this is done much more cheaply, and without risking aircraft and pilots. The limit to this is, of course, range. However, this firepower is far more than any current vessel, and the current U.S. Navy is admittedly extremely lacking in naval gunfire capability for cheap shore bombardment. Even with the small caliber, guided gun projectile systems under development, things are not too good there, when you consider that these small 5" shells already don't have much explosive warhead content as guidance electronics encroach. Battleships are the only vessels that could actually survive the kinds of threats that are likely to appear in littoral areas once they get within gun range of their targets.

Maximizing 16 Inch guns: Scramjet Projectiles, a Revolutionary Weapon System

scramjetbattleshipshell.jpg

Scramjet projectiles, using technology now being developed for Navy and Air Force missiles, would enormously increase Navy firepower and reach -- by several orders of magnitude. The great penetration capability of these extremely high velocity rounds would be especially effective in attacking caves and deep installations. The very high velocity also means they could eventually provide highly responsive tactical fire support out to 200 miles, that could support future very deep Army Airborne and marine expeditionary force lodgments. Unlike the scramjet missiles being developed for ship Vertical Launch System (VLS) launching from soft surface ships, the armored BBG-21's projectiles can be replenished at sea; moreover, the former's number of missiles deployed is limited by the number of available VLS cells. (The DDX will have 60 to 80 cells.) The BBG-21 could carry up to 1300 scramjet projectiles, if need be, as well as 96 VLS cells devoted to land attack missiles, but generally in normal practice would probably carry about 500 16-inch scramjet to leave carry over room for other 16-inch projectiles or the JSF VSM. In addition, the scramjet projectiles, using a much simpler system, can most probably be fielded sooner (in 5 to 8 years) and at lower cost than can the more complex missiles with their separate engines. (They would certainly be far cheaper than Tomahawk cruise missiles.) Development of scramjet projectiles could, however, substantially advance Navy development of scramjet missiles that could be used throughout the fleet in all ships with VLS cells. (Note: Our 500 mile plus range and near Mach 6 speeds are, we believe, reasonable estimates of ultimate performance. The most conservative performance estimates were in a January 3, 2003 letter from Pratt & Whitney's Manger for Hypersonic Programs to USNFSA Executive Director Dr. William L. Stearman which stated: "Pratt & Whitney's initial analysis of a scramjet-powered 16-inch gun-launched projectile (Hyper Shell) indicates that a range of approximately 400nm [460 miles], a time to target of 9 minutes [Mach 5.3], and an impact velocity of 2800 feet per second is feasible." (Emphasis added)

21st CENTURY BATTLESHIPS (BBG-21s): Threat to the Inefficient Aircraft Carrier Land Bombardment Racket
 
Yesterday I said that Obama canceled the Navy's new 155MM gun, I was wrong, he canceled the Navy's rail gun.

The man knows very little about the military. Do you think he is in a dark room taking stabs at the military or is it more likely that he has council? If we are to assume logically that he is making decisions based on council then we have to assume that this council is military. Instead of looking at what is being chopped, look at what we have that replaces it.


" During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations.

Yes...22 years ago the battleships were used. They were not needed, but they were used.



Naval Gunfire Support: what if we must land troops?

If we have to land troops they will be supported overwhelmingly by air, not sea. And their air support will be there because all North Korean airstrips and North Korean air power will be destroyed long before any F/A-22 is needed to pave the way for bombers.
 
The man knows very little about the military. Do you think he is in a dark room taking stabs at the military or is it more likely that he has council? If we are to assume logically that he is making decisions based on council then we have to assume that this council is military. Instead of looking at what is being chopped, look at what we have that replaces it.




Yes...22 years ago the battleships were used. They were not needed, but they were used.





If we have to land troops they will be supported overwhelmingly by air, not sea. And their air support will be there because all North Korean airstrips and North Korean air power will be destroyed long before any F/A-22 is needed to pave the way for bombers.

Bah, forget f-22s. Just nuke'm 'till they glow in the night, then use their asses for runway lights.
 
Bah, forget f-22s. Just nuke'm 'till they glow in the night, then use their asses for runway lights.

Normally I would state that this isn't practical, nor an option. North Korea, however, makes this a possible option.
 
Normally I would state that this isn't practical, nor an option. North Korea, however, makes this a possible option.

Yep, with the way the jet stream runs over in that area, fallout shouldn't reach Hokkaido. A few Islands between Japan and Russia (not for sure who actually has claim on them atm) might get a little, but no major population areas. If it is running a bit north atm, maybe a small, fairly isolated part of Russia might get some also, but not a great hazard to a large population, other than N. Korea and it would actually be hard to find even a 5 year old there that has not been brainwashed beyond redemption there.
 
Yep, with the way the jet stream runs over in that area, fallout shouldn't reach Hokkaido. A few Islands between Japan and Russia (not for sure who actually has claim on them atm) might get a little, but no major population areas. If it is running a bit north atm, maybe a small, fairly isolated part of Russia might get some also, but not a great hazard to a large population, other than N. Korea and it would actually be hard to find even a 5 year old there that has not been brainwashed beyond redemption there.

Well I doubt we would launch first. Nuclear retaliation is even questionable since we have the technology to wreck any North Korean launch without it. It would certainly offer legitimacy in the world's eyes to murder legally though.
 
Well I doubt we would launch first. Nuclear retaliation is even questionable since we have the technology to wreck any North Korean launch without it. It would certainly offer legitimacy in the world's eyes to murder legally though.

If it's legal, it ain't murder. Hell, if it's a "red", I wouldn't consider it murder if I was on a jury, unless it was of course one red killing another, then you just get two for the price of one.

We won't do anything first, only respond. Hell, with a red in the white house, I have to wonder if we would even respond. But a retaliatory strike, even if we take all theirs out, would definitely beef up our image world wide and clearly let idiots like Iran know that we can and will do it. In the case of N. Korea, I would really prefer a good nuke strike over sending you guys in. No 5-10 year old "pepsi" girls or shoe-shine boys with hidden grenades to worry about, or whether the local "boom-boom" girls are going to cut your throat when you get them alone.
 
The man knows very little about the military. Do you think he is in a dark room taking stabs at the military or is it more likely that he has council? If we are to assume logically that he is making decisions based on council then we have to assume that this council is military. Instead of looking at what is being chopped, look at what we have that replaces it.




.

I think Obama proved to us who have served or know something about fighting wars on the night of the Presidential debates that Obama has no knowledge about the military, what it's purpose is and how to use it when he made that stupid comment about bayonets and "ships that go underwater."

The question that should be asked, who in hell is Obama listening too ? That little council of "yes men" who are not warriors. If we look at who Obama has surrounded himself with, who his Cabinet members are, all second rate. We must assume that the council advising Obama on national defense issues are also second rate.

Have you been paying attention over the past four years how many flag officers and other commanders who have relieved of their commands by Obama ? He has been firing warriors for not being politically correct enough and replacing them with PC brown nosers who don't know how to fight and win battles.

Just a few months away when the first of Obama's Moron Officers Corps will be entering our military and leading someones son or daughter in to combat.
 
I think Obama proved to us who have served or know something about fighting wars on the night of the Presidential debates that Obama has no knowledge about the military, what it's purpose is and how to use it when he made that stupid comment about bayonets and "ships that go underwater."

It actually wasn't a stupid comment. It made the point that technology has moved on, which means tactics have changed.

The question that should be asked, who in hell is Obama listening too ? That little council of "yes men" who are not warriors. If we look at who Obama has surrounded himself with, who his Cabinet members are, all second rate. We must assume that the council advising Obama on national defense issues are also second rate.

From what I have seen he is listening to good military councel. Libya was handled correctly. Syria is being handled correctly for now. It seems like North Korea is being handled correctly. Ralph Peters called for the end of the F/A-22 program under Bush. Peters was not alone. Obama merely listened to proper council and ignored those who spoke more for the lobbyist and les for the troop. If Obama's goal was to trim the fat out of the Defense Industry, he is selecting the correct things. Consider Clinton who did it by killing funding to the military while celebrating Defense Industry gadgetry.

Where he has shown trouble is in MENA council. His handling of the Arab Spring was pathetic and his indecisive posture missed an opportunity to get on the right side of history after decades of being on the wrong side.


Have you been paying attention over the past four years how many flag officers and other commanders who have relieved of their commands by Obama ? He has been firing warriors for not being politically correct enough and replacing them with PC brown nosers who don't know how to fight and win battles.

Just a few months away when the first of Obama's Moron Officers Corps will be entering our military and leading someones son or daughter in to combat.

Unproffesional high ranking officers should know better than to shoot their mouths off about their Commaner-in-Chief. Bush did the same thing leading up to the Iraq War when Rumsfeld insisted that he knew more about warfare than the warriors. General Anthony Zinni wrote a book about how the Bush Administration killed the CENTCOM plan and kept whistle blowers out of position. This is nothing new. At least Obama only fired disrespectful unprofessionals.
 
Last edited:
It actually wasn't a stupid comment. It made the point that technology has moved on, which means tactics have changed.

.

No it was a stupid comment.

Soon after Obama made that comment British forces in Afghanistan fixed bayonet and made a bayonet charge.
The last major bayonet charge was in the Falken's War. Fixing bayonets in urban combat, clearing buildings is SOP in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are probably tens of thousands of soldiers and Marines who had to fix bayonets during the Vietnam War. Just ask anyone who was with the 7th Calv. who were in the La Drang Valley.

The bayonet gives a soldier or a Marine a psychological edge.

As the bayonet evolved, they realised when it was plain, dumb and stupid it worked. Have you seen the Marine Corps bayonet today ? Some figured out, why not use the USMC K-Bar as a bayonet. I thought about that back in 1969, but know one would listen.

Personal Offense Zone (POZ): Bayonets Obsolete; Another Myth?

"Ships that go underwater." Come on, Obama is suppose to be Cn'C with four years experience under his belt. Boats go underwater not ships !


The question in the debate was that our navy was at it's smallest size since 1916, which it is. Obama claimed that our navy is already to large and that today's ships can do more. Problem is, the worlds oceans are still the same size. (some libs are saying the oceans are getting bigger) uuA warship is useless unless it's where it's needed.

The U.S. Navy has five AOR's that it's responsible for. That means it has to have a CSG (Carrier Strike Group, formerly known as a CBG/ Carrier Battle Group) on station in each of those AOR's.

From President Truman to G.W. Bush everyone of those Cn'C made sure that the U.S. Navy was on station 24/7 carrying out and accomplishing their mission in every AOR. Except President Obama.

Remeber Benghazi ? That's AOR#6. Where was the Navy ? I guest moderator of the debate should have asked Obama that but we know why Obama wasn't asked that question.

I can tell you what ships were suppose to be in AOR#5, one CSF ( 1, Nimitz class carrier with around 80 aircraft on board, 1 cruiser, 5 destroyers and an attack sub) One ARG with one Marine MEU (SOC) (1-LHD, 1-LPD and 1-LSD) And at least a few frigates and oilers and replenishment ships.

What did Obama have on station in that AOR when four Americans were calling for support in Benghazi ? One destroyer.

As of two weeks ago, of the Navy's five AOR's, only two had a CSG on station. Where were all the carriers ? Well I know four were tied up to the docks in Northfolk unable to put to sea and fight. And I know another four were on the west coast unable to deploy.

Remember when the news said that F-22's were sent to Korea ? It ends up it was only two F-22's. Must be one bad ass air superiority fighter.

The moderator of the debate should have asked Obama, why are hospital ships, coastal patrol boats and garbage scows now classified as being part of the combat fleet ? You know the reason the Obama administration has done that is to make our Navy look larger than it really is.

I'm glad someone in Congress caught that, but the Democrats in Congress could care less.
 
No it was a stupid comment.

Soon after Obama made that comment British forces in Afghanistan fixed bayonet and made a bayonet charge.

Surely, you understand that it was figurative and had a bigger meaning. I'm no fan of Obama, but even I know this. C'mon.
 
I personally think we should shoot every missile they test launch down. Stop giving them aid, and stop being big wussies and stand up to them. China will not support them. Let them implode from the inside, or try a bonzai attack on S.Korea.
 
Back
Top Bottom