• 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
Ikari said:
We shouldn't have bases in Japan and Guam.

But we will invade in no more than 6 years because we're gonna need to keep the infinity war going to justify the gross expansion of government power and the rise of fascism.
Click to expand...

Please enlighten me as to why we should pull our bases out of Guam.
 
Chiefgator said:
Please enlighten me as to why we should pull our bases out of Guam.
Click to expand...

Guam is a sovereign country and we have no right to take portions of it for ourselves. Should Germany, or Mexico, or Canada be allowed bases on US soil?
 
Ikari said:
We shouldn't have bases in Japan and Guam.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. America and Japan are close allies; our closest ally in East Asia. Japan wants us there; not just a dictator government but the people. If the people of Japan wanted us out, we'd leave with no hard feelings just like in the Philippines.

Guam is part of America. I'm learning a lot if people honestly don't understand that US territories are just as much a part of America as Texas and Wisconsin. The people born there are native born American citizens. Their head of state is the president of the United States. Their national guard gets called up to serve in Afghanistan. When theres been a draft in the past they get drafted into the us military. Their court cases can be appealed to the us Supreme Court. If their government official get caught up in a corruption case, they're arrested by the FBI, prosecuted in federal court and go federal prison. They have to file their 1040s on April 15th. They have a congressman in Washington. They carry US passports. If you mail a letter to someone there, you use a regular .46 postage stamp and it'll be delivered by the local US post office. Their radio and tv stations call letters start with W or K. All but 13 of the 50 states started out as US territories. The only difference is the constitution gives certain duties and privileges to state governments and territories aren't states but neither is Washington, D.C.
 
Smeagol said:
I respectfully disagree. America and Japan are close allies; our closest ally in East Asia. Japan wants us there; not just a dictator government but the people. If the people of Japan wanted us out, we'd leave with no hard feelings just like in the Philippines.
Click to expand...

We still have no right, and it still ain't our business. America shouldn't pay for the defenses of others.

Smeagol said:
Guam is part of America. I'm learning a lot if people honestly don't understand that US territories are just as much a part of America as Texas and Wisconsin. The people born there are native born American citizens. Their head of state is the president of the United States. Their national guard gets called up to serve in Afghanistan. When theres been a draft in the past they get drafted into the us military. Their court cases can be appealed to the us Supreme Court. If their government official get caught up in a corruption case, they're arrested by the FBI, prosecuted in federal court and go federal prison. They have to file their 1040s on April 15th. They have a congressman in Washington. They carry US passports. If you mail a letter to someone there, you use a regular .46 postage stamp and it'll be delivered by the local US post office. Their radio and tv stations call letters start with W or K. All but 13 of the 50 states started out as US territories. The only difference is the constitution gives certain duties and privileges to state governments and territories aren't states but neither is Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...

If we own them, and they have no vote in our government, they're just serfs.
 
Ikari said:
We still have no right, and it still ain't our business. America shouldn't pay for the defenses of others.



If we own them, and they have no vote in our government, they're just serfs.
Click to expand...

Who says we own them? They are part of the American family. They have input into our government, just not the same status as a state government, a decision of the founding fathers. They have a congressman. They can join the US military and give orders to soldiers from New York if they outrank them. They can be appointed to the President's cabinet and be in line for presidential succession. I think they can run for President but I'm not 100% sure as there might be a recent state residency requirement first. They can and do get appointed as judges to the federal courts.

The founding fathers thought the electoral college made of of state representation would be the best way to select the president so until we go with a direct popular vote in presidential elections they can only vote in the primaries. The founders gave each state 2 Us senators and they're not a state so just like Washington, D.C. They don't have senators in Washington. Their congressman cannot vote in the full house but can do anything any other congressman can do in committees. If someone from a territory moves to a states, no immigration and its no different than moving from Boston to Philadelphia; get a job, get you new Pennsylvania drivers license and register to vote in your new city.
 
Last edited:
My prediction?

There is no way the North does anything.

They are massively weaker in conventional weapons.

And their nuclear threat is mostly hollow as they know if they nuke Seoul that America will nuke Pyongyang...and possibly a few other places.

The North are broke, starving and militarily far weaker then the South.

They are TOTALLY BLUFFING.


Man, I feel sorry for their citizens.
 
North Korea warned Thursday that its military has been cleared to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons, while the U.S. said it will strengthen regional protection by deploying a missile defense system to Guam.

b77394b158a1080b2e0f6a7067005b88.jpg


Despite the intense rhetoric, analysts do not expect a nuclear attack by North Korea, which knows the move could trigger a destructive, suicidal war. Experts believe Pyongyang does not yet have the ability to launch nuclear-tipped missiles, but its other nuclear capabilities aren't fully known.

The strident warning from Pyongyang is the latest in a series of escalating threats from North Korea, which has railed against joint U.S. and South Korean military exercises taking place in South Korea and has expressed anger over tightened sanctions for its February nuclear test.

For a second day Thursday, North Korean border authorities denied entry to South Koreans who manage jointly run factories in the North Korean city of Kaesong. A North Korean government-run committee threatened to pull out North Korean workers from Kaesong as well.

On Tuesday, Pyongyang announced it would restart a plutonium reactor it had shut down in 2007. A U.S. research institute said Wednesday that satellite imagery shows that construction needed for the restart has already begun.

North Korea's military statement said its troops had been authorized to counter U.S. "aggression" with "powerful practical military counteractions," including nuclear weapons.

"We formally inform the White House and Pentagon that the ever-escalating U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK and its reckless nuclear threat will be smashed by the strong will of all the united service personnel and people and cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike means," an unnamed spokesman from the General Bureau of the Korean People's Army said in a statement carried by state media, referring to North Korea by its formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. "The U.S. had better ponder over the prevailing grave situation.".....snip~

NKorea clears its military to attack US with nukes

This morning Kim Jong Un told the South to get out of N Korea.....and they have now Moved Missiles up to their East Coast.

Also I believe the Experts are wrong.....Especially since NKorea put up a successful launch into Orbit. Which means their Rocket is able to House a Satellite. If they can put a satellite up in Space. They can put a Nuke in the Tip of a Rocket.
 
DA60 said:
My prediction?

There is no way the North does anything.

They are massively weaker in conventional weapons.

And their nuclear threat is mostly hollow as they know if they nuke Seoul that America will nuke Pyongyang...and possibly a few other places.

The North are broke, starving and militarily far weaker then the South.

They are TOTALLY BLUFFING.


Man, I feel sorry for their citizens.
Click to expand...

I agree but setting off nuclear weapons tests is a serious provocation. Saying they are in a state of war with South Korea and by extension the US is a serious provocation. Announcing they have missiles pointed at American citizens is a serious provocation. Moving missiles to launch sites is a serious provocation. Announcing a merciless nuclear attack on the US has been examined and approved is a serious provocation. IMHO Kim Jong Un does not need to strike first. Everything he's said and done already is enough to warrant a massive airstrike on North Korean military targets, especially those related to nuclear weapons development, storage and delivery systems. We've gone to full scale war over a lot less.

I realize its difficult for some Americans to see US security policy beyond their partisan political leanings, which IMHO is sad, but one thing I've observed about President Obama is he's cautious when it comes to the use of the military option but if he feels the safety of the American people is in question, he acts decisively. See: Gitmo, the extensive use of drones to wipe out Al Qaeda operatives, the attack on Abbottabad that ended the career of Osama Bin Laden without giving Pakistan any advance warning. And now setting the stage to eliminate the North Korean threat. To what extent it'll be used we don't know but he's parked enough naval assets off the coast of NKorea to topple the regime.

I honestly wonder if Kim Jong Un is actually crazy or is he asking for his nuclear program to be destroyed getting them out of the equation once and for all but in a way let lets him save face with his Generals and still allow him to continue his slave master lifestyle over the NK population. Or alternately, strategically provoking their destruction so he can use threatening to rebuild his nuclear program as a blackmail barging chip to get American tax-payer money. If the continuous cycle of funding the NK government by black mailing America is NK's economic policy, the only next step they can use at this point is actually using his military against US and/or our allies. If he instigates a cleaver reset, they can start from scratch. Who knows? Just a thought.
 
Last edited:
Here is the Bit on them moving their Missiles.....confirmed by SKorea. ;)

SKorea: North Korea moved missile to east coast.....

North Korea has moved a missile with "considerable range" to its east coast, South Korea's defense minister said Thursday, but he added that there are no signs that Pyongyang is preparing for a full-scale conflict.

The report came hours after North Korea's military warned that it has been authorized to attack the U.S. using "smaller, lighter and diversified" nuclear weapons. It was the North's latest war cry against America in recent weeks. The reference to smaller weapons could be a claim that Pyongyang has improved its nuclear technology. Or a bluff.

South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin said he did not know the reasons behind the North's missile movement, and that it "could be for testing or drills."

He dismissed reports in Japanese media that the missile could be a KN-08, which is believed to be a long-range missile that if operable could hit the United States.

Kim told lawmakers at a parliamentary committee meeting that the missile has "considerable range" but not enough to hit the U.S. mainland.

The range he described could refer to a mobile North Korean missile known as the Musudan, which has a range of 3,000 kilometers (1,800 miles). That would make Japan and South Korea potential targets — along with U.S. bases in both countries — but there are doubts about the missile's accuracy.....snip~

SKorea: North Korea moved missile to east coast

The one thing they don't mention is about his 40 Subs and if an of them have been converted. Even Kim himself doubts they can hit the US Mainland from their home-ground.
 
Ok, its official. Kim Jong Un has lost his ever loving mind. Just got the CNN text alert saying intercepted communications from North Korea indicate they actually plan to launch missiles soon. Its about to get real up in this piece.
 
MSgt said:
Oh c'mon. You should know that the biggest offender of Defense Industry waste above the Army is the Air Force. They deal in toys and to this day they are still trying to figure out their place in the "War on Terror." It wasn't that long ago that an investigation was launched by McCain into a refueling program in which many people were found guilty of embezzelment and fabricating reports of "needs of our troops" to Congress. If Congress is ignorant of military needs, its the fault of Generals and Admirals who lobby for the Defense Industry giants in exchange for future jobs upon military retirement. The fact that they had to alter the Program to imply the idea of troop ground support just to keep it alive should tell you the worth of the program. Maybe one day an F/A-22 will engage an enemy jet. But to this day no troop has been supported from this program. When troops entered Afghanistan with duct tape on their NBC suits and Democrats whined about body armor and upArmor in regards to Iraq, guess what was still getting billions in the name of "supporting the troop."

We have 288 F/A-22s. That's enough and so is the obsession with tinkering with designs. I guarantee that dog fights over North Korea will be few and far between in only the beginning of a war because airfields along with parked North Korean jets will be the first to be destroyed. Those that do make it to the sky will be dealt with by other aircraft. The F/A-22 is just too expensive to risk in combat when other aircrafts can do the job. That is the practical truth and that is what they created..."for the troop."
Click to expand...

Actually there are only 187 F-22's that are operational. That number will decrease as they crash. All aircraft have a tendency to crash. For you people who think UAV's (drones for you laymen), the Predators and Reapers are five times more likely to crash from a malfunction than a F-15.
If drones were to have a pilot in them, they all would have been grounded. Your talking about over a hundred UAV crashes. -> A Century of US Drone Crashes | Global Research

The air threat to the United States now and in the future is real.
Current Russian fighters are already on par with America’s best fighter, the F-15. Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters will surpass the F-15.
At least three foreign aircraft threaten to surpass the F-15’s performance in the near future: the French Rafale, the Eurofighter 2000 and the Russian Su-35. Some foreign aircraft are already at parity with the F-15
Nations are already denying America access to airspace around the globe by obtaining low-cost, but sophisticated, surface-to-air missile systems
Highly capable surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems pose a formidable challenge to the F-15’s survivability. Advanced SAM systems, because of their relatively low cost, are a quick and easy way for countries to modernize their air defense systems.

Just months after the Obama administration canceled the F-22, both Russia and china have revealed their stealth version of the F-22. -> http://defensetech.org/2010/06/18/p...k-fa-stealth-fighter-better-than-f-22-raptor/

What it has come down to, the U.S. Air Force no longer guarantees air superiority for the next forty years. It was the Obama administration and Congress who made that decision, not the Air Force.

As for the "A" in FA-22. I don't think anyone at Lockheed Martin or in the Air Force tried to sale the F-22 as a close air support (CAS) aircraft. Having an "A" designation represents "attack" but doesn't mean it's suitable for CAS missions. The A-6 Intruder was rarely used for CAS, it was a deep strike aircraft.

The only aircraft the Air Force has suitable for CAS missions is the A-10 Warthog and that aircraft has a awful record of providing CAS. It's not the aircraft but who's in the cockpit. Unlike Marine Corps aviators, Air Force pilots are not riflemen, Marine pilots are. Having served with 1st ANGLICO Sub Unit One, I have some knowledge about CAS.

I was surprised on how many M-1 Abrams tanks, LAV-25's, and soldiers and Marines that Air Force A-10's took out in Iraq. The Air Force has a hard-on for shooting down enemy aircraft and dropping bombs from high altitude, not supporting the troops because it's a completely different game that only the U.S. Marine Corps has mastered.
 
APACHERAT said:
What it has come down to, the U.S. Air Force no longer guarantees air superiority for the next forty years. It was the Obama administration and Congress who made that decision, not the Air Force.
Click to expand...

But that is just it. The idea of the dog fight is ancient activity. The tactic in war is to destroy all enemy airfields and aircrafts still on the ground. Air Superiority is gained today through satellite imagery and rocket attacks upon hangers. It was actually the Israeli in the Suez War that provided this tactic. Knocking out over 90 percent of Egypt's Air Force before a rifle was fired won that war. The idea of F/A-22s dogfighting Korean F-15s over the skies is impractical. We just don't do that anymore. Our technology is such that we can protect our air superiority by erasing theirs before any troop crosses a line.

One might be able to argue that the Air Force's F/A-22 Program was all that was keeping the Air Force necessary in their own eyes. Aside from flying troops across continents to get to the war zones, they have contributed very little. High altitude bombing was and is just a piece of a much larger precision attack conducted by low level Army, Marine, and Navy pilots. Aside from the most awesome A10, the Air Force's role in the "War on Terror" has been extremely limited. The same will be true in Korea because this war will be conducted in 2013?....not 1950. The mainstay of the Air Force was the dog fight. That wartime tactic is in the past as much as Napoleanic tactics of marching troops against each other.

The Air force messed up two decades ago when they convinced Congress that the F/A-22 was also troop supporting. They preached it, but continued developing a toy for past wars. They should have actually began making it troop supporting, thereby giving them a bigger role in today's and the future's wars. Instead they opted for near sighted vision and have reduced themselves to bus drivers.
 
Last edited:
MSgt said:
Aside from the most awesome A10, the Air Force's role in the "War on Terror" has been extremely limited. QUOTE]

Being a Marine you should know, there's always someone who didn't get the word.

Didn't you get the word ? Obama killed Osama. Obama said Al Qaeda is on the run and is being decimated.

I think he said that just to get reelected. Considering that when he first entered the White House Al Qaeda was confined to Yemen and the African Horn. Now Al Qaeda can be found operating in almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa. Why do you think Obama blamed Benghazi on a Youtube video ? He didn't want Americans to know that Al Qaeda has actually been on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa.

Now for your claim that the Air Force role being extremely limited on the "War on Terror", it seems the army, navy and Marines don't have any UAV's Predators or Reapers.

But I digress.

I've had more than a General tell me that the problem with Obama is he has his head buried in the sand. He's only concerned with the present and refuses to see the threats that America will be facing in the future.

The clouds are already darkening over the horizon. The Marine Corps is preparing by going back to their roots, amphibious warfare, light naval infantry. In about twenty years from now China is going to challenge the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea. That's one threat that we already see and know it's coming. We still don't see the other threats that are out there.

That Russian/India stealth fighter version of the F-22 is going to be exported to every rouge third world country. Likely Iran but they may go for the Chinese version of the F-22, the Chengdu J-20.

How many Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA's do you think they will manufacture in the next twenty years ? I bet more than 187.
Click to expand...
 
Nothing's gonna happen. However, I do find it disturbing that Pres Obama feels the need to poke NK with a stick by playing "mine is bigger that yours" game by sending F-22's, B-52's, etc over there. Dumb posturing IMO. NK is well aware that we could kick their butt in any sort of conflict. It might not be as easy as it was with Iraq in '03, but it would be inevitable. So why stir the pot? Just sit back, let the guy kick and scream, and save our money for the day it's needed. Deploying that crap over there isn't cheap by any stretch of the imagination. You know, with the sequester and all :roll:
 
APACHERAT said:
Now for your claim that the Air Force role being extremely limited on the "War on Terror", it seems the army, navy and Marines don't have any UAV's Predators or Reapers.
Click to expand...

Marines have UAV squadrons. But this distracts from my point. If the Air Force was created to dog fight and now exist in a world where dog fighting has been made obsolete and unnecessary, what has the Air Force been doing for the last two decades tinkering around with a weapon system that needs the past? Tactics change as tecnology introduces better ways to kill. Dogfighting is an old tactic that was necessary in wars of old. It no longer is.



APACHERAT said:
How many Russian Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA's do you think they will manufacture in the next twenty years ? I bet more than 187.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. They can have 1,000. If they get destroyed on the tarmac what does that number do for them, but show how they wasted their money? As it is we have sunk a ridiculous amount of money purchasing F/A-22s and we are afraid to use them. This means they are unnecessarily waiting around for a war that is somehow going to pull the past forward.

Besides, just because the F/A-22 Program was shelved doesn't mean technology is stopped dead in its tracks.
 
MSgt said:
Marines have UAV squadrons. But this distracts from my point. If the Air Force was created to dog fight and now exist in a world where dog fighting has been made obsolete and unnecessary, what has the Air Force been doing for the last two decades tinkering around with a weapon system that needs the past? Tactics change as tecnology introduces better ways to kill. Dogfighting is an old tactic that was necessary in wars of old. It no longer is.





It doesn't matter. They can have 1,000. If they get destroyed on the tarmac what does that number do for them, but show how they wasted their money? As it is we have sunk a ridiculous amount of money purchasing F/A-22s and we are afraid to use them. This means they are unnecessarily waiting around for a war that is somehow going to pull the past forward.

Besides, just because the F/A-22 Program was shelved doesn't mean technology is stopped dead in its tracks.
Click to expand...

What can I say, except in the 1950's some idiots said that the day of air to air combat where aircraft got up close and personal were over. So they manufactured the F-4 Phantom without a gun.

The idea behind the F-22 is that it doesn't have to get close to it's adversary, that it sees the enemy before he sees him.

A Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is likely to see a F-15 before the F-15 sees the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA.
 
North Korea Tells Embassies In Pyongyang To Consider Evacuating.....

korea-19.jpg


North Korea has told foreign embassies in Pyongyang to consider evacuating their employees because it cannot guarantee their safety in the event of conflict after Sunday, BBC reports.

Russia and the UK said there were no outward signs of tension in the North Korean capital, and that it is not planning to evacuate at this stage.

South Korean news agency Yonhap reports that the 53,000 North Korean workers employed in the Kaesong industrial complex — a South-financed project that accounts for up to 40 percent of the North's revenue — did not show up for work on April 5.

Read more: Latest North Korea War Talk - Business Insider

Now he is telling Foreign Embassies to get their people out!
 
APACHERAT said:
What can I say, except in the 1950's some idiots said that the day of air to air combat where aircraft got up close and personal were over. So they manufactured the F-4 Phantom without a gun.
Click to expand...

That would have been premature and dangerous. It would have actually been a gamble considering that our Soviet enemy was capable of participating in an air war. As it was, there were dog fights over Vietnam. But history shows that such a prediction was merely before its time. Fortunately we did not have an engagement with the Soviets. After Vietnam, our technology became such that dogfights were made largely obsolete. Our technology has allowed us to direct primary targetting from bombers, rockets, and naval precision to airfields, infrastructure, and large enemy ground mechs from very far distances.

When we left our battleships in history we said goodbye to a naval tradition of ship-to-ship combat. The argument for naval gunfire was legit, but it disregarded the fact that we were not losing naval gunfire. The technology merely changed and so did the nare of warfare. We still have naval gunfire capabilities, but we have added UAV strikes to our arsenol.

Battleship warfare is history. So is the dogfight. They both themed around the duel. In a word where we maintain absolute superiority in technology, maneuver warfare, and combined arms, the duel is an ancient tradition.


APACHERAT said:
The idea behind the F-22 is that it doesn't have to get close to it's adversary, that it sees the enemy before he sees him.
Click to expand...

It also relies on an enemy that is allowed to exist. With airfields destroyed before the ground war even begins, the troop already has the benefit of air superiority. The enemy jets that do manage to escape the initial onslought will not survive beyond 12 hours. They will have nowhere to land and no way to refuel. Look at North Korea. Do you think that country will have a single airfield in operation after a few days of bombing? What is the role of the F/A-22 after that occurs? The troop needs the A-10, not the F/A-22.

APACHERAT said:
A Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is likely to see a F-15 before the F-15 sees the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA.
Click to expand...

I know it's the same post, but it allows me to try to make the point again... This would have been an issue in the past. The nature of air superiority has changed. With every war since World War II, we have seen less and less dogfighting as a means to air superiority. From the Gulf War on, it has been non-existent. War with Russia is not going to happen for a very black/white reason and war with China would be economically stupid on both sides. Since most things revolve around economic issues, even China has decided to extend a capitalist hand towards America rather than risk conflict over an international nuisance like North Korea. Our present and future wars will be against people and nations who can't compete technologically or economically. Therefore, our conflicts are only made hard by politicians and a military clinging to past archaic warfare doctrines, not an actual enemy.

Afghanistan - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy and military arrogance. Later problems revolved around political idiocy and a military lack of mission.

Iraq - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy. Later problems revolved around politicial idiocy.

Neither conflict was extended due to the enemy's ability other than the ability to sustain itself under our politician's cowardice and lack of commitment.


Arguing to extend the ability to dogfight against a non-existent enemy is like preparing ourselves for the great naval battles that aren't coming. Our technology now allows us to deal with the improbable dogfight and the sea battle without invoking past themes and future unnecessary toys. Like I've stated before, we live in an age where we are buying Ferraris despite our troops only needing SUVs.
 
MSgt said:
That would have been premature and dangerous. It would have actually been a gamble considering that our Soviet enemy was capable of participating in an air war. As it was, there were dog fights over Vietnam. But history shows that such a prediction was merely before its time. Fortunately we did not have an engagement with the Soviets. After Vietnam, our technology became such that dogfights were made largely obsolete. Our technology has allowed us to direct primary targetting from bombers, rockets, and naval precision to airfields, infrastructure, and large enemy ground mechs from very far distances.

When we left our battleships in history we said goodbye to a naval tradition of ship-to-ship combat. The argument for naval gunfire was legit, but it disregarded the fact that we were not losing naval gunfire. The technology merely changed and so did the nare of warfare. We still have naval gunfire capabilities, but we have added UAV strikes to our arsenol.

Battleship warfare is history. So is the dogfight. They both themed around the duel. In a word where we maintain absolute superiority in technology, maneuver warfare, and combined arms, the duel is an ancient tradition.




It also relies on an enemy that is allowed to exist. With airfields destroyed before the ground war even begins, the troop already has the benefit of air superiority. The enemy jets that do manage to escape the initial onslought will not survive beyond 12 hours. They will have nowhere to land and no way to refuel. Look at North Korea. Do you think that country will have a single airfield in operation after a few days of bombing? What is the role of the F/A-22 after that occurs? The troop needs the A-10, not the F/A-22.



I know it's the same post, but it allows me to try to make the point again... This would have been an issue in the past. The nature of air superiority has changed. With every war since World War II, we have seen less and less dogfighting as a means to air superiority. From the Gulf War on, it has been non-existent. War with Russia is not going to happen for a very black/white reason and war with China would be economically stupid on both sides. Since most things revolve around economic issues, even China has decided to extend a capitalist hand towards America rather than risk conflict over an international nuisance like North Korea. Our present and future wars will be against people and nations who can't compete technologically or economically. Therefore, our conflicts are only made hard by politicians and a military clinging to past archaic warfare doctrines, not an actual enemy.

Afghanistan - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy and military arrogance. Later problems revolved around political idiocy and a military lack of mission.

Iraq - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy. Later problems revolved around politicial idiocy.

Neither conflict was extended due to the enemy's ability other than the ability to sustain itself under our politician's cowardice and lack of commitment.


Arguing to extend the ability to dogfight against a non-existent enemy is like preparing ourselves for the great naval battles that aren't coming. Our technology now allows us to deal with the improbable dogfight and the sea battle without invoking past themes and future unnecessary toys. Like I've stated before, we live in an age where we are buying Ferraris despite our troops only needing SUVs.
Click to expand...

Where do I start ?

I think I'll skip over how a CSG or any ship defends itself from an air attack. It involves three to four layers of defense.

You are aware that air to air missiles have it's limits, they can't be used if the target is to close, that's when you have to use your guns and get up close and personal aka dog fight.

If the Navy and Air Force believed that the day of fighters having guns/cannons and being involved in dog fights was history, then the Navy's "Top Gun" and the Air Force "Red Flag" would have been eliminated. (I sure hope the Obama White House doesn't see this post.)

But something I'm an expert at, NSFS. You said >"We still have naval gunfire capabilities"< We have very little naval gunfire capabilities. Today the U.S. Navy only has one naval gun capable of providing Naval Shore Gunfire Support, the 5"/54. We no longer have 16", 8", 6" and the 5"/38 guns.

Naval gun fire is a completely diffrent ball game compared to land artillery. Naval guns are huge rifles that have a flat projectory, a high velocity with a high kenetic energy. Even the dispertion of the naval projectile fragmentaion is competely diffrent than an artillery projectile.
It's also a very complex procedure for calling in a NSFS mission comapred to artillery. It's complex for the NGF spotter on shore and even more complex for the sailors on the ship.

During the Vietnam War, the naval 5"38 gun that was found on Gearing class destroyers, all gun cruisers and Iowa class battleships were excellent for providing NSFS. With the 38 cal. barrel they were able to hit targets on reverse slopes of hills and mountains.

During the Vietnam War when the newer DD's were on the gun line they had the 5"/54 guns. ( the only gun that is found on our destroyers and cruisers today) They were automatic and could fire a lot of savos in a minute. But because they had a 54 cal. barrel they couldn't hit some targets on reverse slopes and because the 5"/54 gun was fed from a magazine, if during a fire mission you all of a sudden found that you needed to switch over from a VT fuse to a FD fuse or needed a WP round instead of a HE round, the gun magazine on the ship had to be removed and reloaded with what you needed, a 20 minute process if I remember correctly.

I remember one incident when we had a Adams class DD on the gun line that had the 5"/54. Our FAC asked me to mark a target with WP for a close air support mission. It took almost 30 minutes before I could mark that target. Way to long ! Jets today have an extremely short loiter time over the battlefield.

As for the Iowa class BB's. If you ever personaly wittnes one of these excellent weapons platforms fire it's 16" guns you would be in awe. And if you were on shore and were able to see what a 2.750 lb. AP round or 2,000 lb HE round does, you aren't going to say the Iowa class BB's are obsolete.

During my days the 16" gun was able to hit a barrel with a 2.750 pound round from 24 miles away. By the late 1980's the 16" gun was evolving with rocket assist and giving them a 100 mile range and precion guided rounds and they were even playing around with the idea of using them for ASW (anti submarine warfare) I guess you can figure out what they were thinking of.

In just one hour an Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordance on target than an entire carrier air wing could in 24 hours. And night time, fog, low clouds, rain, etc. doesn't stop naval guns from accomplishing their mission like it does for aircraft.

As for the Marine grunts on shore, precision ordance are useless when your dealing with area targets like enemy troops in the open.

After Vietnam during the 1970's when the Democrats were in the process of dismantling our military all 6" and 8" cruisers were decomissioned. The U.S. Marines only had naval 5" gun destroyers to rely on for NSFS and all of the Gearing class DD's were being decommisioned.

1981 and Reagan becomes POTUS and discovers our military is in worse shape than we were told.

The original idea was to reactivate all of the 8" gun cruisers. Secretary of the Navy John Leyman said lets go for the whole enchalada and reactivate all four of the Iowa class BB's and at the same time we wouild also be filling the carrier gap that the Navy was experiancing and our Marines will have real NSFS that they don't have at this time. I think the Soviets feared the Iowa class BB's more than our carriers.

After the Cold War Congress passed a law that all four Iowa's were to be kept in a high state of readiness in our naval reserve fleet so they could be called back to service during an emergency. That these Iowa's were to remain in the reserve fleet untill a new naval ship that is armed with a gun that would be capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. That gun was the 155 MM naval gun that Obama killed.

Back track: President Clinton ignored Congress and decided to turn all of the Iowa class BB's in to meuseums. Then he ordered that all of the spare 16" barrels for the Iowa's be cut up and sold for scrap. No spare barrels, the Iowa's are useless. Congress reaction to Clinton breaking the law ? We can't impeach him a second time.

As you may remember, the Iowas were probably one of the most feared weapons platforms on the surface of the Earth. Besides it's nine 16" guns and it's twenty 5"/38 guns it also carried eight Tomahawk SSCM (Nuke Capable) and more than enough Harpoon anti-ship missiles. And it also had UAV's (droanes)

With the Iowa's 12" armor belt, they were unsinkable because there is no weapon that can penterate 12" of armor plating. If an Iowa were to be hit by a anti-ship cruise missile you send a sailor over the side with a bucket of paint and a paint brush.

Now there was a seminar and a debate back in the 90's when their was a movement to reactivate all of the Iowa's before Clinton turned them in to museums. Can the keel of an Iowa be broken by exploding torpedos under the keel ? And how many torpedos would it take ? You had naval archietect, structural engineers, naval engineers, weapons experts all engaged in the debate. Conclusion, some believed that the keel couldn't be broken while other believed if enough torpedos could be detanated under the keel. the keel would break.
 
Last edited:
APACHERAT said:
<snip>
Now there was a seminar and a debate back in the 90's when their was a movement to reactivate all of the Iowa's before Clinton turned them in to museums. Can the keel of an Iowa be broken by exploding torpedos under the keel ? And how many torpedos would it take ? You had naval archietect, structural engineers, naval engineers, weapons experts all engaged in the debate. Conclusion, some believed that the keel couldn't be broken while other believed if enough torpedos could be detanated under the keel. the keel would break.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom