War/military action against North Korea predictions

Smeagol · Apr 2, 2013

American said:
No, you shouldn't say this. Loose lips sink ships.

True I'll do better next time. FYI: It wasn't from an official military source but a military family member.

Since then deployment of key assets to the region have been well publicized; numerous Naval vessels, Air Force bombers, Air Force fighter jets, advanced floating radar systems. If KJU doesn't know he's about to have his butt handed him then he's not just a narcissistic and arrogant murderer, he's clinically delusional.

Smeagol · Apr 2, 2013

WCH said:
China mobilizing troops, jets near N. Korean border, US officials say | Fox News

If it comes to blows, which China will we see?

Interesting. Maybe China and the US are planning some bi-lateral action. They have a new President and and economies are intertwined. Or its possible we've given the Chinese some heads up and they're placing troops on their border as a precautionary measure to keep hostilities from spilling over into their territory and/or there to deal with the refugee problem. I can't imagine Obama not doing anything wrt NK without at least consulting the Chinese and asking for their involvement at best.

Sherman123 · Apr 2, 2013

Smeagol said:
I'm hearing China, which also has new leadership, is no longer giving North Korea a wink and a nod with their craziness and are possibly pressuring them to act right, which may be fueling Un's temper tantrum. Plus, if China publicly supports Korea's reunification, they might feel they've earned America's support to reunify with Taiwan.

One of my close friend who works in the NK Human Rights community says that China has started cracking down on smuggling routes which are used to bring in food and other essential black market goods to North Korea. That seems more substantive than any public sanctions.

AreteCourage · Apr 2, 2013

Nothing will happen like usual...North Korea is testing the new South Korean president and throwing another fit. This will not go to anything militarily

MSgt · Apr 2, 2013

PirateMk1 said:
Where the F-22 pays for itself is securing that dominance as quickly and efficiently as possible especially in a heavy SAM environment where it will really shine vs. F-15.

It hasn't paid for crap so far. No troop in Iraq or Afghanistan benefitted from an F/A-22. No one in Libya benefitted from an F/A-22. And when it comes to North Korea we might see the same excuse given. The F/A-22 is too expensive a toy with far too many secrets to risk in combat. Even in training many of the systems are shut down. Circa 2004, the Indonesians whipped our pilots butts in a training exercise because their polits don't rely upon systems to fly their aircraft.

But billions and billions we spend on it.

DDD · Apr 2, 2013

Dubya did say that the axis of evil are: Iraq, Iran, and NK. Iraq is busted, Iran not, has time come for NK already?

MSgt · Apr 2, 2013

German guy said:
Hell, it's a wonder this silly country has not collapsed all on its own by now.

We shouldn't wonder too hard. Sanctions have always only worked to punish the population, not the antagonizers. Sanctions cause more damage to civilians than any war does, but protestors and politicians like their illusions.

MSgt · Apr 2, 2013

APACHERAT said:
Lets see, F-22's, B-2 bombers and anti ballistic anti missile batteries all deployed to the region. Everyone of those weapons platforms Obama and the liberals have opposed being funded and built.

Do you see a problem here ?

No. These systems have been funded enough. When you buy a car do you continually buy accessories, give it paint jobs, or change tires once a month? At some point you have to appreciate that you are just throwing your money away on what is already a perfectly fine car.

MSgt · Apr 2, 2013

The funny thing will be watching Democrats explain how a military action against a country that didn't attack us matters under Obama.

MMC · Apr 2, 2013

MSgt said:
The funny thing will be watching Democrats explain how a military action against a country that didn't attack us matters under Obama.

Nah.....that's an easy one. They will Blame Bush! :lol:

APACHERAT · Apr 2, 2013

MSgt said:
No. These systems have been funded enough. When you buy a car do you continually buy accessories, give it paint jobs, or change tires once a month? At some point you have to appreciate that you are just throwing your money away on what is already a perfectly fine car.

They opposed these weapons platforms while they were still in the R&D stages.

MSgt · Apr 2, 2013

APACHERAT said:
They opposed these weapons platforms while they were still in the R&D stages.

It doesn't matter what the stages were. The F/A-22 goes back to the Cold War and was a beast of a program that has done nothing for any troop to this very day. It is a shining example of how grossly neglectful Washington has been in terms of military support. This program after the berlin Wall fell quickly developed into a program to line pockets and provide jobs in related states. When civilians talk about the need to cut funding to the military (as if that fixes anything), the result is a lack of "body armor" while programs like the F/A-22 continue to provide them their jobs and suck away billions of dollars. Save the tax payers milions by telling the troop to deal with outdated equipment, but spend billions on Programs the troop doesn't need? Make sense of that. I cannot.

Total domination in every military event since the end of the Cold War was accomplished without the F/A-22 flying over our troops heads. Why is it that people seem to think they can't do without it? The Pentagon can easily prove its worth by simply placing it in combat for the first time ever. Of course, the fact that it carries less of a payload and burns fuel faster than active bombers makes it less useful to the troop when calling in an airstrike. The whole point of adding the "A" to the F-22 Program was to convince congress in the 90s that it can also be a bomber, thereby extending the Program. A Program that has its roots in the Cold War to fight off migs still being toyed with as it is pretended to support anything? Sounds like Congressional ignorance and Defense Industry intrigue to me. This is what happens when scientists and engineers are given blank checks to tinker with toys and not forced to produce for the troops. Give me an A-10 or a UAV anytime.

As for the B-2, the last thing we need is yet another bomb delivery toy that pretends to replace the outstanding support we already have.

APACHERAT · Apr 2, 2013

MSgt said:
It doesn't matter what the stages were. The F/A-22 goes back to the Cold War and was a beast of a program that has done nothing for any troop to this very day. Give me an A-10 or a UAV anytime.

As for the B-2, the last thing we need is yet another bomb delivery toy.

Where were you in 1989 ? Using the old liberal argument that a weapons platform is an relic of the Cold War.

In 1989 the political left was calling the A-10 Warthog an obsolete aircraft, a relic of the Cold War. The A-10's were all scheduled to be sent to Davis Monthan AFB big bone yard in the desert. But some thing happened, it was the first Gulf War. Ends up the A-10 was an excellent CAS attack aircraft, as long as there was someone in the colckpit who had some knowledge of riflemen on the ground.

BTW: 50 % of the A-10 squadrons have already been deactivated under the Obama administration.

Are you familiar with the Marines ONTOS ? Probably before your time. It was probably the best counter sniper weapon we had in Vietnam. Originally designed to take on Soviet tanks in Europe. The Marines found out it was just not an excellent weapon of eliminating pesty snipers but also protecting air base perimeters and did an excellent job during the Battle of Hue.

A couple years ago I and a few Marine officers who done tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan were discussing the ONTOS after viewing some videos of it in action during the Vietnam War. One Captain said this would have been a perfect weapon in Afghanistan. "It's a shame any time we have something that is plain, stupid, dumb and works, they scrap them."

I mentioned I noticed all of the Vietnam War weapons that weren't scrapped but put in storage have been brought out of storage and being used in Afghanistan. The M-14 rifle, LAWWS, M-1911 A-1's, etc.

BTW: There may not be any fighters, attack aircraft on the drawing boards today but there's a new bomber in the pipe line for the Air Force.

MSgt · Apr 2, 2013

APACHERAT said:
Where were you in 1989 ? Using the old liberal argument that a weapons platform is an relic of the Cold War.

Okinawa, Japan. Junior in High School.

I'm not sure what my reply to you had anything to do with liberalism in any culture. The fact is that the F22 Program was initially drawn up in 1981 for the purpose of replacing existing fighter jets against Soviet Migs. After the Cold War ended the F22 Program and many like it was up on the cutting block. Like many of those Programs, however, the engineers slapped a bombing capability on it and convinced Congress that it was best for our troops. Well here we are in 2013. Not once did any troop see an explosion in Iraq or Afghanistan that came from an F/A-22.

APACHERAT said:
In 1989 the political left was calling the A-10 Warthog an obsolete aircraft, a relic of the Cold War. The A-10's were all scheduled to be sent to Davis Monthan AFB big bone yard in the desert. But some thing happened, it was the first Gulf War. Ends up the A-10 was an excellent CAS attack aircraft, as long as there was someone in the colckpit who had some knowledge of riflemen on the ground.

Well, the A-10 being "obsolete" in 1989 was a stupid argument put forward by Democrats who rejoiced over the pathetic notion that "our wars are over" (plenty of Republicans shared in this bit of ignorance). It has nothing to do with today's continued and unnecessary F/A-22 tinkering.

APACHERAT said:
BTW: 50 % of the A-10 squadrons have already been deactivated under the Obama administration.

This would be a better choice of protest than the F/A-22.

Read what Ralph Peters has to say on the matter long before Obama pulled in the reigns...

At present, the F-22 is far and away the most wasteful system we're funding. It is a legacy system. If you look at the things we're doing, like Kosovo for instance, the F-22 would have made zero contribution. It wouldn't have improved our effort in any regard. It's essentially meant to be used in dogfights, and nobody is coming up to dogfight us. No air force is preparing for that. The airframes we already have, such as the F-15 and the F-14, are vastly superior to anything out there that's being built or has been built. The F-22 is a shameful, disgraceful boondoggle and it revolts me.

Click to expand...

...he is right.

APACHERAT said:
Are you familiar with the Marines ONTOS ? Probably before your time. It was probably the best counter sniper weapon we had in Vietnam. Originally designed to take on Soviet tanks in Europe. The Marines found out it was just not an excellent weapon of eliminating pesty snipers but also protecting air base perimeters and did an excellent job during the Battle of Hue.

A couple years ago I and a few Marine officers who done tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan were discussing the ONTOS after viewing some videos of it in action during the Vietnam War. One Captain said this would have been a perfect weapon in Afghanistan. "It's a shame any time we have something that is plain, stupid, dumb and works, they scrap them."

I mentioned I noticed all of the Vietnam War weapons that weren't scrapped but put in storage have been brought out of storage and being used in Afghanistan. The M-14 rifle, LAWWS, M-1911 A-1's, etc.

BTW: There may not be any fighters, attack aircraft on the drawing boards today but there's a new bomber in the pipe line for the Air Force.

View attachment 67145456

None of this has anything to do with the F/A-22. You actually make the point that some of our older legacy equipment serves our troops better than uneccesary technological toys have. The argument over whether or not a piece of equipment is useful to the troop is a matter of individual equipment and current mission. Not all of it is worth keeping around and not all of it is worth sinking billions of dollars into it when it could be sunk to better systems of actual use. The M16 is the pefect example. It is by far one of the best assault rifles on the planet. Should we sink billions of dollars into unnecessarily designing a new assault rifle just because we can? The one we have (through its variations) serves the troop quite well. The same is true for our bombing aviation equipment. We have 288 F/A-22s in service and all are either collecting dust or conducting training exercises as troops in actual wars call in strikes from aircraft that do the job splendidly...at less the cost.

The F/A-22 is a Ferrari at a time that our troops needed Mini Vans. The truth is that the F/A-22 carries half the payload of other troop supporting aircraft, carries less fuel, and makes our pilots lazy. Instead of improving on the tested F-15 and F-14, Congress has sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into a toy that has served nobody. They may as well start a Program to start funding the construction of the Death Star.

APACHERAT · Apr 2, 2013

MSgt said:
Okinawa, Japan. Junior in High School.

I'm not sure what my reply to you had anything to do with liberalism in any culture. The fact is that the F22 Program was initially drawn up in 1981 for the purpose of replacing existing fighter jets against Soviet Migs. After the Cold War ended the F22 Program and many like it was up on the cutting block. Like many of those Programs, however, the engineers slapped a bombing capability on it and convinced Congress that it was best for our troops. QUOTE]

I remember when the "Air Force" added a couple of hard points on the F-22 to sale it to Congress. It only confirms that there are to many stupid members in Congress who are legislating on subjects that they have no knowledge of.

We see the same thing with gun control legislation where you have stupid people with no knowledge on the subject legislating on something they are clueless on. Still there are stupid people in Congress who don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

Remember the F-14 Tomcat ? Designed and deployed for only one mission, a fighter to defend Carrier Battle Groups. It had no other mission. But towards the end of it's life they added some hard point to the aircraft so it could also conduct strike and attack missions. They would have done a lousy job at those jobs. The purpose was to temporary fill a gap until the FA-18 entered the fleet which was the replacement for the F-14, F-4, A-4 and A-7.

The most successful and famous aircraft since the P-51 has to be the F-4 Phantom. It was originally designed as a fighter to protect aircraft carriers. The Marines put hard points on them and used them as attack aircraft. The Air Force adopted the F-4 and put a gun on it.

The F-4 wasn't excellent at any thing. But it was good at every thing. It was a air superiority fighter, a tactical fighter, an attack aircraft, a CAS attack aircraft, a strike aircraft, a high altitude bomber, a reconnaissance aircraft and was successful as an EW aircraft taking out enemy SAM radar sites. Not excellent at any of those mission but good at it.

But there was always one problem with the F-4, it smoked. No matter how high a F-4 was, you could always identify a F-4 by the trail of black smoke. Smoking can be hazardous to your heath in air to air combat and AAA.

Fast track to 1981, the Reagan administration. By then all F-4's were headed to the bone yard. In the Air Force, the F-15 and F-16 were replacing all F-4 squadrons. In the Navy and Marine Corps the new FA-18 Hornets would be replacing all F-4 squadrons. But in the late 1970's the Israelis solved the smoking problem of the F-4's.

The Reagan administration knew that all F-4's would be sitting in the bone yard with in a decade. But what's the dollar value of the life of a Naval aviator or Air Force pilot ? What if we find ourselves in a shooting war before these F-4's are deactivated ? Lets spend the money to give these F-4 pilots an edge they didn't have before by eliminating the smoking problem of the F-4's. With in a few years when you saw a F-4 in the sky, it wasn't smoking.

Navy Pride · Apr 2, 2013

Smeagol said:
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitial area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.

I voted other............Obama is to gutless to ever take any military action against North Korea.

Chiefgator · Apr 3, 2013

Navy Pride said:
I voted other............Obama is to gutless to ever take any military action against North Korea.

We have made a show of force and KJU is already backpedaling. BUT, If he had not changed course, the question remains, "How would President Obama be willing to go?" I think he reacted correctly in this case. Jumping right into Military action would not have been a display of "guts", It would have been an unnecessary escalation.

And, by the way, Happy 120th Birthday, Chief Petty Officer! :usflag2: (A few days late, sorry...

)

MMC · Apr 3, 2013

Looks like Kim heard the News Yesterday and the talk of Kaesong. He now Closed the Plant.

NKorea refuses to let SKoreans enter joint factory.....

North Korea on Wednesday barred South Korean workers from entering a jointly run factory park just over the heavily armed border in the North in the latest sign that Pyongyang's warlike stance toward South Korea and the United States is moving from words to action.

The Kaesong move came a day after the North announced it would restart its long-shuttered plutonium reactor and a uranium enrichment plant. Both could produce fuel for nuclear weapons that Pyongyang is developing and has threatened to hurl at the U.S. but which experts don't think it will be able to accomplish for years.

Barring entry to South Koreas is a "slap in the face" after the South Korean government recently extended medical aid to the North, said Lee Choon-kun, a North Korea researcher at the Korea Economic Research Institute, a Seoul-based think tank. "I see this as a start for more provocative actions," he said.

"The North has made too many threats not to stop short of any real action."

NKorea refuses to let SKoreans enter joint factory

Chiefgator · Apr 3, 2013

MMC said:
Looks like Kim heard the News Yesterday and the talk of Kaesong. He now Closed the Plant.

NKorea refuses to let SKoreans enter joint factory.....

North Korea on Wednesday barred South Korean workers from entering a jointly run factory park just over the heavily armed border in the North in the latest sign that Pyongyang's warlike stance toward South Korea and the United States is moving from words to action.

The Kaesong move came a day after the North announced it would restart its long-shuttered plutonium reactor and a uranium enrichment plant. Both could produce fuel for nuclear weapons that Pyongyang is developing and has threatened to hurl at the U.S. but which experts don't think it will be able to accomplish for years.

Barring entry to South Koreas is a "slap in the face" after the South Korean government recently extended medical aid to the North, said Lee Choon-kun, a North Korea researcher at the Korea Economic Research Institute, a Seoul-based think tank. "I see this as a start for more provocative actions," he said.

"The North has made too many threats not to stop short of any real action."

NKorea refuses to let SKoreans enter joint factory

Well, so much for Backpedalling.

MMC · Apr 3, 2013

Chiefgator said:
Well, so much for Backpedalling.

Looks Like we are responding.....evidenced!

U.S. military buildup in S. Korea months in making

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon's deployment in the last week of its most advanced fighters, bombers and warships to counter North Korea's mounting threats has overshadowed its more gradual buildup of forces in the region.

Over the last year, the military has responded to the Obama administration's "pivot" to Asia as it withdraws troops from Afghanistan and its war in Iraq recedes into history. The rebalancing of forces addresses, in part, the rise of Chinese power in the region. Other changes were made with a clear focus on North Korea.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon announced its intent to sell upgrades to the South Korean military for 60 F-15 fighters already being purchased. The upgrades include advanced radar systems and sniper targeting equipment on the warplanes, which will replace its aging fleet of F-4 aircraft, according to the Pentagon.

• The military also announced Wednesday it was sending a missile defense system to the Pacific island of Guam to bolster defense against North Korea. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense System (THAAD) ballistic missile defense system "is a land-based missile defense system that includes a truck-mounted launcher, a complement of interceptor missiles, an AN/TPY-2 tracking radar, and an integrated fire control system," the Pentagon announcement said.

• Last fall, the Pentagon began shipping Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) trucks to South Korea. The vehicles, by the Pentagon's count, have saved the lives of thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from roadside bombs and presumably would offer similar protection in North Korea should U.S. forces need to travel on its roads.

• B-1 bomber pilots based at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas are spending more time training for long flights over the Pacific and spending less preparing for attacks in the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan.

• Hundreds of Marines have been training in the tropical port of Darwin, Australia, since mid-2012.

U.S. military buildup in S. Korea months in making

Chiefgator · Apr 3, 2013

Like I said above, I applaud the President for his response. It appear that KJU was Backpedalling a bit, but I was mistaken.

MSgt · Apr 3, 2013

APACHERAT said:
I remember when the "Air Force" added a couple of hard points on the F-22 to sale it to Congress. It only confirms that there are to many stupid members in Congress who are legislating on subjects that they have no knowledge of.

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."

Ikari · Apr 3, 2013

Smeagol said:
Kim Jong Un has IMHO already done enough to justify a US military response. He's pointed missiles at American bases in Japan and Guam. He cut the line that allows emergency communications between North and South Korea. Last year he fired missiles at a South Korean residitial area killing innocent civilians seemingly for no other reason than to look tough/crazy. Before his rise to power his father ignored the international community and has successfully proliferated nuclear weapons, weapons Junior now possesses. Under treaty agreements, military actions against South Korea are considered attacks on the United States of America. Un has publically stated a state of war exists between North South Korea, translation: he declared war against America under US treaty obligations. The question is will he come to his senses and back up and/or will president Obama spank that A and treat North Korea as part axis of evil or ignore him? My observation is Obama talks a good game of peace and love when it comes to playing nice with homocidal maniacs but still kicks butt most of the time.

Not sure if I should even say this but I heard on relatively good authority troops scheduled for deployment in Afghanistan have had their orders cancelled 'in case they're needed elsewhere.' A new type of naval sea to surface battle ship never used before is now parked off the coast of North Korea.

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.

Ikari · Apr 3, 2013

Navy Pride said:
I voted other............Obama is to gutless to ever take any military action against North Korea.

Only an idiot of the highest caliber could look at the war expansions under Obama and say that he wouldn't be in favor of expanding the war.

Surtr · Apr 3, 2013

Chiefgator said:
Yes, I knew it was something like that. But thank you for finding the actual quote. My point remains. After this many years of a cease fire, any resumption of hostilities would have to be considered "new" and not a continuation.

The hostilities never ended.

Formal Declaration of War died with the (Unconstitutional)War Powers Act.

It was declared unconstitutional by every President since Nixon, and of course they're complaining about it. It limits the powers of the Executive Branch.

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.

North Korea will be hit with US air, drone and missle strikes.

A full land invasion of North Korea by US forces is coming soon.

Other

More options

Smeagol

Smeagol

Sherman123

AreteCourage

Well-known member

MSgt

Read Some Books

DDD

MSgt

Read Some Books

MSgt

Read Some Books

MSgt

Read Some Books

MMC

APACHERAT

MSgt

Read Some Books

APACHERAT

MSgt

Read Some Books

APACHERAT

Navy Pride

Chiefgator

MMC

Chiefgator

MMC

Chiefgator

MSgt

Read Some Books

Ikari

Ikari

Surtr