Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Movement and heavy activity reported at North Korean missile sites. Shiat just got real   (smh.com.au ) divider line
    More: News, North Koreans, missiles, Korean People's Army, North Korean leader, Yonhap  
•       •       •

19638 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Mar 2013 at 4:37 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



468 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-03-30 12:10:33 AM  

paulseta: This is a very serious escalation - Obama will find himself in a tricky situation: either take pre-emptive action based on a possibility that NK could have something which could damage US forces; or sit it out and deal with the consequences if it turned out he should have done something. Either way, a large (and different for each scenario) section of the public will have their own thoughts - no doubt.

Personally, I think Kim is hankering for a nukering.


You know Obama is in a no-win situation. Strike pre-emptively, and he's a war monger who didn't ask permission. Wait, and he should've acted sooner.

Personally, I don't think we should nuke them- yet. However, if a couple thousand Tomahawks and Patriots suddenly landed their way, I wouldn't be opposed.
 
2013-03-30 12:14:38 AM  

Acharne: Kittypie070: JDJoeE: Pity Truman didn't have the sack to finish the "conflict".  How many people have starved because of Truman?  How many more will die because he allowed this mess to happen?  How hard would it really have been for him to nuke the Chinese out of North Korea?  How many less people would be dead (or will die) had that useless dolt prosecuted Korea as an actual war?

Holy SHIATBALLS, did you just call Harry S Truman a pussy!?


I know they didn't have more bombs, but I've always questioned dropping nukes on civilian cities. It is the biggest thing preventing me personally from respecting Truman.  I often speculate what would have happened had the bombs been detonated over Mt. Fuji, or you know, not at all.


Questions are always OK by me.

A) shoulda targeted strictly military installations with those weapons, yeah :(

B) invading would have been a shiatload worse as far as total death toll on both sides, probably

C) Soviets were watching too, we done spooked the unholy piss out of them and started the sucky-ass Cold War
 
2013-03-30 12:39:53 AM  
The only way N. Korea can even fight the US is if the US goes over there.  There is no threat of N. Korea attacking the continental US.
 
2013-03-30 01:09:54 AM  
www.silent-strike.org
 
2013-03-30 01:48:52 AM  

Kittypie070: C) Soviets were watching too, we done spooked the unholy piss out of them and started the sucky-ass Cold War


If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what might have happened: the Soviets, who had already invaded Manchuria, might have tried to take Japan for themselves.  Instead of alternately making fun of North Korea and feeling sorry for them, we might be thinking the same way about Japan.

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what unquestionably would have happened: MacArthur would have been allowed to use much worse weapons in Korea.  We're all better off having learned about the horrors of nuclear warfare with 1945-era bombs than with 1950s-era ones.
 
2013-03-30 01:58:14 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: Kittypie070: C) Soviets were watching too, we done spooked the unholy piss out of them and started the sucky-ass Cold War

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what might have happened: the Soviets, who had already invaded Manchuria, might have tried to take Japan for themselves.  Instead of alternately making fun of North Korea and feeling sorry for them, we might be thinking the same way about Japan.

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what unquestionably would have happened: MacArthur would have been allowed to use much worse weapons in Korea.  We're all better off having learned about the horrors of nuclear warfare with 1945-era bombs than with 1950s-era ones.


Kind of sounds like you're saying we were determined to use a nuclear bomb on someone eventually.
 
2013-03-30 02:56:27 AM  

Frederick: Kind of sounds like you're saying we were determined to use a nuclear bomb on someone eventually.


(Shrug) Somebody would've.  You have to keep in mind that they were just big bombs.  The totemistic aspects came later.
 
2013-03-30 03:39:38 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: Kittypie070: C) Soviets were watching too, we done spooked the unholy piss out of them and started the sucky-ass Cold War

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what might have happened: the Soviets, who had already invaded Manchuria, might have tried to take Japan for themselves.  Instead of alternately making fun of North Korea and feeling sorry for them, we might be thinking the same way about Japan.

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what unquestionably would have happened: MacArthur would have been allowed to use much worse weapons in Korea.  We're all better off having learned about the horrors of nuclear warfare with 1945-era bombs than with 1950s-era ones.


That's correct.
 
2013-03-30 04:28:49 AM  

Man On Pink Corner: Frederick: Kind of sounds like you're saying we were determined to use a nuclear bomb on someone eventually.

(Shrug) Somebody would've.  You have to keep in mind that they were just big bombs.  The totemistic aspects came later.


Probably true.  Probably also true that it will happen again.  As an American I have a lot of regret over it's use.  I know that is seen as the incorrect attitude.
 
2013-03-30 04:44:13 AM  

Kittypie070: Man On Pink Corner: Kittypie070: C) Soviets were watching too, we done spooked the unholy piss out of them and started the sucky-ass Cold War

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what might have happened: the Soviets, who had already invaded Manchuria, might have tried to take Japan for themselves.  Instead of alternately making fun of North Korea and feeling sorry for them, we might be thinking the same way about Japan.

If we hadn't dropped the atomic bombs, here's what unquestionably would have happened: MacArthur would have been allowed to use much worse weapons in Korea.  We're all better off having learned about the horrors of nuclear warfare with 1945-era bombs than with 1950s-era ones.

That's correct.


It's Fark. Let it go.
 
2013-03-30 07:21:05 AM  
People still think we will use these.
www.blog.markloiseau.com
That's hilarious. Because, hey, Japan and China would be so cool with that.
 
2013-03-30 08:15:19 AM  

Ishidan: They're only "expendable" if the enemy has something that can hit them.


NK is one of the few countries that actually does have the potential to sink a US DDG.

i.cdn.turner.com

This was a dedicated anti-submarine platform.  Granted, it wasn't operating in war mode, but it got sunk by one of their small submarines.

Diesel electric boats in coastal waters are a PITA.  They've got to be in the right place at the right time, but if the circumstances fall right they'll bag anything.
 
2013-03-30 09:37:39 AM  

muck4doo: Kittypie070: Man On Pink Corner: Kittypie070:

That's correct.


It's Fark. Let it go.


Why U getting all up in my grillz?
 
2013-03-30 09:50:19 AM  

Kittypie070: muck4doo: Kittypie070: Man On Pink Corner: Kittypie070:

That's correct.

It's Fark. Let it go.

Why U getting all up in my grillz?


lol!
 
2013-03-30 03:46:33 PM  

JustGetItRight: Diesel electric boats in coastal waters are a PITA.


Not like they can hide from us.
 
2013-03-30 04:35:11 PM  

Frederick: As an American I have a lot of regret over it's use. I know that is seen as the incorrect attitude.


There was plenty to regret on both sides.  That's the whole problem with world wars, really -- they always seem to turn into a contest to see who can commit the worst atrocities.
 
2013-04-01 06:46:01 PM  
JustGetItRight:

That hull number seems rather high to be a DDG, and the shape is ALL wrong.  (I often work at the Pearl Harbor Naval Station, I know what a farking DDG looks like, and that aint one.)  Let's ask around what ship that is.

...got it.  That's the South Korean Corvette Cheonan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_%28PCC-772%29

CORVETTE, now.  Displacement, 1,200 tons, with sensors and survivability far inferior to current US warship designs.

The smallest thing that the US currently calls a capital ship would be the Perry class frigate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate
Three times larger, with better sensors.
Next step up the Burke class destroyer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
A good six times larger, with survivability upgrades to match.

So yeahhhh...no.  I don't think that North Korean minisubs would have quite so much luck.
 
2013-04-02 10:13:39 AM  

Ishidan: JustGetItRight:

That hull number seems rather high to be a DDG, and the shape is ALL wrong.  (I often work at the Pearl Harbor Naval Station, I know what a farking DDG looks like, and that aint one.)  Let's ask around what ship that is.

...got it.  That's the South Korean Corvette Cheonan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_%28PCC-772%29

CORVETTE, now.  Displacement, 1,200 tons, with sensors and survivability far inferior to current US warship designs.

The smallest thing that the US currently calls a capital ship would be the Perry class frigate, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate
Three times larger, with better sensors.
Next step up the Burke class destroyer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer
A good six times larger, with survivability upgrades to match.

So yeahhhh...no.  I don't think that North Korean minisubs would have quite so much luck.


I am well aware that's a corvette.  Specifically, it is the dedicated anti-submarine warfare one sunk by the NK's a year or so ago.

My post was more regarding detection capabilities vs. diesel/electric subs rather than survivability, but since you want to talk about survivability, does this help?

www.fbi.gov

In case you don't remember, that's the USS Cole, struck  above the waterline by a zodiac-borne IED in the 500-700 pound range.  Had the Cole been underway, she would have been at serious risk of sinking.

The warheads of the torpedoes carried by the NK mini-subs carry 815 pounds of explosives designed to break the keel of its target in an underwater explosion.

In 1991, the USS Princeton - a Ticonderoga class cruiser roughly the same size as a Burke DDG - had the ill fortune to sail over and trigger a sea bed laid mine.  That mine's explosion triggered a second nearby one.  Only one was actually under the ship.

Princeton nearly broke in half.  She went dead in the water, had to be towed to safety by a Canadian destroyer, and spent two months in dry dock being made seaworthy before she could sail back home.

www.militaryspot.com
www.militaryspot.com

You can see more photos here: http://www.militaryspot.com/gallery/search.php?searchid=84621

The mine that caused this damage had a 250 pound warhead.  Less than 1/3 that of a NK torpedo.

A successful NK torpedo attack on a US DDG or CG would result in catastrophic damage.  If she didn't sink outright, the vessel would be a total constructive loss.  Odds are great that she would sink with a single hit.  More than one would be an absolute sinking.

An aircraft carrier (and possibly their amphibious assault ship cousins) is the only US warship that would certainly survive and possibly remain operational after a single torpedo hit.  It is the only ship that could survive multiple torpedo hits.

Before you even say 'they'll never get close enough', you might want to ask the Kitty Hawk's battle group.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-C hi nese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-fac ed.html

Those subs are a real threat.  Hopefully we've got a dozen or so SSNs watching their arse most all the time.
 
Displayed 18 of 468 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report