|
Conspiratiorist posted:80,000 deaths is close to the estimate of civilian deaths for the whole 6 years of the Syrian civil war, so that anyone would think this poo poo happening in the opening week of a conflict, in the metropolitan area of a first world nation's economic and political capital, as being anything less than loving catastrophic, just boggles the mind.
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Fojar38 posted:If I'm a cold calculating rational actor as some seem to suggest KJU is, I wouldn't want even a single piece of artillery firing at things with no strategic or tactical importance considering my limited resources and the giant rear end-kicking I'd be about to receive. I'd want to delay said rear end-kicking for as long as possible while either trying to get the Swiss to mediate a peace or fleeing to China. But if I'm cold calculating trump then I know if you are not going to ever attack any civilians or cities that I can regime change you at my leisure. (now quote the whole iocane powder scene from princess bride) Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:(now quote the whole iocane powder scene from princess bride) I liked this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But if I'm cold calculating trump then I know if you are not going to ever attack any civilians or cities that I can regime change you at my leisure. (now quote the whole iocane powder scene from princess bride) So is KJU a cold rational dictator whose intentions are simply to prolong the existence of his regime for as long as possible or is he a madman who would destroy a city for no reason but spite? If he's the second one, is that an argument in favor of or against war? Fojar38 fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:So is KJU a cold rational dictator whose intentions are simply to prolong the existence of his regime for as long as possible or is he a madman who would destroy a city for no reason but spite? You destroy the city if you are attacked so no one can attack you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:You destroy the city if you are attacked so no one can attack you. If someone's already attacking you destroying the city doesn't make any difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:If someone's already attacking you destroying the city doesn't make any difference. That is how MAD type things work. You would never do the thing because any time you would do it it's pointless and dooms you but if you aren't going to do it you are doomed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Better 80,000 dead asians than 1 dead white -D&D, 2017 also roughly half of america?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 08:14
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
How about this: Trump nullifies all of that artillery by building a big-rear end loving wall!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Trump isn't actually going to try to target NK test missiles not directed towards cities, is he? I doubt it but I'd like to make sure. Target in what sense?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
mediadave posted:Target in what sense? Give the Aegis system a workout and shoot down every missile that will fly across an allied country? Might be slightly embarrassing if a shootdown attempt fails though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Give the Aegis system a workout and shoot down every missile that will fly across an allied country? Might be slightly embarrassing if a shootdown attempt fails though. Fly over is a misnomer since these things are in outer space when they pass overhead. But I agree let the BMD shooters just doing circles in the ocean do something instead of just sitting there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
So are Iran and North Korea allied at all? I see some chatter about them Doing Scary Nuclear Stuff together, any merit to that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 13:20
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:So are Iran and North Korea allied No. quote:I see some chatter about them Doing Scary Nuclear Stuff together, any merit to that? Yes. Nuclear and missile and other technology sharing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:But I agree let the BMD shooters just doing circles in the ocean do something instead of just sitting there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:So are Iran and North Korea allied at all? I see some chatter about them Doing Scary Nuclear Stuff together, any merit to that? Not in any meaningful sense, no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
There are 15,000 pieces of artillery aimed pr at least zeroed on seoul. it Is a problem.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:So are Iran and North Korea allied at all? I see some chatter about them Doing Scary Nuclear Stuff together, any merit to that? They've sold nuclear and missile tech to each other, but there's no real geopolitical alignment there no
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:There are 15,000 pieces of artillery aimed pr at least zeroed on seoul. it Is a problem. It's a huge problem but the reason they got nukes is because it's not a big of enough problem to be a hard enough deterrent. That artillery wouldn't last long and is wildly inaccurate. Casualties would be terrible but in the realm of "real bad earthquake" and not "nuclear apocalypse".
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
Imagine if we had invaded North Korea instead of Iraq back in 2003. Would have solved a whole lot of problems
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Imagine if we had invaded North Korea instead of Iraq back in 2003. Would have solved a whole lot of problems I too, would have loved a catastrophic war and refugee situation that would spiral out of control in east Asia instead of the Middle East.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Yandat posted:It's a huge problem but the reason they got nukes is because it's not a big of enough problem to be a hard enough deterrent. That artillery wouldn't last long and is wildly inaccurate. Casualties would be terrible but in the realm of "real bad earthquake" and not "nuclear apocalypse". Yeah that's kind of the point. It's never been capable of being the kind of threat they needed, even though it would work pretty well for a short time to slow down invasion across the border - just like all of South Korea's artillery on their side of the border is meant to hamper North Korean invasion and wreck up North Korean military sites close to the border. If North Korea could really have carried through the whole "Seoul a sea of flames" threat in the past, they'd have already had the deterrence they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Imagine if we had invaded North Korea instead of Iraq back in 2003. Would have solved a whole lot of problems Invading North Korea has always been a crazy bad idea. The reason we don't treat North Korea as a dumping ground for ordnance in the same way we do several ME countries is because they actually pose a real, legitimate threat to their neighbors. The Clancy-chat about NK always gets bogged down in the weeds over whether or not Seoul would be "leveled," but the real point is that any kind of attack on NK is practically guaranteed to result in at least some number of civilians deaths in SK. Even a noticeable pre-invasion build-up could do it if KJU feels compelled to prove the credibility of NK's deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Invading North Korea has always been a crazy bad idea. The reason we don't treat North Korea as a dumping ground for ordnance in the same way we do several ME countries is because they actually pose a real, legitimate threat to their neighbors. The Clancy-chat about NK always gets bogged down in the weeds over whether or not Seoul would be "leveled," but the real point is that any kind of attack on NK is practically guaranteed to result in at least some number of civilians deaths in SK. Even a noticeable pre-invasion build-up could do it if KJU feels compelled to prove the credibility of NK's deterrent. Er, and all those other countries we invaded also resulted in plenty of civilian deaths in neighboring countries too, you know. Let alone all the civilian deaths in the countries invaded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Er, and all those other countries we invaded also resulted in plenty of civilian deaths in neighboring countries too, you know. Let alone all the civilian deaths in the countries invaded. Non-Iraqi civilian deaths were quite limited during the invasion of Iraq. In the past, an invasion of North Korea would mean huge numbers of civilian deaths in South Korea and a non-trivial number of US military casualties. Iraq on the other hand, had it's army (and society) completely decimated by sanctions and airstrikes prior to the invasion. It was a viable target for a US invasion because it was basically defenseless. Invading North Korea today would be an even larger disaster than it would have been in the past. At this point, NK can probably land nukes in Tokyo, Seoul, Guam, and Okinawa which means the potential for tens of millions of civilian casualties in allied nations and tens of thousands of US troop deaths within the first week of fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:I don't think anyone is enthusiastic about giving every radar in East Asia a good look at a real life BMD intercept. Well, and I think the other reason not to intercept a North Korea test shot is that there's a fair likelihood that our interceptors would fail. If an intercept fails, it would cause our allies to lose confidence in our ability and willingness to protect them and ourselves, potentially encouraging them to develop their own nuclear deterrent. It might also embolden DRPK's leadership to accelerate the development of weapons that can hit the US mainland. That's a pretty big downside. In addition, there's reason to believe that Russian early warning radar is pretty garbage facing DPRK, because they've consistently had a different (probably wrong) analysis of DPRK missile launches that implies they don't see them until pretty far into the launch. There's a high likelihood that they would see our interceptors first--especially the GMD interceptors which would fly over Russia from the North--this might well look like a potential first-strike. It's not our fault their surveillance sucks, but it would risk a response, much like the close call during the 1995 Norwegian Rocket Incident. On the other hand if a US intercept succeeds, all we've really done is demonstrated that our systems work like we said they would, which is balanced by the fact that the DPRK, China, and (maybe) Russia could get information useful in countering these systems in the future. Unless, and maybe even if, we're certain of success, it's easy to see why it would be best not to launch interceptors unless the missile is on a likely attack trajectory.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Tetraptous posted:Well, and I think the other reason not to intercept a North Korea test shot is that there's a fair likelihood that our interceptors would fail. If an intercept fails, it would cause our allies to lose confidence in our ability and willingness to protect them and ourselves, potentially encouraging them to develop their own nuclear deterrent. It might also embolden DRPK's leadership to accelerate the development of weapons that can hit the US mainland. That's a pretty big downside. In addition, there's reason to believe that Russian early warning radar is pretty garbage facing DPRK, because they've consistently had a different (probably wrong) analysis of DPRK missile launches that implies they don't see them until pretty far into the launch. There's a high likelihood that they would see our interceptors first--especially the GMD interceptors which would fly over Russia from the North--this might well look like a potential first-strike. It's not our fault their surveillance sucks, but it would risk a response, much like the close call during the 1995 Norwegian Rocket Incident. Also every time they work you get a data point on what you'd have to do to make them not work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Here's another thing: If you know where the missile is going (we do), why expend a super loving expensive missile on intercepting that missile? What do you possibly gain from that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Isn't missile interception mostly bullshit? Anyone know how well that actually works in a real conflict?
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Yandat posted:Isn't missile interception mostly bullshit? Anyone know how well that actually works in a real conflict? no
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
only one way to find out!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Yandat posted:Isn't missile interception mostly bullshit? Anyone know how well that actually works in a real conflict? If it worked reliably I don't see why they wouldn't just shoot down NK's missile tests. I haven't seen anyone make any substantiated claims about it but seems like it'd be a coinflip at best according to conventional wisdom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Yandat posted:Isn't missile interception mostly bullshit? Anyone know how well that actually works in a real conflict? It can be countered by or decoys or more missiles and doesn't have a total shoot down probability but it fundamentally works in that it can shoot down a bona fide icbm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:If it worked reliably I don't see why they wouldn't just shoot down NK's missile tests. I haven't seen anyone make any substantiated claims about it but seems like it'd be a coinflip at best according to conventional wisdom. Why bother? The best case scenario is you actually shoot the thing down and give NK another reason to escalate. Worst case scenario is the interception fails and you just embolden them anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
I think we should work forward with the assumption that NK has nukes now, they can do real damage, and that we can't reasonably invade them, and that's probably what NK wants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Why bother? The best case scenario is you actually shoot the thing down and give NK another reason to escalate. Worst case scenario is the interception fails and you just embolden them anyway. My point is that if it actually worked well then your "worst case scenario" wouldn't be much of a worry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:My point is that if it actually worked well then your "worst case scenario" wouldn't be much of a worry. I know, but I'm saying that even if there's only a 0.001% chance of failure it's not really worth it since we don't get anything meaningful out of a success either. Shooting down the test doesn't really prove anything and it's at least as aggressive of an action (if not more so) than the test itself.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
I don't read a whole lot about military hardware but on and off over the past decade it seems like missile defense is mostly wishes, but this is me reading outlets like War Is Boring so I gladly admit I don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Yandat posted:Isn't missile interception mostly bullshit? Anyone know how well that actually works in a real conflict? They suck against MIRVs. I don't think they have improved from that
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 20:28 |
|
|
Yandat posted:Isn't missile interception mostly bullshit? Anyone know how well that actually works in a real conflict? No. Ted Postol is a fuckin' hack and has tricked a lot of people into believing that the tech of today is essentially the same as the tech of 1991. Patriot has been used in real conflict. US Patriot had a 100% intercept rate against SCUDS in OIF (not desert storm). Partner nation Patriot units have shot down tactical ballistic missiles fired by rebels out of Yemen. Lord of the Llamas posted:If it worked reliably I don't see why they wouldn't just shoot down NK's missile tests. I haven't seen anyone make any substantiated claims about it but seems like it'd be a coinflip at best according to conventional wisdom. Why would anyone spend resources on a midcourse or terminal intercept of a test missile? Needless expenditure of limited and expensive interceptors, shows off capabilities, destroys a thing that wasn't a real threat, and aside from RV testing (it helps to have an island to fire your RV into to test RVs well) the DPRK already knows if the missile worked or not well before it's just cruising midcourse or descending terminally. A bit of effort: GMD has a very publicly spotty record. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense GMD would do essentially nothing against a strike from the likes of Russia or China, but is all the US has in the case of someone like the DPRK or some Tom Clancy rogue general firing a missile or several at the US. THAAD and Patriot are both very effective in knocking down theater ballistic missiles (not ICBMs). THAAD has a bigger possible defended area footprint and engages higher, Patriot engages targets lower. Patriot radar digital processor and missile upgrades will extend its footprint to cover more area/altitude. Aegis is a proven system against ballistic missiles up to the IRBM classification and can do midcourse intercepts. But wait, can't you just shoot a whole fuckin lot of missiles and overwhelm a missile defense system? Yes, you can. But anyone who isn't spit-balling/bullshitting and actually knows just how feasible or probable or how many missiles that would take in a structure attack isn't going to talk about that on somethingawfuldotcom. Yandat posted:War Is Boring Unless they're fully backed up by a bunch of other first-hand stories and reputable reports, assume they're full of total poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2017 23:29
|
|