AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > News & Politics

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2017-04-17, 16:07   Link #141
Ithekro
The Comet has Come
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 39
The older version that used old 5 inch naval gun barrels filled with explosives as a concrete penetrator was creative.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-17, 17:20   Link #142
Renegade334
Exitus Acta Probat
*Graphic Designer
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Permanent retirement from raws-hunting
Age: 31
Are you referring to the GBU-28? That one used old 203mm (8'') gun barrels pilfered from decommissioned M110 self-propelled howitzers. That's how Watervliet arsenal was able to keep costs down and fast-track the bomb's development, just in time for it to be sent and used in Desert Storm.
__________________
<< -- Click to enter my GFX thread.

-- Permanently retired from the raw-hunting business --
Renegade334 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-17, 18:21   Link #143
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Goin' up to the country!
Age: 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade334 View Post
^--- I don't want to be a nag, but the GBU-43/B is not a bunker-buster, even if it was shoehorned into such a role in Afghanistan with help from the local topography (the rock walls contained and amplified the fireball and shockwave into a relatively tight spot, forcing the overpressure wave into the tunnels, where it wreaked absolute havoc).
Yes, I know that. I didn't want to go into these details for fear of losing sight of the bigger picture. Both military actions by Trump have been largely symbolic. The question is interpreting the symbols being displayed. Details like whether the MOAB is a "bunker buster" matter less than its symbolic value. How much military value does exploding a nuclear device in one of the DPRK's tunnels display? How much symbolic value?

Would we use a MOAB device against North Korea? Doubtful. Do we have other forms of armament tailored to destroy underground facilities? Yes, we do. I bet they're not as showy as the MOAB.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-19, 22:56   Link #144
Sackett
Cross Game - I need more
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: I've moved around the American West. I've lived in Oregon, Washington, Utah, and Oklahoma
Age: 37
The most important "symbolic value" of the MOAB is that it signals that President Trump is not imposing tactical restraints on the military in the same way the President Obama was.

This makes it much more probable that the US military will achieve tactical military victories.

Whether that can be turned into actual diplomatic and political victories is less certain.

However, it probably does have some importance in signalling that a conflict with the US will involve a higher level of military superiority to overcome, and that diplomatic efforts to restrain US military might are less likely to be effective.

This means that a nation or force considering the risk of military conflict with the US will estimate greater losses due to the military power of the US compared to when President Obama was in charge. Whether this is more effective at deterring enemies compared to whatever diplomatic gains President Obama received from restraint is not clear.

Frankly, if we do get in a war with North Korea the tactic with the highest likelihood of success at minimizing civilian casualties is a first strike attack with tactical nuclear weapons. Otherwise Seoul will be shelled with nerve gas artillery shells and tens of millions will die.

The fact that Trump has signaled willingness to consider first strikes in the past, combined with the recent evidence that he places higher value on military tactical success instead of diplomatic concerns suggest he might consider such a tactic.

That should have the effect of discouraging provocations by North Korea. Though it does also encourage North Korea to attempt it's own first strike tactics if North Korea decides that war is unavoidable.

Note that if you believe that MAD (Mutually Assured Distruction) works, then so far, Trump is playing it right.

Since the credible threat of an escalation to nuclear war discourages provocations.

Of course, if Trump isn't being deliberate about this and is just a reckless ignoramus... well than we might well be screwed.
__________________

Cross Game - A Story of Love, Life, Death - and Baseball. What more could you want?
Sackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-19, 22:57   Link #145
LeoXiao
思想工作
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Vereinigte Staaten
Age: 25
Discussion about China's role tends to paint the country and its leadership as a monolith which is misguided to say the least. There are hardliners and "liberals" in the Chinese government, which has partially led to the North Korea nuclear situation we have today. Some, including evidently Xi and his guys, favor serious action (economic, military, diplomatic) to contain Pyongyang, while the track record of the 2000s has supported the idea that the CCP cadres with influence at the time were more or less fine with North Korea getting nukes and waving them at SK/Japan/the US.

Some people would wager that Xi has taken a harder stance on NK because he was threatened or offered some deal by Trump, but I think that would only explain part of the story at most. Last September the CCP purged like half of the legislative officials and a bunch of provincial leaders in Liaoning and arrested the lady who was responsible for like a fifth of Sino-North Korean trade (including aluminum oxide for Kim's uranium enrichment) and probably had the ability to do so via the CCP's external affairs office. Considering Trump wasn't even elected back then I think the Xi administration already wanted to start pushing against North Korea.
LeoXiao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-19, 23:05   Link #146
Ithekro
The Comet has Come
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 39
It should be noted that Russian bombers have been again seen near Alaska to be escorted away by US fighters. It isn't that uncommon a thing to happen, given that Russia and Alaska are just on opposite sides of the Bearing Strait, but it is getting press again.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-20, 23:44   Link #147
Gintokifan22
Gintoki fan
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Did Russia join North Korea on this? I heard recently that they did, these updates keep giving me heart attacks

I wish I could be thrilled for this as his Trump supporters are :|
__________________
Fullmetal Alchemest - Ed fan. Inazuma Eleven - Endou fan.
Marchen Awakens Romance - Ginta fan. KS Dadesico - Akito fan. Gintama - Gintoki. Yugioh Arc V - Yuya fan. Boruto fan.

Pairings I support : Ed x winry. Ash x Serena. Endou x Natsumi. Ginta x Dorothy fan. Luffy x Hancock. Akito x Yurika fan. Gintoki x Tysuki. Boruto X Sumire.
Gintokifan22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 01:41   Link #148
Toukairin
Mountain Rescuer
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: A city with a small mountain in the middle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
It should be noted that Russian bombers have been again seen near Alaska to be escorted away by US fighters. It isn't that uncommon a thing to happen, given that Russia and Alaska are just on opposite sides of the Bearing Strait, but it is getting press again.
In the other hand, do we see American B-52s flying that close to the other airspace? We often hear a lot from those old Russian bombers coming close to foreign air spaces, but not much American bombers which could be used with the same purpose of testing reaction time.
Toukairin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 02:24   Link #149
Cosmic Eagle
黄昏の女神
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 輪廻転生
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toukairin View Post
In the other hand, do we see American B-52s flying that close to the other airspace? We often hear a lot from those old Russian bombers coming close to foreign air spaces, but not much American bombers which could be used with the same purpose of testing reaction time.
Chrome Dome? And today who needs B52s when your SSBNs essentially hold pistols to nations' heads?

The respective action now would be the huge NATO buildup on the Russian border I guess. Something that is actually far more threatening
__________________

す べ て の 想 い に  巡 り 来 る 祝 福 を
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 03:25   Link #150
Sheba
Part-Time TTK & Master
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Iwakawa base and Chaldea
Age: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
The respective action now would be the huge NATO buildup on the Russian border I guess. Something that is actually far more threatening
Hahah, that reminded me that no too long ago, some guy outright told everyone here that when NATO do that it's terrible, horrible and just plain evil. But, then he said that when Russia and China do that, there is nothing wrong there, they are plainly playing regional powers.
Sheba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 06:38   Link #151
Cosmic Eagle
黄昏の女神
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 輪廻転生
Seeing how NATO's eastern expansion is what triggered this whole european problem? Sure.

I am not agreeing with whoever it was you mentioned above but with europe at least, this wouldn't have happened if Anders Ramussen and Bush did not push their personal agenda of an expansionist NATO. So now you all there have to clean up the shit they left behind


NATO started it, what can you do now? De-escalate? You'll need to ensure Russians don't see it as weakness first else you won't be able to maintain pre-tension status quo so how can you de-escalate? It should never have been allowed in the first place, that opportunistic territorial grab in East Europe. Now unless, you can convince the Russians to want to also stand down while not making any threatening moves yourselves the situation seems unlikely to be peacefully defused. NATO has backed itself into a very tight corner since over 10+ years ago.
__________________

す べ て の 想 い に  巡 り 来 る 祝 福 を

Last edited by Cosmic Eagle; 2017-04-21 at 08:29.
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 07:54   Link #152
SeijiSensei
AS Oji-kun
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Goin' up to the country!
Age: 67
I find it hard to credit NATO for Russia's annexation of Crimea. That event had little or nothing to do with protecting Russia's eastern flank and more about revanchism.
__________________
SeijiSensei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 08:21   Link #153
Cosmic Eagle
黄昏の女神
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 輪廻転生
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeijiSensei View Post
I find it hard to credit NATO for Russia's annexation of Crimea. That event had little or nothing to do with protecting Russia's eastern flank and more about revanchism.
The taking of Crimea did not happen just like that for more lebensraum or whatever. It was a response to Maidan which wasn't as popularly supported throughout the Ukraine as it appears (otherwise how did the bulk of Crimeans choose to stay with Russia and East Ukraine not rise up against the seperatists?).

We all know the root issue for the Yanukovych election was twisted into choosing between NATO/EU or Russia and that the Maidan protests were also supported by NATO. And as such, it has everything to do with protecting Russia's border from their POV. NATO exists primarily as an anti-Russia military alliance after all ever since its inception.


Anyway, it's not about crediting here but about giving anyone a causus belli for something. If the pot is fine why do you insist on stirring it. The whole thing streches back at least to the Ossetia war when NATO failed to rein in Saakashvili from attacking Russia. He did that apparently because he was emboldened by what he interpreted as NATO support for a military adventure into Ossetia. If you ask me, the real breakdown with Russia began then (among other things in subsequent years like Libya, but the 2008 war appeared to be the ignition point)


Whether the Russian response of taking Crimea is wise or not is another question. The need to protect Russian-leaning Crimeans from an anti-Russian and honestly speaking, rather iron-handed with certain facist elements, government in Kiev is understandable but they should have waited until a clear threat from Kiev manifested. At any rate, that's not the point I'm making here. It's simply that everything can be traced back to the NATO expansion plan of the early 2000s. And yes, Russia does have every justification to feel threatened by NATO. If you ring a nation with one of the largest nuclear and conventional armies around of course they'll be threatened. In a way, this is also how the North Korea issue panned out.
__________________

す べ て の 想 い に  巡 り 来 る 祝 福 を

Last edited by Cosmic Eagle; 2017-04-21 at 08:54.
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 08:55   Link #154
Kakurin-san
私は影の国の女王、異境、魔境の主
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
If you ring a nation with one of the largest nuclear and conventional armies around of course they'll be threatened. In a way, this is also how the North Korea issue panned out.
Well yeah, and if you have a Russia flexing its muscles, of course the Eastern European countries will feel threatenend and seek NATO protection. Let's not act like Russia is innocent here.
Kakurin-san is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 09:00   Link #155
Cosmic Eagle
黄昏の女神
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 輪廻転生
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakurin-san View Post
Well yeah, and if you have a Russia flexing its muscles, of course the Eastern European countries will feel threatenend and seek NATO protection. Let's not act like Russia is innocent here.
I was referring to the early 2000s before this started. And no, they sought the West then purely for economic reasons. Bush decided to extend NATO membership and military aid to them as well.


Don't forget this

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...1/nato.georgia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040100686.html

That's a purely American move aimed at Russia back when there was no justification for it other than the usual US vs Russia paradigm
__________________

す べ て の 想 い に  巡 り 来 る 祝 福 を
Cosmic Eagle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 09:43   Link #156
Kakurin-san
私は影の国の女王、異境、魔境の主
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
I was referring to the early 2000s before this started. And no, they sought the West then purely for economic reasons. Bush decided to extend NATO membership and military aid to them as well.
Uh, no. Poland and the Baltic countries strove towards NATO membership as soon as they managed to gain their freedom from Soviet overlordship, knowing that NATO membership is the only guarantee they have to prevent falling under Russian influence again somewhere down the road, should Russia one day decide to take back the sphere lost after 1989-90.
Kakurin-san is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-21, 10:13   Link #157
Toukairin
Mountain Rescuer
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: A city with a small mountain in the middle
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
The need to protect Russian-leaning Crimeans from an anti-Russian and honestly speaking, rather iron-handed with certain facist elements, government in Kiev is understandable but they should have waited until a clear threat from Kiev manifested.
Not wanting to derail the thread any further, but I will just say that it is the same kind of excuse that led to the split of Ireland in 1922, and then opened the door to the mess known as the Troubles in Northern Ireland decades later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoXiao View Post
Discussion about China's role tends to paint the country and its leadership as a monolith which is misguided to say the least. There are hardliners and "liberals" in the Chinese government, which has partially led to the North Korea nuclear situation we have today. Some, including evidently Xi and his guys, favor serious action (economic, military, diplomatic) to contain Pyongyang, while the track record of the 2000s has supported the idea that the CCP cadres with influence at the time were more or less fine with North Korea getting nukes and waving them at SK/Japan/the US.

Some people would wager that Xi has taken a harder stance on NK because he was threatened or offered some deal by Trump, but I think that would only explain part of the story at most. Last September the CCP purged like half of the legislative officials and a bunch of provincial leaders in Liaoning and arrested the lady who was responsible for like a fifth of Sino-North Korean trade (including aluminum oxide for Kim's uranium enrichment) and probably had the ability to do so via the CCP's external affairs office. Considering Trump wasn't even elected back then I think the Xi administration already wanted to start pushing against North Korea.
Interesting. Nevertheless, the real question now is how far will the current administration push against North Korea considering how reckless Fat Kim can be. As far as I'm concerned, he already is a threat to Chinese national security.
Toukairin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2017-04-23, 03:00   Link #158
Botan_TM
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Polandball
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kakurin-san View Post
Uh, no. Poland and the Baltic countries strove towards NATO membership as soon as they managed to gain their freedom from Soviet overlordship, knowing that NATO membership is the only guarantee they have to prevent falling under Russian influence again somewhere down the road, should Russia one day decide to take back the sphere lost after 1989-90.
I confirm that. Strategy of Poland was simple then. Get a deep economical and military integration with West deep enough, that they would not throw us under a bus, when problems come back again, and support independent countries on the East from us. To be honest we had no other choice, Russia except cheap gas has nothing to offer to others, it's "soft power" is pretty weak.
NATO hadn't to spend any sources on asking us to join, we run to them ASAP we got a chance.
Funnily enough, around 2000 West and Russia were a quite good partners, and Poland had a opinion of "paranoid Russophobes".
__________________
Anime & LN
Botan_TM is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.