Should the US Nuke North Korea?

Manic Moran

Riddle101 wrote: »

Also as far as weapons go, I would say N.K are as modern as Britian in terms of weaonary.

I wouldn't.

NTM

ejmaztec

Manic Moran wrote: »

I wouldn't.

NTM

Yep, a lot of their stuff seems ancient enough.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/index.html

b12mearse

twinytwo wrote: »

I lol'd at that post.... Have you been to Nk or know anyone from there?.. chances are u dont so how can you hate someone or something u have never experienced.... Also you must realise that there is no such word as "freedom" anymore just the idea of it... oh and one last point Democracy is a joke... as witnessed here.. in the eu and america

North Korea are a threat to humanity!
Were you ever in North Korea? Chances are you weren't.
I don't have to be there to understand whats going on in that country.
They are one of the biggest human rights violators in the world.

I don't agree to North Korea been nuked but i do think it would be inevitable if anyone did go to war with them since North Korea are such big fans of nuclear weapons themselves.

Overheal

andrew wrote: »

There was a pretty interesting scenario, I think it was in one of the articles i posted earlier. Anyways, it described NK opening up a 5 minute artillary barrage on Seoul, and then just stopping. NK have ****load of artillery pointed at Seoul, so this'd likely cause a lot of damage. But then what'd happen?
The South Koreans and the Chinese don't want to invade or destabilise the area, because that'd mean millions of refugees coming their way, not to mention lots of death from any war. If the place was nuked, either you're going to create an epic humanitarian crisis on top of their epic humanitarian crisis, or perhaps Kim would decide to screw it and try to invade the south.
He wouldn't suceed, but he could kill a lot of people in doing so. America can't do anything without South Korean approval, and theres a bit of anti-american sentiment in the South at the moment, and they're overstretched, and Kim wants to get America involved because China is breathing down his neck and America know it. But NK are in a powerfulish position - nobody wants to provoke them to do something like that. Least of all the americans. Imagine america going and doing something, only to have NK retaliate with something like that. It'd all be america's fault, and the whole world would be saying 'what next america?' and they'd really have no good options. Not something anyone wants to provoke DPRK into doing, but they are more than likely prepared for that and 1000 other scenarios.

So in short, it's in noone's interest to do anything but wait for NK to organically disintegrate, and then move in. Unless NK were to start nuking things or something. And even then, I'm assuming sugrical strikes eliminating key stuff would be preferable to being like 'Screw it, land invasion!'

I'd agree with all of that. Also, at the whim of China or the UN, any bombardment could be responded to with a surgical strike within minutes, effectively eliminating those assets. Its a scenario I have no doubt China and the UN are well over-prepared for.

Riddle101

b12mearse wrote: »

North Korea are a threat to humanity!
Were you ever in North Korea? Chances are you weren't.
I don't have to be there to understand whats going on in that country.
They are one of the biggest human rights violators in the world.

I don't agree to North Korea been nuked but i do think it would be inevitable if anyone did go to war with them since North Korea are such big fans of nuclear weapons themselves.

Correction, the North Korean government is the biggest human rights violators. But not every North Korean is like the government. There are a lot of innocent lives living in N.K and for the US to just simply nuke N.K(Which by the way won't happen) would destory whatever credibility the America has in international relations, not to mention as someone else said, a nuclear attack on North Korea, might incur the wrath of the Chinese who by all means are not so easily pleased when it comes to war, and thus the US have a bigger threat to handle.

Also if it was that simple to just nuke a country, then don't you think Iran and Iraq might have been nuked long ago. There's a lot of red tape when it comes down to nuclear weapons.

Overheal

Riddle101 wrote: »

Correction, the North Korean government is the biggest human rights violators.

Actually that honor goes to Eritrea.

Also if it was that simple to just nuke a country, then don't you think Iran and Iraq might have been nuked long ago. There's a lot of red tape when it comes down to nuclear weapons.

Im not sure Red Tape would be the right term to use here. "Common Sense", more like.

renraw

The koreans are crazy enough to launch a nuclear strike if they are invaded. They definitely have nuclear capabilities. A good war will sort out this recession once and for all

b12mearse

Riddle101 wrote: »

Correction, the North Korean government is the biggest human rights violators. But not every North Korean is like the government. There are a lot of innocent lives living in N.K and for the US to just simply nuke N.K(Which by the way won't happen) would destory whatever credibility the America has in international relations, not to mention as someone else said, a nuclear attack on North Korea, might incur the wrath of the Chinese who by all means are not so easily pleased when it comes to war, and thus the US have a bigger threat to handle.

Also if it was that simple to just nuke a country, then don't you think Iran and Iraq might have been nuked long ago. There's a lot of red tape when it comes down to nuclear weapons.

And I'm sure there were alot of innocent lives killed in the invasion of iraq and afghanistan. this is always the case in war.
And like I said, I don't agree to North Korea been nuked. Its idiotic.

yellowstar

In relation to d US invading or nuking NK i think this is pure bollox. Its not gonna happen the only way america does anythin is if it has ulterior motives. The only ones which I could see are that it gives them closer reign to China. The US is in billions and billions worth of debt to China and Japan.... maybe it has something to do with that or the fact that China is growing in power. Im not an expert I dont know. Also complete double standards are shown here, ok I understand dat NK has nuclear weapons and their doing tests but i really dont think they are stupid enough to give the full show. As has been stated everyone wud nuke the **** out of them. All the **** the US gets away with is ridiculous, democracy my arse, even in terms of Ireland remember Shannon anyone??
What is happeing in North Korea in terms of human right violations, is no doubt bad and needs to be addressed. But only for those reasons and no others. The answer lies in the UN if it was given any sort of power or had any sort of sway over what actually happens. It gives sanctions and is basically laughed at or ignored BY EVERYBODY!!! This is the world power which is supposed to be there for Human Right violations etc we are the ones not allowing it to reach its full potential.

darkman2

North Korea has more numbers then the US and South Korea combined on the Penninsula

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45835000/gif/_45835729_ns_korea466x238.gif

Whether they have the technology to match is another point. But if there was a war it would be the biggest since WW2 I reckon....it would also be the first time ever that two countries with a nuclear capability engaged in conflict.

Riddle101

yellowstar wrote: »

In relation to d US invading or nuking NK i think this is pure bollox. Its not gonna happen the only way america does anythin is if it has ulterior motives. The only ones which I could see are that it gives them closer reign to China. The US is in billions and billions worth of debt to China and Japan.... maybe it has something to do with that or the fact that China is growing in power. Im not an expert I dont know. Also complete double standards are shown here, ok I understand dat NK has nuclear weapons and their doing tests but i really dont think they are stupid enough to give the full show. As has been stated everyone wud nuke the **** out of them. All the **** the US gets away with is ridiculous, democracy my arse, even in terms of Ireland remember Shannon anyone??
What is happeing in North Korea in terms of human right violations, is no doubt bad and needs to be addressed. But only for those reasons and no others. The answer lies in the UN if it was given any sort of power or had any sort of sway over what actually happens. It gives sanctions and is basically laughed at or ignored BY EVERYBODY!!! This is the world power which is supposed to be there for Human Right violations etc we are the ones not allowing it to reach its full potential.

The only thing the UN is good for is giving Aid and holding summits. Other then that they're useless and I would say most of the reason is because the three countries that can actually make a difference in the UN refuse to do anything. What I mean is, America would be instrumental in making the UN a legit body, but the problem is, America is too self-righteous and arrogant and listen to the UN. They think that they can do whatever they and what can the UN do about, nothing because America has the UN wrapped around their finger. China and Russia are the other two countries that could also make a difference but they're just too stubborn and like America don't like to be told what to do, especially by a mediocre organisation. These three countries are the only ones that can really make the UN legit, but the refuse to co-operate and that where the UN falls down. Nowadays, the UN is about as useful as the League of Nations was.

Anyway I think what needs to be done about N.K is they should have a sit down between all the countries involved and have a mediators to control the meeting. I'm not sure who would be the right candidate but it should be someone who has no ties to either side and is neutral. Maybe Nelson Mandela, or would that be asking for too much. Anyway I don't know but I really want to avoid any sort of bloodshed, the world has seen enough of it.

b12mearse

Riddle101 wrote: »

The only thing the UN is good for is giving Aid and holding summits. Other then that they're useless and I would say most of the reason is because the three countries that can actually make a difference in the UN refuse to do anything. What I mean is, America would be instrumental in making the UN a legit body, but the problem is, America is too self-righteous and arrogant and listen to the UN. They think that they can do whatever they and what can the UN do about, nothing because America has the UN wrapped around their finger. China and Russia are the other two countries that could also make a difference but they're just too stubborn and like America don't like to be told what to do, especially by a mediocre organisation. These three countries are the only ones that can really make the UN legit, but the refuse to co-operate and that where the UN falls down. Nowadays, the UN is about as useful as the League of Nations was.

Anyway I think what needs to be done about N.K is they should have a sit down between all the countries involved and have a mediators to control the meeting. I'm not sure who would be the right candidate but it should be someone who has no ties to either side and is neutral. Maybe Nelson Mandela, or would that be asking for too much. Anyway I don't know but I really want to avoid any sort of bloodshed, the world has seen enough of it.

But you must see here is where the problem lies. Kim Jong is a mentally unstable lunatic. There's no talking to him. He's dilusional.

Victor McDade

shamblertine wrote: »

I'm sick of living in fear of those bastards, we got enough on our plate with the whole recession business.....

Damn right! Someone ring the Koreans and tell them to knock it off, at least until after the recession

rednik

Wheres Hans Blix when you need him.:D:D

ejmaztec

rednik wrote: »

Wheres Hans Blix when you need him.:D:D

He's still in Iraq and he's still looking.................................

LaMer

marcsignal wrote: »

Israel has at least 150 nukes, which they developed in secret, has never signed a non proliferation treaty afaik, is aggressive to its neighbours, treats arab citizens like shit, and completely disregards UN resolutions.

Should we nuke them too??

Yeah but Israel isn't cash strapped and wouldn't sell a nuke to some shady arms dealers so their president can direct a film with kidnapped Japanese actresses.

Capt'n Midnight

shamblertine wrote: »

I'm sick of living in fear of those bastards, we got enough on our plate with the whole recession business without these little fcukers threatening us constantly. I say the US should Nuke them, preferably their whole country and send them back to the fcuking stone age, or at least Nuke their nuclear facilities. Don't fcuk around with a ground invasion or sanctions or any of that bollocks, they have to be nuked. That'll teach them that they're useless, worthless cnuts who should just kill themselves if they manage to survive the nuclear fallout. The US could crush them like ants if they like, and I think they have a responsibility to do so.

Excluding the UK , the US spends more on "defence" than the rest of the world put together.

The North Korean bomb is less powerful than many WWII bombing raids by the Brits / Americans. A few dozen B52's could carry the equilivent in conventional explosives. They have no long range delivery system. They know that neighbours Russia, China, South Korea or Japan could easily take out their infrastructure AND financially win any hearts and minds battle in an occupation.



Actually this is good news as it probably means they don't already have a few hidden in containers in storage in the USA


I'm more scared that the Israelies would do something stupid because they have US backing.

US military action since the end of WWII has resulted in about 10 million civilian deaths.


NK has been paid billions by the US in the past for it's sabre rattling.


Oh by the way, if the North Korean's are still using the underground factories they built in the last war a Nuke won't do that much good better off with conventional weapons. Morale in NK should be poor for the simple reason of food shortage.

FlutterinBantam

Answer to the question


Nuke the cnunts

Nuke 'em til they glow

Riddle101

b12mearse wrote: »

But you must see here is where the problem lies. Kim Jong is a mentally unstable lunatic. There's no talking to him. He's dilusional.

I don't think he's a lunactic, I think he's afraid. With nearly every country that poses a threat to N.K threatening them and the threat of North Korea collapsing, I think Kim Jong is afraid that he will be seen as being weak. Something he refuses to accept. So he believes that showing his ruthlessness will make him look strong and stop any of those rumors. As people have already mentioned, this nuclear testing is really just a cry of attention. He's trying to get everybodies attetion by the only way he feels people will truly listen to him, by showing eveyrone that he has nukes. It's the nuclear equivelent of firing a gun in the air to get attention. I believe the true problem is that the South refuse to co-operate because they've taken a stance against the North Koreans, As someone else posted in another thread, before the George Bush came into power and started his war on terrorism, North Korean and South Korean relations were actually pretty good. But then a new leader came to power in the South and completely removed his party from negotitations, proberly because he supported George Bush, and since George Bush don't like to speak with terrorists, tensions got higher. Still though, all i'm saying is some people might be overracting to what Kim Jong Il is capable of. I for one don't fear North Korea one bit, and have every bit of faith that if North Korea were to start something, they would be stopped almost immediately. My guess is that China, with all their influence in North Korea, if they felt a war was going to happen would do everything in the power to stop it because the last thing China needs right now is a war on their front doorstep, and the threat of having an enemy on their doorstep as well. So they'd proberly have Kim Jong removed from power.

conbhui

Riddle101 wrote: »

I don't think he's a lunactic, I think he's afraid. With nearly every country that poses a threat to N.K threatening them and the threat of North Korea collapsing, I think Kim Jong is afraid that he will be seen as being weak. Something he refuses to accept. So he believes that showing his ruthlessness will make him look strong and stop any of those rumors. As people have already mentioned, this nuclear testing is really just a cry of attention. He's trying to get everybodies attetion by the only way he feels people will truly listen to him, by showing eveyrone that he has nukes. It's the nuclear equivelent of firing a gun in the air to get attention. I believe the true problem is that the South refuse to co-operate because they've taken a stance against the North Koreans, As someone else posted in another thread, before the George Bush came into power and started his war on terrorism, North Korean and South Korean relations were actually pretty good. But then a new leader came to power in the South and completely removed his party from negotitations, proberly because he supported George Bush, and since George Bush don't like to speak with terrorists, tensions got higher. Still though, all i'm saying is some people might be overracting to what Kim Jong Il is capable of. I for one don't fear North Korea one bit, and have every bit of faith that if North Korea were to start something, they would be stopped almost immediately. My guess is that China, with all their influence in North Korea, if they felt a war was going to happen would do everything in the power to stop it because the last thing China needs right now is a war on their front doorstep, and the threat of having an enemy on their doorstep as well. So they'd proberly have Kim Jong removed from power.

Did I miss something? Is this how people behave in a civilised world when they don't get there own way? This is not how anyone should behave let alone a leader of a country with nuclear weapons. If somebody like that behaved the way Kim Jong does in society they would be locked up in a phyciatric hospital and put on suicide watch. That guy is nuts and he's holding the world to ransom.
I say nuke North Korea and China along with it for good messure.
The less dictatorships will make this world a safer place.

kumate_champ07

nobody here is in any danger from north korea. i find it ironic that america doesnt want them to have nuclear weapons but america seems to be updating there nuclear weapons capabiltiy. why is it ok for them and not for everyone else? the fact that we even have these weapons in existence is fuked up. i mean think about it...

Manic Moran

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

america seems to be updating there nuclear weapons capabiltiy.

Are we? Last I heard, the head of the US Air Force's nuclear branch was complaining that they had no money to modify the systems to use chips instead of vacuum tubes, and nobody was making vacuum tubes any more to replace the ones which malfunction.

NTM

kumate_champ07

what do we really know about this kim guy anyway?
everyone says hes nuts, what are the reasons?
ive read that his people are extremely poor and have little food but he has 1,000,000 full time soldiers

kumate_champ07

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are we? Last I heard, the head of the US Air Force's nuclear branch was complaining that they had no money to modify the systems to use chips instead of vacuum tubes, and nobody was making vacuum tubes any more to replace the ones which malfunction.

NTM

russia make nice vacuum tubes, china make them also but they arent reliable

conbhui

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

what do we really know about this kim guy anyway?
everyone says hes nuts, what are the reasons?
ive read that his people are extremely poor and have little food but he has 1,000,000 full time soldiers

lol

kumate_champ07

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are we? Last I heard, the head of the US Air Force's nuclear branch was complaining that they had no money to modify the systems to use chips instead of vacuum tubes, and nobody was making vacuum tubes any more to replace the ones which malfunction.

NTM

apparently obamas new energy budget has plans for the updating of old warheads to be scrapped

Witcher

conbhui wrote: »

Did I miss something? Is this how people behave in a civilised world when they don't get there own way? This is not how anyone should behave let alone a leader of a country with nuclear weapons. If somebody like that behaved the way Kim Jong does in society they would be locked up in a phyciatric hospital and put on suicide watch. That guy is nuts and he's holding the world to ransom.
I say nuke North Korea and China along with it for good messure. The less dictatorships will make this world a safer place.

That is SO stupid that you have disabled by ability to ridicule your stupidity and that of your theory. Good going. There are so many thing wrong with that statement that Jesus himself couldn't explain the errors in it.:rolleyes:

Riddle101

conbhui wrote: »

Did I miss something? Is this how people behave in a civilised world when they don't get there own way? This is not how anyone should behave let alone a leader of a country with nuclear weapons. If somebody like that behaved the way Kim Jong does in society they would be locked up in a phyciatric hospital and put on suicide watch. That guy is nuts and he's holding the world to ransom.
I say nuke North Korea and China along with it for good messure.
The less dictatorships will make this world a safer place.

What you're saying is so illogical and appalling that i'm starting to think that maybe you are either a mad scientist or George Bush in disguise, the latter I hope is not true.

By the way you're contradicting yourself with that comment so I think you should think things over if I were you.

Overheal

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

what do we really know about this kim guy anyway?
everyone says hes nuts, what are the reasons?
ive read that his people are extremely poor and have little food but he has 1,000,000 full time soldiers

North Korean propaganda tactics heavily glorify Kim Jong Il[34] and his father, who are referred to as the "Dear Leader" and "The Sunshine Of The 21st Century" respectively. Also many of the North Koreans believe that Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il "created the world" and can "control the weather".[34] Following the death of Kim Il-Sung, North Koreans were forced to fall to the ground crying and cling to a bronze statue of him in an organized event.[35]

cuckoo...

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A few dozen B52's could carry the equilivent in conventional explosives.

Try several hundred B52s.

The US's largest conventional weapon, the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, MOAB, Mother of All Bombs, has an explosive yield estimated @ 1/1000th that of the Hiroshima bomb, Little Boy. Of these, only 15 have ever been made, and none have yet been used in combat.

Because of the MOAB's immense size and weight, a C-130 is required for payload delivery. I'm not even sure if its designed to be deliverable by a B52 for arguments sake. You are right however in saying that the US can take out strategic assets far more efficiently using conventional weaponry than nuclear. The B52 according to spec could potentially carry 3, possibly 4, though this would bring it above its approximate ordnance capacity. Meaning you would need over 250 of these planes in the air, of which, there are only 102 still in Active service; carrying 1000 or so of these bombs, of which, there are only 15.

/pointless entertaining trivia.

TinyFlynn

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Santy isn't real and his reindeer can't really fly kid.

why would you sqay such lies !!
wont somebody please think of the children !

like who do you think you are storming in here and telling these young children that there is no such thing as santa, or that raindeer can't fly !!
we all no that its fact, that santa is real and raindeer can fly........how do you think i get home every night after get6ting wasted ??:D

GuanYin

China will most likely follow its previous stance of backing any UN resolution against NK with respect to nuclear testing, but will as always, refuse to engage in trade embargoes.

China has too much invested in NK.

Nuclear bombing of NK isn't on the agenda.... the US wouldn't risk angering China... the one country we probably couldn't defeat (infact, most recent RAND studies show we'd probably lose).

Highsider

Yes they should. I'm sick of hearing about British MP's and the pedo priests at this stage. Need some real news for a change :pac:

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote: »

Are we? Last I heard, the head of the US Air Force's nuclear branch was complaining that they had no money to modify the systems to use chips instead of vacuum tubes, and nobody was making vacuum tubes any more to replace the ones which malfunction.

NTM

valves are more resistant to EMP.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

cuckoo...
Try several hundred B52s.

The yield was around 1.5Kt

With the Big Belly mod a B52 can carry 60,000Lb's of bombs ( over 27 tonnes in real money )
So 56 planes.

The bombs have a steel cover but the explosive inside could be more powerful than standard TNT


/more trivia

Bard

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

The real question is, should the US leave all matters of foreign policy up to the users of after hours. I say yes, think how entertaining it would be.

Well it'd certainly be better than leaving it up to the U.N., wouldn't it?

Overheal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The yield was around 1.5Kt

With the Big Belly mod a B52 can carry 60,000Lb's of bombs ( over 27 tonnes in real money )
So 56 planes.

The bombs have a steel cover but the explosive inside could be more powerful than standard TNT


/more trivia

The MOAB's dead weight is 18,700 lbs. Correction: 22,600 lbs, or 9.5 tons. So again, a B52H, can carry, at most, 3. Despite its carrying capacity of 70k lbs, not 60k.

also

Although its effect has often been compared to that of a nuclear weapon, it is only about one thousandth the power of the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima: it is equivalent to around 11 tons of TNT, whereas the Hiroshima blast was equivalent to 13,000 tons of TNT and modern nuclear missiles are far more powerful than the atomic bomb used against Hiroshima. However, the MOAB bomb's yield is comparable to the smallest of nuclear devices, such as the M-388 Davy Crockett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B52#Specifications_.28B-52H.29

Though you are right to say it could match the NK nuke much easier, which was about 1/10th the yield of Little Boy if the estimate is true. It would still take about 100 MOABs, 85 of which don't exist

Riddle101

Bard wrote: »

Well it'd certainly be better than leaving it up to the U.N., wouldn't it?

I thought After Hours was the UN:D

mega man

i say nuke north korea and all its allies before its to late. There means of government have been tried and tested before and have failed.
One man calling all the shots in any country is a bad idea.

WoollyRedHat

I say we nuke everyone and everyone thing. Let's wipe each other all out, then all our problems will be sorted once and for all!

Question: If you were North Korean/lived there, would you have voted yes? I somehow doubht it...

Overheal

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I say we nuke everyone and everyone thing. Let's wipe each other all out, then all our problems will be sorted once and for all!

Have fun,

http://www.carloslabs.com/node/20

Though this app, and Tsar Bomba's wiki page, don't appear to see eye to eye: according to the wiki page it would be much more catastrophic than what the app leads you to believe.

The original U.S. estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb (technically the design was capable of this yield). The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, breaking windows there and in Sweden. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.[7] Its Richter magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.[8] The energy yield was around 7.1 on the Richter scale, but since the bomb was detonated in air rather than underground, most of the energy was not converted to seismic waves.

Since 50 Mt is 2.1×1017 joules, the average power produced during the entire fission-fusion process, lasting around 39 nanoseconds, was about 5.4×1024 watts or 5.4 yottawatts. This is equivalent to approximately 1.4% of the power output of the Sun.[9]

mega man

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

I say we nuke everyone and everyone thing. Let's wipe each other all out, then all our problems will be sorted once and for all!

Question: If you were North Korean/lived there, would you have voted yes? I somehow doubht it...

Ya i think your rite. But if i was in north korea, i wouldn't have a say, would I?

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

The MOAB's dead weight is 18,700 lbs. Correction: 22,600 lbs, or 9.5 tons. So again, a B52H, can carry, at most, 3. Despite its carrying capacity of 70k lbs, not 60k.

I don't think a B-52 can carry a single one. It's not an issue of useful payload, it's an issue of hardpoint capacity. None of the hardpoints were designed with a single bomb of that weight and size in mind, the useful load of 500lb bombs is distributed amongst many hardpoints. You can drop MOAB out of a C-17 though.

NTM

mega man

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think a B-52 can carry a single one. It's not an issue of useful payload, it's an issue of hardpoint capacity. None of the hardpoints were designed with a single bomb of that weight and size in mind, the useful load of 500lb bombs is distributed amongst many hardpoints. You can drop MOAB out of a C-17 though.

NTM

are you guys in the military or something?

Capt'n Midnight

darkman2 wrote: »

Whether they have the technology to match is another point. But if there was a war it would be the biggest since WW2 I reckon....it would also be the first time ever that two countries with a nuclear capability engaged in conflict.

What about India Vs Pakistan ?

or China's boarder skirmishes with Russia / India ?

Or Israel vs USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

I've heard that Indonesia had a nuclear air force crewed by the Russians back in the early 60's and there was fighting with the Malaysians who were supported by the British.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think a B-52 can carry a single one. It's not an issue of useful payload, it's an issue of hardpoint capacity. None of the hardpoints were designed with a single bomb of that weight and size in mind, the useful load of 500lb bombs is distributed amongst many hardpoints. You can drop MOAB out of a C-17 though.

NTM

That was my original understanding. I was simply using the B52H for the sake of argument.

...how many can a C-17 carry I'm guessing the weight isnt the issue with the C-17 rather than the size of the weapon.

mega man wrote: »

are you guys in the military or something?

NTM is a Tank CPT as far as I know with the US Armed Forces. The only thing I'm a warrior of however is my keyboard

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote: »

The MOAB's dead weight is 18,700 lbs. Correction: 22,600 lbs, or 9.5 tons. So again, a B52H, can carry, at most, 3. Despite its carrying capacity of 70k lbs, not 60k.

also


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOAB
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B52#Specifications_.28B-52H.29

Though you are right to say it could match the NK nuke much easier, which was about 1/10th the yield of Little Boy if the estimate is true. It would still take about 100 MOABs, 85 of which don't exist

YOu must like MOAB's
they are great if you want to knock down trees or asphyxiate people but to destroy buildings and fortifications just do what they did in WWII

To destroy a large areal drop a few earthquake bombs to shatter things then drop smaller bombs and then when the structures are opened up you drop the incenderies - nasty business.

The more accurate a weapon is the smaller you can make the warhead because it will be closer to the target. So to take out NK's ability to supply their troops would be easy enough. And at this stage it's fairly safe to say that they won't have air superiority and that is kinda important in a modern war.

Overheal

Well im not a military man. But you asked me about conventional equivalents of nukes and the MOAB pops right up on the list. According to the test yield one of those can level 9 city blocks.. as far as conventional weapons go it has the highest weight-to-yield ratio that im aware of.

But again, lessons learned from Tsar Bomba and since applied to weapon theory:

the advent of ICBMs accurate to 500 meters or better made such a design philosophy, obsolete. Subsequent nuclear weapon design in the 1960s and 1970s focused primarily on increased accuracy, miniaturization, and safety. The standard practice for many years has been to employ multiple smaller warheads (MIRVs) to "carpet" an area. This is believed to result in greater ground damage.

The cost of things like the MOAB is just crazy. They won't get used, especially when things can get done much more safely, accurately, and cheaply, with things like Bunker Busters - iirc thats the toy that got used when a building needed to be leveled when we went into Iraq. Civilians got hurt, but not nearly as many that would have if we decided to start fcuking MOABs and Carpet Bombing runs all over the place. A difference in philosophy between the use of Tactical and Strategic weapons if I'm not mistaken.

The Al Lad

shamblertine wrote: »

I'm sick of living in fear of those bastards,

Same here, I walk around all day looking up wards to see if a nuke is gonna land on me

I'm terrified:mad:

Capt'n Midnight

The Al Lad wrote: »

Same here, I walk around all day looking up wards to see if a nuke is gonna land on me

I'm terrified:mad:

If it makes you feel any safer no one will be dropping nukes on us.


They will just ship it in a container, put in storage in the target country and wait, virtually untraceable.

The Al Lad

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If it makes you feel any safer no one will be dropping nukes on us.

They will just ship it in a container, put in storage in the target country and wait, virtually untraceable.

Thank fucck, my necks been in bits from looking upwads the last few weeks