America moves nukes in range of North Korea?!
- Thread starter DimensionX
- Start date
Huge impact:
Attack Group of the way to the Korean Peninsula
By Jon Magnus Photo: Tom Cities Moen at 25/11/2010. 7:24 p.m. Source: VG
(AP) When the aircraft carrier USS George Washington is now sailing full speed towards the Korean peninsula, it is with an impact beyond anything that was fired in World War II. For the terrifying, giant nuclear-powered sails not alone. Any American aircraft carriers are always protected by a "strike group" attacked a group with a certain number of surface ships and submarines.
One thing is what the nuclear giant of over 100,000 tons had to carry nuclear and conventional weapons on its keel.
Anything else is what up five to six rakettkryssere and destroyers, and a couple of attack submarines, carrying with him the clout as well.
Prepared for the worst
United States has never denied that their fleets are equipped with nuclear weapons. But it would be extremely naive to believe that "George Washington" and the other vessels surrounding the giant of the Nimitz-class is not prepared for the worst, when the price is now set directly in the most tense areas.
The number of weapons systems in the U.S. aircraft carrier group, which now approaches the border between South and North Korea in the Yellow Sea, is formidable:
"George Washington, who left their base south of Tokyo yesterday, will carry with them almost 70 aircraft of various types.
ALSO READ:South Korea steps up on islands close to North Korea
Sophisticated
It may also be reason to believe that some of the aircraft on board is equipped with smaller, tactical nuclear weapons in addition to more conventional bombs and missiles.
Besides fighting vessel equipped with a number of separate attack and defense, with up to 24 Sea Sparrow missiles, an unknown number of RIM 116 missiles, as well as very sophisticated defense against incoming enemy torpedoes and missiles.
Ogs
Attack Group of the way to the Korean Peninsula
By Jon Magnus Photo: Tom Cities Moen at 25/11/2010. 7:24 p.m. Source: VG
(AP) When the aircraft carrier USS George Washington is now sailing full speed towards the Korean peninsula, it is with an impact beyond anything that was fired in World War II. For the terrifying, giant nuclear-powered sails not alone. Any American aircraft carriers are always protected by a "strike group" attacked a group with a certain number of surface ships and submarines.
One thing is what the nuclear giant of over 100,000 tons had to carry nuclear and conventional weapons on its keel.
Anything else is what up five to six rakettkryssere and destroyers, and a couple of attack submarines, carrying with him the clout as well.
Prepared for the worst
United States has never denied that their fleets are equipped with nuclear weapons. But it would be extremely naive to believe that "George Washington" and the other vessels surrounding the giant of the Nimitz-class is not prepared for the worst, when the price is now set directly in the most tense areas.
The number of weapons systems in the U.S. aircraft carrier group, which now approaches the border between South and North Korea in the Yellow Sea, is formidable:
"George Washington, who left their base south of Tokyo yesterday, will carry with them almost 70 aircraft of various types.
ALSO READ:South Korea steps up on islands close to North Korea
Sophisticated
It may also be reason to believe that some of the aircraft on board is equipped with smaller, tactical nuclear weapons in addition to more conventional bombs and missiles.
Besides fighting vessel equipped with a number of separate attack and defense, with up to 24 Sea Sparrow missiles, an unknown number of RIM 116 missiles, as well as very sophisticated defense against incoming enemy torpedoes and missiles.
Ogs
Last edited:
I doubt we'll see even tactical nukes put into action, we have infinitely more efficient weapons use that would cause far less political backlash. However a carrier battle group sitting off the cost of your country is still a terrifying thing and N. Korea definitely doesn't have the ability to go toe-to-toe with the U.S. on a technological level. Even more so if the U.S. plays strictly defensive.
Last edited:
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
I'm annoyed at U.S.' interjection into all kinds of international affairs.
Me too. Not just because I'm Canadian, although that might have something to do with it. The United States seems to think it always knows best, and takes presumptive action quite often. It does little to create good alliances with other countries.
I'm annoyed at U.S.' interjection into all kinds of international affairs.
S. Korea has been our ally for quite some time, why should we not come to their aid when they need it if we are both capable and willing?.
Never heard of escalation? just because America might not use nukes doesn't mean that North Korea won't. A country doesn't need to be on the same technological level in order to make sure that nobody wins, look at how much damage terrorists did to the financial world and to the American people, from a terrorist point of view it was a hugely successful mission, not only did it disrupt the economy it scared the hell out of a huge portion of Americans.
I would assume that doing this is more of a showing of strength tactic than anything else but the thing that's worrying is regardless how large an animal a cornered mouse is up against, if it feels desperate enough it'll give a best ditch effort and attack.
[MENTION=751]Peppermint[/MENTION];
I agree, that is definitely how America appears in many countries but you have to keep in mind, they're the one nation under god
My time living over there was....more than scary, the news is horrifically close to propaganda and a large portion of Americans I've met.....although they have an awareness of other countries they just seem to see them as "them" and that America knows best which is kind of strange, they'll demonstrate consideration for other countries but when given a problem or a question they seem to go to some sort of american default setting lol, though to be fair I have met some great people in America, very intelligent and so forth, it's just a shame they seemed quite few and far between. I don't think the American competitive mentality helps, there seems to be a sort of tunnel vision and a lot of focus on ones social status which is unfortunate.@mf;
I would agree, there isn't really a lot of fact behind this article but the website is supposed to be quite reputable and the timing makes sense given the recent events between North Korea and South Korea.
[MENTION=2443]DoveAlexa[/MENTION];
Sorry, I forgot, I use chrome so when I go to a site like that I get a little translate button. Here is a link to the translated page:
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10011879&ei=M_HuTJ6MHMyAhAfu48nJDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php%253Fartid%253D10011879%26hl%3Den%26prmd%3Div
Barely capable and willing anymore given recent events, the American economy is shot, going to war again would be foolish and put America in a deeper hole that before, coming to another countries aid? more "why shouldn't we go to war with our allies?" war should never be glorified and it should never be trivial, it should always be the last resort or very close to last. A country should think of itself yes but also on a global scale, as I said it would put America in a deeper financial hole and it would also affect other countries financially because of this.
Last edited:
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
This. What's the point of allies if they don't help you out in situations like this? It's not as simple as "war is bad".
If the UK didn't rush in to help in WW2 most of Europe would be known as greater Germany... or the greater Soviet Union.
Well seeing as the article was dealing with U.S. nuclear weapons, I posted about the U.S.'s use of nuclear weapons. Being that they are not a common or efficient means of attack.
I also highly doubt N. Korea would use nuclear arms either, it's just not feasible or intelligent. Nuclear weapons are used when a your opponent refuses to give in despite being in a near impossible position, there the checkmate of war games. Throwing then around willy nilly just doesn't happen.
I also doubt that a war will break out in the first place, this is just a show of force to keep N. Korea in line.
But even if one did, it is better to die with a friend then have your friend die alone.
I also highly doubt N. Korea would use nuclear arms either, it's just not feasible or intelligent. Nuclear weapons are used when a your opponent refuses to give in despite being in a near impossible position, there the checkmate of war games. Throwing then around willy nilly just doesn't happen.
I also doubt that a war will break out in the first place, this is just a show of force to keep N. Korea in line.
But even if one did, it is better to die with a friend then have your friend die alone.
88chaz88 said:
I don't take a simplistic war is bad mentality I just don't like it being mentioned in a trivial fashion just because of the balance of power between the two countries in question.
WW2 is a bad example, the UK didn't really rush in at all, we left it very close to too late despite the intel, in a lot of ways we were lucky the war didn't end up going the other way.
I doubt that nukes will be used too I just don't like the idea that they could.
- Mar 17, 2010
- 4,872
- 1,225
- 766
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
We still went in though.
So what do you propose? Everyone to stand back and watch as South Korea burns? It's not like Iraq which was a country destroying itself. In fact America's backing is the only reason S. Korea isn't just ash by now.
You and me both brother.
I also have to protest the thought that we are rushing this, we've been in the same conflict for 6 decades.
EDIT:
I'd also like to put out there that the title of the article is a bit mis informative. The U.S. hasn't just moved nukes in range of N. Korea, we've constantly had them in range since the cold war. Hell we could probably hit N.K. from California if not at least Alaska.
Last edited:
Cannot add any meat to the pot, but I read where at least two nuclear armed submarines surfaced in that part of the world(maybe it was three) after the sinking of the South's warship weeks ago.
I like it when America comes to the aid of our friends. Watch how things would change if China were to send 50 warplanes to the North's soil.
The leaders of the North care far less for their non-military population than the South. America sends aid to help feed the starving in the North. Is it alright for America to do that during times of trouble? We do that all around the world. Look at both sides of the coin, please.