This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

****ASF Breaking News****

Jump to new

Shameless segue ... there is a book by Elizabeth Tynan named "Atomic Thunder" that is well worth reading on who really was the force majeure behind the bomb development versus deployment.

Similarly the jet plane was well advanced by Glocester Aircraft Company and Frank Whittle's Power Jet LTD in ~1936. As usual the POMS have a terrible track record of sharing technology with their potential enemies and the world as a whole ..... empire thinking.

FinTech is the next big thing and Oz would have been well poised to join the coming London experience had not the likes of Newman, Howard, Abbott etc decided the redundant three Rs were as tech savvy as we needed to be for a mining town country.
 
Tisme said:
Similarly the jet plane was well advanced by Glocester Aircraft Company and Frank Whittle's Power Jet LTD in ~1936.
Click to expand...

The Nazis clearly had the first Jet Plane, and deserve our respect, we should all praise the Nazis next time we fly qantas (just ask Tink)
 
Tisme said:
And the self imposed monastic guy who was bonced by a falling apple.
Click to expand...

Newton? I thought he was just a weirdo, not a monk. Same difference?

Also thought the apple fell on him during those years he escaped London's literal plague.

Yea I know, he attribute his genius to no more than interpreting God's laws and wonder... One need to suck up like that to get anywhere in that world. That and not be thought of as a Warlock.
 
SirRumpole said:
I suppose we can praise German engineering, they did put man on the moon after all.
Click to expand...

They were no longer German by that time. They were all either Team America or Team of the People of the Soviet Union
 
luutzu said:
They were no longer German by that time. They were all either Team America or Team of the People of the Soviet Union
Click to expand...


No it was three mixed race women and Kevin Costner.
 
North Korea success with ICBM
 
Tisme said:
North Korea success with ICBM
Click to expand...

So what have S.Korea and Japan got in the way of retaliatory capability ? Not much I suspect.

They might have to take it to the Security Council, which probably won't do them a lot of good it terms of stopping further launches.
 
SirRumpole said:
So what have S.Korea and Japan got in the way of retaliatory capability ? Not much I suspect.

They might have to take it to the Security Council, which probably won't do them a lot of good it terms of stopping further launches.
Click to expand...


Well I guess you do the numbers: e.g. if war XXX millions of life lost and misery for a region; if absolute west trade blockade of N Korea and China XXX millions of life lost and misery for North Korea
 
SirRumpole said:
So what have S.Korea and Japan got in the way of retaliatory capability ? Not much I suspect.
Click to expand...

They could flatten NK. Take away NK's sort of ICBM (the IC bit still hasn't been proven) and they have a lot of old artillery and not much else. The other two could run sorties over NK with impunity. Seoul won't be flattened by old Soviet artillery.

I still think NK is trying to get a guarantee of safety similar to what Cuba received during that missile crisis. While China probably doesn't control NK the way the West would like to believe it does, it probably sees no need to rein it in just yet, and might try and get some sort of compromise in the South China Sea. Either way, any action against NK will require China's approval. If they OK it then the US could park a carrier group off the coast and finish the job in a couple of days. If China's not on board then that carrier group will be at the bottom of the ocean in a few hours.
 


I thought ICBMs were redundant hardware these days. Because they unwieldy, they were only ever civilian targetted weapons and meant to terrify the populations with mass murder.

Surely ground and sea interceptors would take out ICBMs very quickly, which makes me wonder why they didn't on this occasion.
 
Tisme said:
Surely ground and sea interceptors would take out ICBMs very quickly, which makes me wonder why they didn't on this occasion.
Click to expand...

Maybe because they don't have the capability that you suggest, or they are currently not in place?

ICBMs move very fast and high and it takes a lot of technology to track them and get an interceptor missile onto the target.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missile
 

55% kill rate tested. That would mean, say, four of them fired at the same ICBM would give a probability of ~95% kill rate?
 
Tisme said:
55% kill rate tested. That would mean, say, four of them fired at the same ICBM would give a probability of ~95% kill rate?
Click to expand...

Just heard on tv that the South Korean President had rejected the installation of an anti ICBM system. Don't know why, he may be regretting that now.
 
Weren't we were going to put one here in 2001 or thereabouts?

Wouldn't be surprised if that gets revisited.
 
PZ99 said:
Weren't we were going to put one here in 2001 or thereabouts?

Wouldn't be surprised if that gets revisited.
Click to expand...

It would be the greatest white elephant ever indulged in by an Australian government. A conventional ballistic missile defence (the Aegis system the RAN has can be upgraded to that capability), maybe, but ICBM defence would cost billions to set up and hundreds of millions to maintain. Just the rockets themselves cost $20m-$30m. If someone is taking a shot at Australia with a nuclear ICBM then the game is either up or close enough to being up that the cities are probably in a state of ruin and deserted already.
 

I heard that if North Korea is ever attacked, its conventional artillery will flatten Seoul within hours. And there's nothing Seoul or Washington can do to prevent that.

It's one of those Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) strategy we all thought is a good idea. Better build stronger desks for the kids to duck and cover though. Just to be safe.
 
luutzu said:
I heard that if North Korea is ever attacked, its conventional artillery will flatten Seoul within hours. And there's nothing Seoul or Washington can do to prevent that.
Click to expand...

No way do I believe a city the size of Seoul can be flattened in months, let alone hours by artillery. Most of NK's artillery isn't even in range of Seoul. With air and ground superiority it'll be over very quickly to the South's favour.
 
McLovin said:
No way do I believe a city the size of Seoul can be flattened in months, let alone hours by artillery. Most of NK's artillery isn't even in range of Seoul. With air and ground superiority it'll be over very quickly to the South's favour.
Click to expand...



Seoul is some 30KM from the DMZ?

Seems that NK's only defence against any invasion would be those from the South. China and Russia aren't likely to be doing it. Now... wouldn't you, as a North Korean general, be concentrating all your firepower at Seoul so that if the proverbial hits the fan, you too can take out the other side too?

What has NK spent its money on? Not feeding its people that's for sure. So unless SK and the US know where all those artilleries are, and can somehow managed to take them all out within minutes of the initial strike... maybe Seoul won't be flattened, just be another Mosul with a the rubbles still piled high instead of blown away.

But let's not gamble with that shall we. I mean, if China would still intervene against the US way back when it was a pimple of an economy, there is no way it'll just let NK be flatten without it saying so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Life in the USA
Replies
4
Views
4K
Monkey C Doo
M
R
IRAQ: the Big (neo) Con
Replies
1
Views
5K
basilio
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...