****ASF Breaking News****

[So_Cynical]

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.

Tactical nukes are low yield nuclear weapons suitable for totally destroying small areas, they can be carried by cruise missiles so delivered with great accuracy, 6 or 7 of them would pretty much wipe out NK conventional forces.

This i believe has always been the plan if the North was stupid enough to invade or shell Seoul, pretty much the only way to get an instant, fast and low risk result.

 

[luutzu]

Tactical nukes are low yield nuclear weapons suitable for totally destroying small areas, they can be carried by cruise missiles so delivered with great accuracy, 6 or 7 of them would pretty much wipe out NK conventional forces.

This i believe has always been the plan if the North was stupid enough to invade or shell Seoul, pretty much the only way to get an instant, fast and low risk result.

For sure. There's no doubt that if NK were to hit Seoul or any part of Japan, all the comrades in Pyongyang will be vaporised along with the entire NK state.

So unless they're suicidal, which I don't think they are, they won't be starting a war. Rattling their ICBMs, threaten nuclear annihilation... all to get some attention and a bit of payoff. Things like not sanctioning against them, say.

I guess North Korea isn't on that Axis of Evil list for no reason. Funny how they're just like Iran... being sanctioned, can barely feed themselves, yet always wanting to nuke someone. Funny how the poorest countries in the world are always the greatest threat to world peace, always the ones that's going to take over the world.

That's not to say that Iran or lil Kim are good or nice. Just you know, Hitler was Hitler because Nazi Germany has all that engineering and military hardware that was decades ahead of his peer competitors. An idiot can be greedy and evil all they want, without a proper military that can kick azz and take names, they're only harmful to their own people.

 

[McLovin]

Seoul is some 30KM from the DMZ?

Yes it is, well the outskirts. I've been to the DMZ, from the north side. It's flat and open. Not the best place to put all your eggs, so they don't. The North Koreans aren't dumb.

Seems that NK's only defence against any invasion would be those from the South.

They have enough to slow a ground invasion and cause a fair bit of damage to an invading ground force, but that's not the same as flattening Seoul. Nor does the bulk of their artillery have the distance to reach Seoul, as I said. I'll try and dig up some info later.

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

You can't flatten a city of 20m people with 170mm shells, dude. Well you can, if you've got a few years. You can put holes in buildings and start fires, but as soon as you start firing you reveal all your hidden positions will be picked up by radar and have fire and brimstone reigned down them. All your known artillery batteries will have long been blown away by SK and the US.

All this is also predicated on their ancient equipment still working.

 

[luutzu]

Yes it is, well the outskirts. I've been to the DMZ, from the north side. It's flat and open. Not the best place to put all your eggs, so they don't. The North Koreans aren't dumb.



They have enough to slow a ground invasion and cause a fair bit of damage to an invading ground force, but that's not the same as flattening Seoul. Nor does the bulk of their artillery have the distance to reach Seoul, as I said. I'll try and dig up some info later.



You can't flatten a city of 20m people with 170mm shells, dude. Well you can, if you've got a few years. You can put holes in buildings and start fires, but as soon as you start firing you reveal all your hidden positions will be picked up by radar and have fire and brimstone reigned down them. All your known artillery batteries will have long been blown away by SK and the US.

All this is also predicated on their ancient equipment still working.

Dig up info? You mean you didn't have a notebook to record stuff while up north?

Don't know what damage they'll do, but as that general told McCain, if any of those 4000 artillery or rockets lifts off, there's no way they can be stopped. Well, unless the US spend a few more billions and maybe there's a solution.

I guess Harvard and West Point don't teach diplomacy. It's either starve you to death or carpet bomb you to pieces.

But the NKoreans don't have the US to worry about though. They'd just have to put up with the sanctions and the periodical parades. It's the South and Beijing that's in the crosshair if that peninsular ever goes off.

 

[Value Collector]

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.

You don't need an ICBM to hit South Korea if you are firing from North Korea, Much smaller missiles would do the trick, an ICBM is used to carry payloads very long distances, this is about putting fear into nations very far away.

 

[Value Collector]

You can't flatten a city of 20m people with 170mm shells, dude. .

Not with conventional High explosive rounds, But with nuclear shells you could, artillery are capable of delivering many types of rounds, including atomic weapons.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not with conventional High explosive rounds, But with nuclear shells you could, artillery are capable of delivering many types of rounds, including atomic weapons.

Well, I never knew that. I thought atomic bombs were much larger eg Fat Boy, Little Man.

 

[So_Cynical]

Well, I never knew that. I thought atomic bombs were much larger eg Fat Boy, Little Man.

Tactical Nukes are often referred to as suitcase nukes, small enough to fit in an averaged size suitcase.

 

[basilio]

Tactical nuclear weapons which are designed and intended for use on selected military targets have evolved considerably. For example the early atomic cannons for example would be replaced by highly accurate nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

The Lowy Institute wrote an analysis on this development. It was published in September 2016 before Donald Trump became President. Be interesting to see what policy strategists now see as the risk of international tensions escalating into a tactical nuclear war.

Tactical nuclear weapons in the modern nuclear era
In this Lowy Institute Analysis, Brendan Thomas-Noone argues that advances in technology are making tactical nuclear weapons more precise and potentially more usable. He argues that new arms control measures are needed to promote greater transparency about the development of these weapons.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/tactical-nuclear-weapons-modern-nuclear-era

____________________
Check out Davey Crockett. This was an early version of a battleground nuke. Never went into service Check out the video and guess why...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-worlds-smallest-nuk-1684923814

 

[luutzu]

Tactical nuclear weapons which are designed and intended for use on selected military targets have evolved considerably. For example the early atomic cannons for example would be replaced by highly accurate nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

The Lowy Institute wrote an analysis on this development. It was published in September 2016 before Donald Trump became President. Be interesting to see what policy strategists now see as the risk of international tensions escalating into a tactical nuclear war.

Tactical nuclear weapons in the modern nuclear era
In this Lowy Institute Analysis, Brendan Thomas-Noone argues that advances in technology are making tactical nuclear weapons more precise and potentially more usable. He argues that new arms control measures are needed to promote greater transparency about the development of these weapons.

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/tactical-nuclear-weapons-modern-nuclear-era

____________________
Check out Davey Crockett. This was an early version of a battleground nuke. Never went into service Check out the video and guess why...

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-worlds-smallest-nuk-1684923814

Talk about being smart and stupid at the same time.

But don't worry about it though, Obama did signed a $1Trillion "modernisation" programme to make nuclear battlefield friendly. You know, deadly enough to flatten an entire city, but safe enough that a wind change won't radiate friendlies. Safety first guys.

I remember reading the British Intel officer, Liddell Hart [?] introduction to his translation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Hart said that if Western generals and planners had read and applied Sun's concepts of war, Europe wouldn't have been destroyed to the extent it did during the two world wars.

That it is better to take the city whole than to destroy it; It is better to take an army whole than to destroy it; It is better to take a country whole than to destroy it.

That there has never been an instance of a country having benefited from protracted warfare. hmm... Mad Dog Mattis of the US recently said that all these 16 years of Afghanistan is just the beginning.

But I guess Western arms manufacturers are true patriots who would never think of price gouging or selling their gears to potential enemies then come back with news of enemies now having the same level of hardware. Oh wait.

But on the bright side... as Einstein said, WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones so it won't be so deadly.

 

[Value Collector]

That it is better to take the city whole than to destroy it;

That is one of the pros to chemical weapons, the idea you could shell an enemies position with low explosive rounds containing a nerve agent, killing them but leaving all infrastructure intact is very appealing. The temptation was so great and the possible damage so big pretty much all nations have agreed to not use them.

 

[Value Collector]

Well, I never knew that. I thought atomic bombs were much larger eg Fat Boy, Little Man.

Like most things, tech advances allow them to shrink in size.

 

[luutzu]

That is one of the pros to chemical weapons, the idea you could shell an enemies position with low explosive rounds containing a nerve agent, killing them but leaving all infrastructure intact is very appealing. The temptation was so great and the possible damage so big pretty much all nations have agreed to not use them.

True. I didn't even think of chemical being perfect for that. Should we all be careful of you man? jk.

I guess the brass don't want to use it because it leave evidence. That and having to make their troops drag the bodies out. Kinda demoralises them about doing good when they have to be that close to the victim. Easier to just blow stuff up then send in the bulldozers.

That's why the Nazi stopped having their troops shooting each victim into those mass graves, preferring the gas chamber instead. Save bullets, save soldiers morale. Get to reuse... dam it, we humans can be pretty messed up.

 

[luutzu]

Like most things, tech advances allow them to shrink in size.

Half watching Command and Control on Netflix where, apparently, each of those US nukes has the equivalent firepower of all explosives used during WW2, including the two nukes. Scary stuff.

Heard from some Gore Vidal interview where he said JFK once said to him that war makes presidents "great". Asking where would Lincoln be without the Civil War. To which Vidal replied, what are you freaking nuts? You would risk having millions kill so you can have your head carved on Mount Rushmore?

We now have Trump, who give the military free reign. Awesome.

 

[Value Collector]

US nukes has the equivalent firepower of all explosives used during WW2, including the two nukes. Scary stuff.

.

It's a really good demonstration of how much energy is tied up in Mass, and what the formula E=mc2 really means in practice.

In the bombing of Hiroshima only about 15grams of mass was converted to energy, thats about a piece of uranium the about the size of a pea.

A 9mm pistol round (think of the tiny bullets used in the hand guns police carry around) weighs about 50% more than the uranium mass converted to energy in the Hiroshima bomb.

 

[Klogg]

It's a really good demonstration of how much energy is tied up in Mass, and what the formula E=mc2 really means in practice.

In the bombing of Hiroshima only about 15grams of mass was converted to energy, thats about a piece of uranium the about the size of a pea.

A 9mm pistol round (think of the tiny bullets used in the hand guns police carry around) weighs about 50% more than the uranium mass converted to energy in the Hiroshima bomb.

Wow, I never knew the mass of the uranium that went off - that's insane! I never thought they released that sort of information - do you happen to know where that was published/written? (Not doubting you, just curious for more info)

Scary to think of the damage one mentally challenged individual could do if they had access to the right things...

 

[Value Collector]

Wow, I never knew the mass of the uranium that went off - that's insane! I never thought they released that sort of information - do you happen to know where that was published/written? .

Well, there is a lot more than 15grams of uranium in a bomb, probably at least 25 kilograms of uranium or about 8 kilograms of plutonium is needed for the smaller bombs.

But, only about 15 grams of the material used in the "little boy" bomb that dropped on Hiroshima was converted into energy, the rest of the mass was just spread out by the blast or converted into other radioactive elements.

 

[pixel]

Wow, I never knew the mass of the uranium that went off

You don't need much m when you have 3 x 10 ^ 8 to square. In the cgs System (centimeter, gram, second) it's even more: 9 times ten to the tenth squared.
So, you convert 1g of mass into 0.9 x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 calories.

 

[Value Collector]

do you happen to know where that was published/written? (Not doubting you, just curious for more info)

...

Actually according to wikipedia, only 0.6 grams of the uranium in "little boy" was transformed into energy.

"The bomb contained 64 kg (141 lb) of enriched uranium. Most was enriched to 89% but some was only 50% uranium-235, for an average enrichment of 80%.[20] Less than a kilogram of uranium underwent nuclear fission, and of this mass only 0.6 g (0.021 oz) was transformed into several forms of energy, mostly kinetic energy, but also heat and radiation.[21]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

 

[luutzu]

It's a really good demonstration of how much energy is tied up in Mass, and what the formula E=mc2 really means in practice.

In the bombing of Hiroshima only about 15grams of mass was converted to energy, thats about a piece of uranium the about the size of a pea.

A 9mm pistol round (think of the tiny bullets used in the hand guns police carry around) weighs about 50% more than the uranium mass converted to energy in the Hiroshima bomb.

So when they say the world has enough nukes to blow itself a few hundred times over, they're not kidding?