Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

KL2004's Achievements


Member (2/3)



  1. Anyone have all that old pinecone grenade panzer-"fist" uberfinn stuff sitting around on a public image server?
  2. I'm looking for a sound mod that will add a bit of echo, sounding a bit more like video footage of combat I've seen. Any suggestions?
  3. lmao I think Kim would like free McDonalds for life... (consider it a very sly form of assassination!)
  4. I always thought the same. This is a guy who wants to make sure he and his best friends are immune to harm. They won't want to attack first, that would bring wreckage on them. If we just cool down and make sure they are assured mutual destruction if they attack, I think they'll continue with the sex slave massage girls. And whatever we think about that, it is a war we should wage by culture. You know, like Civ. We should build some culture wonders in Japan and South Korea.
  5. If they did, that would be the last they could ever expect help from Russia or China I hope. Still not much consolation for the families of Seoul.
  6. That leaves totally overwhelming and defeating, now, those who are pursuing them, and the casualties that would incur. Is that suffering worth it? And as far as NK, they already have it. I get what you're saying. My response (be it worthy or not) is that we either stop everyone by force or start accepting it.
  7. The resultant being we don't go to war. Sorry if I missed what you meant! I figure you're saying that there are people who will initiate nuclear war anyhow, even if state actors don't. Before I respond, is that correct? If so can you help me before I respond with some argument or link to why they would?
  8. Why not just embrace that nuclear weapons are a thing that all industrial countries now can arm themselves with, and start dealing with that as a reality and settling things based on that new context rather than making the transition between conventional and nuclear weapons a massive problem in human history? The best argument I can think of to the question is that leadership can go to bunkers and do bad things to everyone without immediately being harmed. But these are people who generally want to live -- they harm people yes, but not to the extent that they climb out of a bunker to nuclear ruin. It may be that this time in human history involves nations being ruled by people who, if they establish strong police states, can deter other rulers from harming them. And we just have to suffer and let suffer through that. The whole problem seems to be based on the fact that some states don't like what other states do with their people. If we can all just obliterate one another into a context that means war always has to be at a high price though, that's a reality. Plenty of states were awful to their people throughout history because no matter how much the good people lamented them, they could not harm them without enormous injury and sacrifice. It seems this is just an adjustment back from the dominance of a very humane world power to the fact that inhumane regimes are now able to make it impossible for us to hurt them, and because they hollar about it, we feel offended. We had the chance a long time ago, and didn't do it. It's unfortunate that it takes this slap in the face to recognize it. Solution? Totally overwhelm the areas that could potentially become nuclear, now. Those that have become nuclear and have hostages, let them be. Wage a war of thought. Education. Culture. imho. <3
  9. I'm not convinced at all yet. I think he wants to preserve his kingdom and this is the way they're making sure they're scary enough not to mess with. If they attack first they lose. The whole point of the strategy is to show that if attacked or interfered with they will be a big problem for everyone. Secondarily, to show the population that they are strongly lead.
  10. Shhh! A really much more challenging argument would be whether armored divisions are obsolete as means towards any potential ends that normal real people could approve of. I'm not talking about the guys in the bunkers, i.e. I could offer my opinion if asked, but I'm not trying to do that.
  11. There used to be a blog by an East Indian fellow, I can't remember his last name, the first was Ravi. He was pretty knowledgeable and open to corrections. Anything like that now? I am not looking for a political blog. Something that objectively evaluates and comments on the situations in the world from a technological and realistic sense. Thanks
  12. The whole analysis treats tanks as infantry support. That's not what they do. It's about full mechanized warfare on large scales and, lately, NBC capacity too. Against fixed defensive infantry tanks have lots of problems. That's why part of the combat team is SPA and nastier things, which hopefully will never be used. No realistic situation for the USA will involve tanks operating under hostile air superiority. At worst if that happens, the attrition rate for aircraft will be higher than that of the tanks. They aren't that easy to find, and tanks can "go to ground" and hide in ways that aircraft can't. The whole error is in an original assumption that a tank is supposed to be a monster in a pitched battle. That's not what they are about. They are challenging to deal with in a pitched fight but that's not what they do. They mobilize firepower enormously along with the whole rest of their division as part of a team. As old as Guderian. Airpower has it's own sphere too which is getting bigger. But it needs to be considered with all the support it requires too. "Tanks" or "Fighter Bombers" or any weapon like that needs to be considered as part of the team. The team *is* the weapon. Not just one type of machine. imho. <3
  13. Would traditional MAD not work between North and South Korea? (And Japan) Read the two articles and listened to the radio program above, thanks.
  • Create New...