Derek 2.0

And more topical news: An indication that the USN and USMC are embracing new technology by going all in…….A new LHA, with a primarily F-35 and MV-22 air-wing……..I suppose NAVAIR hasn’t read the media reports that claim the F-35 doesn’t work….. Another interesting inclusion of new technology from the article: I would assume it will be a printer that can produce metal products..........Though not quite Star Trek replicators, cool none the less.

Yet based on your loadout link, 4000 lbs demolition bombs weren't used on cities, but 4000 lbs light cased blast bombs. Vaguely? It clearly states a difference between “blast” and “industrial demolition”, well illustrating the differing composition of each load, for each intended target type……Are you now saying the source you proved is incorrect? Certainly any flammable portions of the building can clearly burn down, but that is not the case with portions with differing materials like your fireplace or the concrete foundation……….as such your claim that Dresden burnt down is hyperbole

Indeed.........Meanwhile an extension of French policy left port yesterday….Southbound and down.

Were high capacity blast bombs used to target primarily reinforced concrete targets? Fabrication? The link you provided clearly defines the intended usage of each load out i.e. blast/incendiary, ASW, industrial demolition... You clearly stated Dresden burnt down........is that inclusive of concrete structures? Ahh but their opinions are not predicated on your scenario of the South Koreans going it alone….Clearly sans the United States, the ability to decisively counter attack North Korean artillery, be it through smart artillery munitions like Excalibur or smart bombs delivered from aircraft that would be able to effectively operate in contested airspace, would be severely curtailed. Of course, you prefer evolving yet undefined hyperbole..

Ahh no, Allied MC/GP bombs were 100 lbs, 250 lbs, 500lbs and 1000 lbs. Yet, the definition/composition from your prior linked loadout site differs.........You accuse me of cherry-picking? I know your arguments are "ever evolving"........ There were no concrete buildings or structures like bridges in Dresden? If there were, are you suggesting they also burnt down? Ahh so you've found two people that share your opinion.............odd that they both contend it possible with months of barrage (and assuming the North Koreans don't use nukes), but dismiss the threat because of US led counter attack.....with neither indicating that the South Koreans could fend off a North Korean attack on their own... None the less, the Americans are both moving and centralizing their forces (and their families) further South outside of their current bases in the Seoul region and of course outside the range of North Korean artillery.... Ahhh so your contention is not that the North Koreans can't "seriously threaten Seoul", but they can't turn Seoul into the likeness of the Moon.........gotcha Now for the sake of argument, I'll concede that absent the North's usage of nuclear weapons and despite the fears of both the South Koreans and United States, the North Koreans can't turn Seoul into the Moon, but only "seriously threaten" it..........on the one caveat that you can define what "seriously threaten" entails.

Because the Allies didn't drop massive demolition bombs on cities, with concrete targets like factories, rail yards, bridges being targeted with MC/GP bombs in the 100, 250, 500lbs etc range. So to clarify, you agree that concrete structures were targeted by the Allies with MC/GP bombs that shared a like composition as a HE artillery shell? If not, then we can continue with said "straw-man"..... It was your question on definitions, in which you tried to define a light cased, high capacity bomb as a demolition bomb, despite, per your load out link, such bombs were not used in the demolition of concrete targets.... Are you now suggesting the Allies were unable to destroy steel-bar concrete buildings during the war? Clearly if they were able to level a city like Dresden with a ~4000 ton mix of blast bombs, incendiaries and high explosives MC/GP bombs, the North Koreans that do have the ability to deliver ~4000 tons of explosives from tube and rocket artillery, combined with S/IRBMs, on Seoul, clearly have the ability to transform the likeness of Seoul into that of the Moon..........As expected/feared by the South Koreans and Americans, promised by the North Koreans and only contended by yourself........ I'm sorry, but your contention that the North Koreans are unable to seriously threaten Seoul with conventional weapons is wrong.......here is your chance to admit that you were wrong and allow the topic to continue.

I'm sure there was eventually blood, just not seen within the ~30 second video floating around on the internet.......Despite what is shown in movies and tv, there aren't great explosions of blood and guts........The slain officer was hit with a 7.62x39 full metal jacket round at very close range, and from the video, the ricocheting ball round can be seen hitting the pavement after going through the officer, which can be expected of FMJ rounds, unlike soft point hunting ammo or hollow points that will make a larger wound tract from such close range and in turn, more blood. The only restriction of blood, is to the brains of those wearing tin-foil hats.........

Proven wrong? How? That the site defines high capacity blast bombs as demolition bombs? In your link on RAF loadouts, did primary blast/fire and demolition loads differ in composition? Also, were said blast/fire loads typically used on missions when the primary target was made of reinforced concrete? I very clearly both explained the definitions and usage of such bombs, later confirmed by your RAF loadout link......You've yet to "rebuff" any of such points, on the inverse, you via said links clearly confirmed my points. Well done as I said!!! Winter of '72.....And not using high capacity blast bombs. Thermodynamics cool........since, in your view I'm inept, you should have no trouble explaining the transfer and dispersion (and dissipation) of the chemical energy found within a 4000 lbs blast bomb (like your cookie) versus a larger artillery shell......and in turn the end results on reinforced concrete that is common in a modern city like Seoul.... Thanks in advance.

Yes, but as evidence hasn't been made public, I'm of the assumption that in this case, there was more than a facebook post.......

But no to Canadians that threaten those within the Middle East?

Hamlet by Bill Shakespeare.........My interpretation of the cartoon, is that any gains brought to the Arab world through the Arab Spring, could be undone by attacks committed against a free press......my link to Shakespeare is both visual and drawing upon (pun intended) a self defeating action coming from the Arab world.

Do we jail people for uttering threats in Canada?

I would suspect the investigation of them indicated their desire to join "the bad guys"........and as said, if we knew their intentions and let them go to cause terror overseas, what does that say of us as a society?

There's letters seal'd, and my two schoolfellows Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd They bear the mandate, they must sweep my way And marshal me to knavery. Let it work; For 'tis the sport to have the engineer Hoist with his own Petard........... In other words, Arab media feel this attack was a tremendous own goal in the end?

Yet were latter confirmed by your own link.... Then why, per your loadout link, do demolition loadouts utilize different bombs and loadouts with the 4k cookie referred to as blast? Remember, these are your links. Red herring? I simply stated the uses of differing bombs.....then you ever so nicely provided a link of loadouts to confirm......was your provision of said link also a red herring? Do you deny the link, provided by you, that stated very clearly that the Americans started producing their own "cookie"? Likewise, do you deny that the Americans conducted similar firebombing raids as the British, throughout Europe and Japan, using both the B-24 and the B-29? What exactly are you claiming is fabricated? That's very simple........how many high capacity bombs are in the inventory of the United States (or any other NATO member) versus medium capacity/general purpose bombs? Conversely, what type of bomb (HC or MC/GP) has been used by US/NATO for the post-war demolition of a wide array of targets? Not a dodge at all......Its just that your Aristotelian approach to physics is quite funny.......A more astute example for you to have used would have been a balloon with 50 lbs of water in it, versus 50 lbs of golf balls...With that, to rhetorically answer your question, do modern militaries attach balloons or golf balls to paveway/JDAM kits?

Yes, I was being sarcastic with the comment on them getting their own.........I would assume, the tactical nukes would be moved to the United Kingdom, and the planned F-35A force..

From that website's list of bases, and from what I've heard, the website owner we be able to add: -Spangdahlem air base, with those units not being stood down, moved to Italy -USAG Schinnen in the Netherlands......from my understanding, the base is just administration and personal support.....IOW an HR office The munition maintenance groups at Volkel (the Netherlands), Buchel (Germany) and Kleine Brogel (Belgium).....as the website author suggests, why does the USAF need to keep and maintain tactical nukes for the Europeans? They can get their own nukes and of course the forces in the Azores........Not sure of the others, including the British bases though, but don't doubt there are more.... Makes sense to me

To get somewhat back on subject.........From the F-35 program office: Like I was saying.......... And somewhat related to the derailment on the US divesting itself of overseas basing: Makes sense and is a nod to the continuing of US NATO commitments.......inversely: From my understanding, the closures will include the Azores and several smaller garrisons/training areas/POMCUS sites in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium......an indication that US lawmakers (rightfully so in my opinion) will close (small) bases in nations that have cut their own defense budgets within the last decade+, and keep open US bases in lieu of subsidizing European defense.....

You mean like I said already? Is this not your post? ------- No data? You provided a link, several posts down, confirming my post........first you retorted by calling it "gobbledygook" and "technical blabber" , then your following post, provide a link confirming said "gobbledygook"........Like I said before, thanks for trying to teach me what I already know.....Well down!!! Crush my argument? It confirms it!!! As a B-24, unlike a Lancaster, could carry two 4000 Lbs bombs, then a B-29 would carry four 4000 lbs bombs (in addition to incendiary bombs). Ahh....no.....I never suggested such thing......But I will say this, how did the British continue a similar rate of bombs dropped in 1943 and 1944, as they did in 1945? Odd that....... Yet per your loadout link, high capacity bombs were not apart of the demolition loadout, intended to bomb concrete targets........and you use a post-war definition of large American bombs, used in the demolition of minefields, forests etc via their blast effect......you now, like described in your previous loadout link as blast/fire loads........ You sure showed me!!!! I have to ask, do you actually read the links you post? Clearly neither.......have you had 50 lbs of rock(s) dropped on your head?

Different context and partial quotes.........getting desperate now? Revert back to your link and look no further than the differing loadouts between your blast/incendiary mission on cities and industrial demolition of concrete targets.... The most common load out......equating to 15% of what Bomber Command dropped........It's not my fault your actual comments contradict..... In my previous post, I pointed out from your own linked source, how you were wrong....... It's from your own link!!!! Where in your link, the link you provided, does it state the totals only included RAF figures? It does though, clearly state the Americans started production of 4000 lbs HC capacity bombs.......Of which, the Americans used to great effect fire bombing Japanese cities........ And I never stated the allies didn't drop 4000 lbs bombs, but 4000+ lbs demolition bombs, on soft targets.......as I clearly stated several posts ago, such bombs were dropped on concrete targets....... ........but a 4000 pound rock and 4000 pounds of smaller rocks both displace an equal amount of water.......or so says some guy named Archimedes Go reread my post.........North Korea and Iran. There will be no US invasion by sea, if the Americans are also fighting Iran.

Neat page, but it doesn't support your claim the RAF dropped over 90k, 4000lb high capacity bombs on Germany...... Now you're saying the most "USUAL" loadout, only represents ~15% of what Bomber Command dropped? Both unusual and contradictory....... What your claim amounts to is if I said that Bomber Command dropped over a zillion "Tall Boys", then linked to the above page to indicate that the Lancaster can in fact carry "Tall Boys"..... A blog, with a neat wiki follow-up..... But from viewing your source, and then following said link to the UK national archives to verify, there is this: Which would correlate with the bloggers annual usage chart uptick through 1943-1945......As I said, you misunderstood your own sources........ Physics indeed! A 4000 lbs rock makes a bigger splash the 4000 lbs of smaller rocks........Well if that's the case, 4000 tons of artillery dropped on Seoul would have no effect!!! Sure, but as I said, the South Koreans are not as capable without the Americans.......... Without a doubt... If the Americans left, the South Koreans would have no choice but to increase their defense spending, and as you suggested, develop their own nuclear arsenal.....the same could be said of the Japanese......but that was not what you stated, that the South Koreans could defeat the North Koreans on their own.

You owe me a new keyboard.......

More so the Lower Mainland/Greater Vancouver, which doesn't so much have marked areas to vacate to, but areas considered disaster response routes, in which the populace is expected to steer clear of........... In BC the initial response to an Earthquake/Tsunami is the purview of the Provincial Government, but with individual communities responsible for implementing their own response plans.......as such, its best for the individuals/families of BC to ensure they can take care of themselves for several weeks, if not months.

In the event of a large enough earthquake to create a large Tsunami to put the coastal regions in danger, the Parliament buildings, the Empress and most of the downtown core (built pre 1980s) won't be the safest buildings to be in........head to Mount Tolmie.

Perhaps you best recheck your sources and grade school math.......90k x 4000 lbs HC bombs would equate to one 60+ Lancaster raid dropping 4000 lbs bombs, every single day, from mid 1941-to the end of the war.....or one 1000 Lancaster raid, every ~16 days, dropping 4000 lbs bombs from mid 1941 to the end of the war...........Where did Bomber Command ever find the time to drop any other type of bomb????? Perspective please...........Your 90k source is either being misread by yourself or includes HC bombs, ranging from 100lbs and up (250lb and 500lb bombs being dropped mostly with incendiaries) Care to share your source? Because 4000 tons of bombs dropped over a target measured in square miles is more "intense" then 4000 tons of artillery dropped over the same area..... The example was of UN forces being halted and turned back by North Korean/Chinese conscripts armed with then decades old bolt action rifles.........None the less, the Soviets were poorly equipped conscripts, poorly led, yet halted the then modern and combat experienced Heer.........The South Koreans today are no comparison to the German army then...... Sure, but then the Soviets won and the South Koreans are not the then modern and experienced German army....... The North Koreans have mines strewn from coast to coast (likewise the South).......hard to bypass, and I suppose South Korean sappers could clear paths through minefields, well under fire from North Korean artillery, creating choke points for the South, in which the North knows where to concentrate their own forces.......kinda the reason behind landmines........as to Amphibs, the USMC has the ability to both land and support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade on opposed shore........South Koreans.....not so much. I see, so in this scenario now, the South Koreans have added another field army and air force (to say nothing of an additional Marine Div, CSG and fighter wing) to their military.........is this before or after they added their own nuclear arsenal?