Moonbox

What are you? 9 years old? How many times can you repeat the same dumb argument? A 4000-lb light-cased bomb is a demolition bomb. You've been given a clear proof/definition of that from a website you frequently quote yourself! You can look it up anywhere else if you like and you'll get a similar result. No, I'm saying the conclusion you've drawn from it is absurd. Not only does the website provide no definitions/explanations of terminology, as you're pretending it does, your argument also hinges on brainless reasoning. The fact that MC/GP bombs were preferred for industrial demolition does not, in any way, magically mean that the Cookie wasn't a demolition bomb as you're trying to claim. It just means that smaller, harder-cased bombs were better at demolishing certain targets! Keep flailing Derek! What else do you have? So you're saying that a log cabin with a stone chimney can't burn down then. Got it. I keep forgetting we're dealing with Derek-logic here.

Very nicely put. I couldn't have put it much better myself.

You've already asked this question and had it answered numerous times. It's also a clear red herring, an attempt to hide from: To summarize your clownish reasoning, you claimed the allies didn't drop massive 4000 lb demolition bombs on soft targets like cities. Upon being shown that they did exactly that, your refutation is to deny that they weren't used on hardened targets. Talk about mental gymnastics! LOL! It vaguely defines the intended usage of different load outs. It doesn't define the terminology. There's a big difference, but it's amusing you don't understand that. More argument-by-question, and a stupid question at that. Let me reply with a similarly stupid question: Can a log cabin burn down, even if it has a stone fireplace/chimney?

They need Ontario and some parts of the GTA. We saw in 2011 that the CPC doesn't need Toronto proper, just like it didn't need Montreal or Vancouver.

Nicely stated.

More irrelevant natter, with the existence of smaller MC/GP bombs in no way precluding the heavy usage of 4000-lb high capacity bombs. That link doesn't provide any definitions, so we can add fabrication to the list along with your cherry picking. Where did I say anything like that? You really need to expand your debating repertoire, because argument-by-question is not nearly as effective as you think it is, especially when the questions are doltish. Two people who know quite a bit more than you and whose analysis you curiously chose not to question! As for the US-led counter-attack, that's the reality of the situation. The US is there and is clearly capable of quickly ending the greatly exaggerated threat! which was never the original argument, but rather an exhausting segway. or that it can flatten/destroy/erase/eradicate/engulf-in-a-sea-of-flames or any other similar North Korean hyperbole, short of a nuclear attack.

but they did, in their tens of thousands! They were used for wide-area demolition of soft targets. Also, we've already proven a high-capacity bomb is a demolition bomb: A light-case bomb, also known as a demolition bomb, is a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/demolition-bomb.htm . We don't really need any more indication of how ridiculous you or your position are. Having been given the definition specifically showing how full of BS you are (from a website you frequently yourself!), you lamely poo-pooed it. I guess it's only a good source if it supports your position, right? That's Derek logic, to be sure! because Dresden was made of wood and burned down... ...except they don't, and any knowledge of previous artillery sieges should show you that. If the Red Army couldn't destroy Berlin with 20-40,000 pieces of artillery firing point-blank into the city for three weeks straight, how is it that you suppose North Korea can destroy Seoul (itself a MUCH larger and sturdier city) from 35 miles away with only a small fraction of the firepower? ...and I'm not the only person contending the claim: http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/mind-the-gap-between-rhetoric-and-reality/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/north-korea-and-flattening-seoul Another Derek-Special - the Straw-Man! I never said anywhere that the North Koreans can't seriously threaten Seoul. I take issue with your childish, exaggerated hyperbole (see bolded above)!

The newspaper chooses which opinions to publish, and on that note the Star is doubly irresponsible. First, it's blatantly biased in the selection of which opinion pieces to publish and second, those that it does publish are entirely unprofessional, often being little more than frothing, hyperbole-filled rants. This of course, is all combined with the heavy editorial slant of all of its non-opinion pieces, giving us a newspaper that's barely more credible than Fox News.

It's still extremely right-of-centre. I'm not sure how you could deny that with a straight face. it's not as rabid as it used to be, and doesn't come anywhere near the raving bias of the Star, but it's far from a newspaper of record.

Because all of the above has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the point of contention, which is your claim that: Why the hell would you natter on about different load-outs for hard/reinforced concrete targets when it's the above (categorically false) claim that I've repeatedly and specifically asked you to address!?!? Your dogged attempts at misdirection are so wretched and pathetic I'm starting to feel sorry for you... I don't need to rebuff any of them. I never denied the RAF had different loadouts for different missions! You're asking me to support a position I never took (see above)!!! That's the definition of a straw-man which, combined with your incessant red-herrings, tell us all we need to know about your "reasoning skills!" and the fact that it's been over 32 years since the last area-bombing campaign, and that the USAF has specifically avoided any such campaign since, answers your question. and here we finally get back to the original point - the one where you ineptly compared what North Korea could do to Seoul with what the RAF did to Dresden. Dresden was built of timber and brick - a perfect target for a combination of large blast bombs and incendiaries that flattened or tore flimsy buildings apart and threw incendiaries all over/in/around them. Dresden burned down in a fire that got so hot it created its own wind system. Seoul, as you aptly described, is a an enormous modern city build largely of concrete, so even if North Korea could deliver an attack like the RAF's (which they can't), it wouldn't be as effective anyways!

The idea is that the opinion column should provide a balanced, or at least rational array of opinions, rather than consistent, frothing bias. You have to admit, however, that its viewpoints are predominantly right-of-centre. They do, however, regularly cut up Harper, which by itself places itself quite a bit closer towards "balanced" journalism than the Star.

I'm not sure why you think that's a positive point of distinction. If I had the choice between reading newspapers that were 100% or 90% shamelessly biased, I'd chose the 90% option. At least that newspaper presents some measure of counter-point and raises the possibility of alternative thinking/opinions. Other than Layton in 2011 and Broadbent (for a whopping total of 2 instances), the Star's federal endorsements have been invariably Liberal, Liberal, Liberal going back over 40 years.

Who cares!? Your oft-linked globalsecurity.org gives the definition of a 'demolition bomb' as "one designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily." All you're doing is trying to muddy up the debate with evasive semantics because you've already been proven wrong and you're too internet-proud to admit it! Yes, red herring! I never denied the uses of different bombs, but you DID deny the use of the 4000 lb bomb on German cities. Since we've been shown that they were used in their thousands for exactly that purpose, you now have a hole dig yourself out of. Any normal person, having had that denial firmly rebuffed like you have, would have admitted they were wrong and moved on. Your persistence in supporting such a demonstrably ignorant/boneheaded claim with so many transparent misdirections and evasions, is pathetic. How about I take a page from the book of Derek and answer your question with a question!? When was the last time the US indiscriminately carpet-bombed a city??? Except your astute example is about as incompetent and nonsensical as possible - more inept misdirection and evasion avoiding the essential concept: the comparative effects of focused vs dispersed energy.

That was two paragraphs of pointless technical natter, a failed attempt to deflect from your revealed ignorance. I said: to which you directly responded: Which is funny because we KNOW that they did EXACTLY that. The 4000 lb Cookie is a huge demolition bomb and it was dropped on German cities frequently! All of your dissimulating beyond was neither here nor there, since none of it addressed your above gaffe. The additional smoke-and-mirrors you attempted regarding reinforced concrete targets was useless, since I never brought them up nor did I at any point deny that other loadouts/munitions were used. That's right, you provided no data at all. Your gobbledygook was just another red herring, with me at no point making any claim towards the efficacy of HC+Incendiary bombs against reinforced concrete! Except it doesn't, at all, in any way whatsoever confirm anything you're putting forth. Your conclusion, as I mentioned, is 100% conjecture, a wishful fabrication with no actual data supporting it. Who cares? I never said they were! Nice red-herring! As for post-war definitions, show us anywhere (if you can) that indicates how these specific ones would differ, otherwise we can safely conclude this is more of your oblique mewling. Another dodge! That's fine, I'll tell you. The bigger rock smashes your skull in and most likely kills you. The smaller rocks, although unpleasant and potentially injuring, bounce and deflect off!

Reverting back to my own link, as you say, we can see that the Avro's most common loadout was one 4000 lb mixed with 8000+ lbs of small 4-30 lb incendiary bombs - bombs that are only useful against soft targets like cities and which by itself proves how full of crap you are! But it is your fault that you struggle with the meaning of everyday English words and can't seem keep track of your own incoherent rambling. First, you suggested that if the RAF dropped 90,000 4000 lb bombs on Germany, they wouldn't have had the capacity to much drop much else. This turned out to be a brutal miscalculation on your part, since that have only amounted to 15% of the total that they dropped! Having been embarrassed on that note, now you're incompetently attempting to argue the semantics of words you obviously don't even understand. Synonyms for the words usual/common are: Widespread, occurring frequently, prevalent. None of the above conflicts whatsoever. I did not say anywhere that the 4000-lb bomb made up the majority of the overall RAF tonnage dropped, or anything even resembling that!!! No, you attempted a REALLY flimsy conjecture that isn't supported by any data. My link shows a little trivia bit that explains the Americans were impressed by the 4000 lb bomb and developed their own. It doesn't say anything else to support your conjectures. Simple knowledge of the actual bombing campaigns would also crush your argument, since large-scale strategic bombing against Japan didn't start until mid-1944 and over 30,000 of these bombs had already been dropped by then!! Knowing that, your vapid point suggests that the British stopped dropping Cookie/Blockbusters after 1943, that none of the 1944 figures are pre-June (when the large-scale Japanese strategic bombing campaign began) and that British National Archive numbers from 1944-1945 are purely for American statistics for area bombing against the Japanese! Holy mental gymnastics! Yes, but the Cookie/Blockbuster WAS a demolition bomb and it WAS dropped in large numbers on soft targets like cities! http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/demolition-bomb.htm : a type of general-purpose bomb having a thin, light metal casing and designed to accomplish damage by blast primarily. In some of the very large light-case bombs, the detonating charge accounts for 75 percent of the bomb's weight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockbuster_bomb : A blockbuster bomb or cookie was any of several of the largest conventional bombs used in World War II by the Royal Air Force (RAF)...These bombs had especially thin casings that allowed them to contain approximately three-quarters of their weight in explosive, with a 4,000 pound bomb containing over 3,000 pounds (1,400 kg) of Amatol. Just give up already! Don't embarrass yourself any further... Let's put it in a perspective even you can understand. If you had a choice, would you prefer having a single 50-lb rock dropped square on your head from 10 feet, or 50 1-lb rocks emptied out of a bucket over top of you? (this should be good!)

The referendum that failed miserably, right?

but it does clearly smash your earlier claim that: since virtually any research on the Lancaster shows they frequently/commonly/usually did exactly that. I'm saying the most common load out included a 4000 lb bomb, along with another ~10,000 lbs worth of other bombs, presenting zero contradictions. You're REALLY digging yourself a hole here now. This is really funny! Your logic continues to flounder with a flimsy and failed analogy. I can quickly refute your claim of a zillion Tall Boys with a 30 second google search, confirming less than a thousand were ever built. You, on the other hand, can't provide anything, nor have you even tried, regarding the 4000 lb cookie bomb. No, this is just you flailing around and BS'ing to massage your hurt ego. The reason for the uptick is because British bombing became far less restrictive after 1943, with the major raids on Hamburg, Dresden etc happening only after 1943. You can whine petulantly all you want about sources, but you've provided nothing on the matter to prove otherwise, nor can you. I'm not about to request materials from the British National Archives just so that you can't quibble about whether American figures are included in RAF statistics. That would only make me 100% certain you're full of crap, rather than 95%. You denied 4000 lb bombs were even dropped on soft targets, and it's been clearly demonstrated that they did - in their tens of thousands. You're just too internet-proud to admit you were wrong, and that's hilarious. Very good Derek, except 4000 lbs of smaller rocks make 4000 (smaller) splashes, and they all happen at different times and in different places! Congratulations. You learned something that most 10 year-olds know. Nice red herring! Nobody said that. But once again, you're demonstrating your inability to keep track of the original argument. You get so caught up in your own tangents and semantics that you forgot what the argument started off as - whether or not American military spending is excessive. You provided North Korea as an example of an enemy the Americans would struggle to sustain a war against, yet they they don't appear to be able to do much against US ally South Korea aside from terrorize Seoul and threaten NCB attack. Since the North would obviously struggle against the South by itself, with the vast majority of its antiquated army required for holding down the DMZ, how is it that they ALSO manage to fight off a US invasion by sea, much less sustain this conflict when they can't keep their lights on or feed their people? Please, explain.

Ask the RAF. They dropped over two billion pounds worth of bombs on Germany, with the Lancaster accounting for ~2/3 of that and with its most common bomb load including a 4000 lb bomb (the RAF code word for the loadout being "USUAL"). Are you still ACTUALLY insisting the RAF didn't drop these things on German cities en masse? Talk about entrenching yourself in a losing argument! http://www.lancaster-archive.com/lanc_bomb_loads.htm (for bomb loadouts) Yes! Very good Derek! Perspective! 90,000 x 4000 = 360,000,000 pounds, or around 15% of what the RAF dropped on Germany! Sure! http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:4000lb-high-capacity-bomb&catid=43:bombs&Itemid=60 for specific numbers of 4000 lb "Cookies" dropped http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster for more bomb load-out trivia as well as specific mention of the 608,000 long tons the Lancaster alone dropped - numbers you can confirm numerous other places like http://www.aviation-history.com/avro/683.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II - just to give you PERSPECTIVE on how much bombing was done, with the RAF alone dropping 960,000 long tons of bombs on Germany for a pound total of ~2.2 BILLION. No. My god man. It's because a 4000 lb bomb has far greater destructive force than the equivalent weight in smaller artillery hits, with a far more powerful blast wave which surrounding structures are less capable of absorbing and the atmosphere less capable of dissipating. It's basic physics Derek, and if you're curious then compare the effects of lobbing a big rock to lobbing a handful of pebbles weighing the same into a pond. Compare the splash and the ripples, and you'll be sufficiently educated. I misinterpreted your reference, sorry. Either way, the Soviets were not poorly equipped, but let's leave it at that. I doubt either of us want to derail our derailment further. No, but they're still a heck of a lot more capable than the North Koreans, and we all know that simple numbers aren't an accurate measure of a country's military strength. Granted, but this assumes a lot of things that the South would presumably be trying to prevent. The North Korean reaction would face all sorts of problems of their own, including counter-battery fire, interdiction of their troop movements, logistical bombing etc...It also assumes the South isn't willing to accept heavy casualties, which I'm not sure either of us know much about. Are you saying they couldn't/wouldn't, if they knew the Americans were leaving? Since we're dealing in hypotheticals, can you come up with a scenario where the Americans simply vanished and a war between the two started immediately after, with no time for the South Koreans to plan, adjust or increase its individual capabilities?

Nope, you're just trying to save face with a bunch squirming and long-winded gobbledygook after very clearly denying that the Allies were dropping massive 4000 bombs on German cities. They dropped over 90,000 of the 4000 lb bombs alone, not to mention all of the other 2000 -> 12,000 lb bombs they dropped. The 2 paragraphs that followed your above quote were little more than useless technical blabber, using lots of words but saying very little. Typical! which can't match an large-scale aerial bombardment in terms of blast sizes or intensity. Ooops! That's pretty damn weak Derek, even for you, displaying a poor understanding of the Eastern Front in WW2 and an even poorer ability to draw reasonable comparisons. The Soviets were not poorly equipped at all (just poorly trained and led), holding material, technical and numerical advantages against the Germans at virtually every point in the war. Despite this, the Germans still managed to penetrate ~1300km into Soviet territory, which in a Korean scenario would bring the South Koreans to Beijing, nearly 7 times the distance from Seoul to Pyonyang. You mean the larger, better equipped and better supplied Soviet forces? Ask the ~11 million members of the Red Army that died. Mines can't shoot from several kilometers away, which is how far North Korean tanks would have to be behind the mines to stay safe! Either way, the DMZ isn't impenetrable. Bunkers and minefields can be bypassed and/or cleared, and South Korea has growing amphibious capabilities. No, they'd put their own forces there instead, and as previously discussed Seoul as a parking lot is a ridiculous exaggeration. Very good!

except that's 100% not true, clearly demonstrating how little you actually know about the stuff you're pretending to. The 4000 lb Cookie/Blockbuster bomb was a standard part of the Lancaster payload, being mixed with either a load of incendiaries or ~20 500 lb bombs. The British dropped over 90,000 of them on German cities, and they fitted them on Wellingtons, Lancasters and even Mosquitos! For someone who's brought up the Dresden bombings in numerous recent threads, it's pretty damn funny that you appear to know nothing about them! Sure it did. The explosions were significantly bigger and they happened all at once in a designed area. The bombers flew in huge, tight formations, and they usually dropped their bombs in unison, quickly and progressively saturating an area with explosives and/or incendiaries. That's why it's called carpet bombing, and the firestorms that obliterated huge sections of Dresden/Hamburg etc were only possible because of these tactics and munitions. Except the North Korean army isn't a superior force at all. It's just larger, and you know of enough examples of larger, poorly equipped/organized armies being picked apart by better equipped/organized ones to understand that. From your own Global Security link, North Korea has no real way of handling South Korea's armor, so the South rules the open ground and the North has to hope it can sufficiently defend a 250km line. As far as mobile warfare theory goes, the strategy would obviously be for South Korea to concentrate on one section of that line with artillery and air attacks while an armored spearhead punches through. The Germans had a few buzz-words for that, and armchair generals everywhere know them. My criticism wasn't directed at the website (which I read frequently), it was of how poorly-chosen it was and how it gave every indication we needed of how incapable the North's equipment would be. They're digging in like rats behind defensive positions for a reason. and they would with ease. A spotted North Korean tank would be a dead North Korean tank, while a spotted South Korean tank would be something the North would run from. The MLRS (an estimated few hundred of them) are being accounted for. Even counting them, the South Koreans outnumber the North in long-range artillery beyond the 30km range envelope. If, as you say, the North wanted to flatten Seoul, their largest guns would need to be in range of South Korea's largest, while the remaining North Korean guns would still be out of range (look them up). North Korea can't flatten Seoul and engage in a +30km artillery duel at the same time. They don't have the numbers for it. They can either choose to focus on terrorizing Seoul and have their ~700 long range guns fired upon by over 1300 counter-artillery, or they can sit pretty and wait. Because American involvement, with their obviously superior capabilities, would ensure a much quicker resolution with much smaller loss of South Korean life, especially when the North's only real play is to terrorize Seoul or threaten NCB attack.

You're obviously dodging my bringing up the importance of the size of munitions and concentration of bombardment. There's a reason that Lancasters and B-17's were dropping 500-4000 lb bombs instead of 80 lb ones. Pound for pound, bigger bombs do far more damage, and that's magnified when they're dropped in higher concentrations over shorter periods of time. That's why the bombing in Dresden was so much more deadly, with the allies doing in a couple days what took the Germans months to accomplish during the Blitz, and with only a fraction of the overall tonnage in explosives. Like I said already, it's painfully obvious you don't know as much as you think you do. Sure, and how many times in modern history have static defenses held up? Also, from your goofy link: Anti-tank guns are of little value against the K-1 and M-60s of south Korea's military. North Korea's only realistic chance to take out modern armor is with the use of anti-tank missiles, mines, or close infantry assault. Wait, what? North Korea's armor and air force isn't even 1970's era. The majority of it is 1950's and 1960's garbage, with the remainder being updated versions of the same garbage. We've already seen how legacy Soviet armor designs fair against the likes of the Abrams/K1. Mig-21's similarly struggle against F-15's. As for artillery and counter artillery, the only artillery capable of dueling with South Korea's K55's or newer K9's are also the only guns capable of hitting Seoul, so North Korea faces either heavy attrition focusing on Seoul, or a losing battle with 2:1 odds against South Korea's larger and better supported long range forces.

They can, and the only reason they don't have a nuclear arsenal is because the Americans actively persuade them not to. My god, maybe it's just that you don't actually have any clue what western intelligence knows. As for how many pieces can hit Seoul, it's generally estimated at less than a thousand, with the doctrine being that around 25% of them are held in reserve. These guns would be spread across the DMZ line, many of them out of range of Seoul, although greater concentrations likely in range. In terms of dud rates, the Yeongpyong Do island shelling incident saw only ~75/100 actually explode...a testament to North Korean expertise. You brought up the Allied bombing campaigns as valid comparisons. They weren't, since carpet bombing yields entirely different results, but whatever you say! That's not how it works Derek, and any respectable armchair general with half a clue would know better. Larger and more concentrated ordinance magnifies the effect. Firing fifty 80 lb shells over an hour or two does not produce the same effect as a single 4000 lb high-capacity bomb. Look up why Hamburg and Dresden burned down, maybe a few quotes from Arthur Harris (heard of him?), and you'll start to understand. Right now, it's painfully obvious you don't. because it assumes that they have a near-endless supply of ammunition, that their air defense is impenetrable, that their thin-skinned supply convoys wouldn't be mangled, that their already-terrible logistic capacity wouldn't be targeted (roads, bridges, depots etc), that their artillery is immune to counter-fire and that the DMZ would be impenetrable along its entire length despite the North Koreans focusing their artillery on attacking civilian targets instead of military ones. All of this needs to be assumed when we know Pyonyang has trouble even feeding its people and keeping the lights on. Unprepared!? What? They've had 50 years to prepare, and they're much better equipped, trained and technically capable. They'd also have FAR better aerial and satellite recon, better counter-battery radar and despite your claims their artillery is not immune to counter-attack. Their hardened artillery defenses are far from invulnerable, which is why a large portion of their long-range artillery is mobile, most of it being this technical marvel:

This thread has been going on for years, with the Super Hornet comparison being debated at length and discounted by a large number of people there. Yes, it's a good plane, but there's a reason it's not gaining widespread adoption and most of that has to do with timing and competition. It was a stop-gap for the US military and isn't enough of an upgrade from existing 4th-gen fighters for most countries to be interested.

Oh they know. They just also know that most of their 'bosses' are too uninterested and/or ignorant to have that discussion, let alone a reasonable one.

Hey, you're the one who started whining about armchair general and make-believe defense expert comments! I'm suggesting that it wouldn't take them long to build one. The point is neither here nor there, however, since the only reason they don't have one is because of American pressure and assurances that South Korea falls under the umbrella of American deterrence. It IS bluster, with the number of North Korean batteries actually capable of hitting Seoul nowhere near the oft-quoted 13,000 figure and with the damage and death-toll massively exaggerated. Not only is there room for about 20,000,000 people in underground shelters, but up to 1/4 of North Korean shells turn out to be duds. Yes, there would be significant damage. Yes, thousands would die, but the catastrophic flattening is wildly ignorant hyperbole and misinformation. No, you're just pretending to have a clue and pretending to be an expert. First, North Korea isn't capable of carpet bombing Seoul. Second, large-scale strategic bombing is far more destructive than sustained artillery, so your point is doubly obtuse. Leningrad was besieged and bombarded for almost three years, with the Germans firing point-blank into the city throughout. It wasn't flattened and it didn't fall, and the vast, overwhelming majority of casualties were due to starvation and deprivation. You understand that firing from 35-miles away means a lot of shells land in parks, streets, on top of each other, on rubble, in rivers etc? You understand that Seoul is a 605 square kilometer area that would require a volume of sustained bombardment that due to practical, logistical and retaliatory measures, North Korea simply isn't capable of maintaining? More armchair-general bluster, from a guy who makes it painfully obvious he hasn't done the math himself.