U.S. flies B-52s over South Korea

[asteroidrules]

[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;39969527]Is it wise to provoke them

poke the koreans poke the koreans [B]OH MY GOD THEY'RE COMING[/B][/QUOTE]

I can't say I see what's wrong with it, North Korea seems to love poking at the US and SK, what's wrong with reminding them just what exactly they're poking? Besides, North Korea would take an American sneezing in their direction as a provocation.

[Catastrio]

[QUOTE=IPK;39971583]Soviet era is ~1920-1990,so it's far-fetched when you say "soviet era"

B-52 is probably from that era as well

People glorify American military too much[/QUOTE]

I think what people mean by that question isn't so much whether or not it originated in that era, but whether or not it's still in that condition. Even if a plane was made in the 90s, America would sooner upgrade it and try to keep it going before they retired it.

A lot of people don't understand that old doesn't mean bad either. Sure we have jets now that are miles ahead of some of what NK has but that doesn't mean it's useless.

[Mr. Someguy]

[QUOTE=IPK;39971583]Soviet era is ~1920-1990,so it's far-fetched when you say "soviet era"

B-52 is probably from that era as well

People glorify American military too much[/QUOTE]

Generally when people say "Soviet Era", they're thinking 1950 - 1980. They also think unmodernised. A lot of our equipment is "Soviet era", but it's also modernised. Hell the AH-1 Cobra was our first widely used attack helicopter, and a modernised version called the AH-1Z Viper is still used by the USMC.

If it's a good and reliable design, when it was first created doesn't matter so much. What matters is how modern the technology it's build from is. In North Korea's case, most of it is 60's and 70's tech, while ours is decades ahead.

[Insistent]

snip

[JennyC6]

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39970059]To put this dakka into perspective, let's compare the B-52's payload to a B-29;

The B-29 Superfortress was [I]the[/I] bomber of World War 2 in terms of raw destructive potential, being able to carry as many as 5,000 lbs of explosives conventionally with an upward ceiling of 20,000 pounds (this would require extensive modification of the plane, including a trade-off on fuel and removing all guns on the plane.)

How does the B-52 compare?

The most a B-52H has ever truly carried into a combat situation is 42,000 lbs during Operation ARC LIGHT, but the maximum projected weapons payload is 70,000 lbs.[/QUOTE]

And to think the B-29 has done more damage despite being so less capable. I suppose that's a good thing, though, a single B-52 could wipe out entire countries if every warhead on board is nuclear and the country is small enough.

[Canuhearme?]

[QUOTE=TestECull;39972982]And to think the B-29 has done more damage despite being so less capable. [B]I suppose that's a good thing, though, a single B-52 could wipe out entire countries if every warhead on board is nuclear and the country is small enough.[/B][/QUOTE]

Considering a single B-52 is theoretically capable of holding as many as eight nuclear bombs and/or 32 nuclear missiles (a total of 40 nuclear weapons at any given time,) that's pretty much what it was designed to do.

That being said, the most nuclear weapons that were actually carried by a B-52 at any given time during the Cold War was four nuclear missiles, and that was during Operation Chrome Dome.

[skzerk]

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39973222]Considering a single B-52 is theoretically capable of holding as many as eight nuclear bombs and/or 32 nuclear missiles (a total of 40 nuclear weapons at any given time,) that's pretty much what it was designed to do.

That being said, the most nuclear weapons that were actually carried by a B-52 at any given time during the Cold War was four nuclear missiles, and that was during [B]Operation Chrome Dome.[/B][/QUOTE]
Had to check and see if that was actually a thing

[Oper8or]

[QUOTE=IPK;39971583]Soviet era is ~1920-1990,so it's far-fetched when you say "soviet era"

B-52 is probably from that era as well

[b]People glorify American military too much[/b][/QUOTE]

knock knock...

[thumb]http://imageshack.us/a/img4/7218/usnavybitch.jpg[/thumb]

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Sharp;39974689]knock knock...

[thumb]http://imageshack.us/a/img4/7218/usnavybitch.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE]

Fuck.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/lrGz2V4.jpg[/img]

He's coming for us now.

[Zillamaster55]

You don't really get to appreciate how stylish Un is in that jacket.

What is it with dictators and being snazzily dressed?

[abcpea2]

[QUOTE=Hardpoint Nomad;39970046]Doesn't NK have an Air Force of soviet era jets?[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/DPRK_MiG-29.jpg[/IMG]

[ijyt]

[QUOTE=OvB;39969896]Nuclear missile/cruise missile revolver.

Have a video from some British presenter:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbVifNXs5YQ[/media][/QUOTE]

What's the real irony? [i]What's the real irony?[/i]

[yellowoboe]

[QUOTE=Woovie;39969781][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/EWlVXs3.png[/IMG]

Prepare your anus NK.

(rehosted at imgur)[/QUOTE]
Almost thought those were tanks at first, then thought how cool it would be to attach tanks to plane wings.

[laserguided]

[QUOTE=yellowoboe;39975128]Almost thought those were tanks at first, then thought how cool it would be to attach tanks to plane wings.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://ravenrepublic.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/flying_tank.jpg[/IMG]

[Solo Wing]

[QUOTE=Careld;39969941]Is that bomb load they have everytime or speshul tiem bomb load?[/QUOTE]If I remember my time in AFJROTC, the B-52 is capable of really all kinds of payloads, usually carrying alot of whatever its carrying regardless, which is why its my favorite bomber other than maybe the B-2 spirit, but the B-52 is awesome nonetheless.

I mean, it has the nickname Stratofortress for god's sake. How is that not cool?

[Gaboer]

I thought its nickname was "BUFF"

[ScoutKing]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39974783]Fuck.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/lrGz2V4.jpg[/img]

He's coming for us now.[/QUOTE]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/6AqkiDi.jpg[/img]

They're adorable.

[Miya]

[URL]http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2013/03/20/0200000000AEN20130320000300315.HTML[/URL]

[QUOTE]SEOUL, March 20 (Yonhap) -- North Korea warned Wednesday that it will take a military action should the United States deploy B-52 strategic bombers again on the peninsula.

"We are keeping close tabs on the activity of the B-52 strategic bomber," a spokesperson for the North's foreign ministry said, according to its official news agency KCNA.[/QUOTE]

"cum on m8 fly dat plaen 'gain u cunt ill beat u up"

-north korea

[S31-Syntax]

A friend called me into the other room to show me this article on another site. When he was reading it, he made sure to emphasize "nuclear capable" as it was written in the article.

"the US was flying [I]nuclear capable[/I] B52s over south korea!"

I looked at him funny and said "But... they're almost [I]all[/I] capable of carrying nuclear payloads, thats what it was designed for. its a strategic bomber."

He was kinda miffed I wasn't as stunned as he was at the article.

[Provost]

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;39977944]A friend called me into the other room to show me this article on another site. When he was reading it, he made sure to emphasize "nuclear capable" as it was written in the article.

"the US was flying [I]nuclear capable[/I] B52s over south korea!"

I looked at him funny and said "But... they're almost [I]all[/I] capable of carrying nuclear payloads, thats what it was designed for. its a strategic bomber."

He was kinda miffed I wasn't as stunned as he was at the article.[/QUOTE]

Tell him that this isn't the '40s anymore. Nuclear deterrence is SOP.

[.𓃉𓁿𓂎𓁿𓃉.]

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;39977963]Tell him that this isn't the '40s anymore. Nuclear deterrence is SOP.[/QUOTE]

even I am nuclear capable and normally equipped. can't tell you how many muggings i have defused by flashing my pocket-nuke

[Provost]

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;39977980]even I am nuclear capable and normally equipped. can't tell you how many muggings i have defused by flashing my [b]pocket-nuke[/b][/QUOTE]

Is that what they're calling it now?

[abcpea2]

[QUOTE]"We are keeping close tabs on the activity of the B-52 strategic bomber,"[/QUOTE]

by this they mean they watch the news

[lolwutdude]

/r/murica is teh best

[img]http://i.imgur.com/3IDO9o4.jpg[/img]

[Big D Duchovny]

[QUOTE=Woovie;39971155]Let alone 1500 healthy enough citizens to fly said planes.[/QUOTE]

Or 1500 healthy planes to fly healthy citizens.

But really, only like 50% of their aircraft are estimated to be in working condition, and their main fighter jet was made in 1955. They have maybe ~180 aircraft from after 1970, and even then I doubt that most of them are in working condition. Then there's the question of fuel and training - these pilots probably get like no training at all in the expensive aircraft, and not very much in the MiG-15s anyhow.

[Provost]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39978222]Or 1500 healthy planes to fly healthy citizens.

But really, only like 50% of their aircraft are estimated to be in working condition, and their main fighter jet was made in 1955. They have maybe ~180 aircraft from after 1970, and even then I doubt that most of them are in working condition. Then there's the question of fuel and training - these pilots probably get like no training at all in the expensive aircraft, and not very much in the MiG-15s anyhow.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention the problem of getting adequate cockpit time with all the fuel shortages.

[Apocalypsewaffle]

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;39978222]Or 1500 healthy planes to fly healthy citizens.

But really, only like 50% of their aircraft are estimated to be in working condition, and their main fighter jet was made in 1955. They have maybe ~180 aircraft from after 1970, and even then I doubt that most of them are in working condition. Then there's the question of fuel and training - these pilots probably get like no training at all in the expensive aircraft, and not very much in the MiG-15s anyhow.[/QUOTE]

And suddenly we have antique fighter jets landing at foreign airstrips to be sold to museums so the pilots can go have a go at the local Mcdonalds

[Oper8or]

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;39975914][img]http://i.imgur.com/6AqkiDi.jpg[/img]

They're adorable.[/QUOTE]

and they blend in soo well with their surroundings! :rolleyes:

[ironman17]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39974810]What is it with dictators and being snazzily dressed?[/QUOTE]
My guess is they want to look the part, to be a well-dressed king amongst the peasants they reign over and impress people, blissfully unaware that the peasants think their king is a bellend.

In other words, he spends his cash on looking flash and grabbing your attention, though everyone else thinks he's a dick.

[Zillamaster55]

Armchair General Activate:

The biggest threat in the event of a second Korean engagement would be the artillery aimed upon Seoul.

The best way to eliminate it, would be first launching an absolute barrage of cruise missiles from the ocean, while cooperating with a set of roughly 3 B2s with their full payload. Once all of those hit their targets, a duo of B-52s would have to be in the air ASAP with a heavy loadout. The B-52s would carpet bomb the absolute shit out of the remaining artillery pieces while simultaneously be supported by aircraft such as F-22s, Mirages, Eurofighters, etc.

And this is all speculating that North Korean intelligence is retarded and doesn't see it coming in the first place.