Welcome to Gaia! ::

Reluctant Samurai
Chain Banning
Reluctant Samurai
Chain Banning
Reluctant Samurai


Funny. You seem to like wikipedia, but you missed this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment

Budget (US$ BN) MBT ACC AWSD CrE DFalb FG CoH PBI NSJ SK

North Korea 6 3,500 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 70

AirL AHM NuN

661 0 1-9

Budget (US$ BN) MBT ACC AWSD CrE DFalb FG CoH PBI NSJ SK

United States 711 8,725 11 30 22 62 26 2 / 71 2

AirL AHM NuN

3,318 6417 9,600



In short, no. North Korea doesn't have the equipment to move their troops. Neither do they have the equipment to equip there troops to fight against what any other country, especially the US, has to offer.

I also like how you don't realize that the American Navy is bigger than all of the navies. Meaning every other navy in the world put together.

...Where do I start.
Firstly, the United States are the highest in terms of military expenditure. I stated this previously. The United States equipment costs roughly $17,472 per soldier in current military operations. However if we indulge deeper, the majority of these resources are spent on night and thermal scopes, body armour, fire-retardant gloves, knee and elbow pads, tan combat boots, safety glasses, a kevlar helmet along with a standard M4 customisable carbine with close-combat optics. The overall protection such as the body armour's main objective is to protect against shrapnel from ballistic fire. Including the typical Islam-extremists PMN land mines. Being confronted by an actual military force such as North Korea, many things change. The United States are equipped to combat Islamic extremist soldiers, and that is where the military expenditure is being spent. Considering the above, your attempt to undermine North Korea's threat has failed

Now moving along to "North Korea doesn't have the equipment to move their troops. Neither do they have the equipment to equip where troops to fight against what any other country, especially the US, has to offer" - This is false in various aspects. Firstly, the DPRK has over 500 aircraft transportation vehicles. Here is a small list of a few of North Korea's that have been exposed in their inventory...

Ilyushin Il-76
Ilyushin Il-62
Antonov An-24
Antonov An-2
Lisunov Li-2
Mil Mi-26
Mil Mi-8
Mil Mi-2

Secondly, North Korea isn't at war with any 'Islamic extremists' so to say. All of there military funding is based around conflict against other countries. Every soldier in the DPRK's military is equipped to the teeth, very organised & obedient.


Wow. 500 air vehicles? For close to "10 million" "soldiers"?

Wonder how many trips that will be. And from what aircraft carriers. And to what allied soil.

And your point about the US military being equipped solely to fight Islamic extremists is laughable beyond all words.

I'm almost tempted to indulge in the idea that you're actually Kim Jong Un personally spreading propaganda. There's no way you're a real life, actual, serious person struggling under the weight of numerous delusions propped up by self-defeating arguments.

500 as far as we, non-Korean's know of. They could have a million for all we know, 500 is the amount reported by sightings.
Also, the United States only posses two C-144 , eight PZL C-145 Skytruck's, five C-146 in their air-force. That's a total of what...15 in total compared to North Korea's 500. This is not army aircraft's or navy aircraft's, this is the air force. It'll take the U.S. a lot more trips than North Korea, lol.
I never said the US military is SOLELY being equipped to fight Islamic extremists, I said that is where the majority of the military expenditure is going. Pay more attention before you start complaining.
And propaganda? That's laughable. I've come across people like you who would rather label a person in such as way as "There's no way you're a real life, actual, serious person struggling under the weight of numerous delusions propped up by self-defeating arguments." - Than question their facts/beliefs. Ad Hominem, I've saved you the time from googling the definition...

Definition of AD HOMINEM


1 : Appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect.

2 : Marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.


You think the US Air Force has around 15 aircraft for transporting troops?

Do you really?

Also,

Quote:
The United States are equipped to combat Islamic extremist soldiers, and that is where the military expenditure is being spent.


That's a pretty unilateral statement. The US is equipped... You made no mention of percentages or majorities. You made the wholly erroneous statement that US military is geared towards fighting extremist threats. That's ridiculous. You don't need F-22s for that. You don't need nuclear subs. You don't need.... ******** everything that the US has.

Also, I like how you've neglected to mention the navies. Aircraft kind of don't matter when you can't get them in range.

And if you're going to cite logical fallacies, you might want to make sure that they apply. I've argued your points by merit, of which you have none. Making a snide remark after the fact isn't ad hominem. That's just me having fun at the expense of someone incapable of stringing facts and figures together.


The United States air force DOES only have that quantity of transport vehicles in their air force. They have a completely different inventory of transport vehicles in their army & navy, just like North Korea has different quantities in their army & navy. Take a look at the following link for more information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

Also, the United States is equipped to combat Islamic extremists. And it's military expenditure is being spent mainly on those operations. Once again, I never said the entire expenditure is being spent SOLELY on those operations. I've had to explain this twice, I'm not going to repeat myself again.
If you want me to mention navy aircraft's I can go ahead and get into another disagreement with you comparing the United States to the DPRK. My main focus was on the DPRK's air-force, not their naval aircraft's.
Finally, the point did apply, are you too enraged to accept that? Now you've moved along to hypocrisy by accusing me of failing to "string facts and figures together" considering I've provided facts and sources, whereas you have just been repeating media-driven bullshit.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Chain Banning


The United States air force DOES only have that quantity of transport vehicles in their air force. They have a completely different inventory of transport vehicles in their army & navy, just like North Korea has different quantities in their army & navy. Take a look at the following link for more information...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft


Ok. So this link debunks all of your points handily. Thank you for that. There are thousands of aircraft noted here. And bunches of transport craft.

Quote:
Also, the United States is equipped to combat Islamic extremists. And it's military expenditure is being spent mainly on those operations. Once again, I never said the entire expenditure is being spent SOLELY on those operations. I've had to explain this twice, I'm not going to repeat myself again.


What do you think you're explaining? I'm not even talking about expenditure. I'm talking about equipment, what gear the US military has. You tried to state that our equipment is geared mainly towards fighting terrorists, when that's utterly retarded. US military hardware is for total war. That's what the vast majority of military hardware is for.

Quote:
If you want me to mention navy aircraft's I can go ahead and get into another disagreement with you comparing the United States to the DPRK. My main focus was on the DPRK's air-force, not their naval aircraft's.


No. The navy aircraft are irrelevant. I was speaking of ships.

Quote:
Finally, the point did apply, are you too enraged to accept that? Now you've moved along to hypocrisy by accusing me of failing to "string facts and figures together" considering I've provided facts and sources, whereas you have just been repeating media-driven bullshit.


No. It didn't. An ad hominem attack is a personal attack made in lieu of any substantive debate of points. I've already provided material, as have you, pointing out the inanity of your assertions.

Calling you names after the fact is not an ad hominem attack.

Also, media-driven bullshit? Wow. You think numbers and facts are media-driven bullshit?

How about asserting the superiority of a vastly technologically inferior force? Sounds like some propaganda to me.

God, I'm clearly being trolled by a master.
Wendigo's avatar

Enduring Phantom

8,700 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
F-22s aren't even useful for that, or much else. (Shooting down F-16s for an hour and then getting laboriously maintained and repainted, I guess.)
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Wendigo
F-22s aren't even useful for that, or much else. (Shooting down F-16s for an hour and then getting laboriously maintained and repainted, I guess.)


Yeah, I'm not going to try to defend the F-22 in any other arena besides air superiority. Yes, I love that sexy ******** jet. It's the closest thing we have to an X-Wing. But yeah, lots of problems.

But the overall point is, and I can't believe I have to say this like I'm defending something, not exactly jihadi busters.
The North Korean Army isn't much to worry about. They seem fanatically devout, but when s**t hit's the fan and the administration that's holding up their starving country collapses, I doubt they'll want to face off against the South Korean Military, let alone the United States.

The biggest threat they represent, which is the threat they've always represented, is that they have more artillery then the rest of the world combined, all aimed at Seoul, a major Economic centre.
Reluctant Samurai
Ok. So this link debunks all of your points handily. Thank you for that. There are thousands of aircraft noted here. And bunches of transport craft.

...How can you be this ignorant? Read my post again, I've stated the various types of aircrafts, in the air-force, army & navy. Very different types, idiot.

Reluctant Samurai
What do you think you're explaining? I'm not even talking about expenditure. I'm talking about equipment, what gear the US military has. You tried to state that our equipment is geared mainly towards fighting terrorists, when that's utterly retarded. US military hardware is for total war. That's what the vast majority of military hardware is for.

And you honestly think the equipment the United States posses will last forever? Where do you think the military expenditure is currently being spent? Once again, it IS mainly spent on the on-going operations in Afghanistan, Mali & Algeria and previously, Iraq. Look at the following taken from a PDF from FAS, it states the military spending is mainly in middle-eastern operations against Islamic militants...

"Total War Funding by Operation

Assuming an annual level of the current Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 44/P.L. 112-4) and based on DOD, State Department/USAID and Department of Veterans Administration budget submissions, the cumulative total appropriated from the 9/11 for those war operations, duplomatic operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans is $1.283 trillion including:

$806 billion for Iraq;
$444 billion for Afghanistan;
$29 billion for enhanced security; and
$6 billion unallocated (see Table1.

Of this total. 63% if for Iraq, 35% for Afghanistan. 2% for enhanced security and 1/2% is unallocated. ALmost all of the funding for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is for Afghanistan. This total includes funding provivded in all appropriations act including the FY2010 Supplemental (H.R. 4899/P.L.111-212) enacted July 29, 2010. and the 6th Continuing Resolution for FY2011."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf

Reluctant Samurai
No. The navy aircraft are irrelevant. I was speaking of ships.

Of what relevance do ships have to this conversation? They where never mentioned previously.


Reluctant Samurai
No. It didn't. An ad hominem attack is a personal attack made in lieu of any substantive debate of points. I've already provided material, as have you, pointing out the inanity of your assertions.

Calling you names after the fact is not an ad hominem attack.

Also, media-driven bullshit? Wow. You think numbers and facts are media-driven bullshit?

How about asserting the superiority of a vastly technologically inferior force? Sounds like some propaganda to me.

God, I'm clearly being trolled by a master.

Wrong. Ad Hominem is exactly what you are ignorantly doing. "Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain." - This is clearly appealing to "I'm being trolled by a master". I've come across this many times before, people have nothing better to say so they start accusing the defendant of trolling. Which is ironic considering at this point I'm convinced you are trolling, there is absolutely no way someone can be THIS uneducated and misinformed about foreign affairs. P.S. you haven't stated any numbers or facts, can't tell if trolling or just stupid.
N3bu
The North Korean Army isn't much to worry about. They seem fanatically devout, but when s**t hit's the fan and the administration that's holding up their starving country collapses, I doubt they'll want to face off against the South Korean Military, let alone the United States.

The biggest threat they represent, which is the threat they've always represented, is that they have more artillery then the rest of the world combined, all aimed at Seoul, a major Economic centre.

Artillery can make a world of difference. Something the U.S. has undermined before, in WWII...

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
Chain Banning
N3bu
The North Korean Army isn't much to worry about. They seem fanatically devout, but when s**t hit's the fan and the administration that's holding up their starving country collapses, I doubt they'll want to face off against the South Korean Military, let alone the United States.

The biggest threat they represent, which is the threat they've always represented, is that they have more artillery then the rest of the world combined, all aimed at Seoul, a major Economic centre.

Artillery can make a world of difference. Something the U.S. has undermined before, in WWII...

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

Artillery can't hit a B2 at 40 000 ft.

Let's face it, NK has all it's punch aimed at Seoul because it knows there no point using it for anything other then holding Seoul hostage.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Chain Banning
Reluctant Samurai
Ok. So this link debunks all of your points handily. Thank you for that. There are thousands of aircraft noted here. And bunches of transport craft.

...How can you be this ignorant? Read my post again, I've stated the various types of aircrafts, in the air-force, army & navy. Very different types, idiot.


You stated a few types of aircraft that are not the primary means of troop and cargo transport for the Air Force. You failed to notice the C-130s and the C-17s, of which there are hundreds and hundreds.

You're a blind little a** with no case.

Quote:
Reluctant Samurai
What do you think you're explaining? I'm not even talking about expenditure. I'm talking about equipment, what gear the US military has. You tried to state that our equipment is geared mainly towards fighting terrorists, when that's utterly retarded. US military hardware is for total war. That's what the vast majority of military hardware is for.

And you honestly think the equipment the United States posses will last forever? Where do you think the military expenditure is currently being spent? Once again, it IS mainly spent on the on-going operations in Afghanistan, Mali & Algeria and previously, Iraq. Look at the following taken from a PDF from FAS, it states the military spending is mainly in middle-eastern operations against Islamic militants...


So, are you trying to state that somehow the US military hardware is going to turn to dust? Do you think that money isn't being spent maintaining the military as it stands now? Are you suffering under the delusion that ALL of the military's money is going toward action in the Middle East? And do you somehow think that out of what money is being spent there, that none of it is going toward equipment maintenance?

Quote:
"Total War Funding by Operation

Assuming an annual level of the current Continuing Resolution (H.J.Res. 44/P.L. 112-4) and based on DOD, State Department/USAID and Department of Veterans Administration budget submissions, the cumulative total appropriated from the 9/11 for those war operations, duplomatic operations, and medical care for Iraq and Afghan war veterans is $1.283 trillion including:

$806 billion for Iraq;
$444 billion for Afghanistan;
$29 billion for enhanced security; and
$6 billion unallocated (see Table1.

Of this total. 63% if for Iraq, 35% for Afghanistan. 2% for enhanced security and 1/2% is unallocated. ALmost all of the funding for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is for Afghanistan. This total includes funding provivded in all appropriations act including the FY2010 Supplemental (H.R. 4899/P.L.111-212) enacted July 29, 2010. and the 6th Continuing Resolution for FY2011."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf


This is a table of war funding for two years. This isn't a table for total defense spending. You really need to learn how to read your own sources before making statements derived from them.

Quote:
Reluctant Samurai
No. The navy aircraft are irrelevant. I was speaking of ships.

Of what relevance do ships have to this conversation? They where never mentioned previously.


Yes, I mentioned plenty previously. Ships are the main means of transport for troops, hardware, and goods between countries. Do you really need this explained to you? Are you unfamiliar with the function of a navy?


Quote:
Reluctant Samurai
No. It didn't. An ad hominem attack is a personal attack made in lieu of any substantive debate of points. I've already provided material, as have you, pointing out the inanity of your assertions.

Calling you names after the fact is not an ad hominem attack.

Also, media-driven bullshit? Wow. You think numbers and facts are media-driven bullshit?

How about asserting the superiority of a vastly technologically inferior force? Sounds like some propaganda to me.

God, I'm clearly being trolled by a master.


Wrong. Ad Hominem is exactly what you are ignorantly doing. "Arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic. Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain." - This is clearly appealing to "I'm being trolled by a master". I've come across this many times before, people have nothing better to say so they start accusing the defendant of trolling. Which is ironic considering at this point I'm convinced you are trolling, there is absolutely no way someone can be THIS uneducated and misinformed about foreign affairs. P.S. you haven't stated any numbers or facts, can't tell if trolling or just stupid.


Are you missing the parts before my insults where I point out where you aren't representing your sources factually? Are you missing the parts where the numbers refute your every point?

"Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."

I'm not doing that, buddy. I'm attacking you facts, because they are false. And THEN, I'm calling you a simpleton after the fact, because you are. You seem to have no capacity for subtlety or nuance in language.
Reluctant Samurai
You stated a few types of aircraft that are not the primary means of troop and cargo transport for the Air Force. You failed to notice the C-130s and the C-17s, of which there are hundreds and hundreds.

You're a blind little a** with no case.

That's very interesting considering the C-130s & C-17s are CARGO transportation units. Not TROOP transportation in which you mocked North Korea for "only" having 500 troop transportation aircraft's. Remind me who the blind one with no case is again? Learn the different between cargo and troop transportation.

Reluctant Samurai
So, are you trying to state that somehow the US military hardware is going to turn to dust? Do you think that money isn't being spent maintaining the military as it stands now? Are you suffering under the delusion that ALL of the military's money is going toward action in the Middle East? And do you somehow think that out of what money is being spent there, that none of it is going toward equipment maintenance?

Equipment deteriorates and machines become out-dated against other countries new technologies. The United States constantly reinstates their inventory. And for the FINAL time no, I NEVER said the entire military funding is going to the middle east. Can't you get this into your thick little skull? Equipment maintenance is a part of the expenditure in middle eastern affairs.

Reluctant Samurai
This is a table of war funding for two years. This isn't a table for total defense spending. You really need to learn how to read your own sources before making statements derived from them.

Read it again. The 2010 & 2011 references are acts of the FY2010 Supplemental & the 6th Continuing Resolution for FY2011. Not the actual military expenditure of the United States. In fact, that is from 2002 to 2012.

Reluctant Samurai
Yes, I mentioned plenty previously. Ships are the main means of transport for troops, hardware, and goods between countries. Do you really need this explained to you? Are you unfamiliar with the function of a navy?

You did not mention Cargo/Transport ships previously. We were are discussing the comparison between the United States and North Korea's air force transportation. Nothing to do with the navy, or do you think the navy, army & air force are all the same?


Reluctant Samurai
Are you missing the parts before my insults where I point out where you aren't representing your sources factually? Are you missing the parts where the numbers refute your every point?

"Attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain."

I'm not doing that, buddy. I'm attacking you facts, because they are false. And THEN, I'm calling you a simpleton after the fact, because you are. You seem to have no capacity for subtlety or nuance in language.

How ironic, considering you've blatantly denied my claims, then when I follow up with sources to prove the facts you resort to childish insults. What numbers refute my sources & facts? You have attacked my claims, from the very start rather than questioning them. Also ironic how you can label someone a simpleton while using "blind little a**" as an insult. lol
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Chain Banning

That's very interesting considering the C-130s & C-17s are CARGO transportation units. Not TROOP transportation in which you mocked North Korea for "only" having 500 troop transportation aircraft's. Remind me who the blind one with no case is again? Learn the different between cargo and troop transportation.


No. They are not merely cargo transports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130

They are the Air Force's primary means of troop and cargo transport. They transport EVERYTHING.

And yes, 500 transportation aircraft for an alleged 10 million soldiers is laughable.

You clearly looked at the table you linked to earlier, saw CARGO TRANSPORT, and failed to even click on any links which further explain the uses of each vehicle. You're lazy, intellectually dishonest, and woefully inept.

Quote:
Equipment deteriorates and machines become out-dated against other countries new technologies. The United States constantly reinstates their inventory. And for the FINAL time no, I NEVER said the entire military funding is going to the middle east. Can't you get this into your thick little skull? Equipment maintenance is a part of the expenditure in middle eastern affairs.


Ok? So, what are you arguing here. You're sitting here stating that the US reinstates and maintains their inventory. Ok. Yes. I agree. The only people with problems maintaining their military hardware right now are the North Koreans and their utter lack of modern technologies.


Quote:
You did not mention Cargo/Transport ships previously. We were are discussing the comparison between the United States and North Korea's air force transportation. Nothing to do with the navy, or do you think the navy, army & air force are all the same?


I made rather clear mention of the fact that the US Navy is the largest and most powerful in the world, comprised of more ships than the rest of the world combined. If you missed that or refused to acknowledge it, that's your problem.


Quote:
How ironic, considering you've blatantly denied my claims, then when I follow up with sources to prove the facts you resort to childish insults. What numbers refute my sources & facts? You have attacked my claims, from the very start rather than questioning them. Also ironic how you can label someone a simpleton while using "blind little a**" as an insult. lol


Every single source you have provided has run counter to your own claims. You claimed that the US has 15 transportation aircraft. That was roundly refuted by the source you provided which revealed that the US has hundreds, closer to a thousand, in aircraft alone. You seem to be caught up by a single table on Wikipedia not explicitly referring to the C-17s and C-130s as transportation aircraft, when the individual articles do in fact make mention of this fact.

You've also tried to imply that because the US is engaged in action in the Middle East that it has some kind of stunted ability to maintain its hardware at large, making them unable to adapt to "new technologies", of which the North Koreans possess none.

As I said before, you really ought to take a closer look at the sources you believe help your case. In actuality, they do not, largely because your case is so contrary to reality.
Reluctant Samurai
No. They are not merely cargo transports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130

They are the Air Force's primary means of troop and cargo transport. They transport EVERYTHING.

And yes, 500 transportation aircraft for an alleged 10 million soldiers is laughable.

You clearly looked at the table you linked to earlier, saw CARGO TRANSPORT, and failed to even click on any links which further explain the uses of each vehicle. You're lazy, intellectually dishonest, and woefully inept.

You're ignoring the fact that they still ARE cargo aircraft's, not transportation aircraft's. Of course they have the ability to harbour military personnel however that is not their main objective. I could tie a couple soldiers to a kite and claim it's a troop transportation mechanism, but again, it's not logical nor the kites main objective. The point still exists that the United States only has very little aircraft's available that's sole mission is the transportation of troops. North Korea has at least 500 solely for troop transportation, they have many more cargo transportation units which can also accomplish the same objective. Also, if North Korea are attempting to launch an attack they will use nor need the force of 10 million soldiers to accomplish a successful invasion and landing. Once an area has been captured the remaining troops can be transported to said area within a short period of time and from there can progress taking enemy ground. Finally, you're back to the whole petty insults s**t again.


Reluctant Samurai
Ok? So, what are you arguing here. You're sitting here stating that the US reinstates and maintains their inventory. Ok. Yes. I agree. The only people with problems maintaining their military hardware right now are the North Koreans and their utter lack of modern technologies.

Got any sources of that, champ? Or any solid proof to back up that claim? Not only are North Korea having striving technological advancements, they are also progressing amazingly with nuclear research facilities. Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center for example is North Korea's main nuclear facility and one of the best worldwide. Despite pressure from IAEA to close various reactors, it's still progressing. They also have their own computer language programs including The Naenara, which can compete with America's language programs such as VB. Also, North Korea may be launching the controversial satellite missile Taepodong-1 soon. And as the previously poster noted, North Korea have one of the biggest inventories of artillery, one of my favourites is the Koksan which is manned with howitzer's which can tear an enemy vehicle or building apart in seconds.


Reluctant Samurai
I made rather clear mention of the fact that the US Navy is the largest and most powerful in the world, comprised of more ships than the rest of the world combined. If you missed that or refused to acknowledge it, that's your problem.

Again, how is that any relevance? Everyone with a basic military understanding knows America has the largest navy. The U.S. navy also has an amazing history, my great great grandfather was an Admiral in the U.S. navy and became quite wealthy from leasing ships to small merchants and slave traders. Along with that, many men from my country helped found the American navy as they fought and died attempting to tear the union jack down from masses across the states.



Reluctant Samurai
Every single source you have provided has run counter to your own claims. You claimed that the US has 15 transportation aircraft. That was roundly refuted by the source you provided which revealed that the US has hundreds, closer to a thousand, in aircraft alone. You seem to be caught up by a single table on Wikipedia not explicitly referring to the C-17s and C-130s as transportation aircraft, when the individual articles do in fact make mention of this fact.

You've also tried to imply that because the US is engaged in action in the Middle East that it has some kind of stunted ability to maintain its hardware at large, making them unable to adapt to "new technologies", of which the North Koreans possess none.

As I said before, you really ought to take a closer look at the sources you believe help your case. In actuality, they do not, largely because your case is so contrary to reality.

Hardly roundly refuted by your CARGO aircraft's. Fine line between the two. The majority of cargo and transportation aircraft's are army/navy issued, not air force. I've explained most of this in my above post.
Actually, the U.S. does require recurring equipment to meet the standards of their troops. This is actually a good thing for the local economy as most of the material the U.S. military needs is produced in the United States, boosting the economy. It's quite common for countries to use some of their military inventory in foreign operations to make room for the new incoming equipment and vehicles. France is the latest one to use this method with their operations first in Libya to murder General Gaddafi, they used up a lot of old missiles and aircraft's and tanks in that conflict merely to make use of them. If you read about the whole Libya "liberation" fiasco you will see how this happened. Britain and the U.S. wanted vengeance on their old enemy for his role in the Lockerbie bombing of Pam Am Flight 103. To understand why Gaddafi had a role in that attack was because members of his family had been murdered by British paratroopers. Understandable really, and you can see why he would want vengeance. Firstly the British/American/French coalition equipped a few minority of rebels and created rumours and lies about Gaddafi to justify the attack. They portrayed that the Libyan people were being dictated by Gaddafi and they hated him - This was far from the truth. When Gaddafi first came to power in Libya it was nothing more than sand ruled by a small monarchist family. He overthrew them in a battle with a few revolutionary fighters and then formed the modern-day rich Libya. He did not believe in the western Rothschild bank, the Rothschild bank creates currency out of thin air therefore leaving people in debt. Before the action taken by America/Britain & France, Libya was debt free. What was the first thing the rebels do when they took power in 2011? Switched the banks to Rothschild leaving the Libyan people in debt and forever ruined.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Chain Banning
Reluctant Samurai
No. They are not merely cargo transports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130

They are the Air Force's primary means of troop and cargo transport. They transport EVERYTHING.

And yes, 500 transportation aircraft for an alleged 10 million soldiers is laughable.

You clearly looked at the table you linked to earlier, saw CARGO TRANSPORT, and failed to even click on any links which further explain the uses of each vehicle. You're lazy, intellectually dishonest, and woefully inept.

You're ignoring the fact that they still ARE cargo aircraft's, not transportation aircraft's. Of course they have the ability to harbour military personnel however that is not their main objective. I could tie a couple soldiers to a kite and claim it's a troop transportation mechanism, but again, it's not logical nor the kites main objective. The point still exists that the United States only has very little aircraft's available that's sole mission is the transportation of troops. North Korea has at least 500 solely for troop transportation, they have many more cargo transportation units which can also accomplish the same objective. Also, if North Korea are attempting to launch an attack they will use nor need the force of 10 million soldiers to accomplish a successful invasion and landing. Once an area has been captured the remaining troops can be transported to said area within a short period of time and from there can progress taking enemy ground. Finally, you're back to the whole petty insults s**t again.


Reluctant Samurai
Ok? So, what are you arguing here. You're sitting here stating that the US reinstates and maintains their inventory. Ok. Yes. I agree. The only people with problems maintaining their military hardware right now are the North Koreans and their utter lack of modern technologies.

Got any sources of that, champ? Or any solid proof to back up that claim? Not only are North Korea having striving technological advancements, they are also progressing amazingly with nuclear research facilities. Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center for example is North Korea's main nuclear facility and one of the best worldwide. Despite pressure from IAEA to close various reactors, it's still progressing. They also have their own computer language programs including The Naenara, which can compete with America's language programs such as VB. Also, North Korea may be launching the controversial satellite missile Taepodong-1 soon. And as the previously poster noted, North Korea have one of the biggest inventories of artillery, one of my favourites is the Koksan which is manned with howitzer's which can tear an enemy vehicle or building apart in seconds.


Reluctant Samurai
I made rather clear mention of the fact that the US Navy is the largest and most powerful in the world, comprised of more ships than the rest of the world combined. If you missed that or refused to acknowledge it, that's your problem.

Again, how is that any relevance? Everyone with a basic military understanding knows America has the largest navy. The U.S. navy also has an amazing history, my great great grandfather was an Admiral in the U.S. navy and became quite wealthy from leasing ships to small merchants and slave traders. Along with that, many men from my country helped found the American navy as they fought and died attempting to tear the union jack down from masses across the states.



Reluctant Samurai
Every single source you have provided has run counter to your own claims. You claimed that the US has 15 transportation aircraft. That was roundly refuted by the source you provided which revealed that the US has hundreds, closer to a thousand, in aircraft alone. You seem to be caught up by a single table on Wikipedia not explicitly referring to the C-17s and C-130s as transportation aircraft, when the individual articles do in fact make mention of this fact.

You've also tried to imply that because the US is engaged in action in the Middle East that it has some kind of stunted ability to maintain its hardware at large, making them unable to adapt to "new technologies", of which the North Koreans possess none.

As I said before, you really ought to take a closer look at the sources you believe help your case. In actuality, they do not, largely because your case is so contrary to reality.

Hardly roundly refuted by your CARGO aircraft's. Fine line between the two. The majority of cargo and transportation aircraft's are army/navy issued, not air force. I've explained most of this in my above post.
Actually, the U.S. does require recurring equipment to meet the standards of their troops. This is actually a good thing for the local economy as most of the material the U.S. military needs is produced in the United States, boosting the economy. It's quite common for countries to use some of their military inventory in foreign operations to make room for the new incoming equipment and vehicles. France is the latest one to use this method with their operations first in Libya to murder General Gaddafi, they used up a lot of old missiles and aircraft's and tanks in that conflict merely to make use of them. If you read about the whole Libya "liberation" fiasco you will see how this happened. Britain and the U.S. wanted vengeance on their old enemy for his role in the Lockerbie bombing of Pam Am Flight 103. To understand why Gaddafi had a role in that attack was because members of his family had been murdered by British paratroopers. Understandable really, and you can see why he would want vengeance. Firstly the British/American/French coalition equipped a few minority of rebels and created rumours and lies about Gaddafi to justify the attack. They portrayed that the Libyan people were being dictated by Gaddafi and they hated him - This was far from the truth. When Gaddafi first came to power in Libya it was nothing more than sand ruled by a small monarchist family. He overthrew them in a battle with a few revolutionary fighters and then formed the modern-day rich Libya. He did not believe in the western Rothschild bank, the Rothschild bank creates currency out of thin air therefore leaving people in debt. Before the action taken by America/Britain & France, Libya was debt free. What was the first thing the rebels do when they took power in 2011? Switched the banks to Rothschild leaving the Libyan people in debt and forever ruined.



Ok, I'm done with you. You're clearly refusing to acknowledge the facts as they have been presented.

The C-130 and C-17 are the primary means of troop transport in the US military across all branches. There are multiple models, each suited uniquely to different functions.

Despite your claims to the contrary, these vehicles are not primarily cargo transport, as the sources I provided state. They fill a wide range of roles, chief among them troop transport.

Aside from these near thousand aircraft that move the US military's troops about the world, their Navy, as I have said, is the largest in the world, capable of moving anything, anywhere.

Why do you think that the distinction between Air Force, Army, and Navy aircraft is significant? They are all still part of the US military. As to figures I was referring to earlier, they were all Air Force craft designed for the movement of troops in large part.

You are drawing arbitrary and meaningless distinctions in an attempt to further your argument. Your distinctions are irrelevant and useless to this discussion.

You also have handily ignored my previous question regarding what allies North Korea will employ to make troop movements feasible, given that the range of their aircraft is insufficient for worldwide engagement.

As far as North Korea's technological advancement, where are they on air superiority? Nuclear subs? What generation does the bulk of their technology come from? What methods of delivery do they have for their nuclear weapons?
Reluctant Samurai
Ok, I'm done with you. You're clearly refusing to acknowledge the facts as they have been presented.

I acknowledge facts unlike you, you have not provided any facts nor sources to back them up. Perhaps you should consider going back to school, you might gain a basic education.

Reluctant Samurai
The C-130 and C-17 are the primary means of troop transport in the US military across all branches. There are multiple models, each suited uniquely to different functions.

Not primarily, the primarily objective of the C-130 & C-17 are cargo transportation, not troop transportation. This is stated in Wikipedia. Despite every model, they are all cargo transport units.

Reluctant Samurai
Despite your claims to the contrary, these vehicles are not primarily cargo transport, as the sources I provided state. They fill a wide range of roles, chief among them troop transport.

Again, they are all cargo transportation units. The modifications have no factor of which transforms them into a military personnel carrier. Look at the Wiki of each of those aircraft's, it clearly states their main objective is CARGO transportation, not personnel transportation which you have claimed is chief. The aircraft's I mentioned earlier are, however the U.S. only posses about 15 of these unlike North Korea's 500.

Reluctant Samurai
Aside from these near thousand aircraft that move the US military's troops about the world, their Navy, as I have said, is the largest in the world, capable of moving anything, anywhere.

North Korea's navy also has the ability to move various cargo to any location. And they have a lot more transportation aircraft's than the United States pathetic 15. North Korea also have an amazing civilized country unlike the United States which is on the verge of an uprising by southern states.

Reluctant Samurai
Why do you think that the distinction between Air Force, Army, and Navy aircraft is significant? They are all still part of the US military. As to figures I was referring to earlier, they were all Air Force craft designed for the movement of troops in large part.

There is a fine line between air force, army & navy. I was focussing on the DPRK's air force to which you responded by attacking with the comparison of the entire United States air fleet. I can go into the DPRK's entire navy-army-air force fleet and transportation if you want me to, but I can assure you now that it will prove superiority on the majority of aspects.

Reluctant Samurai
You are drawing arbitrary and meaningless distinctions in an attempt to further your argument. Your distinctions are irrelevant and useless to this discussion.

Compared to your pathetic patriotism that blinds you from the truth of your own countries lack of aspiring military prowess unlike that of the DPRK. If anything, the moment you uttered nonsense from your first post you lost this discussion.

Reluctant Samurai
You also have handily ignored my previous question regarding what allies North Korea will employ to make troop movements feasible, given that the range of their aircraft is insufficient for worldwide engagement.

Actually North Korea's troop transportation can support them in worldwide conflict, even superiorly than the United States. As for allies, the DPRK has very close links with China, Russia & Iran. China has stated it will intervene to protect North Korea if an engagement with the United States ensues. Likewise, there will be support from North Korea if America intervenes in China's conquest of the Senkaku islands. And if China is at war with America, Russia is likely to follow. And Russia have the ability to annihilate America from a successful invasion. The United States can barely handle Afghanistan, do they honestly believe they stand a chance against a force of North Korea, China and Russia?

Reluctant Samurai
As far as North Korea's technological advancement, where are they on air superiority? Nuclear subs? What generation does the bulk of their technology come from? What methods of delivery do they have for their nuclear weapons?

Much of that is unknown considering the North Korean government does not participate in United Nation's inspections. It can be assumed they have already many nuclear submarines in their inventory, as this is a straight-forward task as they already have the warhead missiles. They are currently working on satellites which will have the ability to reach America, Iran have missiles that can reach America but not the warheads to supply them. If war does break out you will see these tow countries coming together to fulfil the nuclear threat to America. If all else fails, Russia will finish the job.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

Oh man.

I have clearly been beaten by a master.

All hail North Korea as the dominant military force on the planet.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games