Chain Banning
(?)Community Member
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:57:12 +0000
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.