Speakeasy forum

General discussion

North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Re: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

In reply to: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

Hi, Dan.

>>Can anyone guess why a Washington Times editorial said this was nothing to worry about?<<
Maybe because the Rev Moon's church owns the paper?

-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) *DING* A winner! ! !

In reply to: Re: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

Collapse -
I would not defend Rev. Moon on any account, but

In reply to: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

the lack of outrage was most apparent when Bill Clinton gave missile technology to the Chinese. It was no big deal then, why should it be now?

BTW, we have a pretty good idea where Rev. Moon gets his money, but where did he get subs? Wasn't 1994 part of Clinton's term? Who should we be outraged with?

Collapse -
You've hit the nail right on the

In reply to: I would not defend Rev. Moon on any account, but

index finger, the thumb twice, and put two nice dings in the lumber.

Dan

Collapse -
Of right! I forgot the first rule of the left. It's George's

In reply to: You've hit the nail right on the

fault! It doesn't matter that it happened on Clinton's watch! It's still George's fault!

Collapse -
Re: Of right! I forgot the first rule of the left. It's Geor

In reply to: Of right! I forgot the first rule of the left. It's George's

What a strange and limiting thing that you view everything through narrow bush-is-always-right lens.

Everything isn't party politics.

Dan

Collapse -
I guess it comes from things like this...

In reply to: Re: Of right! I forgot the first rule of the left. It's Geor

PS: Where's the antiamerican outrage over this huge conservative supporter's activities?

Now, who do you suppose conservatives support? BTW, I didn't say Bush is right. I said he's not involved in this incident.
Collapse -
All you have is a hammer

In reply to: I guess it comes from things like this...

and all you hit is your thumb.

Dan

Collapse -
Re: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

In reply to: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

Dan,

Much ado about nothing, IMO. Here's why:

The piece you cite as presumably "expert" describes the subs as "12 G and H class Soviet submarines". A brief overview of those boats can be found here.

All you need to know about these boats is that they were obsolete, as were the SS-N-5 missles (range: 2,000 nautical miles) at least 20 years before the NK's got them. They're the pinnacle of Soviet sub technology circa 1960: slow, unsafe (at least the nuclear powered Hotel-class boats; the Soviets didn't much care if they lost the odd submariner to massive radiation poisoning) and above all, noisy - really, REALLY noisy.

If, in the event of a dustup between the NK's and the U.S., they actually tried to put these boats out to sea on attack missions: 1) We'd have Los Angeles-class (SSN 68Cool or Seawolf-class (SSN 21) subs parked on those boats' tails almost from the time they cleared NK territorial waters, and 2) They'd never get anywhere near missile launch range of the U.S. mainland.

IOW, those boats' crews would have a very exciting, VERY short and ultimately woefully unsuccessful war.

Collapse -
Re: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

In reply to: Re: North Korea, Subs, and Nuclear Weapons

Also, our subs would be able to 'see' them, but they wouldnt be able to 'see' our subs. Ours are a lot quieter, now.

Popular Forums

icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GRAMMYS 2019

Here's Everything to Know About the 2019 Grammys

Find out how to watch the Grammy Awards if you don't have cable and more.