Search results for query: *

Finaz said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/southkorea/8153000/North-Korea-bombs-South-Korean-island.html
This could be fun to follow if there wasn't a danger that China backed up NK and US backed up SK and the events didn't culminate into a nuclear apocalypse.

Click to expand...

Of course. Sit beside me and let's watch together the view outside.

The peasant armies of Joseon at the time of the Imjin War were poorly armed compared to the well-paid feudal troops of Japan, most of them usually going into battle wearing rudimentary cloth-and-cotton armors and farming equipments, or at best, tridents. But Joseon had a huge superiority over Japan at the time in the sea, and one of the most remarkable and ingenious naval weapons that Joseon had in its disposal was the Geobukson, or the 'turtle ship', which was the first iron-clad warship to have fought a naval battle in history. The ship had a low deck and mast profile which made it easier to dodge cannon shots, and the iron-clad deck could sustain full cannon shots, as well as impede boarding attempts. Japan achieved terrifying success against the 'ragtag' armies of Joseon in numerous land battles  (Joseon was very poor in cavalry, and had no muskets for the infantry, only cannons), but Joseon achieved similarly terrifying success against the ragtag navies of Japan in naval battles. Because Joseon was able to maintain credible sea superiority over Japan through the most of the war, Japan was never able to successfully establish a stable supply line to support its land invasion force, which was one of the big reasons for the downfall of Japan's invasion efforts despite Japan having outnumbered the combined Joseon and Ming army in the Korean peninsula by nearly three to one.


Here are the best sourced wikipedia articles with regard to significant naval battles in the Imjin war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hansan_Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Myeongnyang

You can see here how the peasant soldiers/marines of Korea were armed during the time. The lieutenants usually wore hardened studded lether armor, and generals wore more sophisticated scale armors. Tridents and bow were the most common weapons of choice of the Joseon infantry, while the Japanese infantry often used muskets and shortswords. Swords were usually reserved for officers and commanders only in Korea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzkT-kg01is

This is the trailer of a drama episode that reenacts the final naval battle of the Imjin War, the battle of Noryang; it was perhaps most fierce naval battle fought in the entire war that had seen participation of all the three belligerents, and it's also where the Korean naval strategic mastermind Yi Sunshin fell, although the battle was still won on Yi's side. Allow it to help you imagine how the naval battles in the war would have played out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0NWbcqYbVo

Korea was historically one of the world's most accomplished masters of seamanship and shipbuilding. Korean seamen and ships could sail and fight in treacherous waters that their Japanese or Chinese counterparts could not, and apparently, that unprecedented historic reputation of Korean naval dominance in the relevant parts of the world lingers up to the modern day, if Korea's present domination of world shipbuilding is any indication. You should balance Korea and Japan's military by giving Korea superb navy but relatively poor army, and vice versa for Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipbuilding#World_shipbuilding_industry_in_the_21st_century

Jhessail said:

Did the USN based in Japan stop North Korea from crossing the 38th parallel?

Click to expand...

It definitely helps prevent it from happening for the second time. You are only conveniently counting the times that deterrence did not work, and not the numerous other instances it would have. Take out the indisputable US naval power factor out of the global security equation in world history, and you'll have more wars to talk about here now than just Korean/Vietnam/Gulf war.

As for subs, you'd remember that the days of anti-submarine warfare are not yet over if you'd care to roll back your memory to March 26 of this year and what poorly anticipated historic event had taken place on that day. It was a huge wake up call for many military powers worldwide as to why military deterrence is still a necessary instrument to keep the relative peace; there are always those who are seeking to, willing to, and can abuse the prevailing state of world/regional peace in the most unwelcome circumstances, a fact which globally important leaderships would do well to remind themselves of. On the other side of the world from what was once thought as the center of world geopolitics, there's still a huge submarine/naval arms race going on upon which are invested huge amounts of resources with unified international commitment and dedication that's apparently no longer comprehensible to some demilitarized eurowoosies. But that apparent lack of commitment among European powers to build a multifunctional military that can act against a vast, constantly evolving array of all sorts of both symmetric and asymmetric threats is not completely unexpected, as the central battleground of a truly relevant kind of warfare (one that can actually threaten a country's national existence, for example) has long since moved to Asia from Europe after the USSR fell. Europe simply doesn't require such kind of military (and some of them can't build them anyway even if they do require them) when they have other more important business to finish elsewhere (like trying to escape from a massive level of national debt (500~600% of GDP?) in the case of United Kingdom). Delving in more specifically, just like Jhessail said, UK will probably never have to prepare for attacks by midget submarines (or even by full-fledged attack submarines) on its navy for the forseeable future, so what's the big reason for procuring more surface warships to better distribute ASW roles to them? UK doesn't need such kind of ASW force as far as its government sees. Probably that's why they've decommissioned their entire fleet of Nimrod too with no replacement plans in mind. But armed forces of other countries don't have that kind of peaceful luxury that UK has, like the US Navy that Jhessail want to quote.



Btw, the primary reason why conventional subs don't often accelerate fast is to conserve battery power. The tactical stealth advantage of 'combat cruising' is substantially negated by reduced combat mobility, which is actually a very important factor affecting the outcome of a submarine battle in which both combatants of the battle have equal surveillance opportunity, or the submarine has less surveillance opportunity. Even the German Type 214 or French Scorpene (fuel cells) or Japan's Soryu class (which has an upgraded sterling engine derived from the Swedish Gotland class) that equip comprehensive multi-redundant AIP devices cannot stay underwater for very long at 'battle speed' (and battles involving submarine combatants are comparatively long compared to those that does not). However, even with the mobility disadvantage, these slower diesel-electric subs still have clear, albeit momentary, tactical stealth advantage over nuclear subs, as they are a lot quieter and stealthier in combat. There were many incidents of a single diesel-electric sub sinking multiple capital ships without ever being detected in large-scale multinational naval exercises such as RIMPAC, under battle conditions in which nuclear subs were not expected to perform with similar level of success, though admittedly it still happened in a very controlled environment hardly reminiscent of the true conditions of a submarine battle. But even then, diesel electric subs have decent cost-capability balance,  easier to procure and economically operate. For the cost of one Astute class SSN, you can probably get a dozen smaller but still fairly battle-capable and versatile AIP SSKs that can compensate for their individual lack of capability with greater fleet strength. An economically sound high-tech industrialized country's chosen path of submarine forces augmentation is more often swayed by the individual preference and ROC of its armed force, rather than by which submarine type is overall the better one.

That's a nice trick. 

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;u=23897

Where did he go?

Sounds crazy

I looked up Tarja in google search, and I don't think I want to see her here.

You won't have bots that are capable of outwitting human players.

Unless the humans are.. you know.

we cant trust you

They are really shiny.

A squire with a rusty sword and cracked shield 

Just call it 'bounty hunting' or something

What about hunting down jedi?

What about the blue-armored marine we see in the Starcraft 2 launch trailer  It's too awesome to be like.. a 1st-tier unit.

I think the 'contraptions' involve interfacing the object directly onto the neural network of the host. Likely it will render the said host very unsociable; unable to talk in a 'human' way, unable to emote properly. A biochemical brain isn't very compatible with 0's and 1's, you know. Human (or alien) emotion ----> ethics subroutine. Most organic sentient beings will not choose to live that way.

So I think it'd be better if the 'contraption' was unique to Lobot only.

Mm. Where are you from, Adorno?

Looks cooler than Grievous, though, who's an official canon character.

According to the JA source code Boba Fett is unkillable...

Wow.

allhaildarklordofspawn