USS Carl Vinson Heading To North Korea

Depends.
In the article a few years ago in The Atlantic that looked at the possibility of a renewed Korean War, the American general on the panel said (in his opinion) the North Koreans would be stupid to waste all that artillery DMZ on leveling Seoul.

The real existential threat to North Korea's existence is occupation by ROK and U.S. conventional forces. And once ROK and American armored forces breached the DMZ all would be lost.

Thus, the North would be much better served by targeting every piece of artillery they have on South Korean and American conventional forces in the field.

Well, what compounds things more is that the newest and greatest class of SSNs (fast attack subs) is the Virginia-class. They are (almost) all named after states too, and are not Boomers / SSBNs.

And the generals would do this instead of say, killing Kim, taking power themselves and suing for peace b/c.... why? You think they WANT to tried for war crimes?

Think about how Saddam's Army just disappeared when we went in.

You think that if North Korea hits Seoul with a barrage of artillery and flattens it that way killing tens of thousands of people that those same generals won't be tried for war crimes?

You think these generals have the balls to overthrow fatboy? Tell us why they haven't already done so.

He's executed a few generals and other higher ups and the rest haven't staged a coup yet. They didn't get to where they are by being politically adventurous. They are just as brainwashed as everyone else.

Let a general tell fatboy no and see how fast he tells his guards to wheel in the anti-aircraft gun and shoot that bastard general.

Kim will find someone who will fire those nukes.

You put too much faith in these North Korean generals.

SSBN escorting a carrier battle group?

What's next? An aircraft carrier escorting a destroyer?

Sheesh.

If you're not going to listen to people who know, apply a little logic. What is an escort submarine for? For detecting and dealing with threats that might approach the carrier. This is not a mission for a submarine intended to fire ballistic missiles. Not only would the SSBN be far inferior to the task, it would also mean protecting one strategic asset (a carrier) with...another strategic asset (an SSBN).

Calm down Oldfella! Calm down and read the posts!

Forgot to respond to this bit.....

#1 The Iraqi people were never even close to be brainwashed as people in North Korea.

#2 Even though Iraq tried to control the information coming into the country Iraqi people weren't in the dark about the rest of the world. North Korea? Totally in the dark.

#3 Gulf War 1991. The Iraqi survivors in the Army remember that and taught their kids (or their fellow soldiers if they were still in uniform). You don't think they remember the highway of death? The almost six weeks of aircraft chewing them up and spitting them out? The army just rolling over them and their positions like a knife going through butter? Their tanks blowing up before they even saw the American tanks?

Given 1, 2, and 3 it's quite easy to see why the average Iraqi solider knowing the Americans were coming decided to throw down his rifle and quit in 2003.

Sorry, I only made it about as far as "well, an SSBN captain could have his sub be an escort if he wanted it to be," and my eye-rolling became terminal.

true Iraq and NK are apples & oranges. NK might as well be another planet.

Just sayin'

Let me weigh in on the hand-to-hand being a wash: sorry, the laws of physics are not your friend if you weigh 135 and your enemy weighs 175.
Factor in a few inches of height which = reach advantage. That's why all combat sports have weight classes - because with a pretty much similar toolkit (korean fancy kicking which is harder to "set up" under less than ideal conditions) versus the easier to pull off basic grappling and close-in punching and low kicks of the US style the stronger, taller guy will win 90 percent of the time. Size matters - if the NK elites were taking on Rangers of their own size, they might crush them. But they aren't, so it sucks to be them.

My dad was partial to the bayonet if it got up close and personal.

I did enjoy bayonet training a lot when I went through army basic in 1988. Our unit brought a box of them to Iraq in 2003 but of course we never even attached them to our M-16's. My son went through basic in 2012 and they didn't even teach bayonets anymore.

Does the U.S. Army use that long narrow, slightly curved "needle like" bayonet that some armies use that is supposed to be better for killing with and less likely to jam in someones rib cage or do they still use the one that basically looks like a knife?

The US hasn't used "needle like" bayonets since the late 1800s.

I was reading about the design in a 1980s military magazine regarding one of the new assault rifle designs. "needle like" is probably a poor description on my part.

The US is still using M16 variants more than 50 years after the design was adopted and the M9 bayonet has been in service for more than 30 years.

indeed, we have the ones that look like a very sturdy knife, but those needle ones do sound pretty kick ass! True though, bayonets can get stuck, that's why (if memory serves) you have to be ready to use your leading leg (left leg if you are right handed) to forcefully kick against their body while you yank back to free the bayonet. But using your bayonet to slash versus jab keeps you more mobile and dynamic versus static. You can even slash with the bayonet end of your weapon and use that momentum to "follow through" with rotating the butt of your weapon around as a club to the head. There are a lot of combinations and techniques believe it or not. But it's a lost art unless they started teaching it again since my son exited the army.

The ones we were issued were made by Buck knife here in San Diego County.

Isn't more like a detachable knife?

All US bayonets since the one for the Krag-Jorgensen have basically been "detachable knives". Some much longer than others.

The only non-knife-like bayonets I can think of from the late 19th century and beyond are the integral cruciform "spike" bayonets on Chinese SKS rifles and the detachable cruciform bayonets on Russian Mosin-Nagant rifles.

Yeah. The only countries I can think of that used more pokey style bayonets were Britain and Russia back in WWII. They turned the bayonet for the Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk. 1 into a spike based on their experience in trench warefare in WWI because they found those huge sword bayonets to be unwieldy and actually somewhat prone to breaking in the cramped conditions of trench fighting. Actually when they went trench raiding, they tended to use improvised weapons, and a very common one was a knife that was essentially just a big needle they used to stab people with. Apparently that was the basis of the bayonet they initially designed for it, which actually looked a bit like a tent stake.

Agreed.

And your statement is also a very good argument on why grandma needs a gun when dealing with a bad guy.

Daddy was partial to the bayonet because he thought it would be much more useful when he was on sentry duty outside the camp fence while he was in Korea. He was very reluctant to use his rifle in the dark. He never forgot how one of his fellow sentrys (some distance away) got scared late one night and sprayed bullets.

Got one.



I've got a '98 Krag too, but it's been sporterized, so it won't take the Bayonet.

The Flaming Ducks painting really adds to this photo.

Is that a 10" Garand bayonet? I've been wanting a repro of the original 16" Garand bayonet, but first I need the rifle to put it on.

That's a Krag Bayonet.

Now we know why @Man Afraid of his Shoes is eating a cookie in the shower