|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2017 14:50:18 GMT -5
It would be interesting though, in an academic sense, if the US would actually invade-attack-occupy a nuclear armed country. I think not. Too much political risk do to blow-back. Blow back? Here's how it would play out: The US threatens/launches invasion. Balloon goes up. NK launches. Seoul and a lot of other South Korean cities get pulverized in the first few minutes. Most of the US 8th Army will be wiped out. (Besides nukes, North Korea has most of their conventional artillery pointed across the DMZ at Seoul.) Probably parts of Japan, Guam, and wherever else NK can reach shortly thereafter. Most of habitable North Korea gets turned into glass by US retaliation. If we're lucky, no one else joins in the fun. We spend the next few decades rebuilding and recovering. The entire Korean peninsula will probably be knocked back to third world standards for a while. The death toll will be horrific. The current generation will have something to eclipse 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 14:55:59 GMT -5
What's this "without using Google" crap? You'll believe me without citations? right. No, I mean I want you to produce an original, defensible thought rather than searching for someone else's words as you desperately reach for a defense of Trump. No. I'm sure military brass have been meeting with the President (duh) and asking for more money (duh) and including "missile defense preparednes/capability etc." in their justifications (duh). This would be a true statement, umm, pretty much every year since 1946 or so. I want to know what Trump has actually done, and in what way it differs from what every other president has done and would do, that makes you feel so tingly and safe with Trump in charge and comparing nuclear dick sizes with North Korea. How am I supposed to know what Trump has done that differs from what EVERY other president has done and would do? Here' are a few of my thoughts, with no credit to Google: Trump has been blatantly pro-military in his rhetoric since day one of his campaign, with emphasis on making our military stronger and appreciating our soldiers (including VA reform). He has brought several generals into his administration in top posts. He asked for some $30 billion in spending increases and got around half that from Congress. Oh well, at least he asked. And at least there was an increase. (Unlike some years under Obama) Do I wish we had Rubio at the helm as our world goes to hell from terrorism and rogue regimes? Yes, of course, absolutely. Do I think we'd be any better off or have more spending or more preparedness under Bernie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Do I think Clinton would be spending more than Trump, or have the same pro-military stance (though she'd be better than Bernie, I admit), or have these specific smart and respected generals helping her? Highly doubtful. So yeah, in comparison to what could have been, I am all tingly for Trump's conservative admin and pro-military attitude.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Aug 9, 2017 15:18:19 GMT -5
It would be interesting though, in an academic sense, if the US would actually invade-attack-occupy a nuclear armed country. I think not. Too much political risk do to blow-back. Blow back? Here's how it would play out: The US threatens/launches invasion. Balloon goes up. NK launches. Seoul and a lot of other South Korean cities get pulverized in the first few minutes. Most of the US 8th Army will be wiped out. (Besides nukes, North Korea has most of their conventional artillery pointed across the DMZ at Seoul.) Probably parts of Japan, Guam, and wherever else NK can reach shortly thereafter. Most of habitable North Korea gets turned into glass by US retaliation. If we're lucky, no one else joins in the fun. We spend the next few decades rebuilding and recovering. The entire Korean peninsula will probably be knocked back to third world standards for a while. The death toll will be horrific. The current generation will have something to eclipse 9/11. I don't disagree with anything you said here. My thoughts were more along the lines of were the US to lob some bad stuff at NK, and the scenario you outlined came some what true, the blow-back would come from the rest of the world. This little dust up could very well cost the US every friend on the planet.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 9, 2017 15:21:16 GMT -5
How am I supposed to know what Trump has done that differs from what EVERY other president has done and would do? So tell me something he specifically has done that is the basis for your asking us if we aren't "a teeny bit glad" that he's in charge. Name a Presidet who wasn't pro-military and full of rhetoric about making our military stronger and appreciating our soldiers. Also, what does any of that have specifically to do with him being well-prepared to deal with North Korea? Trump has also been blatantly pro-making America great again in his rhetoric since day one of his campaign. How's he doing with that? Putting generals in charge may or may not be a good idea, but let's say it is. How does that position us to better deal with North Korea? How did any of that money make us better prepared to deal with North Korea? How much of it was spent on missile defense? How many missiles do you think it will stop? Our world is going to hell? Really? I mean, what has changed in NK? They are the same regime they have been for over half a century. I find it curious that you are advocating "Throw money at it" as good policy. Does that only pertain to military issues? Bernie was never seriously in contention, and I wasn't asking whether you think Bernie Sanders would do a better job of dealing with North Korea (personally, I think he would, but I think you and I and my mailman would do a better job of dealing with North Korea). I asked what specifically gives you reason to be glad that Trump is in charge. So, he asked for more money and he appointed some generals, and that's why he's doing a crackerjack job of dealing with North Korea and why we should be glad it's him and not Clinton. Do I have that right? Seriously, what do you think Clinton (or even Sanders) would be doing differently - letting Kim Jong-Un march into Seoul? Dismantling all our missile defense?
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 9, 2017 16:05:59 GMT -5
Seriously, what do you think Clinton (or even Sanders) would be doing differently - letting Kim Jong-Un march into Seoul? Dismantling all our missile defense? Clinton surely would've surrendered by now.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 9, 2017 19:14:10 GMT -5
LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 9, 2017 20:23:44 GMT -5
For those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am. I'm not grateful and you're giving him credit he doesn't deserve for something he hasn't actually done: Trump promising to do something isn't the same as him actually doing it. Hopefully, the same will hold true regarding his reckless, dangerous, idiotic posturing and saber-rattling about "fire and fury."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 21:58:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Aug 10, 2017 8:40:33 GMT -5
NK is precisely the existential threat that the USSR was. Except much tinier, much less sophisticated, and with far fewer mental and physical resources to rely on.
Yet people are buying the same bullshit wrapped in a new flag.
Does nobody ever ask why the US has such a desire to paint a target on its chest? And here's Trump, beating his chest and acting tough while hiding behind the lives of 300,000 million civilians.
You can bet it won't be him or his advisors that go up in smoke.
Fuck him He's a fucking bully and a coward beside.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 9:29:16 GMT -5
As we scurry to re-stock our fallout shelters, here's something on the lighter side: File this one under "Why Copy Editors Still Matter In The Approaching Apocalypse."
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 10, 2017 10:17:57 GMT -5
Sounds like Trump is headed to ComicCon...
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2017 12:52:18 GMT -5
Well, he's basically a cartoon character, so it makes sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 13:05:08 GMT -5
Someone really needs to write a parody comic strip with Trump as a mock superhero.
I might need to do it, if no one steps up.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 10, 2017 13:09:55 GMT -5
I was reading an article the other day that suggested that the only way that Trump could possibly deflect attention away from Mueller's investigation would be to start a war or otherwise engage in big military action. And wouldn't you know it, two days later, Trump mouthfarts his stupid "fire and fury" threats to NK. And, ever since, I haven't heard a peep in the news about his Russia investigation troubles. Guess that article was right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2017 20:50:04 GMT -5
|
|