GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2013, 10:03   #101
Rabid Rabbit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
Yes, assuming they are on alert and have received the go order. Do you really think the President can get his act together in less than several hours and give the orders?
Considering he had to sleep on the OBL decision, it might take BO a month to decide.
Rabid Rabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:05   #102
ezthumper
Registered User
 
ezthumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
Really? When I was stationed in Korea (04-05), we practiced shooting our ITOs VERY regularly; IIIRC we had "missles" down range in 30-45 minutes. I'm not sure how much the timing has changed since these assets were moved from where I was at to where they are now, though. This was from a long-range ground platform...
You do realize we are probably going to get a Hellfire from Holders drones right?

When you were around your assets (GLCM's?), were your level of readiness, higher than what was around you? In other words, the other guys not in your unit were scratching their butt, but you had your chin strap on.
ezthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:08   #103
ditto1958
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: West Monroe, Louisiana
Posts: 830
I hope they hit San Francisco or Sacramento (preferably when the legislature is in session).
ditto1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:13   #104
ezthumper
Registered User
 
ezthumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditto1958 View Post
I hope they hit San Francisco or Sacramento (preferably when the legislature is in session).
They need to wait for Feinstien and Pelosi to be in the same spot first.
ezthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:16   #105
Mayhem like Me
Semper Paratus
 
Mayhem like Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 15,180
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditto1958 View Post
I hope they hit San Francisco or Sacramento (preferably when the legislature is in session).
Really that is just so messed up to even say.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
How do you establish intent?
Well when a naked man is chasing a woman down an alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he's not collecting for the red cross...Inspector H. Callahan
Mayhem like Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:24   #106
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by railfancwb View Post
Plus one!

Norfolk is a target rich environment based upon recent photos posted in another thread. NYC, Seattle, San Diego, for that matter Pearl Harbor. Very deniable.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Deniable, and Nuclear Weapons, do not go hand in hand.
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:27   #107
AK_Stick
AAAMAD
 
AK_Stick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Alaska, again (for now)
Posts: 20,170
Send a message via AIM to AK_Stick Send a message via Yahoo to AK_Stick
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmotive View Post
I've said it before:
9/11 proved to the world that the US will never ever use nuclear weapons.
?


Because we destroyed two countries in retaliation to non-conventional strikes against two towers and a office building?
__________________
Quote:
Thomas Paine:

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace"
AK_Stick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:38   #108
whoops dude
Senior Member
 
whoops dude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 538
Throwing around nuclear weapons is the obvious answer to everything
__________________
Firearm reviews, philosophy, shooting and more!
http://www.youtube.com/user/417BoyWonder

Deuteronomy 15:11
You cannot follow Christ and not care about others.
whoops dude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:42   #109
Mass10mm
Armed Yankee
 
Mass10mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Boston MetroWest 'burbs
Posts: 702
Quote:
Originally Posted by ditto1958 View Post
I hope they hit San Francisco or Sacramento (preferably when the legislature is in session).
I can't believe rational Americans would ever say that. I ask you, sir, how would you feel if someone expressed the hopes that Louisiana got nuked, and that you and your family died in burning agony? Yet you have the gall to claim that hope for me and millions of other Americans.

I won't stoop to your level and say "I hope you die in a fire", but I ask you to think what you would feel if I said that.
__________________
G20, G27, G29: One of these is on my person, somewhere.
Mass10mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:43   #110
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabid Rabbit View Post
Considering he had to sleep on the OBL decision, it might take BO a month to decide.
By all reports, the "certainty" that OBL was there was in the neighborhood of 65-75%.

The operation included sending in US forces into a "friendly" country. It involved sending in highly-classified equipment (the copters) and invading the airspace of a sovereign nation without any sort of notification in accordance with any sort of agreements we have with said sovereign nation.

All based on less than 80% certainty.

By way of comparison, after the 9/11 eleven attacks, it took 9 days before the President even made a demand that OBL be turned over by the Taliban. After the Taliban offered to try him in an Afghan court which was (rightly) rejected, we launched military operations in Afghanistan on Oct 7, 2001.

26 days after the fact.

Do I have any problems with either of those delays? No. None, at all. When you're talking about invading another country and, more importantly, putting the lives of US military members at VERY high risk, I think taking a little bit of time to think about it isn't a bad thing.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 10:55   #111
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
By all reports, the "certainty" that OBL was there was in the neighborhood of 65-75%.

The operation included sending in US forces into a "friendly" country. It involved sending in highly-classified equipment (the copters) and invading the airspace of a sovereign nation without any sort of notification in accordance with any sort of agreements we have with said sovereign nation.

All based on less than 80% certainty.

By way of comparison, after the 9/11 eleven attacks, it took 9 days before the President even made a demand that OBL be turned over by the Taliban. After the Taliban offered to try him in an Afghan court which was (rightly) rejected, we launched military operations in Afghanistan on Oct 7, 2001.

26 days after the fact.

Do I have any problems with either of those delays? No. None, at all. When you're talking about invading another country and, more importantly, putting the lives of US military members at VERY high risk, I think taking a little bit of time to think about it isn't a bad thing.
This.

The criticisms that Bush Jr. acted with anger and vengeance are just stupid. In reality, what he did the amount of time he waited took remarkable self control.

Many other presidents would have come out swinging.

and Obama doesn't seem to have a problem killing people.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 16:32   #112
Ragnar
Senior Member
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 11,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by kensb2 View Post
Really? When I was stationed in Korea (04-05), we practiced shooting our ITOs VERY regularly; IIIRC we had "missles" down range in 30-45 minutes. I'm not sure how much the timing has changed since these assets were moved from where I was at to where they are now, though. This was from a long-range ground platform...
Yes, you can shoot missiles really fast. I've already said as much earlier.

But you need orders to do it. And I don't think the current President is going to issue orders on a moment's notice. He's gonna think about it, maybe play a round of golf, take a nap, etc.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 16:34   #113
Ragnar
Senior Member
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 11,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by whoops dude View Post
Throwing around nuclear weapons is the obvious answer to everything
It should be noted that the only two times they were used, we won the war. Exactly which wars have we won since then?
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 16:41   #114
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berto View Post
Aim for Rodman's house.
You don't see the connection between Rodman's positive visit and this renewal of hostilities between the US and NK by the gov't and media? Rodman (and the Harlem Globetrotters!) sat there with KJU, looking real buddy buddy. Rodman comes back talking about how great KJU is. Next thing you know the media is running on about how NK is going to nuke us and whatnot. This is called propaganda. Can't have anything positive be said about NK in the American press! The fedgov relies on your fear to keep you under control. NK relies on the same fearmongering. NK isn't going to nuke us. We aren't going to nuke them. Big rule of warfare these days is nuclear capable countries don't attack each other. Good ol' MAD at work.

Last edited by G19G20; 03-08-2013 at 16:42..
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 16:47   #115
Slug71
Senior Member
 
Slug71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Oregon - U.S.A
Posts: 4,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
You don't see the connection between Rodman's positive visit and this renewal of hostilities between the US and NK by the gov't and media? Rodman (and the Harlem Globetrotters!) sat there with KJU, looking real buddy buddy. Rodman comes back talking about how great KJU is. Next thing you know the media is running on about how NK is going to nuke us and whatnot. This is called propaganda. Can't have anything positive be said about NK in the American press! The fedgov relies on your fear to keep you under control. NK relies on the same fearmongering. NK isn't going to nuke us. We aren't going to nuke them. Big rule of warfare these days is nuclear capable countries don't attack each other. Good ol' MAD at work.
Well said.

Rand Paul 2016
__________________
GSSF Member
Bull Dawgs Club #571
Rimfire Club #571
Slug71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 16:50   #116
selogic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: The deep South
Posts: 270
At some point the western nations will offer them food and fuel oil and all of the sabre rattling will quiet down for a few months . Just like always .
selogic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 16:58   #117
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
It should be noted that the only two times they were used, we won the war. Exactly which wars have we won since then?
Gulf War 1, Iraq*, Grenada, Afghanistan*, the Yugolslav mess (Bosnia, Croatia, etc), Panama



The * items are dependent on your view. Iraq dragged on too long doing "nation-building" afterward, but the primary mission was to remove the existing government. That was accomplished fairly quickly (whether you agree with the action or not, we did what we set out to do). Afghanistan, also; the primary goal was to remove the Taliban from controlling the country and finding OBL; both were accomplished.

Korea - we stopped the North from taking over the South, but (because of China), we couldn't drive the North out, so call that a wash.

Oh, and how about the really big one, the reason for the massive build-up of nukes in the first place: The Cold War. Won with nary a shot fired, and certainly not nuclear weapons.

Now, flip your own question around: How many wars did we win BEFORE there were nuclear weapons? WWI, Revolutionary War, War with Mexico, Spanish-American War.

What do you claim we've lost since nuclear weapons came along? Vietnam, Somalia....and...?



And, just for the sake of the discussion, I posit that the nuclear devices in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did NOT win the war with Japan. They were already beaten. The bombs simply accelerated the end-game.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 17:01   #118
JackMac
Senior Member
 
JackMac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 845
Commifornia would be a undesirable place to live since it would be the nearest US target for inbounds from N.Korea. Maybe Senator Frankenstein and Respresentative Pelosi will be there when it impacts and detonates.
__________________
Armatissimi e liberissimi
JackMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 17:35   #119
vart
Senior Member
 
vart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Moscow, ID
Posts: 16,808


I talked to a female captain today that is the personal assistant or whatever to an Army general.

She remarked that they were headed to Korea tonight for a couple of weeks.

I told her to stay safe, especially with what's going on, which puzzled her. I mentioned the current tensions and she hadn't heard of any of it...

Either she is clueless, or the situation isn't that serious...
__________________
Okie -

"That's a big bite of crap sandwich, my friend..."

Rabbi - "Anyways, that is a beautiful car. Bill probably already farted in it."
vart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 17:41   #120
ezthumper
Registered User
 
ezthumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragnar View Post
It should be noted that the only two times they were used, we won the war. Exactly which wars have we won since then?
Cold War. (pertaining to Nuclear powers and Nukes)
ezthumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 17:44   #121
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Gulf War 1, Iraq*, Grenada, Afghanistan*, the Yugolslav mess (Bosnia, Croatia, etc), Panama



The * items are dependent on your view. Iraq dragged on too long doing "nation-building" afterward, but the primary mission was to remove the existing government. That was accomplished fairly quickly (whether you agree with the action or not, we did what we set out to do). Afghanistan, also; the primary goal was to remove the Taliban from controlling the country and finding OBL; both were accomplished.

Korea - we stopped the North from taking over the South, but (because of China), we couldn't drive the North out, so call that a wash.

Oh, and how about the really big one, the reason for the massive build-up of nukes in the first place: The Cold War. Won with nary a shot fired, and certainly not nuclear weapons.

Now, flip your own question around: How many wars did we win BEFORE there were nuclear weapons? WWI, Revolutionary War, War with Mexico, Spanish-American War.

What do you claim we've lost since nuclear weapons came along? Vietnam, Somalia....and...?



And, just for the sake of the discussion, I posit that the nuclear devices in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did NOT win the war with Japan. They were already beaten. The bombs simply accelerated the end-game.
Respectfully, I think a LOT of people would debate many or most of those wins with you.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 18:10   #122
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
Respectfully, I think a LOT of people would debate many or most of those wins with you.
Probably. There's probably quite a bit of debate over how many of them are 'wars', also. And I'm always up and open for respectful debates.

The overall point, though, is that there was an implication that our military is ineffective except when nuclear weapons have been used. 240(ish) years of history with only one conflict where they WERE used would beg to differ.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 18:26   #123
Ragnar
Senior Member
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 11,720


Quote:
Originally Posted by ezthumper View Post
Cold War. (pertaining to Nuclear powers and Nukes)
The Cold War was not a war.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 18:27   #124
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 11,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
Probably. There's probably quite a bit of debate over how many of them are 'wars', also. And I'm always up and open for respectful debates.

The overall point, though, is that there was an implication that our military is ineffective except when nuclear weapons have been used. 240(ish) years of history with only one conflict where they WERE used would beg to differ.
Indeed. Though no other weapon brought an end to war as quickly.

The bomb is a game changer, only now other madmen have access to it.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2013, 19:30   #125
Paul53
Geezer Boomer
 
Paul53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Rosa's Cantina
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce H View Post
The thing to remember is unstable people do unstable things and aren't very predictable.
You talking about big O or the little Korean jerk?

N Korea says it's nuclear missiles are on alert. Uh huh.

N Korea says it's going to nuke D.C. But I thought they wanted to hurt us, not help us.

I'm so confused. Where's W when you need him?

Seriously, IMHO nobody wins a war. Some just lose more than others.
__________________
Just had lunch at The Rod and Gun Club. Finally realized that in "philly cheese steak," philly isn't referring to Philadelphia.


Last edited by Paul53; 03-08-2013 at 19:33..
Paul53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:18.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,225
348 Members
877 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42