[Rabid Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

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.

[ezthumper]

Originally Posted by kensb2

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.

[ditto1958]

I hope they hit San Francisco or Sacramento (preferably when the legislature is in session).

[ezthumper]

Originally Posted by ditto1958

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.

[Mayhem like Me]

Originally Posted by ditto1958

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

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by railfancwb

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.

[AK_Stick]

Originally Posted by airmotive

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?

[whoops dude]

Throwing around nuclear weapons is the obvious answer to everything

[Mass10mm]

Originally Posted by ditto1958

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.

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Rabid Rabbit

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.

[volsbear]

Originally Posted by WarCry

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.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by kensb2

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]

Originally Posted by whoops dude

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?

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by Berto

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.

[Slug71]

Originally Posted by G19G20

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

[selogic]

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 .

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

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.

[JackMac]

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.

[vart]

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...

[ezthumper]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

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)

[volsbear]

Originally Posted by WarCry

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

[WarCry]

Originally Posted by volsbear

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.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by ezthumper

Cold War. (pertaining to Nuclear powers and Nukes)

The Cold War was not a war.

[volsbear]

Originally Posted by WarCry

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

[Paul53]

Originally Posted by Bruce H

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.