Politics It's Getting Close to the Point of Nuking North Korea

[AK_Stick]

2 minutes ago, tsmo1066 said:

And the dozens of nuclear warheads he has for his KN-08 missiles right now? How many dead Japanese, Korean, Filipino, Taiwanese and Singapore citizens constitute  "acceptable losses" as a result your pre-emptive strike when he doubtless retaliates against our Asian allies that he can hit with his existing nuclear arsenal?

 

 

Come on now, its probably the same source that said it was plausible to evacuate all of Seoul, to the south, with busses.

 

You can't go asking real questions and expecting logical thought. He's incapable.

[fortyofforty]

14 minutes ago, AK_Stick said:

You have constantly misused the English language just in this thread where I've quoted you.

 

Attempting to be condescending doesn't work when you have been factually dug into a hole. The only person who believes any of the lies you've posted is you, hell you even lied about lying, and quoted articles that didn't state what you claimed as proof of your position.

 

 

 

You might try to get a refund from Rosetta Stone.

[fortyofforty]

Maybe Shuck and Jive can answer this:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

Nah, that would be demanding intelligence, logical thought, and a coherent plan of action, all articulated logically.  I won't hold my breath.

[fortyofforty]

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

Not one of the resident experts is willing to answer that simple question with a direct answer.  Not one.  The fear is palpable, since it would expose them as being weak-willed and feckless.

[Huaco Kid]

2 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Once again, back to the fundamental questions at the heart of this debate, instead of getting off on idiotic tangents in which you are proven wrong time and time again.

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

 

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

Then spell it out here.  Sometimes when you guys start spouting page after page of falsehoods, I might miss one nugget of value deeply concealed therein.  So:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

 

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

The question remains, for the honest among you:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.  Relatively minor damage and relatively low loss of life.  Are you willing to kill millions of Koreans in response?

 

48 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

 

25 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Maybe Shuck and Jive can answer this:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

Nah, that would be demanding intelligence, logical thought, and a coherent plan of action, all articulated logically.  I won't hold my breath.

 

23 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

Not one of the resident experts is willing to answer that simple question with a direct answer.  Not one.  The fear is palpable, since it would expose them as being weak-willed and feckless.

Would'ja just give us the right answer, already?

What do you want to hear?

[fortyofforty]

7 minutes ago, Huaco Kid said:

 

 

 

 

 

Would'ja just give us the right answer, already?

What do you want to hear?

One answer from the "do nothing" crowd.  Just one real, concrete, reasoned response.

[fortyofforty]

And I'll keep asking until one of them steps up.

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

[AK_Stick]

Rather ironic really, he'll stomp his feet and demand answers, but has left pages of unanswered questions behind when he talked himself into corners, or got called out about misrepresenting things.

 

 

I imagine the day he realizes that you can go back to the pages and re-read his words will be quite a shock.

[tsmo1066]

It is an interesting debate tactic, to be sure. Ignore clear, explicit and forthright answers to one's question and simply keep insisting that "nobody has answered".

It's the cyber equivalent of rocking back and forth while covering one's ears and yelling "I can't hear you!" over and over again.

Edited January 5, 2018 by tsmo1066

[fortyofforty]

One more time, for the slow witted:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

[fortyofforty]

I guess it's not surprising how it is impossible to get a straight answer out of some cowards on the internet.  They dance around and shuck and jive, and simply refuse to answer.  They pretend not to understand the question.  They go off on a tangent to avoid having to answer.  They make you ask over and over and over again, then go off on a "private" conversation with one of their fellow dancers, again to avoid having to give a straight answer.  The same pattern was repeated ad nauseum on GT, so it's no surprise it's followed them over here.  Oh, well.  I'm done trying to educate the ignorant, or forcing them to think beyond bumper stickers and talking points.

[fortyofforty]

Intellectually inferior, they demand a discussion involving only binary choices.  Either we continue on as we do toady, with no change, or North Korea launches missiles at the United States and we respond with a full scale retaliatory strike.
It’s not that they don’t know about other scenarios.  I have presented many.  It’s just that their limited intellect and understand of geopolitics does not allow them to have a discussion in this realm.

[willie-pete]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-talks-war-north-korea-104648648.html

 

“We really only have one historical data point, and that’s the Soviet Union in the late 1950s and early 1960s, where we transitioned into a mutual deterrence relationship ― we didn’t like it and we had the Cuban missile crisis. The North Koreans are now making that same transition and we’re having a crisis about it.” 

[Chris]

13 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

One more time, for the slow witted:

What would you propose our response should be if we believe North Korea provided a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon to a terrorist group, that was then used against us or our ally?  One weapon.  One use.

 

13 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

I guess it's not surprising how it is impossible to get a straight answer out of some cowards on the internet.  They dance around and shuck and jive, and simply refuse to answer.  They pretend not to understand the question.  They go off on a tangent to avoid having to answer.  They make you ask over and over and over again, then go off on a "private" conversation with one of their fellow dancers, again to avoid having to give a straight answer.  The same pattern was repeated ad nauseum on GT, so it's no surprise it's followed them over here.  Oh, well.  I'm done trying to educate the ignorant, or forcing them to think beyond bumper stickers and talking points.

 

11 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Intellectually inferior, they demand a discussion involving only binary choices.  Either we continue on as we do toady, with no change, or North Korea launches missiles at the United States and we respond with a full scale retaliatory strike.
It’s not that they don’t know about other scenarios.  I have presented many.  It’s just that their limited intellect and understand of geopolitics does not allow them to have a discussion in this realm.

Pot meet kettle.

You can continue to put yourself on the high horse and sling insults to the "dumb fools" beneath your level of perceived intelligence all you want. At this point, you are looking like an idiot.

If you want to know my answer to the question of NK proving material to be used in an attack on the US or our allies? Retaliate in kind. Millions will then die...

Try to "preempt" an attack, millions will then die.

How about you answer a question... Why is the NK regime so steadfast on building their nuclear/biological/chemical capability?

To attack the US and our allies?

Or, to preserve the regime?

I don't like it, but they have been allowed to develop their weapons programs for decades now. Unfortunately, they will have a seat at the big boy table when the time comes. They will never give them up, nor will any country that has them. You talk a lot about NK and their weapons, but what about Pakistan and the possible threat to the region and world they could pose?

[ASH]

i will tell you all  ...lol    it happens when it happens  do or don't  ,  everyone  is gonna have them  , and i dont think any country  wants to put planet 

earth back in the stone age . NK is run by a loon  , his best friend is dennis rodman??  come on .  serves no purpose if attacking anyone or country and you  

glow  like a zillion spotlights  with your skin melting off .like i said if it happens  then we all lose . the end  

 

we are bout 60 miles from fort Bragg  i will be toast and never feel anything but a quick poof

Edited January 6, 2018 by ASH

[willie-pete]

Actually, at 60 miles away, with a Hiroshima sized air burst on Bragg, you would survive the overpressure and the thermal burns.

The fallout might get you though if you are downwind unprotected.

 

if it was a Titan sized weapon though, yeah, you are toast.

[fortyofforty]

As I stated before, I'm done trying to educate the ignorant, or trying to get people to think beyond obvious stark choices.  It's a sad commentary on the state of our education system (and, apparently, Switzerland's, too).

[Huaco Kid]

3 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

As I stated before, I'm done trying to educate the ignorant, or trying to get people to think beyond obvious stark choices.

Thank you.

[TeaDub]

12 hours ago, Chris said:

I don't like it, but they have been allowed to develop their weapons programs for decades now. Unfortunately, they will have a seat at the big boy table when the time comes. They will never give them up, nor will any country that has them. You talk a lot about NK and their weapons, but what about Pakistan and the possible threat to the region and world they could pose?

I agree that they will never give them up. One country has done so, although their situation was somewhat unique. Ukraine had physical possession of many of the USSR's warheads when the Soviet Union collapsed. Total control of those weapons would have apparently taken some time to accomplish.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine

I wonder if they regret giving them up over the last few years? Crimea is gone and much of the eastern part of their country is in a long term fight with Russian backed militia.

I agree with you Chris about Pakistan. If Trump cuts off their "bribe" money, it'll be interesting the route that country goes. The world is getting more dangerous for sure.

[tsmo1066]

8 hours ago, willie-pete said:

Actually, at 60 miles away, with a Hiroshima sized air burst on Bragg, you would survive the overpressure and the thermal burns.

The fallout might get you though if you are downwind unprotected.

 

if it was a Titan sized weapon though, yeah, you are toast.

I think it was Carl Sagan who once said that dying in a nuclear attack would be an OK fate - just a quick flash of light and it's all over. What would be rougher is SURVIVING a nuclear attack, where you get to look forward to radiation sickness, severe burns and a painful, lingering death.

[willie-pete]

If you can stay out of the fallout long enough you are probably going to survive if the blast/thermal doesn't get you.  Fallout depends on a lot of factors; fission vs. fusion ( fission is worse ), surface v. air burst ( surface is worse and you will probably only see those in the missile fields in the northern tier states ); weather, time factor - 7/10 rule -  for every seven-fold increase in time following a blast,  the radiation intensity decreases by a factor of 10.   So after 7 hours, radioactivity drops 90%, after 49 hours another 90% drop.  

 

Most people went crazy when " On the Beach " came out but it wasn't really very realistic.

 

We had water/food in the missile site for 1 month.

 

Even though it is probably survivable for a lot of people; i'd still rather not go through it.

Edited January 6, 2018 by willie-pete

[tsmo1066]

18 minutes ago, willie-pete said:

If you can stay out of the fallout long enough you are probably going to survive if the blast/thermal doesn't get you.  Fallout depends on a lot of factors; fission vs. fusion ( fission is worse ), surface v. air burst ( surface is worse and you will probably only see those in the missile fields in the northern tier states ); weather, time factor - 7/10 rule -  for every seven-fold increase in time following a blast,  the radiation intensity decreases by a factor of 10.   So after 7 hours, radioactivity drops 90%, after 49 hours another 90% drop.  

 

Most people went crazy when " On the Beach " came out but it wasn't really very realistic.

 

We had water/food in the missile site for 1 month.

 

Even though it is probably survivable for a lot of people; i'd still rather not go through it.

The 7/10 rule is why most civilian fall-out shelters are centered around food and water supplies for two weeks. Whatever the radiation levels are after an an attack, they will be approximately 1000 times less after two weeks.

7 hours - 1/10

49 hours - 1/100

343 hours (14 days and change) - 1/1000

[AK_Stick]

8 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

As I stated before, I'm done trying to educate the ignorant, or trying to get people to think beyond obvious stark choices.  It's a sad commentary on the state of our education system (and, apparently, Switzerland's, too).

Good. 

 

When every single poster in a thread has disagreed with your position factually and pointed out mistakes in your argument, it is probably time to stop and realize you’re dramatically incorrect. 

 

The real question is, are you man enough to go learn something about this topic or will you just continue to lie?

[Exit Plan]

What I miss?

[Chris]

4 hours ago, Exit Plan said:

What I miss?

Nothing....

13 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

As I stated before, I'm done trying to educate the ignorant, or trying to get people to think beyond obvious stark choices.  It's a sad commentary on the state of our education system (and, apparently, Switzerland's, too).

Yet, you propose your obvious solution to this mess with no regards to the ramifications of doing so. Now, you get back on your soap box and comment on how the education system fails us. Perhaps you are the one who the education system failed...

Since you demand others answer your questions, perhaps you can answer the ones I posted for you... Fair is fair after all. I answered the one you have been repeating...

23 hours ago, Chris said:

Why is the NK regime so steadfast on building their nuclear/biological/chemical capability?

To attack the US and our allies?

Or, to preserve the regime?

What about Pakistan and the possible threat to the region and world they could pose?