War drum being beat louder than ever

[tytlyf]

Air superiority at the onset of the Korean war didn't make that much difference. Not until latter into the war that it made a difference

War is fought differently today. Don't compare the past to current strategy.

 

[esmith]

War is fought differently today. Don't compare the past to current strategy.

I see you are now a expert about combat in today's world as well as knowing the history of the Korean war. Why don't you enlighten us with your knowledge of both.

 

[tytlyf]

I see you are now a expert about combat in today's world as well as knowing the history of the Korean war. Why don't you enlighten us with your knowledge of both.

You're under the impression that you have to serve to 'know.' Don't compare the past to current day war. It's not the same.

 

[esmith]

You're under the impression that you have to serve to 'know.' Don't compare the past to current day war. It's not the same.

No you don't have to serve to know, you just have to be able to do research and study history, which you don't think is necessary as per your comment.

I don't live in the past. We have a different world these days. But I understand why you made the comparison. I'm sure it's in RW medialand. I'm just bored to look.

It's not relevant. So now you're suggesting the US should militarily attack NK to protect SK? Is that what you're saying now?

 

[Underhill]

Air superiority at the onset of the Korean war didn't make that much difference. Not until latter into the war that it made a difference

I don't mean to imply it will hand them the war. But it does tend to neutralize the numbers advantage. In other words it makes it hard for the North to openly move large numbers of troops. Defensively those numbers would make them a tough nut to crack, especially since they are so well dug in, but they are also somewhat neutered by the Souths air superiority offensively.

 

[Underhill]

To have no doubts about things to difficult to predict is a sign of faith based rationalizing.
Trump could indeed turn out terrible (as I warned you before the election).
But so could have the alternative, ie, Hilda.

Only now you admit to some uncertainty about something?
If Trump ends up being OK as Prez, would you admit that
your vote for the Hildabeast was wrong?

It's a bit late for that if. The guy would have to do a 180 on too many fronts for that to happen.

I strongly recommend cultivating more doubt about the unknowable.

I had doubt, but 100 days has been plenty to eliminate it. Trump is already starting to make us long for the glory days of Bush.

 

[Revoltingest]

I had doubt, but 100 days has been plenty to eliminate it.

What has happened that is so terrible?

Trump is already starting to make us long for the glory days of Bush.

Consider that Bush led us into 2 wars costing ultimately a couple trillion dollars,
which is a significant portion or our economy/wealth. An utter disaster, eh.
You actually prefer that over what has happened so far with Trump?

I think I see the problem here. Many people (Trump opponents) give great
weight to how they feel about leaders, eg, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Trump.
But they give far less to actual consequences, which are the only things
I find significant. This means we will seldom agree in our evaluations.
You feel how you feel about Trump & Clinton. I don't try to change that.

 

[Shad]

If they use their Nukes we have no way we can defend SK cities.
If they use them on Japan or America what could the USA do?
Start Armageddon?

So if NK attacks not just one but three possible nations, two of which are in military alliances America, it is America's fault for striking back.... Hear of MAD before? This idea has kept various powers in check for decades. Oh no we should just let a rogue nation use nukes whenever and wherever it wants without consequence..... More so we should limit our strategy to the point that one side is free to use nukes against any force deployed but the other side shouldn't and won't.

 

[Underhill]

What has happened that is so terrible?

Consider that Bush led us into 2 wars costing ultimately a couple trillion dollars,
which is a significant portion or our economy/wealth. An utter disaster, eh.
You actually prefer that over what has happened so far with Trump?

I think I see the problem here. Many people (Trump opponents) give great
weight to how they feel about leaders, eg, Bush, Obama, Clinton, Trump.
But they give far less to actual consequences, which are the only things
I find significant. This means we will seldom agree in our evaluations.
You feel how you feel about Trump & Clinton. I don't try to change that.

I'm not talking about just what they do as president but the image they present to the world.

We will see what Trump does. But his staff is preparing the country for war with Korea and he has escalated things in Afghanistan.

Korea alone has the potential to dwarf the spending (not to mention casualties) of both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not talking about just what they do as president but the image they present to the world.

We will see what Trump does. But his staff is preparing the country for war with Korea and he has escalated things in Afghanistan.

Korea alone has the potential to dwarf the spending (not to mention casualties) of both Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

I too see great risk regarding NK.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So if NK attacks not just one but three possible nations, two of which are in military alliances America, it is America's fault for striking back.... Hear of MAD before? This idea has kept various powers in check for decades. Oh no we should just let a rogue nation use nukes whenever and wherever it wants without consequence..... More so we should limit our strategy to the point that one side is free to use nukes against any force deployed but the other side shouldn't and won't.

If it gets as far as NK using nukes, America's strategy has failed.
Of course America will respond in kind.
But at what cost to the world.

The strategy is based in the outher country fearing overwhelming retaliation. Unfortunately NK. Does not think rationally. And well might call America's bluff. Then what...? The stratergy is based on never having to respond.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it gets as far as NK using nukes, America's strategy has failed.
Of course America will respond in kind.
But at what cost to the world.

The strategy is based in the outher country fearing overwhelming retaliation. Unfortunately NK. Does not think rationally. And well might call America's bluff. Then what...? The stratergy is based on never having to respond.

I doubt we'd respond to nukes with more nukes.
NK doesn't pose the kind of existential threat to the country that a power like Russia would.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally think that NK is full of p**s and wind, I think that little jerk would have done something by now if he could, I think he is scared, but still we have to be on guard.

 

[esmith]

I doubt we'd respond to nukes with more nukes.
NK doesn't pose the kind of existential threat to the country that a power like Russia would.

at least not at this time

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I doubt we'd respond to nukes with more nukes.
NK doesn't pose the kind of existential threat to the country that a power like Russia would.

could any American government afford not to nuke a country that had nuked them?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I personally think that NK is full of p**s and wind, I think that little jerk would have done something by now if he could, I think he is scared, but still we have to be on guard.

it depend on how mad he really is.
If he is mad, fear does not come into it.

 

[tytlyf]

I wonder if Trump thinks NK is more a threat than all those nuclear weapons Iran has now? I recall Trump making a stink of Iran and the Iran deal. Has he repealed and replaced that deal yet?

 

[esmith]

I wonder if Trump thinks NK is more a threat than all those nuclear weapons Iran has now? I recall Trump making a stink of Iran and the Iran deal. Has he repealed and replaced that deal yet?

give him time, maybe he will wipe Iran of the face of the earth

 

[tytlyf]

give him time, maybe he will wipe Iran of the face of the earth

I'm sure you want that. The man is clueless.

 

[Revoltingest]

could any American government afford not to nuke a country that had nuked them?

I believe so.
I hope so.
If we can win efficiently with conventional weapons,
then I believe that would serve us best in the long run.