Fat Boy Proved He Could Hit Guam

[JoeB131]

Fat Boy hit Japan ...

Yes, we murdered 150,000 people in a country that had already been defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

It's nothing to be proud of.

 

[Geaux4it]

A man with nukes who threatens to use them.

It is not looking good.

Meh, I'm more worried about Trump having nukes than the little potbellied dictator...

Seek medical help Joe. Your lithium dose needs increased

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

Fat Boy hit Japan ...

Yes, we murdered 150,000 people in a country that had already been defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

It's nothing to be proud of.

 

[Jarlaxle]

He's just a megalomaniac, digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. If and when the US and the West decide to take action, it will be swift and decisive.

It will be decisive and swift...but he will take down millions with him. We're in a real pickle here.

Only because nobody has the stones to admit that yes, sometimes nerve gas REALLY IS the right tool for the job.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I thought this was the reason we had the CIA, Take him out and make it look like a accident. I guess the CIA is too busy now a days spying on Americans.

Jimmy Carter and Frank Church put an end to assassination squads, among other things.

The results are plain to see.

They should have been hanged for treason for doing so.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If Kim Dim Bulb flies one over Guam will it be MOAB #2 on their nuclear test range or the rain of fire on NK?

MOAB is not designed for use in an area without total air superiority and no threat of anti-aircraft fire. Please stop using this weapons as an example of what we could use against NK. It simply cannot happen. It is dropped by a cargo aircraft by parachute.

Thanks for explaining that. I still have the same question however. If Kim takes the next logical step in his test progression and launches a missile over Guam what should our response be? Do we decimate their test range, or do we decimate their country? Or is there a non-military option?

It depends completely on the level of decimation of South Korea that we are willing to accept. Making a conventional attack on his launch facilities because some of these missiles apparently are capable of being fired from mobile launchers.

If we could locate them and launch a coordinated surprise attack using cruise missiles on their fixed facilities and mobile launchers, we just might convince him that the nuclear option is not his best bet. Having the B-2s standing by to mop up would also be a good idea.

The only problem is that NK could still launch a massive artillery attack on SK and kills possibly hundred of thousands of innocent civilians. Should he do that, the limits would have to come off and we would be forced to destroy Kim's regime to the last man. China might not like that.

Might be better to blanket every square inch of North Korea with a couple billion cubic feet of Sarin gas.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sorry, not the rules of the game. Trump won 30 states. Clinton only won 20. That's a decisive victory and numbers only a butthurt liberal could possibly try to twist and say Trump doesn't "deserve" to be president. Like miss "delete those fucking emails bitch" deserves it.

More people voted for Hillary. End of discussion, pretty much. Trump has no legitimacy. and it's only a matter of time before Republicans get fed up with him and say, "Yeah, we can go with PResident Pence!"

Stop whining. You sound like an alternator with a bad bearing.

 

[fncceo]

Yes, we murdered 150,000 people in a country that had already been defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

In the words of the Warrior Poet, Will Smith ...

'Don't start nothin, there won't be nothin'

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, we murdered 150,000 people in a country that had already been defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

In the words of the Warrior Poet, Will Smith ...

'Don't start nothin, there won't be nothin'

Okay... so you think it was okay to do this to children?

I'm just asking, because you guys like to tell us how moral you are.

You see, we are the only country to have used these weapons on human beings. and we did it to a country that had already been effectively defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

But we are going to tell a small country that has been invaded several times that they can't have these weapons.

 

[fncceo]

Yes, we murdered 150,000 people in a country that had already been defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

In the words of the Warrior Poet, Will Smith ...

'Don't start nothin, there won't be nothin'

Okay... so you think it was okay to do this to children?

I'm just asking, because you guys like to tell us how moral you are.

You see, we are the only country to have used these weapons on human beings. and we did it to a country that had already been effectively defeated and was seeking terms of surrender.

But we are going to tell a small country that has been invaded several times that they can't have these weapons.

So, just to be clear, you argue about the immorality of nuclear weapons and advocate for letting every unstable country acquire them?

 

[JoeB131]

So, just to be clear, you argue about the immorality of nuclear weapons and advocate for letting every unstable country acquire them?

Why is it an "unstable" country? It's been ruled by the same family for 70 years now. that's about as 'Stable" as you can get.

I just think it's immoral for a country that USED NUKES ON PEOPLE to tell another country that they can't have them for self-defense.

 

[fncceo]

So, just to be clear, you argue about the immorality of nuclear weapons and advocate for letting every unstable country acquire them?

Why is it an "unstable" country? It's been ruled by the same family for 70 years now. that's about as 'Stable" as you can get.

I just think it's immoral for a country that USED NUKES ON PEOPLE to tell another country that they can't have them for self-defense.

For a country that developed a technology and recognises its destructive potential to attempt to stop the proliferation of that technology is highly moral.

To allow or even facilitate that proliferation would be immoral in the extreme.

 

[JoeB131]

For a country that developed a technology and recognises its destructive potential to attempt to stop the proliferation of that technology is highly moral.

To allow or even facilitate that proliferation would be immoral in the extreme.

Why? North Korea only wants nukes because they feel (with justification) that most of the world is against them.

you know, South Africa had nukes, when Apartheid was in power. And when Apartheid ended and they reached a settlement, they got rid of their nukes peacefully.

 

[fncceo]

North Korea only wants nukes because they feel (with justification) that most of the world is against them.

Somehow I don't remember South Africa shooting ICBMs at Japan.

 

[JoeB131]

Somehow I don't remember South Africa shooting ICBMs at Japan.

No, they just used other methods to threaten their neighbors like a nuclear test

Vela Incident - Wikipedia

 

[Peach]

So, just to be clear, you argue about the immorality of nuclear weapons and advocate for letting every unstable country acquire them?

Why is it an "unstable" country? It's been ruled by the same family for 70 years now. that's about as 'Stable" as you can get.

I just think it's immoral for a country that USED NUKES ON PEOPLE to tell another country that they can't have them for self-defense.

Do you know what the Allies were fighting? Read up on the goals of Germany, Japan, and Italy. And the Allies agreed to the use of nukes by the US. How many more should have died? Did you know many in Japan chose to fight until the last man? How many died in Berlin and surrounding areas because of NO SURRENDER by Hitler?

 

[mgh80]

He's just a megalomaniac, digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. If and when the US and the West decide to take action, it will be swift and decisive.

It will be decisive and swift...but he will take down millions with him. We're in a real pickle here.

Only because nobody has the stones to admit that yes, sometimes nerve gas REALLY IS the right tool for the job.

Not really. Let's say we attack North Korea...what will they do? Fire missiles into Seoul, our military operations in South Korea, and potentially Japan...taking down millions. There's no way to get around that. The people of South Korea are completely brain wasted zombies, they will not help overthrow their government.

 

[Asclepias]

He's just a megalomaniac, digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. If and when the US and the West decide to take action, it will be swift and decisive.

Even Drumpf isnt that dumb. There is no outcome that doesnt end with a war with China. Drumpf will need to kiss plenty of Chinese booty or US troops in S. Korea will be wiped off the map.

 

[Asclepias]

I'm personally not super worried over North Korea having nukes. Maybe I'm just being optimistic but I believe most world dictators (Kim included) are more pragmatic than our government propaganda would have you believe. A completely irrational dictator would have been overthrown by his own people long ago out of fear that they would be brought down with him. I only hope that I'm right and that the deterrent effect that has kept us all alive for decades holds up under a nuclear North Korea.

Considering the stuff the US does in N. Korea that the public doesnt hear about I am surprised he hasnt bombed S.Korea already.

 

[Asclepias]

If Kim Dim Bulb flies one over Guam will it be MOAB #2 on their nuclear test range or the rain of fire on NK?

MOAB is not designed for use in an area without total air superiority and no threat of anti-aircraft fire. Please stop using this weapons as an example of what we could use against NK. It simply cannot happen. It is dropped by a cargo aircraft by parachute.

Thanks for explaining that. I still have the same question however. If Kim takes the next logical step in his test progression and launches a missile over Guam what should our response be? Do we decimate their test range, or do we decimate their country? Or is there a non-military option?

It depends completely on the level of decimation of South Korea that we are willing to accept. Making a conventional attack on his launch facilities because some of these missiles apparently are capable of being fired from mobile launchers.

If we could locate them and launch a coordinated surprise attack using cruise missiles on their fixed facilities and mobile launchers, we just might convince him that the nuclear option is not his best bet. Having the B-2s standing by to mop up would also be a good idea.

The only problem is that NK could still launch a massive artillery attack on SK and kills possibly hundred of thousands of innocent civilians. Should he do that, the limits would have to come off and we would be forced to destroy Kim's regime to the last man. China might not like that.

Might be better to blanket every square inch of North Korea with a couple billion cubic feet of Sarin gas.

Gas doesnt respect international borders. Not only would it get S.Korea but it would start a war with China. Learn your geography instead of being an idiot.