Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on September 03, 2024, 09:01:17 AM
-
I recently read "Nuclear War" by Anne Jacobson.
It's a pretty sobering book and I highly recommend it.
Anne Jacobson extensively researched nuclear war scenarios and how our system works. She interviews former generals, defense secretaries, scientists, etc.
In a nutshell, at the beginning of the nuclear age, there were only 2 countries that possessed nukes. Now there are 9. One of these countries is North Korea which has an estimated 50+ nukes.
She takes us through a possible scenario using the mad kind concept where North Korea launches a nuke at Washington DC.
Presently, the way the system is set up, is we will have full confirmation a nuke is heading our way about 8 minutes after launch (our satellites will pick up the rocket blast nearly instantly), after which the POTUS has about 6 minutes to decide whether to strike back and how many nukes we strike back with. The problem is, the ICBMs we send have to fly over Russia and their early warning systems are not as good as ours and they will likely think we are attacking them.
We have a "launch on warning" policy meaning that if we think ICBMs are heading our way (which can't be recalled BTW), we will launch our own ICBMs. Russia has the same policy.
There have been numerous close calls and false alarms over the years.
In the scenario, through a series of miscommunications, lack of good radar, and overall chaos, it ends in full-scale nuclear war and the annihilation of about 5 billion people.
This all happens in 72 minutes. 72 fucking minutes, OVER, end of the world.
In the US 1 person alone has the power to launch for any reason. The POTUS and only the POTUS can do this.
Are you confident Biden can make the right decisions?
Are you confident Trump can?
Are you confident Harris can?
Frankly, at the very least we need to demand that POTUS's have a cognitive test every 3 months.
-
Trump will try to end wars.
The Biden admin has pushed us closer to a global conflict.
Harris can not handle an interview with Fox News, but she's going to manage this stuff?
It's an easy decision based on this context.
100% yes on annual cognitive tests, although you'd have to be careful of some deep state move to remove a President they don't want, utilizing a corrupt doctor.
-
Trump will try to end wars.
The Biden admin has pushed us closer to a global conflict.
Harris can not handle an interview with Fox News, but she's going to manage this stuff?
It's an easy decision based on this context.
100% yes on annual cognitive tests, although you'd have to be careful of some deep state move to remove a President they don't want, utilizing a corrupt doctor.
I fear Trump will be irrational in the moment. This isn't about days and weeks. It's chaos in seconds and minutes.
I don't know enough about Harris.
I think there would be a way to have several tests administered by various entities for checks and balances.
-
I fear Trump will be irrational in the moment. This isn't about days and weeks. It's chaos in seconds and minutes.
I don't know enough about Harris.
I think there would be a way to have several tests administered by various entities for checks and balances.
::)
Trump was POTUS for 4 years already!
We know how he is going to govern vs the war mongering NWO Harris types. Holy F are you off base.
-
I recently read "Nuclear War" by Anne Jacobson.
It's a pretty sobering book and I highly recommend it.
Anne Jacobson extensively researched nuclear war scenarios and how our system works. She interviews former generals, defense secretaries, scientists, etc.
In a nutshell, at the beginning of the nuclear age, there were only 2 countries that possessed nukes. Now there are 9. One of these countries is North Korea which has an estimated 50+ nukes.
She takes us through a possible scenario using the mad kind concept where North Korea launches a nuke at Washington DC.
Presently, the way the system is set up, is we will have full confirmation a nuke is heading our way about 8 minutes after launch (our satellites will pick up the rocket blast nearly instantly), after which the POTUS has about 6 minutes to decide whether to strike back and how many nukes we strike back with. The problem is, the ICBMs we send have to fly over Russia and their early warning systems are not as good as ours and they will likely think we are attacking them.
We have a "launch on warning" policy meaning that if we think ICBMs are heading our way (which can't be recalled BTW), we will launch our own ICBMs. Russia has the same policy.
There have been numerous close calls and false alarms over the years.
In the scenario, through a series of miscommunications, lack of good radar, and overall chaos, it ends in full-scale nuclear war and the annihilation of about 5 billion people.
This all happens in 72 minutes. 72 fucking minutes, OVER, end of the world.
In the US 1 person alone has the power to launch for any reason. The POTUS and only the POTUS can do this.
Are you confident Biden can make the right decisions?
Are you confident Trump can?
Are you confident Harris can?
Frankly, at the very least we need to demand that POTUS's have a cognitive test every 3 months.
Trump tried to make peace w countries remember?
Biden/Harris/Hillary/Obama made war.
FACTS
-
Trump tried to make peace w countries remember?
Biden/Harris/Hillary/Obama made war.
FACTS
It's not about that. It's not about keeping us out of wars. It's about 9 countries that have nukes. It's about the seconds and minutes that the president will have to make rational decisions because a rogue nation like North Korea or soon-to-be Iran decides to launch a nuke and how the other nations react to it.
-
It's not about that. It's not about keeping us out of wars. It's about 9 countries that have nukes. It's about the seconds and minutes that the president will have to make rational decisions because a rogue nation like North Korea or soon-to-be Iran decides to launch a nuke and how the other nations react to it.
Um - remember when Trump went to NK to make peace with them?
Remember the liberal mentally ill cultists pedos got all upset over it?
-
::)
Trump was POTUS for 4 years already!
We know how he is going to govern vs the war mongering NWO Harris types. Holy F are you off base.
X2 he didn’t blow up the World then idk how libturd idiots think he’ll do it this time around.
-
Um - remember when Trump went to NK to make peace with them?
Remember the liberal mentally ill cultists pedos got all upset over it?
2 completely different things. I am not arguing that Trump did or didn't do things to make peace and keep us out of war. My assertion is that does any of those people, Trump Harris, or Biden have the mental capacity to process rationally in 6 minutes the right response in a potential nuclear conflict?
-
2 completely different things. I am not arguing that Trump did or didn't do things to make peace and keep us out of war. My assertion is that does any of those people, Trump Harris, or Biden have the mental capacity to process rationally in 6 minutes the right response in a potential nuclear conflict?
That is unknown.
However, the point stands - if one cannot be counted on to think on the spot for an interview, it's not unfair to extrapolate that to the situation you described.
-
Trump for the win.
He has icewater in his veins.
-
I recently read "Nuclear War" by Anne Jacobson.
It's a pretty sobering book and I highly recommend it.
Anne Jacobson extensively researched nuclear war scenarios and how our system works. She interviews former generals, defense secretaries, scientists, etc.
In a nutshell, at the beginning of the nuclear age, there were only 2 countries that possessed nukes. Now there are 9. One of these countries is North Korea which has an estimated 50+ nukes.
She takes us through a possible scenario using the mad kind concept where North Korea launches a nuke at Washington DC.
Presently, the way the system is set up, is we will have full confirmation a nuke is heading our way about 8 minutes after launch (our satellites will pick up the rocket blast nearly instantly), after which the POTUS has about 6 minutes to decide whether to strike back and how many nukes we strike back with. The problem is, the ICBMs we send have to fly over Russia and their early warning systems are not as good as ours and they will likely think we are attacking them.
We have a "launch on warning" policy meaning that if we think ICBMs are heading our way (which can't be recalled BTW), we will launch our own ICBMs. Russia has the same policy.
There have been numerous close calls and false alarms over the years.
In the scenario, through a series of miscommunications, lack of good radar, and overall chaos, it ends in full-scale nuclear war and the annihilation of about 5 billion people.
This all happens in 72 minutes. 72 fucking minutes, OVER, end of the world.
In the US 1 person alone has the power to launch for any reason. The POTUS and only the POTUS can do this.
Are you confident Biden can make the right decisions?
Are you confident Trump can?
Are you confident Harris can?
Frankly, at the very least we need to demand that POTUS's have a cognitive test every 3 months.
::)
Trump was POTUS for 4 years already!
We know how he is going to govern vs the war mongering NWO Harris types. Holy F are you off base.
Soul Crusher is correct. We already had Trump as POTUS. We know how he reacts to crisis. We know what he did when we were attacked by Iran. We know what he did when North Korea was saber rattling. We saw Russia and China do nothing. We saw peace deals in the Middle East. We saw no new military conflicts for the first time in decades across multiple Democrat and Republican Administrations. We saw how Trump reacts when he gets shot in the face.
On the other side, we have an oatmeal for brains president and a clearly dumb candidate who cannot answer unscripted questions from unfriendly media personnel. This is a no brainer.
-
Soul Crusher is correct. We already had Trump as POTUS. We know how he reacts to crisis. We know what he did when we were attacked by Iran. We know what he did when North Korea was saber rattling. We saw Russia and China do nothing. We saw peace deals in the Middle East. We saw no new military conflicts for the first time in decades across multiple Democrat and Republican Administrations. We saw how Trump reacts when he gets shot in the face.
On the other side, we have an oatmeal for brains president and a clearly dumb candidate who cannot answer unscripted questions from unfriendly media personnel. This is a no brainer.
The crisis he reacted to vs the crisis I outlined are 2 very different things. The question is whether or not you think he could act rationally when he and he alone has to make a decision that could end the world based on available intel that might be lacking in the heat of the moment when he is getting screamed at STRATCOM the defense secretary and his top generals while he is being physically man handled by the CAT team while shoved into marine one all in 6 minutes.
If you think so, fine. I don’t have the confidence that he could. Now, negotiate, keep out of wars, make good economy decisions,, etc. sure. But I am not confident about this one. Biden is a no brainer.
You should read the book. It’s a good read.
-
That is unknown.
However, the point stands - if one cannot be counted on to think on the spot for an interview, it's not unfair to extrapolate that to the situation you described.
True. Plus the way they describe the menu of strike options in the football can be problematic.
-
The crisis he reacted to vs the crisis I outlined are 2 very different things. The question is whether or not you think he could act rationally when he and he alone has to make a decision that could end the world based on available intel that might be lacking in the heat of the moment when he is getting screamed at STRATCOM the defense secretary and his top generals while he is being physically man handled by the CAT team while shoved into marine one all in 6 minutes.
If you think so, fine. I don’t have the confidence that he could. Now, negotiate, keep out of wars, make good economy decisions,, etc. sure. But I am not confident about this one. Biden is a no brainer.
You should read the book. It’s a good read.
I don't really see a difference between the judgment used to make critical decisions in hours versus minutes. If he showed good judgment, repeatedly, in the face of crisis in hours, then you can safely assume he will do the same thing in minutes. And his response to getting shot in the face speaks volumes.
I don't see how you can have any confidence in Kamala Harris. Unlike Trump, she has zero evidence of making good decisions in times of crisis. She cannot even answer unscripted questions from "hostile" reporters.
Check out this small example. Remember when Kamala Harris jumped on the Jussie Smollet hoax and said it was an attempted lynching? When the truth came out, she was confronted by a reporter. When asked the question, she first tried to pretend like someone was talking to her. Then nervous laughter. Then word salad. Now think about how she would react to a real crisis. Start at 2:08. It's short but revealing.
I will put the book on my reading list.
-
I don't really see a difference between the judgment used to make critical decisions in hours versus minutes. If he showed good judgment, repeatedly, in the face of crisis in hours, then you can safely assume he will do the same thing in minutes. And his response to getting shot in the face speaks volumes.
I don't see how you can have any confidence in Kamala Harris. Unlike Trump, she has zero evidence of making good decisions in times of crisis. She cannot even answer unscripted questions from "hostile" reporters.
Check out this small example. Remember when Kamala Harris jumped on the Jussie Smollet hoax and said it was an attempted lynching? When the truth came out, she was confronted by a reporter. When asked the question, she first tried to pretend like someone was talking to her. Then nervous laughter. Then word salad. Now think about how she would react to a real crisis. Start at 2:08. It's short but revealing.
I will put the book on my reading list.
We will see how she does in the debates. I haven't paid much attention to her so I don't really know.
I see a difference between the judgment used to make critical decisions in hours versus minutes. Many Trump supporters wish he would keep his mouth shut, and I think if he had, it might have helped him win the last election. Those decisions were likely fueled by emotion. Emotion, intuition, gut feeling, anger, etc. play a part in a rushed decision. His advisors would have surely advised him against doing stuff like that.
Decisions that allow for hours or days have the benefit of analysis, discussion, collaboration, complex reasoning etc. He did fine with that, except for maybe COVID.
I don't have confidence in him to make rational decisions in a potential nuclear war. Because of his age and past history. I didn't feel this way before reading the book.
-
Four years of peace with Trump as President.
With filthy Joe pedo as President?
(https://adevarulonline.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/o-noua-cercetare-dezvaluie-modul-in-care-razboiul-nuclear-ar-afecta-pamantul-astazi-img_62c997e848381.gif)
-
We will see how she does in the debates. I haven't paid much attention to her so I don't really know.
I see a difference between the judgment used to make critical decisions in hours versus minutes. Many Trump supporters wish he would keep his mouth shut, and I think if he had, it might have helped him win the last election. Those decisions were likely fueled by emotion. Emotion, intuition, gut feeling, anger, etc. play a part in a rushed decision. His advisors would have surely advised him against doing stuff like that.
Decisions that allow for hours or days have the benefit of analysis, discussion, collaboration, complex reasoning etc. He did fine with that, except for maybe COVID.
I don't have confidence in him to make rational decisions in a potential nuclear war. Because of his age and past history. I didn't feel this way before reading the book.
This is TDS defined.
-
This is TDS defined.
::)
-
::)
Trump was POTUS for 4 years
Biden/Harris have been in office for 4 years.
Compare the two objectively and anyone who comes to any other conclusion than that Trump is better suited for these matters is suffering severe TDS.
This cackling drunk nut can't even answer a question with notes or a teleprompter. We have seen her unscripted on even the most banal issues and its a disaster. Her two main actions as VP were a complete disaster - the border and withdrawal from AStan.
Under Trump we had no new wars, terrorist attacks, nothing at all.
-
Trump was POTUS for 4 years
Biden/Harris have been in office for 4 years.
Compare the two objectively and anyone who comes to any other conclusion than that Trump is better suited for these matters is suffering severe TDS.
This cackling drunk nut can't even answer a question with notes or a teleprompter. We have seen her unscripted on even the most banal issues and its a disaster. Her two main actions as VP were a complete disaster - the border and withdrawal from AStan.
Under Trump we had no new wars, terrorist attacks, nothing at all.
I am not asking to pick one. I am not asking to compare the 2. I am simply in asking if any of the 3 are up to the task.
Trump record of no new wars, terroirs attacks have nothing to do with the premise of this thread.
Read the exchanges between me, Grape and Beach. I am not debating Trump decisions when he had days and weeks. I contesting that he is not fit to make nuclear decisions under duress that decides the fate of mankind in 6 minutes.
Or let’s just say I don’t have confidence he would make the right ones.
-
I am not asking to pick one. I am not asking to compare the 2. I am simply in asking if any of the 3 are up to the task.
Trump record of no new wars, terroirs attacks have nothing to do with the premise of this thread.
Yes it does - Trump is up to the task based upon his past track record.
-
Yes it does - Trump is up to the task based upon his past track record.
No it doesn’t.
Decisions in the heat of the moment that only allow mere minutes are far different than decisions that allow for days and weeks.
-
I maintain we do not know how any will react, because I don't think anyone in history ever had to make this decision (Bay of Pigs?)
However, I do agree with SC that the more experience you have running the country may prepare you better for it.
Not the same context, but I also want the guy there who will least likely get us to that point. This current admin letting Ukraine use US weapons across the border is the exact wrong thing to do.
-
No it doesn’t.
Decisions in the heat of the moment that only allow mere minutes are far different than decisions that allow for days and weeks.
Yeah Kamala has shown so much reflective judgment after weeks and months of study. Ugh huh.
Trump was POTUS for 4 years! We saw how he deals with these matters. We also saw the disastrous actions of Biden/Harris. To act otherwise is denial and pure TDS
-
I maintain we do not know how any will react, because I don't think anyone in history ever had to make this decision (Bay of Pigs?)
However, I do agree with SC that the more experience you have running the country may prepare you better for it.
Not the same context, but I also want the guy there who will least likely get us to that point. This current admin letting Ukraine use US weapons across the border is the exact wrong thing to do.
They caused it! Remember Obama/Biden actions in 2014 set this all in motion. Remember Obama/Biden way in Lybia/Syria?
Liberal cultist apologists refuse to accept facts when it destroys the narrative they are trying to sell.
-
If the enemies of the US and its allies really believe Trump is nuke trigger happy, then these enemies will not dare mess with the US or its allies while Trump is president.
-
January 2, 2018
(http://meredith.images.worldnow.com/images/15739374_G.png?auto=webp&disable=upscale&width=800)
(https://pics.me.me/horry-shit-was-onry-kidding-donard-it-was-joke-19776071.png)
January 3, 2018
North Korea calls hotline to South Korea in diplomatic breakthrough
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/03/asia/north-korea-south-hotline/index.html
January 10, 2018
South Korea's Moon says Trump deserves 'big' credit for North Korea talks
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/10/south-koreas-moon-says-trump-deserves-big-credit-for-north-korea-talks.html
June 12, 2018
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Kim_and_Trump_shaking_hands_at_the_red_carpet_during_the_DPRK%E2%80%93USA_Singapore_Summit.jpg/1024px-Kim_and_Trump_shaking_hands_at_the_red_carpet_during_the_DPRK%E2%80%93USA_Singapore_Summit.jpg)
North Korea is less dangerous today than it was at the end of 2017
A report by Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation found
February 12, 2019
https://news.yahoo.com/north-korea-may-made-more-nuclear-bombs-threat-051230002.html
-
I am not asking to pick one. I am not asking to compare the 2. I am simply in asking if any of the 3 are up to the task.
Trump record of no new wars, terroirs attacks have nothing to do with the premise of this thread.
Read the exchanges between me, Grape and Beach. I am not debating Trump decisions when he had days and weeks. I contesting that he is not fit to make nuclear decisions under duress that decides the fate of mankind in 6 minutes.
Or let’s just say I don’t have confidence he would make the right ones.
If you're not doing a comparison then it's kind of pointless. We have to make a choice in November.
-
They caused it! Remember Obama/Biden actions in 2014 set this all in motion. Remember Obama/Biden way in Lybia/Syria?
Liberal cultist apologists refuse to accept facts when it destroys the narrative they are trying to sell.
I know.
Ozmo is just trying to break it down to how one person will react in a very specific situation, regardless of how it got there.
Not what he's asking, but I'd be hopeful if NK launched one missle, we have the tech to destroy it.
-
I know.
Ozmo is just trying to break it down to how one person will react in a very specific situation, regardless of how it got there.
Not what he's asking, but I'd be hopeful if NK launched one missle, we have the tech to destroy it.
Only a 40%-55% chance in test conditions. And we presently only have 54 of these missiles. And in the scenario that’s presented in the book we do retaliate with 82 nukes, 50 ICBMs and 32 sub launched nukes. The problem is the ICBMs have to fly over Russian air space to get there and the Russians do not have advanced enough detection systems to gauge the trajectory of our nukes. So they think we mistakenly think they launched the nuke and are launching on them. They also have a launch on warning policy, so they launch at us, we launch on them, this all happens in about 20 minutes.
-
Only a 40%-55% chance in test conditions. And we presently only have 54 of these missiles. And in the scenario that’s presented in the book we do retaliate with 82 nukes, 50 ICBMs and 32 sub launched nukes. The problem is the ICBMs have to fly over Russian air space to get there and the Russians do not have advanced enough detection systems to gauge the trajectory of our nukes. So they think we mistakenly think they launched the nuke and are launching on them. They also have a launch on warning policy, so they launch at us, we launch on them, this all happens in about 20 minutes.
Yes, read that.
This 40-55% is what is known to the author, correct? I'll admit I didn't read who the author is or why they know what they know.
There is black ops tech funded by dark money that nobody knows about.
-
Yes, read that.
This 40-55% is what is known to the author, correct? I'll admit I didn't read who the author is or why they know what they know.
There is black ops tech funded by dark money that nobody knows about.
Yes 40-55% is correct.
There are like 100+ pages of acknowledgements, sources, interviews credits in this book.
I am more worried about Iran when they get nukes than North Korea.
Annie Jacobsen (born June 28, 1967) is an American investigative journalist, author, and a 2016 Pulitzer Prize finalist. She writes for and produces television programs, including Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan for Amazon Studios, and Clarice for CBS. She was a contributing editor to the Los Angeles Times Magazine from 2009 until 2012.
Jacobsen writes about war, weapons, security, and secrets. Jacobsen is best known as the author of the 2011 non-fiction book Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base, which The New York Times called "cauldron-stirring."[1] She is an internationally acclaimed and sometimes controversial author who, according to one critic, writes sensational books by addressing popular conspiracies.[2]
-
Yes 40-55% is correct.
There are like 100+ pages of acknowledgements, sources, interviews credits in this book.
I am more worried about Iran when they get nukes than North Korea.
Annie Jacobsen (born June 28, 1967) is an American investigative journalist, author, and a 2016 Pulitzer Prize finalist. She writes for and produces television programs, including Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan for Amazon Studios, and Clarice for CBS. She was a contributing editor to the Los Angeles Times Magazine from 2009 until 2012.
Jacobsen writes about war, weapons, security, and secrets. Jacobsen is best known as the author of the 2011 non-fiction book Area 51: An Uncensored History of America's Top Secret Military Base, which The New York Times called "cauldron-stirring."[1] She is an internationally acclaimed and sometimes controversial author who, according to one critic, writes sensational books by addressing popular conspiracies.[2]
Ok, but the black ops / dark money point still stands. I doubt she has any access.
-
OP believes Biden was running the country, therefore the whole thread is wrecked.
-
Ok, but the black ops / dark money point still stands. I doubt she has any access.
She probably doesn’t; but that’s a kind of a hope we do. It’s kind of hard to hide a deployed weapon system. Or maybe we aren’t being truthful about the existing systems which wouldnt make much sense to me because if we had an effective ICBM defense system it would act as a deterrent.
-
She probably doesn’t; but that’s a kind of a hope we do. It’s kind of hard to hide a deployed weapon system. Or maybe we aren’t being truthful about the existing systems which wouldnt make much sense to me because if we had an effective ICBM defense system it would act as a deterrent.
If we have a major advantage that we know works we don't need a deterrent. They launch, we stop without a counter, they're done.
-
If we have a major advantage that we know works we don't need a deterrent. They launch, we stop without a counter, they're done.
If we have a legit system that can knock out ICBM's launched from silos or subs at a let's say 90% rate it definitely becomes a deterrent for other countries to launch on us. Even if we can knock out 90% of those nukes, we will strike back and the fallout from the detonations from other countries will still bring about the end of the world or close to it. That was the purpose of promoting the system we have now, although it is shit. It is essentially a bullet hitting a bullet in space and the ICBM is traveling at 15,000 mph while the missile is traveling at 20,000 mph. That's why I don't think we have some secret weapons systems to protect us from a massive nuclear strike.
I think powerful land-based lasers will eventually get there. But they would be a massive system that would be impossible to fully keep secret. And, again why would we?
You should read the book. It's a great read.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/asia/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-intl-latam/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/09/asia/north-korea-nuclear-weapons-intl-latam/index.html)
North Korea’s Kim Jong Un says country to increase number of nuclear weapons ‘exponentially,’ state media reports
-
https://www.the-sun.com/news/12457289/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-test-war-putin/ (https://www.the-sun.com/news/12457289/russia-ukraine-nuclear-weapon-test-war-putin/)
Moscow threatens to ‘MELT’ Kyiv if Ukraine uses British missiles to strike Russia as Putin urged to detonate nuke bomb
-
(https://adevarulonline.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/o-noua-cercetare-dezvaluie-modul-in-care-razboiul-nuclear-ar-afecta-pamantul-astazi-img_62c997e848381.gif)
(https://c.tenor.com/6Ga4eX7MnUQAAAAC/tenor.gif)
(https://i.giphy.com/f9eYHQ8RZ4zfc4unXx.webp)
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMXNkNzY0NnB5bmZkcjBzb2F2d3VkdTdqcjFqdGpieGY4dmc2dGl2OSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/ScasBmC68c5bc7W5N4/giphy.webp)
-
https://apnews.com/article/china-missile-us-taiwan-9eba29cf62b21a19c15a8e119736182c (https://apnews.com/article/china-missile-us-taiwan-9eba29cf62b21a19c15a8e119736182c)
China test-fires an intercontinental ballistic missile into the Pacific Ocean
The difference here is, NK doesn't announce it before they do it.
-
The crisis he reacted to vs the crisis I outlined are 2 very different things. The question is whether or not you think he could act rationally when he and he alone has to make a decision that could end the world based on available intel that might be lacking in the heat of the moment when he is getting screamed at STRATCOM the defense secretary and his top generals while he is being physically man handled by the CAT team while shoved into marine one all in 6 minutes.
If you think so, fine. I don’t have the confidence that he could. Now, negotiate, keep out of wars, make good economy decisions,, etc. sure. But I am not confident about this one. Biden is a no brainer.
You should read the book. It’s a good read.
FFS what is it with you ?
you've been given the answer many Times Trump is the best man
in your supposed situation.
Stop trying to change the goal post -
Any way who do you think would be best in that situation. ?
-
FFS what is it with you ?
you've been given the answer many Times Trump is the best man
in your supposed situation.
Stop trying to change the goal post -
Any way who do you think would be best in that situation. ?
Not you for sure.
-
Not you for sure.
He is asking a good question. The issue is pointless if you're not doing a comparison. We are going to have either Trump or Harris with the nuclear football in January.
-
He is asking a good question. The issue is pointless if you're not doing a comparison. We are going to have either Trump or Harris with the nuclear football in January.
Frankly I am not good with either of them. But it’s gonna be one of them.
-
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/nuclear-war-risks-rise-again-stoked-by-global-conflicts-fa3333b6 (https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/nuclear-war-risks-rise-again-stoked-by-global-conflicts-fa3333b6)
Nuclear-War Risks Rise Again, Stoked by Global Conflicts
-
https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/nuclear-war-risks-rise-again-stoked-by-global-conflicts-fa3333b6 (https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/nuclear-war-risks-rise-again-stoked-by-global-conflicts-fa3333b6)
Nuclear-War Risks Rise Again, Stoked by Global Conflicts
Biden and Kamala both said she was in charge of most decisions - so the blame is on her.
-
Biden authorizes Ukraine to use US-supplied long-range missiles for deeper strikes inside Russia
President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the weapons as Russia deploys thousands of North Korean troops to reinforce its war, according to a U.S. official and three other people familiar with the matter.
Biden's move also follows the presidential election victory of Donald Trump, who has said he would bring about a swift end to the war and raised uncertainty about whether his administration would continue the United States' vital military support for Ukraine.
Biden had remained opposed, determined to hold the line against any escalation that he felt could draw the U.S. and other NATO members into direct conflict with nuclear-armed Russia.
Worried about Russia’s response, however, the Biden administration repeatedly has delayed providing some specific advanced weapons sought by Ukraine, agreeing only under pressure from Kyiv, its supporters and in consultation with allies.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ap-sources-biden-first-time-183552178.html
Four years of peace with Trump as President.
With filthy Joe pedo as President?
(https://adevarulonline.ro/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/o-noua-cercetare-dezvaluie-modul-in-care-razboiul-nuclear-ar-afecta-pamantul-astazi-img_62c997e848381.gif)
-
This is problematic. Here we are with an opportunity to end the war with a new POTUS and Biden complicates things by authorizing long range missles. N. Korean soldiers are shit. Basically machine gun fodder.
What was the purpose of this?
-
This is problematic. Here we are with an opportunity to end the war with a new POTUS and Biden complicates things by authorizing long range missles. N. Korean soldiers are shit. Basically machine gun fodder.
What was the purpose of this?
Welcome to what we have been saying for years.
-
Welcome to what we have been saying for years.
The move suggests he is trying to foul up the next president and gambling that Putin, because of Trump getting elected won’t take it to the next level.
This doesn’t make sense based on what I know.
-
https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-s-updated-nuclear-red-line-adds-uncertainty-experts-348a5377 (https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-s-updated-nuclear-red-line-adds-uncertainty-experts-348a5377)
Russia's Updated Nuclear 'Red Line' Adds Uncertainty: Experts
Russia's new nuclear doctrine reflects its hopes to deter Ukraine's allies from a greater role in the war by establishing red lines hedged with added ambiguity, experts say.
Moscow warned on Tuesday that it would respond after Ukraine fired longer-range US missiles at its territory for the first time, as President Vladimir Putin issued a nuclear threat on the 1,000th day of the war.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the attack showed Western countries wanted to "escalate" the conflict.
Putin signed a decree on Tuesday lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons, a move that the White House, UK and European Union condemned as "irresponsible".
Washington this week said it had cleared Ukraine to use ATACMS against military targets inside Russia -- a long-standing Ukrainian request.
The missile attack would have been "impossible without the direct involvement of Americans," as well as the French or the British with their Scalp/Storm Shadow missiles, said Russian military analyst Vassily Kashin.
"From the Russian perspective, this use is equivalent to an attack by them on Russian territory," he told AFP.
Such weapons had already been used in Crimea and the Donbas regions which, Kashin said, the Kremlin considers to be Russian territory, but the international community does not.
Putin, who began issuing nuclear threats shortly after invading Ukraine in 2022, may want to add credibility to the repeated warnings.
According to the Telegram channel Rybar, close to the Russian military, "Russia's latest warnings, like its red lines, are taken less and less seriously. In the face of this, the adversary is reducing Russia's room for manoeuvre."
Maxim Starchak, a specialist on Russian nuclear policy at Queen's University in Canada, said that the Kremlin's doctrine "lowers the threshold" for nuclear weapons use. But it also "introduces ambiguity", he said.
"On the one hand, Russia speaks about the possibility of using nuclear weapons in case of a territorial threat, but on the other hand, the scale of such a threat is not clear."
Setting aside the nuclear question, Starchak said, the recent arrival of North Korean troops on the Russian side, and the US-supplied missile launches on the Ukrainian side "are certainly an escalation of the conflict".
While either development "does not mean that the finger is already on the nuclear button, we are getting closer to a direct conflict between Russia and NATO countries," he said.
It is imperative for Russia, said Pavel Podvig, a Geneva-based independent analyst, "to achieve its goals sooner rather than later" and intensified western assistance for Ukraine is slowing the Kremlin down.
"Russia is pushing forward and maybe the calculation is that Russia wants to keep its momentum," Podvig said.
Having gained costly territorial advantages in recent months, Putin may seek to exploit a window between the Biden administration and the presumably more accommodating Trump presidency, according to Tatiana Stanovaya, of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center.
Putin may see the current situation as a strategic "in-between" moment, she said, anticipating possible peace initiatives from Trump while emphasising what he views as the "irresponsibility" of Biden's policy.
72 minutes...
-
Zelensky says Ukraine war will end ‘faster’ under Trump presidency
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/16/europe/zelensky-trump-ukraine-war-ending-intl/index.html
-
Hamas ‘ready for ceasefire’ in war-hit Gaza, urges Donald Trump to pressure Israel to end conflict
https://www.livemint.com/news/israel-war-hamas-ready-for-ceasefire-in-war-hit-gaza-urges-donald-trump-to-pressure-israel-to-end-conflict-11731687695358.html
-
https://www.wsj.com/world/nuclear-bomb-weapons-war-explained-01d6e397 (https://www.wsj.com/world/nuclear-bomb-weapons-war-explained-01d6e397)
-
https://www.wsj.com/world/nuclear-bomb-weapons-war-explained-01d6e397 (https://www.wsj.com/world/nuclear-bomb-weapons-war-explained-01d6e397)
Requires subscription to read.
-
Sorry about that. It initially allowed me to read it without a subscription.
-
OzmO, ever seen "Turning Point - The Bomb and The Cold War" on Netflix?
-
OzmO, ever seen "Turning Point - The Bomb and The Cold War" on Netflix?
Yeah, I saw it. Great documentary.