Trump is finally...

[JohnnySavage]

The Iranians are a troublesome lot but they're not suicidal. They value their military assets. The capability of one Arleigh Burke class destroyer is quite capable of defending against what Iran's shore batteries and naval fleet threats. A carrier task force is quite formidable with quite a range of missiles, torpedos, aircraft both fixed and rotary supported with long range bombers carrying j-dams with individual targeting capabilities at 50,000 ft. and possibly a Virginia class attack sub for fleet security against sub warfare.

Too shallow for those big boats.

And too narrow for a Carrier Battle Group to maneuver.

 

[icanhelp1]

Too shallow for those big boats.

And too narrow for a Carrier Battle Group to maneuver.

OH; I didn't know that.

 

[Kantarii]

The vitriol on this site is truly amazing. There is such a lack of self control and so much hatred towards anyone capable of independent thought. I think GB leans left.

There are some bitter people here, some like to argue for the sake of arguing and want one’s opinion backed up with facts, some who like to sling names, and quite a few in between. What most fail to realize is that at the end of the day absolutely nothing has changed no matter how much they want it.
If they hate Trump, he’s still in office. If they like Trump, he’s still in office.

The GB does lean left, but that doesn’t deter me from being here.

 

[icanhelp1]

There are some bitter people here, some like to argue for the sake of arguing and want one’s opinion backed up with facts, some who like to sling names, and quite a few in between. What most fail to realize is that at the end of the day absolutely nothing has changed no matter how much they want it.
If they hate Trump, he’s still in office. If they like Trump, he’s still in office.

The GB does lean left, but that doesn’t deter me from being here.

Where you aware that a carrier group can't maneuver in the Persian Gulf, so when they deploy where do they go? Someone wrote boats are too big? Please say it's not so. I thought Iran has boats and we have ships. Do carriers float at 30,000 ft? This changes everything.

 

[jomar]

The Chinese communists are war mongers. it's just that many western commentators don't understand, and are fooled by, the fact that they fight 100 year wars. They do not believe they can survive a first strike, they do not believe we can either, that is why they plan the way they do. They lull us to sleep while they fortify the western Pacific, the South China Sea, to dominate the the natural geographical choke points that control entry into the Indian Ocean. It's why they strive to broaden their influence on our college campuses nationwide, so they can help create more naive people that fail to see their true intent. It's why they are building a naval base in Djibouti on the approaches to the Suez Canal. It's why they're sitting on both ends of the Panama Canal and are ensconced in South America. Google "Chinese string of pearls in the Indian Ocean," keeping in mind their long term strategy. They are war mongers, they are simply going to initiate war at the time of their choosing.

So Trump pulled the US out of TPP. Yay.

 

[about_average]

I thought Iran has boats and we have ships.

Submarines are called boats, not ships.
We both have boats.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why do so many of your posts have racial connotations?

Are you not familiar with the Literotica Political Rules of Engagement?
Two of the amendments were named after your former userid.
I don't like them, but I abide by them.

 

[icanhelp1]

Submarines are called boats, not ships.
We both have boats.

So; in the spirit of my narrative the only mention of our BOAT was my reference to the possible deployment of a Virginia class attack sub for anti sub warfare. Your statement referred to all naval assets as boats. I'm very well aware of the colloquial nickname for a submarine.

 

[Kantarii]

Where you aware that a carrier group can't maneuver in the Persian Gulf, so when they deploy where do they go? Someone wrote boats are too big? Please say it's not so. I thought Iran has boats and we have ships. Do carriers float at 30,000 ft? This changes everything.

The US Navy will continue to fly and sail where International Law allows/permits. Technically, a US carrier strike group doesn’t have to physically operate inside the Persian Gulf for it’s presence to be felt in the region.

 

[phrodeau]

The US Navy will continue to fly and sail where International Law allows/permits. Technically, a US carrier strike group doesn’t have to physically operate inside the Persian Gulf for it’s presence to be felt in the region.

They can draw all the sky penises they like over Muslimland.

 

[icanhelp1]

They can draw all the sky penises they like over Muslimland.

Wow; you're all the way up to 63,868!!!

 

[icanhelp1]

The US Navy will continue to fly and sail where International Law allows/permits. Technically, a US carrier strike group doesn’t have to physically operate inside the Persian Gulf for it’s presence to be felt in the region.

Sarcasm.

 

[about_average]

So; in the spirit of my narrative the only mention of our BOAT was my reference to the possible deployment of a Virginia class attack sub for anti sub warfare. Your statement referred to all naval assets as boats. I'm very well aware of the colloquial nickname for a submarine.

I only mentioned submarines and boats in the post you just quoted.

This is the "boats" post I think you're looking for
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=90781838&postcount=326
and it was in reference to submarines.

 

[Kantarii]

The DOOMSDAY CLOCK is at 2 minutes, the closest it's ever been. Just my humble opinion.

The doomsday clock is bullshit. They’ve said that for decades and people believe it. This planet has a greater chance of being hit by an asteroid big enough to cause an extinction level even than a total nuclear war.

Let’s play this out. It all boils down to America and Russia because China only serves China’s interests. England, France, and India are allies of America. That leaves Pakistan who would possibly remain neutral if India doesn’t get involved and North Korea hellbent on acquiring a reliable nuclear arsenal.

The thing with nuclear triades is it only guarantees a retaliatory strike against a nuclear aggressor, nothing beyond the idea of mutually assured destruction.

In order to be a nuclear aggressor, either America or Russia would have to have the confidence and assurance they could eliminate the possibility of a retailiatoty strike. I mean, what good is starting a nuclear war if it means your own destruction in return?

Neither America nor Russia have that assurance - that they will come out on top with minimum retaliation from each other. So where does that leave us - stuck on two minutes to midnight?

Only a true nihilist would initiate a nuclear first strike.

 

[butters]

The doomsday clock is bullshit. They’ve said that for decades and people believe it. This planet has a greater chance of being hit by an asteroid big enough to cause an extinction level even than a total nuclear war.

Let’s play this out. It all boils down to America and Russia because China only serves China’s interests. England, France, and India are allies of America. That leaves Pakistan who would possibly remain neutral if India doesn’t get involved and North Korea hellbent on acquiring a reliable nuclear arsenal.

The thing with nuclear triades is it only guarantees a retaliatory strike against a nuclear aggressor, nothing beyond the idea of mutually assured destruction.

In order to be a nuclear aggressor, either America or Russia would have to have the confidence they could eliminate the possibility of a retailiatoty strike. I mean, what good is starting a nuclear war if it means your own destruction in return?

Neither America nor Russia have that assurance - that they will come out on top with minimum retaliation from each other. So where does that leave us - stuck on two minutes to midnight?

Only a true nihilist would initiate a nuclear first strike.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...rome..69i57.8793j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and yet you support trump

3 times he asked in one meeting 'why can't we use our nukes?'

 

[phrodeau]

The doomsday clock is bullshit. They’ve said that for decades and people believe it. This planet has a greater chance of being hit by an asteroid big enough to cause an extinction level even than a total nuclear war.

Let’s play this out. It all boils down to America and Russia because China only serves China’s interests. England, France, and India are allies of America. That leaves Pakistan who would possibly remain neutral if India doesn’t get involved and North Korea hellbent on acquiring a reliable nuclear arsenal.

The thing with nuclear triades is it only guarantees a retaliatory strike against a nuclear aggressor, nothing beyond the idea of mutually assured destruction.

In order to be a nuclear aggressor, either America or Russia would have to have the confidence they could eliminate the possibility of a retailiatoty strike. I mean, what good is starting a nuclear war if it means your own destruction in return?

Neither America nor Russia have that assurance - that they will come out on top with minimum retaliation from each other. So where does that leave us - stuck on two minutes to midnight?

Only a true nihilist would initiate a nuclear first strike.

You left out Israel, who has a history of threatening Iran.

 

[Kantarii]

https://www.google.com/search?q=tru...rome..69i57.8793j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and yet you support trump

3 times he asked in one meeting 'why can't we use our nukes?'

Does it bother you I support Trump? You’ve stated it twice. Yes, I support Trump, otherwise I would’ve voted for Hillary Clinton. Jesus. Will I support him in 2020? Yes, I will.

I’m going to assume you are aware Trump has advisors under him that explained the dangerous precedent that would be set just by a limited use of nuclear weapons, dating back to Harry Truman and the Korean War. But here you are twisting things, suggesting Trump qualifies as a nihilist just by asking a question.

Even a retaliatory nuclear strike from Trump requires multiple protocols to be met before a launch within a minimum amount of time it’s initiated.

 

[butters]

Does it bother you I support Trump? You’ve stated it twice. Yes, I support Trump, otherwise I would’ve voted for Hillary Clinton. Jesus. Will I support him in 2020? Yes, I will.

I’m going to assume you are aware Trump has advisors under him that explained the dangerous precedent that would be set just by a limited use of nuclear weapons, dating back to Harry Truman and the Korean War. But here you are twisting things, suggesting Trump qualifies as a nihilist just by asking a question.

Even a retaliatory nuclear strike from Trump requires multiple protocols to be met before a launch within a minimum amount of time is initiated.

no, doesn't bother me. you vote for whomever you choose to. i am simply making an observation. you don't see him as someone dangerous, i - and many millions - do.

he didn't "just ask a question": he asked it 3 times in the one meeting, with his advisors explaining the why-it's-not-a-good-idea inbetween, then i say he doesn't listen to his advisors. how many times has he been recorded speaking about about he knows more than everyone about anything and it's only his opinion that matters? for a head of state, i find that concerning. a wise president listens to their advisors.

 

[BotanyBoy]

no, doesn't bother me. you vote for whomever you choose to. i am simply making an observation. you don't see him as someone dangerous, i - and many millions - do.

he didn't "just ask a question": he asked it 3 times in the one meeting, with his advisors explaining the why-it's-not-a-good-idea inbetween, then i say he doesn't listen to his advisors. how many times has he been recorded speaking about about he knows more than everyone about anything and it's only his opinion that matters? for a head of state, i find that concerning. a wise president listens to their advisors.

And he's very supportive of capitalism and constitutional rights and we all know how much the left loathes those.

All that freedom is so dangerous ohhhhhhh....scary.

 

[jomar]

Does it bother you I support Trump? You’ve stated it twice. Yes, I support Trump, otherwise I would’ve voted for Hillary Clinton. Jesus. Will I support him in 2020? Yes, I will.

I’m going to assume you are aware Trump has advisors under him that explained the dangerous precedent that would be set just by a limited use of nuclear weapons, dating back to Harry Truman and the Korean War. But here you are twisting things, suggesting Trump qualifies as a nihilist just by asking a question.

Even a retaliatory nuclear strike from Trump requires multiple protocols to be met before a launch within a minimum amount of time is initiated.

Butters was not twisting things or suggesting Trump is a nihilist. She's saying he didn't already know why, had to be told why several times, and he still didn't really get it....then the other stuff she said.

 

[Kantarii]

no, doesn't bother me. you vote for whomever you choose to. i am simply making an observation. you don't see him as someone dangerous, i - and many millions - do.

he didn't "just ask a question": he asked it 3 times in the one meeting, with his advisors explaining the why-it's-not-a-good-idea inbetween, then i say he doesn't listen to his advisors. how many times has he been recorded speaking about about he knows more than everyone about anything and it's only his opinion that matters? for a head of state, i find that concerning. a wise president listens to their advisors.

Okay, in your observation, let’s also note the fact it wasn’t just me who put Trump in office and dispel your claims he doesn’t listen to his advisors, otherwise a nuke would have been launched. Since no nuke was launched or has been launched by Trump, we can assume you conclusion is that Trump is a wise president He was obviously listening to someone.

 

[icanhelp1]

The doomsday clock is bullshit. They’ve said that for decades and people believe it. This planet has a greater chance of being hit by an asteroid big enough to cause an extinction level even than a total nuclear war.

Let’s play this out. It all boils down to America and Russia because China only serves China’s interests. England, France, and India are allies of America. That leaves Pakistan who would possibly remain neutral if India doesn’t get involved and North Korea hellbent on acquiring a reliable nuclear arsenal.

The thing with nuclear triades is it only guarantees a retaliatory strike against a nuclear aggressor, nothing beyond the idea of mutually assured destruction.

In order to be a nuclear aggressor, either America or Russia would have to have the confidence they could eliminate the possibility of a retailiatoty strike. I mean, what good is starting a nuclear war if it means your own destruction in return?

Neither America nor Russia have that assurance - that they will come out on top with minimum retaliation from each other. So where does that leave us - stuck on two minutes to midnight?

Only a true nihilist would initiate a nuclear first strike.

I urge you to read about the real Cuban Missile crisis and how Kenedy actually considered a pre-emptive strike during the Berlin crisis (1961) or the aggressiveness of the Kennedy admin and the threat of the deployment of the jupiter system completely surrounding the Soviets. We egged the Soviets during that period of time. A computer error at NORAD in 1979 was another close call. Just after the downing of 007 Soviets mistakenly report a missile launch by the U.S. In 1983 a soviet colonel talk down a retaliatory launch. A Norwegian launch of a research rocket allerted Russian ballistic missile subs to prep for a retaliatory strike 1995. As I stated, Putin knows he can't win conventionally against the U.S., who knows what's in his head if push came to shove. The sword of Damocles hangs over our head. You have N Korea, India and Pakistan, The invasion of the Ukraine along with the annexation of Crimea, Israel and Iran. Any miscalculation and we are off to the races. The clock is an indication that the potential for miscalculation clearly has more potential today than ever. No one can predict how it would or could happen but to think it's not a possibility is a fools errand. It may start small, maybe a terrorist act and rapidly expand drawing in the super powers. Maybe uncle Kim has a launch go awry and land in S Korea or Japan, or maybe even Guam.

 

[Kantarii]

I urge you to read about the real Cuban Missile crisis and how Kenedy actually considered a pre-emptive strike during the Berlin crisis (1961) or the aggressiveness of the Kennedy admin and the threat of the deployment of the jupiter system completely surrounding the Soviets. We egged the Soviets during that period of time. A computer error at NORAD in 1979 was another close call. Just after the downing of 007 Soviets mistakenly report a missile launch by the U.S. In 1983 a soviet colonel talk down a retaliatory launch. A Norwegian launch of a research rocket allerted Russian ballistic missile subs to prep for a retaliatory strike 1995. As I stated, Putin knows he can't win conventionally against the U.S., who knows what's in his head if push came to shove. The sword of Damocles hangs over our head. You have N Korea, India and Pakistan, The invasion of the Ukraine along with the annexation of Crimea, Israel and Iran. Any miscalculation and we are off to the races. The clock is an indication that the potential for miscalculation clearly has more potential today than ever. No one can predict how it would or could happen but to think it's not a possibility is a fools errand. It may start small, maybe a terrorist act and rapidly expand drawing in the super powers. Maybe uncle Kim has a launch go awry and land in S Korea or Japan, or maybe even Guam.

The Cold War mentality is long since been over, so no reason to revisit the 60’s unless we are gonna chat about Woodstock. The doomsday clock is symbolic more than anything. With that said, let’s play your scenario out. India and Pakistan are regional rivals with territorial disputes. They’ve had conflicts in the past and even recently. Still, they haven’t fired nukes at each other. Also, India is an ally of the US.
The threat level is minimum at best. North Korea is a wild card, yes, but their nuclear program hasn’t been proven to be as reliable as, say, China.

Would China back North Korea’s nuclear first strike?
That’s debatable. China wants America out of the region. North Korea is like an unruly child. You love them, but they get on your nerves. So, anything North Korea does with their nuclear program, draws attention in both America and China.

Remember, China’s serves only China interests and wants America out of the region.

North Korea’s nuclear program serves a purpose of keeping Amerca’s eyes off China’s South China Sea claims, but it’s pulling American forces deeper into the region. China has more of a problem with North Korea than America, in my opinion.

Kim’s crazy and wants attention on the world stage, but he isn’t totally stupid with shit for brains. It would be game over for North Korea and his regime.

So, if North Korea launches a single nuke, it’s doubtful America would retaliate with nukes in return unless the nuke hit American or Japanese soil. Even then, America probably wouldn’t need or resort to nukes to level North Korea, in my opinion.

The whole key here is to reach a deal with Kim to keep him from testing. The longer he tests his nuclear program, sooner or later the pieces will come together for a reliable system. As it is, he only has the bomb with limited ways of delivering it to a target, most of which are either dated or unreliable.

I’m going to venture North Korea is a threat, just not a credible threat like Russia or China.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okay, in your observation, let’s also note the fact it wasn’t just me who put Trump in office and dispel your claims he doesn’t listen to his advisors, otherwise a nuke would have been launched. Since no nuke was launched or has been launched by Trump, we can assume you conclusion is that Trump is a wise president He was obviously listening to someone.

"but...but...at least he didn't launch a pre-emptive nuke!" is just about the damnedest faint praise one can offer about Trump's failed presidency.

 

[Sean]

John Bolton never saw a war he didn't want to send other peoples' kids to die in.