Post by: punaperson on March 08, 2017, 09:12:14 AM
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-soon-launch-attack-hawaii/ (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-soon-launch-attack-hawaii/)
North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
Experts call for immediate upgrade in state's missile defenses
Excerpts:
North Korea could soon have the capacity to launch an attack on Hawaii that would devastate America's Pacific military bases, accelerating the need for the United States to upgrade missile defenses in the area.
The United States today relies on ground-based ballistic missile interceptors deployed in California and Alaska to protect Hawaii, but these defenses would do little to guard U.S. territory in the Pacific against a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which officials believe is nearing completion.
Ariel Cohen, director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources, and Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday that the Defense Department needs to immediately upgrade the Aegis Ashore facility in Hawaii from experimental to operational to guard against North Korean aggression.
"Senior national security leaders have stated that the U.S. needs to work off the assumption that North Korea will have ICBM capabilities soon, and in this business ‘soon' could mean five to 10 years, or earlier," Cohen said.
"Our intelligence has been surprised again and again by technology developments by adversaries or attacks the U.S. didn't foresee," Cohen said. "Hawaii has a particularly symbolic history of this given the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Let's not be surprised this time, let's be prepared."
Post by: Inspector on March 08, 2017, 11:12:51 AM
Good morning everyone! :shaka:Note that in this article they seem more concerned about devastating America's Pacific military bases and never mention keeping us citizens safe.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-soon-launch-attack-hawaii/ (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-soon-launch-attack-hawaii/)
North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
Experts call for immediate upgrade in state's missile defenses
Excerpts:
North Korea could soon have the capacity to launch an attack on Hawaii that would devastate America's Pacific military bases, accelerating the need for the United States to upgrade missile defenses in the area.
The United States today relies on ground-based ballistic missile interceptors deployed in California and Alaska to protect Hawaii, but these defenses would do little to guard U.S. territory in the Pacific against a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which officials believe is nearing completion.
Ariel Cohen, director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources, and Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday that the Defense Department needs to immediately upgrade the Aegis Ashore facility in Hawaii from experimental to operational to guard against North Korean aggression.
"Senior national security leaders have stated that the U.S. needs to work off the assumption that North Korea will have ICBM capabilities soon, and in this business ‘soon' could mean five to 10 years, or earlier," Cohen said.
"Our intelligence has been surprised again and again by technology developments by adversaries or attacks the U.S. didn't foresee," Cohen said. "Hawaii has a particularly symbolic history of this given the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Let's not be surprised this time, let's be prepared."
Post by: omnigun on March 08, 2017, 11:23:54 AM
Post by: drck1000 on March 08, 2017, 12:21:55 PM
Quote
Ariel Cohen, director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources, and Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday that the Defense Department needs to immediately upgrade the Aegis Ashore facility in Hawaii from experimental to operational to guard against North Korean aggression.
CENRGIAGS
Don't recognize that organization as participating in actual planning and construction of defense facilities in the Pacific region. . .
Post by: rklapp on March 08, 2017, 12:48:59 PM
Post by: Kuleana on March 08, 2017, 08:18:06 PM
Good morning everyone! :shaka:
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-soon-launch-attack-hawaii/ (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/north-korea-soon-launch-attack-hawaii/)
North Korea Could Soon Launch Attack on Hawaii
Experts call for immediate upgrade in state's missile defenses
Excerpts:
North Korea could soon have the capacity to launch an attack on Hawaii that would devastate America's Pacific military bases, accelerating the need for the United States to upgrade missile defenses in the area.
The United States today relies on ground-based ballistic missile interceptors deployed in California and Alaska to protect Hawaii, but these defenses would do little to guard U.S. territory in the Pacific against a North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which officials believe is nearing completion.
Ariel Cohen, director of the Center for Energy, Natural Resources, and Geopolitics at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, told the Washington Free Beacon on Tuesday that the Defense Department needs to immediately upgrade the Aegis Ashore facility in Hawaii from experimental to operational to guard against North Korean aggression.
"Senior national security leaders have stated that the U.S. needs to work off the assumption that North Korea will have ICBM capabilities soon, and in this business ‘soon' could mean five to 10 years, or earlier," Cohen said.
"Our intelligence has been surprised again and again by technology developments by adversaries or attacks the U.S. didn't foresee," Cohen said. "Hawaii has a particularly symbolic history of this given the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Let's not be surprised this time, let's be prepared."
North Korea is not a military threat to the US in any shape or form. If anything, this article above was published to monetarily benefit the military industry with the construction of over-budget inflated missile defense systems that may or may not work.
Not to mention, the addition of more military assets on any island will only further make Hawaii a top-five target should WWIII ever to happen. Not a bright prospect for those living in Hawaii.
Bad idea.
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 08, 2017, 08:26:00 PM
I've spent much time in S. Korea. They take the situation with the North very seriously. They view NK as a real enemy and threat.
NK is a failed state. Desperation can drive people to do some crazy things, but to actually attack ANY country would be suicide.
Posturing -- nothing more.
Post by: hvybarrels on March 08, 2017, 10:39:15 PM
Post by: drck1000 on March 09, 2017, 08:24:40 AM
What is always a consideration is the "small" squabble between little brothers and then the big brothers step in. That said, that has always been a consideration from other regions of questionable stability, such as the middle east. In the last 3-5 years, North Korea rose quickly on the defense radar. Where they are going and what will happen, who knows. Yes, there is deterrence, but there's also the possibility of group/groups acting beyond or without reason. That's the scary thing with dealing with the middle east and North Korea. They are wild cards. Maybe they have limited capabilities, but they are certainly wild cards. Does that warrant calls for upgrades of defense systems like in the article? Nah. That said, it's not like it isn't a concern.
Post by: Inspector on March 09, 2017, 08:33:09 AM
Post by: punaperson on March 09, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
Post by: drck1000 on March 09, 2017, 10:21:56 AM
The fake news networks/papers like CNN and Washington Post are claiming that N. Korea is aiming for U.S. bases in Japan. Not sure if this is real or not. But the analogy about a squabble between brothers might be applicable here. They can strike at the U.S. via Japan. Or more to the point, they can threaten the U.S. via Japan. We have 57,000 troops over there. And whose to say that Japan won't want a preemptive strike? To me, these are more realistic scenarios. JMHO
US forces in Japan and Korea are definitely concerned about North Korea and China for that matter. There are a LOT of troops in that region and you have to include Guam and other forward/training installations/posts.
A while back, I recall something about armed clashing of NK and SK troops. I think it was in 2015. I thought someone died in one of the incidents, but I can't seem to find any articles that mentioned that now. Anyways, I was like "oh shit, this stuff is the start of the next WWIII". Remember the movie War Games where at the end the computer was trying to figure out how to win the game of Global Thermonuclear War. There were all sorts of scenarios of regional conflicts between smaller "nations" that explode. That's sort of what I always thought would lead to WWIII.
"Deterrence" only plays a role when dealing with "rational actors". I have no idea how "rational" the leaders of North Korea or Iran really are or aren't. Difficult to determine how much of the "news" about the North Korean leader is real and how much is exaggeration or outright propaganda. Same with the Iranians. But at least one of them professes belief in a religious ideology that makes martyrdom for the "cause" the highest possible form of religious service and human activity. I doubt we can rely on projecting what completely rational people would do in either case.Yup. I used to work with a guy from Syria. This was in the 1997-2004 timeframe, so 9/11 was right in the middle there. We would numerous conversations about the middle east and such, but it basically turned out that you can't reason with someone who is unreasonable. Or reason with someone who doesn't share the same sense of values, reason, etc as you. If a group is raised with the belief that their whole purpose in life is to kill as many enemies as possible and that if their death that results in death of the enemy is the ultimate goal, then the average American is probably not going to be able to reason with a person like that.
Post by: robtmc on March 09, 2017, 11:28:57 AM
The fake news networks/papers like CNN and Washington Post are claiming that N. Korea is aiming for U.S. bases in Japan. Not sure if this is real or not. But the analogy about a squabble between brothers might be applicable here. They can strike at the U.S. via Japan. Or more to the point, they can threaten the U.S. via Japan. We have 57,000 troops over there. And whose to say that Japan won't want a preemptive strike? To me, these are more realistic scenarios. JMHOIf the NORKS do strike Japan, they had better keep it conventional. They really do not want to find out how fast Japan can assemble some parts they have stored away for plausible deniability.
Post by: Inspector on March 09, 2017, 11:58:24 AM
US forces in Japan and Korea are definitely concerned about North Korea and China for that matter. There are a LOT of troops in that region and you have to include Guam and other forward/training installations/posts.Before N. Korea started acting stupid I always felt that WWIII was going to start in the middle east with Israel, Iran and Russia somehow involved. But now that N. Korea is trying to get our attention, I wouldn't doubt that if something were to happen it could be with them and China.
A while back, I recall something about armed clashing of NK and SK troops. I think it was in 2015. I thought someone died in one of the incidents, but I can't seem to find any articles that mentioned that now. Anyways, I was like "oh shit, this stuff is the start of the next WWIII". Remember the movie War Games where at the end the computer was trying to figure out how to win the game of Global Thermonuclear War. There were all sorts of scenarios of regional conflicts between smaller "nations" that explode. That's sort of what I always thought would lead to WWIII.
Post by: drck1000 on March 09, 2017, 12:17:14 PM
Before N. Korea started acting stupid I always felt that WWIII was going to start in the middle east with Israel, Iran and Russia somehow involved. But now that N. Korea is trying to get our attention, I wouldn't doubt that if something were to happen it could be with them and China.Yeah. Up until about 5 years ago, I thought it would start somewhere in the middle east. No particular players, but I could definitely see it starting with Israel, Iran and Russia. Even when Russia started the Crimea thing, I thought that was definitely potential for a LOT more. Another area would be stuff like India and Pakistan. All sorts of national, regional, whatever conflicts that go back thousands of years. Sometimes I wonder if the groups really remember why they don't get along, that they've traditionally always been hostile to each other.
Sometimes I used to view North Korea as the bastard stepchild that doesn't get any attention and are viewed as not an alpha, so they act out, threaten, beat their chest, all the while not really being in a position of strength. I think that has been and is changing, but I still see them sort of in that light.
Post by: Inspector on March 09, 2017, 12:25:51 PM
Yeah. Up until about 5 years ago, I thought it would start somewhere in the middle east. No particular players, but I could definitely see it starting with Israel, Iran and Russia. Even when Russia started the Crimea thing, I thought that was definitely potential for a LOT more. Another area would be stuff like India and Pakistan. All sorts of national, regional, whatever conflicts that go back thousands of years. Sometimes I wonder if the groups really remember why they don't get along, that they've traditionally always been hostile to each other.Yup, time has a way of healing some and making others forget. Take your pick.
Sometimes I used to view North Korea as the bastard stepchild that doesn't get any attention and are viewed as not an alpha, so they act out, threaten, beat their chest, all the while not really being in a position of strength. I think that has been and is changing, but I still see them sort of in that light.
The only reason I am worried about N. Korea is because they are like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum with a loaded gun (Nuclear tipped missile) in their hand. It is hard to reason with a two year old. And when they thrash out irrationally.....
Post by: drck1000 on March 09, 2017, 12:37:07 PM
Yup, time has a way of healing some and making others forget. Take your pick.Yeah, I hear ya and I think so too.
The only reason I am worried about N. Korea is because they are like a two year old throwing a temper tantrum with a loaded gun (Nuclear tipped missile) in their hand. It is hard to reason with a two year old. And when they thrash out irrationally.....
There are those that believe North Korea doesn't have the right stuff to start things let alone do any real harm. Well, I think what they do have is capable of enough and who is to say they can't get something from someone who does have the right stuff.
Post by: punaperson on March 09, 2017, 12:41:49 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-japan-idUSKBN16F0YE
As North Korea missile threat grows, Japan lawmakers argue for first strike options
Excerpt:
Rattled by North Korean military advances, influential Japanese lawmakers are pushing harder for Japan to develop the ability to strike preemptively at the missile facilities of its nuclear-armed neighbor.
Japan has so far avoided taking the controversial and costly step of acquiring bombers or weapons such as cruise missiles with enough range to strike other countries, relying instead on its U.S. ally to take the fight to its enemies.
But the growing threat posed by Pyongyang, including Monday's simultaneous launch of four rockets, is adding weight to an argument that aiming for the archer rather than his arrows is a more effective defense.
"If bombers attacked us or warships bombarded us, we would fire back. Striking a country lobbing missiles at us is no different," said Itsunori Onodera, a former defense minister who heads a ruling Liberal Democratic Party committee looking at how Japan can defend against the North Korean missile threat. "Technology has advanced and the nature of conflict has changed."
Post by: davgdavg on March 13, 2017, 09:18:56 AM
Apparently at least some Japanese politicians are taking the threat very seriously, asking for Japan to develop "first strike" capability.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-japan-idUSKBN16F0YE
As North Korea missile threat grows, Japan lawmakers argue for first strike options
Excerpt:
Rattled by North Korean military advances, influential Japanese lawmakers are pushing harder for Japan to develop the ability to strike preemptively at the missile facilities of its nuclear-armed neighbor.
Japan has so far avoided taking the controversial and costly step of acquiring bombers or weapons such as cruise missiles with enough range to strike other countries, relying instead on its U.S. ally to take the fight to its enemies.
But the growing threat posed by Pyongyang, including Monday's simultaneous launch of four rockets, is adding weight to an argument that aiming for the archer rather than his arrows is a more effective defense.
"If bombers attacked us or warships bombarded us, we would fire back. Striking a country lobbing missiles at us is no different," said Itsunori Onodera, a former defense minister who heads a ruling Liberal Democratic Party committee looking at how Japan can defend against the North Korean missile threat. "Technology has advanced and the nature of conflict has changed."
Japan will never do this because it will give China a carte blanche to attack them and avenge the Japanese aggression/genocide that is still very recent in the minds of many Chinese.
Post by: rklapp on March 13, 2017, 10:12:45 AM
Post by: Inspector on March 13, 2017, 10:56:19 AM
There are those that believe North Korea doesn't have the right stuff to start things let alone do any real harm. Well, I think what they do have is capable of enough and who is to say they can't get something from someone who does have the right stuff.My understanding of what I have read and what sounds correct to me is that they have approximately 5-10 years of development before they have the capability to actually launch a nuclear tipped weapon and hit the intended target. I believe those are the two goals. To me, they only become a threat if their intention is to use those weapons as a threat to get something from another country, or to actually start a nuclear war. Our defensive missile system is a threat to that offensive use of their nuclear weapons. So the question for me is what they intend to do once they can threaten Japan and/or Hawaii? I would guess if they don't have the bolas to actually start a nuclear war then they will use them as a threat for us and/or Japan to appease them with $$$. Which is sort of what they have done in the past. To me if I try to look at things from their side of this is that the bigger the threat the more money they can get. I believe that with Trump there will come a time where we feel our missile defense system is good enough to deny the 2 year old baby what they want and stand back and see if they really have the bolas to push the button. Right now it seems that NK is not enough of a threat to deal with publicly right now. Otherwise you know we would be all over NK for firing 4 missiles out towards Japan. Either that or Trump feels they don't have the bolas to start a war either. And is ignoring the baby.
Problem is we don't really know what is going on behind closed doors. We only know what we are allowed to know.
Post by: Inspector on March 13, 2017, 02:25:51 PM
http://www.anonews.co/kim-jong-un/
Post by: Kuleana on March 13, 2017, 03:48:31 PM
I guess this may be the next step?
http://www.anonews.co/kim-jong-un/
Highly unlikely.
Any military action taken against the DPRK without the consent and approval of China will result in China taking covert and/or direct military countermeasures to ensure the fall of Kim's Regime does not result in nationwide chaos or the possibility of a Pro-US government taking control.
The only country that can reasonably conduct a regime change operation against the DPRK that would not begin an immediate countdown to WWIII is China, which is currently in their best interest to finally provide stability in that region, upon the removal of the current government in the DPRK.
Kuleana
Post by: Surf on March 13, 2017, 07:39:17 PM
There is no guessing what a crazy regime like NK would, or would not do, especially if they were to get to a point of "use it, or lose it" when it comes to military resources.
Post by: omnigun on March 14, 2017, 06:34:02 AM
Underestimating NK capabilities would be foolish. For over 15 years we have been fighting goat herders and dirt farmers who are using pieced together weapons and ordinance from wars of years past and no resolution in the near future. Imagine what it would be like to fight an army of over 1 million and over 7 times that number in reserve, who have more modern weapons than even our adversaries have in the middle east. NK could literally make a blitzkrieg push all the way into Seoul and we couldn't react quickly enough to stop it.
There is no guessing what a crazy regime like NK would, or would not do, especially if they were to get to a point of "use it, or lose it" when it comes to military resources.
There is no need to land war them. Just drone and bomb everything and they will fall apart on their own.
Post by: Inspector on March 14, 2017, 06:42:48 AM
You never know when, where or by whom an attack on American soil can occur. It is the U.S. Government's responsibility to do as much as humanly possible to protect us here in Hawaii from all types of attacks. Surprise or expected. JMHO
Post by: Surf on March 14, 2017, 07:07:52 PM
There is no need to land war them. Just drone and bomb everything and they will fall apart on their own.That is a very naive view. But since you have it figured out, can you help them fix the middle east issues.
Post by: macsak on March 14, 2017, 07:23:00 PM
That is a very naive view. But since you have it figured out, can you help them fix the middle east issues.
he's a diplomat at heart and a general at heart
Post by: London808 on March 14, 2017, 10:27:51 PM
There is no need to land war them. Just drone and bomb everything and they will fall apart on their own.
How well did that work in afaganisttan and Iraq ?
Boots on the ground win wars, we had to few troops and to many ROEs to with. The middle east
Post by: yurcarmeean on March 14, 2017, 10:31:21 PM
Post by: London808 on March 15, 2017, 09:01:40 AM
Load a nuke on 1 or 2, drive them of the coast of Hawaii and launch a missile (NK) has been seen testing sub launched missiles.
Or
Mount a nuke to a toroedo and launch it into the enterance of pearl and/or Honolulu harbor.
Or
Drop the nuke of shore 2-3 mikes and set it on a timber
Or
what I would think the most likely. Take a nuke to sea, transfer it to a container ship Sistine for the US and blow it up in the harbor.
Post by: Rocky on March 15, 2017, 10:29:55 AM
Unfortunately, with long travel options as they are and even worse, Phsyco 2 yr olds who don't know or G.A.S., that is no longer true. :'(
Oh well, at least I'm on the windward side of the fall out. :crazy:
Post by: omnigun on March 16, 2017, 09:47:56 AM
That is a very naive view. But since you have it figured out, can you help them fix the middle east issues.
Middle east isn't isolated and starving. They also are not enslaved by a dictator in most places. When we drone them which helps they can still eat and live. They have no mass urge to revolt and rise up against their leader.
How well did that work in afaganisttan and Iraq ?
Boots on the ground win wars, we had to few troops and to many ROEs to with. The middle east
We don't need to do this as I said before. We bomb north korea, they starve and infight. Most likely once we kill the leadership they will revolt and do a revolution. After that they would welcome the US with open arms.
Post by: omnigun on March 16, 2017, 09:52:50 AM
NK has around 70 diesel electric submarines.
Load a nuke on 1 or 2, drive them of the coast of Hawaii and launch a missile (NK) has been seen testing sub launched missiles.
Or
Mount a nuke to a toroedo and launch it into the enterance of pearl and/or Honolulu harbor.
Or
Drop the nuke of shore 2-3 mikes and set it on a timber
Or
what I would think the most likely. Take a nuke to sea, transfer it to a container ship Sistine for the US and blow it up in the harbor.
HAHAHAHA those shit submarines I doubt they could even make it to Hawaii. With their level of maintenance only a few actually work. And most wouldn't last. If somehow they get here the tiny little nukes wouldn't do much.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
type in 7.8kt
Little tiny nuke would only be able to destroy ford island or something.
Post by: Kuleana on March 16, 2017, 10:23:50 AM
We don't need to do this as I said before. We bomb north korea, they starve and infight. Most likely once we kill the leadership they will revolt and do a revolution. After that they would welcome the US with open arms.
The DPRK will never stave as long as China is there to feed them. If the leadership of the current regime is somehow killed/overthrown/etc., China will not allow any Pro-US government to take over. Should the US militarily participate in a Bush-like regime change or Soros-like sponsored color revolution, WWIII will begin as China will not allow any hostile force to base itself opposite their border on the Yalu River. Remember the reasons that led to the Korean War in 1950.
Kuleana
Post by: omnigun on March 16, 2017, 11:21:48 AM
The DPRK will never stave as long as China is there to feed them. If the leadership of the current regime is somehow killed/overthrown/etc., China will not allow any Pro-US government to take over. Should the US militarily participate in a Bush-like regime change or Soros-like sponsored color revolution, WWIII will begin as China will not allow any hostile force to base itself opposite their border on the Yalu River. Remember the reasons that led to the Korean War in 1950.
Kuleana
Funny thing is we can starve out china too. They import most of their food. If we bomb the roads into china etc and kill the leadership of korea I highly doubt china can contain the revolution. They would need massive troop deployment in korea to stabilize the country. Something they can't do quickly and without reason.
Post by: Surf on March 16, 2017, 01:28:57 PM
Post by: omnigun on March 16, 2017, 03:55:57 PM
Omnigun you either have a world view and / or a life that has given you an orientation that is so completely contrary to what I find to be reasonable, or you are a classic www. joker pulling a hoax on this forums membership. If your posts are here are serious, or if you are pulling everyone's leg and it entertains you, either way I just don't have the time or desire to participate in the shenanigans. Good luck.
Both countries import vast amounts of food.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/05/china-us-food-pork-wine-export-import
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2013/04/25/feeding-chinas-population/#11cee8d62941
http://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/food/
Please do tell me how a country of 1.4 billion people keep order when millions are starving to death?
Please do tell me then how this country will aid another country when its own country is starving assuming they both declare war on the USA. In this situation I doubt they will either get much international support. Starvation and revolutions are very hard to stop in oppressed countries.
People need food and water to live, after either is gone society deteriorates quite quickly. That combined with north korea and china to some extent of massive amounts of unsatisfied people who are only kept in check by fear of power. China has taiwan, tibet and internal issues. Korea has many internal issues with its labor camps and other social problems. Now picture the army that kept them in check, and the citizens thrown in chaos with bombing of food and military. The whole country would be pushed off the edge and break down quite quickly.
So in the most ideal situation the people of north korea rise up and overthrow their corrupt government and then make peace, we restore ties and feed everyone and make a new ally. China I doubt will get involved cause they cant win a war with us. They simply do not have the resources to fight one. We have more military, larger food and energy reserves, etc.
Post by: Inspector on March 16, 2017, 04:30:34 PM
Post by: Kuleana on March 16, 2017, 04:58:02 PM
Both countries import vast amounts of food.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/05/china-us-food-pork-wine-export-import
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2013/04/25/feeding-chinas-population/#11cee8d62941
http://www.nkeconwatch.com/category/food/
Please do tell me how a country of 1.4 billion people keep order when millions are starving to death?
Your articles do confirm your assertion that China has become a great importer of food. What you fail to mention is that most of what it imports is discretionary food stuffs to meet the needs of the changing tastes of Chinese consumers to more Western inspired foods. Those articles do not comment whether China can or cannot survive on the foods it imports. Big difference.
Also, famines and food shortages are nothing new to China. In fact, China was facing food shortages during the Korean War in 1950 against the Americans and that did not stop the PLA from defeating General MacArthur during the Winter.
Please do tell me then how this country will aid another country when its own country is starving assuming they both declare war on the USA. In this situation I doubt they will either get much international support. Starvation and revolutions are very hard to stop in oppressed countries.
China will not declare war on the US, China will be aiding the DPRK as they did in 1950. Similar in 1950, Russia will support China, but it is doubtful who outside of Japan will support an American imperialist military regime change operation in the DPRK.
People need food and water to live, after either is gone society deteriorates quite quickly. That combined with north korea and china to some extent of massive amounts of unsatisfied people who are only kept in check by fear of power. China has taiwan, tibet and internal issues. Korea has many internal issues with its labor camps and other social problems. Now picture the army that kept them in check, and the citizens thrown in chaos with bombing of food and military. The whole country would be pushed off the edge and break down quite quickly.
That is what Hitler thought of Stalin's USSR prior to Operation Barbarossa. That is what General MacArthur thought when his forces crossed the 38th parallel to invade DPRK and China, thereafter. Both men underestimated the resolve of both countries when faced with external imperial invasion.
So in the most ideal situation the people of north korea rise up and overthrow their corrupt government and then make peace, we restore ties and feed everyone and make a new ally. China I doubt will get involved cause they cant win a war with us. They simply do not have the resources to fight one. We have more military, larger food and energy reserves, etc.
If you think the US is the peace loving humanitarian country that can feed the DPRK when FEMA could not even take care of the survivors of Hurricane Katrina, I do not know what to say. Also, you are very incorrect with the military capabilities of today's China. You say China does not have the resources to fight the US, I counter that it is the US that does not have the manpower nor resources to fight a conventional war with China. You truly believe the US has enough infantry to invade China? If US forces cannot defeat ISIS, what can it do to a nuclear armed power? If the greatest US WWII General MacArthur could not defeat China in 1950, what can the US do in 2017?
Kuleana
Post by: Inspector on March 16, 2017, 06:17:52 PM
Post by: macsak on March 16, 2017, 06:37:15 PM
kuleana, you logic and reason will not register with omnigun, because most of your examples happened more than a few years ago, and he does not believe that anything that happened before 2000 is relevant
Post by: Kuleana on March 16, 2017, 08:10:15 PM
kuleana, you logic and reason will not register with omnigun, because most of your examples happened more than a few years ago, and he does not believe that anything that happened before 2000 is relevant
What a tragedy...
Thanks Mac.
Post by: omnigun on March 17, 2017, 09:03:13 AM
Im fairly sure nato will side with USA on this "war". Sure russia/china will support north korea to an extent. The problem with the resolve of russia is that they were not in a remotly similar situation to north korea. North korea is much worse. The USA wouldn't feed all of north korea there would be much international support. Nato etc. China can not win a war with the USA period. We have a better airforce and navy. You are correct in that we will never win a ground war with china. They have a population over a billion people. But what we can do easily is destroy the infrastructure and cripple their military. If they cant leave the land and cant import goods to the country its basically winning the war and waiting for them to surrender. Or continue being useless. Either option is good. ISIS is a horrible comparison to how the US can win conventional wars. We absolutely destroyed and won with ease against iraq actual army. Even operation desert storm we crushed them. The occupation part is where we failed. That is a whole different game cause there is no real target anymore. Its citizens that turn to terrorism that is now the problem. They don't wear uniforms or drive marked tanks/planes etc. General MacAurther was a good general but times change and technology now shapes war. IF he had the tech we have now he would of won those wars. The simple fact that you can now precision bomb people with ease and destroy things from afar. The fact that you can now with satellites see exact enemy movements and supply routes etc. With the current tech we can't lose a conventional war with anyone. Ground wars are a bit harder but just crippling the enemy till they are useless or surrender shouldn't be that hard. I will have to do more research on the food that part is hard cause its not something china would want anyone to know.
Post by: Inspector on March 20, 2017, 06:54:27 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN16R02P
Post by: London808 on March 20, 2017, 08:55:12 AM
Im fairly sure nato will side with USA on this "war". Sure russia/china will support north korea to an extent. The problem with the resolve of russia is that they were not in a remotly similar situation to north korea. North korea is much worse. The USA wouldn't feed all of north korea there would be much international support. Nato etc. China can not win a war with the USA period. We have a better airforce and navy. You are correct in that we will never win a ground war with china. They have a population over a billion people. But what we can do easily is destroy the infrastructure and cripple their military. If they cant leave the land and cant import goods to the country its basically winning the war and waiting for them to surrender. Or continue being useless. Either option is good. ISIS is a horrible comparison to how the US can win conventional wars. We absolutely destroyed and won with ease against iraq actual army. Even operation desert storm we crushed them. The occupation part is where we failed. That is a whole different game cause there is no real target anymore. Its citizens that turn to terrorism that is now the problem. They don't wear uniforms or drive marked tanks/planes etc. General MacAurther was a good general but times change and technology now shapes war. IF he had the tech we have now he would of won those wars. The simple fact that you can now precision bomb people with ease and destroy things from afar. The fact that you can now with satellites see exact enemy movements and supply routes etc. With the current tech we can't lose a conventional war with anyone. Ground wars are a bit harder but just crippling the enemy till they are useless or surrender shouldn't be that hard. I will have to do more research on the food that part is hard cause its not something china would want anyone to know.
There is NO SUCH THING as a conventional war any more,
If we were to go to war with say china, russsia or even NK, one of the first things to happen would be assainations and art is in the US, they would target politicians, judges, federal employees, military installations and infrastructure. Either shooting, boning or damaging them.
A military will not go toe to toe with waves of troops rushing trench lines, the war will be fought against the people. You break the people you win.
Post by: London808 on March 20, 2017, 08:58:46 AM
HAHAHAHA those shit submarines I doubt they could even make it to Hawaii. With their level of maintenance only a few actually work. And most wouldn't last. If somehow they get here the tiny little nukes wouldn't do much.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
type in 7.8kt
Little tiny nuke would only be able to destroy ford island or something.
How delusional you Are. It only takes 1 submarine to put a nuke into he entrance to Pearl Harbor and the harbor is closed. The fallout alone would kill 10's of thousands in Honolulu.
Post by: Inspector on March 20, 2017, 09:19:49 AM
I believe that a limited war between North Korea and the U.S. has a possibility of occurring. Probably due to an attack on South Korea and/or Japan and our having to come to the defense of the either/both. Yes, NK would be stupid to try anything against SK/Japan and possibly the U.S. Nobody said their leader is a smart person. We will retaliate and will not use any type of nuclear weapons unless WMD's are used first by NK. And we will not use nukes unless the WMD by NK can be verified without question. But here is what I believe will actually happen. If NK pursues a war against one of our allies (or us) China will most certainly step in as they do not want U.S./SK/Japanese troops so close to their border. Also, they don't want a nuclear device detonated close to their border. They can stop NK if they want to. And I believe they will when/if the time comes. Why do something now when they can learn so much about how and how quickly we react/respond to threats by letting NK tighten their own noose. Then they will step in and play the hero and we will give them more trade. Also, China will not risk a war with the U.S. as approximately 20% of their economy relies on U.S. consumers. And Europe makes up even a larger percentage of their economy. If nato allies stop buying from China along with the U.S we can hurt their economy and possibly cripple them. Especially if we freeze their assets in all nato countries. That is huge. China might not be our friend. But they are not stupid enough to risk a war with us.
JMHO
Post by: Kuleana on March 20, 2017, 02:04:26 PM
I see a lot of conjecture about whether we would go to war with China and/or North Korea. I want to give my opinion here. Please just remember this is only my opinion. I could be right and I can be wrong. We won't know unless something actually occurs.
I believe that a limited war between North Korea and the U.S. has a possibility of occurring.
Very Possible.
Probably due to an attack on South Korea and/or Japan and our having to come to the defense of the either/both. Yes, NK would be stupid to try anything against SK/Japan and possibly the U.S. Nobody said their leader is a smart person.
Or possibly due to a failed covert joint US/ROK/Japan military or assassination attempt.
We will retaliate and will not use any type of nuclear weapons unless WMD's are used first by NK. And we will not use nukes unless the WMD by NK can be verified without question.
I agree.
But here is what I believe will actually happen. If NK pursues a war against one of our allies (or us) China will most certainly step in as they do not want U.S./SK/Japanese troops so close to their border. Also, they don't want a nuclear device detonated close to their border. They can stop NK if they want to. And I believe they will when/if the time comes. Why do something now when they can learn so much about how and how quickly we react/respond to threats by letting NK tighten their own noose. Then they will step in and play the hero and we will give them more trade. Also, China will not risk a war with the U.S. as approximately 20% of their economy relies on U.S. consumers.
Excellent hypothetical analysis.
And Europe makes up even a larger percentage of their economy. If nato allies stop buying from China along with the U.S we can hurt their economy and possibly cripple them.
I don't think NATO can dictate to their member states who they can do business or not. Even if its true, China will make more money on the eventual European Black Market as does illegal drugs.
Especially if we freeze their assets in all nato countries. That is huge.
An act like that would force a possible dumping of US Treasuries and Bonds that would crash the US Dollar and plunge everyone into a WROL level global financial meltdown/depression.
China might not be our friend. But they are not stupid enough to risk a war with us.
They will fight any nation that threatens their economic growth, as the US or any other nation would do in that situation.
JMHO
Kuleana
Post by: s197 on March 20, 2017, 02:29:59 PM
Keep in mind if they launched a nuke at Hawaii and missed (99.9% probability) the retaliation would obliterate them.
The main threat is Seoul as they have heavy artillery aimed at the city. None of our other allies are in real danger. Perhaps Japan in a few years if their tech continues to improve.
This article is nothing more than to try and justify our already vastly bloated defense spending.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on March 20, 2017, 05:37:06 PM
How delusional you Are. It only takes 1 submarine to put a nuke into he entrance to Pearl Harbor and the harbor is closed. The fallout alone would kill 10's of thousands in Honolulu.
Yeah a proper sized nuke from Russia or US could annihilate the whole island. Relatively the NK nukes are puny and worthless. Sure maybe 10k people might die which is a small amount of our total population. Nuking the entrance to Pearl Harbor won't close the harbor longer than maybe a week when the main fallout isn't completely lethal. Bombs don't tend to block open entrances. At this point the only viable thread of nuclear attack is china whos nukes are fairly large too. Enough to kill half the population of oahu fairly easily.
Post by: Heavies on March 20, 2017, 06:28:11 PM
The rest who survive would be in the stone age after that. It would be madmax times 100.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 20, 2017, 06:40:24 PM
Here's the output from a NK-tested 10 KT nuke with an aerial detonation above downtown Honolulu. You can play around with Pearl Harbor or whatever you want.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=10&lat=21.3069444&lng=-157.8583333&hob_opt=1&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=2207&casualties=1&fatalities=49399&injuries=92546&psi_1=267710&zm=14
(http://i.imgur.com/epFCMx2.jpg)
Post by: London808 on March 20, 2017, 08:08:38 PM
Yeah a proper sized nuke from Russia or US could annihilate the whole island. Relatively the NK nukes are puny and worthless. Sure maybe 10k people might die which is a small amount of our total population. Nuking the entrance to Pearl Harbor won't close the harbor longer than maybe a week when the main fallout isn't completely lethal. Bombs don't tend to block open entrances. At this point the only viable thread of nuclear attack is china whos nukes are fairly large too. Enough to kill half the population of oahu fairly easily.
Again, Delusional.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 21, 2017, 12:17:45 AM
For someone who claims to be a scientist (at heart or otherwise). the replies in this thread have shown ZERO scientific knowledge or even common facts.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you're channeling EEF when you type!
:geekdanc:
Post by: robtmc on March 21, 2017, 08:04:19 AM
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you're channeling EEF when you type!Oh great, another one? I hope 2A Hawaii filters for sockpuppets.
Post by: robtmc on March 21, 2017, 08:04:47 AM
Again, Delusional.You are too polite.
Post by: Inspector on March 21, 2017, 08:54:59 AM
OMNIGUN::rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you're channeling EEF when you type!
:geekdanc:
Not sure who is going to respond first, Omni or EEF? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: drck1000 on March 21, 2017, 09:16:17 AM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Why do you folks even bother?
Not sure who is going to respond first, Omni or EEF? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
We're so blessed to have such knowledgeable folks here that know the true capabilities of NK, the tactical uses for nukes, etc. They know what they know, don't confuse them with the facts...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on March 21, 2017, 09:19:23 AM
Why do you folks even bother?You're right. I know everything about NK and their true capabilities. But I'm not telling..... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
We're so blessed to have such knowledgeable folks here that know the true capabilities of NK, the tactical uses for nukes, etc. They know what they know, don't confuse them with the facts...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 09:21:07 AM
OMNIGUN:
For someone who claims to be a scientist (at heart or otherwise). the replies in this thread have shown ZERO scientific knowledge or even common facts.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear you're channeling EEF when you type!
:geekdanc:
hmmm I could swear that I posted a nukemap with the exact fallout and destruction that a puny NK would do. He said Pearl Harbor. I think you are the one who can't click links or read. Not my fault anything you don't personally agree with is FAKE science.
As for the "facts" Through testing you know the scientific kind we are fairly sure what size nukes NK has been testing. That's why I have the 7.8kt figure. Now a nuke airburst as everyone somehow believes NK can pull off properly in Pearl Harbor entrance will kill an estimated 1.4k people according to the nukemap site. It will not clog the harbor, the major radiation issues decay over time and after a few weeks it will be non lethal.
Post by: drck1000 on March 21, 2017, 09:24:57 AM
You're right. I know everything about NK and their true capabilities. But I'm not telling..... :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:Shhh... be vewwwy, vewwwy quiet!
I mean I get that it's fun to an extent to speculate and such on stuff like this. That said, it really is useless to discuss some things with some folks here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on March 21, 2017, 09:33:29 AM
Shhh... be vewwwy, vewwwy quiet!Have you seen that wascally wabbit?
I mean I get that it's fun to an extent to speculate and such on stuff like this. That said, it really is useless to discuss some things with some folks here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, I know what you mean. I have given up. Now I just sit back and watch others try and make sense of it all. With a big tub of popcorn.
Post by: London808 on March 21, 2017, 09:39:40 AM
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17457293_10158409952040634_7103611101066970219_n.jpg?oh=f745a9f492403c35f9bee6c7cf6596e3&oe=5970ACF3)
6KT nuke (as tested by NK in 2006) in the entrance, ground burst
(https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/17362696_10158409959710634_8673957020773975881_n.jpg?oh=561f10aa734fffdce7c05619b27e6368&oe=596EF224)
As you can see the 2 line up almost as if they were made for each other. The damage to the harbor, Especially if theyany ship was in transition at the time would make the harbor un-navigable, Not to mention the radiation contamination, The destruction/damage/contamination of the HNL airport, Hickham AFB, Pearl Harbor shipyards, Pacific fleet command, HNL city,
A second bomb of a similar size would also clost Honolulu harbor,
And this dosent even factor into account the fact that they could destroy almost all of Hawaii by using a nuke on the big island. This could create a landslide that would cause a tsunami that would wipe out the hole island change.
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 09:43:11 AM
As you can see the 2 line up almost as if they were made for each other. The damage to the harbor, Especially if theyany ship was in transition at the time would make the harbor un-navigable, Not to mention the radiation contamination, The destruction/damage/contamination of the HNL airport, Hickham AFB, Pearl Harbor shipyards, Pacific fleet command, HNL city,
A second bomb of a similar size would also clost Honolulu harbor,
And this dosent even factor into account the fact that they could destroy almost all of Hawaii by using a nuke on the big island. This could create a landslide that would cause a tsunami that would wipe out the hole island change.
Simple difference in size of explotions and people killed, hence puny little NK nukes.
(https://s17.postimg.org/hab7pnfgv/sizematters.png)
citation needed for the big island claim. I highly doubt that's possible.
What you fail to figure out is a ground burst of a nuke in that entrance won't magically close it. You know bombs makes debree and matter go away from the focal point right? If anything it would make the entrance larger (it won't). Raditation would shut us down for a few weeks, correct. The airport might be down for repairs for a few weeks. The actual ships if the entrance of the harbor is nuked won't all be destroyed. If for some reason the entrance is damaged by a bomb that is designed to disburse matter in all directions away from the center clogs the harbor its not the end of the world it can be cleared. What I am saying is if NK nuked us it would not be the end of the world. Me and you would most likely live. The US wouldn't be destroyed and life would go on in a matter of months.
Post by: London808 on March 21, 2017, 09:44:50 AM
Also why are you talking about air burst ? im talking about a nuclear torpedo or a set charge, Both of these would be detonated under water creating a higher pressure causing damage to the infrastructure and cut entrance to pearl harbor, Not to mention the damage caused by the the tsunami it would generate. The damage to pearl harbor real would be beyond a week or two of clean uip, The harbor would be out of commission for years and would cost BILLIONS in clean up and rebuilding.
Post by: London808 on March 21, 2017, 09:51:31 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KstQogN8DUA
http://www.livescience.com/25949-tsunami-bomb.html (http://www.livescience.com/25949-tsunami-bomb.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html)
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 09:52:18 AM
Your little round circles are for immediate effect and dont take into account wind and tide.
Also why are you talking about air burst ? im talking about a nuclear torpedo or a set charge, Both of these would be detonated under water creating a higher pressure causing damage to the infrastructure and cut entrance to pearl harbor, Not to mention the damage caused by the the tsunami it would generate. The damage to pearl harbor real would be beyond a week or two of clean uip, The harbor would be out of commission for years and would cost BILLIONS in clean up and rebuilding.
You know the entrance to the harbor is essentially a hole right? Bombs make holes larger. We don't need some sort of complex system of concrete and stuff to sail out of the harbor like the panama canal. Yes the high pressure would cause damage and small tsunami too. But I highly doubt it would destroy all of our infrastructure and ships. Fall out dissipates fairly quickly for the immediate lethal stuff. Trade winds actually blow the stuff away from us in the current Pearl harbor location. What I am saying is I would much rather get hit by NK tiny little nuke than china or russia which as you can see from my map would basically kill everyone on oahu.
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 09:56:02 AM
A nuclear device detonated on the slopes of Mauna Loa, (could) cause a landslide that would cause a Mega tsunami. Even the USA has been playing with the idea of Tsunami Bombs designed to cause tsunamis to destroy coastal citys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KstQogN8DUA
http://www.livescience.com/25949-tsunami-bomb.html (http://www.livescience.com/25949-tsunami-bomb.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html)
That would require NK be able to percussion detonate a bomb underground something well beyond their capabilities. Even then its not guaranteed. People been saying California will fall into the sea too but that hasn't happened yet.
Post by: Rocky on March 21, 2017, 06:21:29 PM
A nuclear device detonated on the slopes of Mauna Loa, (could) cause a landslide that would cause a Mega tsunami. Even the USA has been playing with the idea of Tsunami Bombs designed to cause tsunamis to destroy coastal citys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KstQogN8DUA
http://www.livescience.com/25949-tsunami-bomb.html (http://www.livescience.com/25949-tsunami-bomb.html)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/9774217/Tsunami-bomb-tested-off-New-Zealand-coast.html)
I have been watching the slopes of Mauna Loa very carefully since I found out the CD and others were preparing for this tsunami to occur as NATURAL event. :o
The timeline of 30-33 minutes to impact may be correct, but they (CD) say it would be more like a 8-10 minute notice for Oahu ! :shake:
This is the main reason our BOBs and other "getaway" supplies are packed they way they are.
Post by: London808 on March 21, 2017, 06:40:29 PM
That would require NK be able to percussion detonate a bomb underground something well beyond their capabilities. Even then its not guaranteed. People been saying California will fall into the sea too but that hasn't happened yet.
No it wouldn't, the slopes are new rock on old rock, it's like putting sand on a concrete ramp, a jolt will cause it all to slide off.
Post by: London808 on March 21, 2017, 06:42:06 PM
I have been watching the slopes of Mauna Loa very carefully since I found out the CD and others were preparing for this tsunami to occur as NATURAL event. :o
The timeline of 30-33 minutes to impact may be correct, but they (CD) say it would be more like a 8-10 minute notice for Oahu ! :shake:
This is the main reason our BOBs and other "getaway" supplies are packed they way they are.
Yep, if you feel an earthquake on Oahu you get ready to toll out, even with a 30miniut travel time it will take them 10-30 minutes to work out what's happening and sound the alarms.
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 07:13:08 PM
No it wouldn't, the slopes are new rock on old rock, it's like putting sand on a concrete ramp, a jolt will cause it all to slide off.
There has been quakes larger than NK test nukes (more energy) and the slope hasn't fallen off yet. NK also tests their nukes underground which cause much more seismic energy. I highly doubt an above ground detonation would do anything. Plus north korea doesn't have the capabilities that I know of launching a missile from a sub to a land target.
Yep, if you feel an earthquake on Oahu you get ready to toll out, even with a 30miniut travel time it will take them 10-30 minutes to work out what's happening and sound the alarms.
If I am at work I die, If I'm at home I can sit back and relax. 50/50 lol
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 21, 2017, 07:21:47 PM
Arguing that a country doesn't possess a certain type of WMD today is shortsighted and naive.
Post by: London808 on March 21, 2017, 07:40:54 PM
There has been quakes larger than NK test nukes (more energy) and the slope hasn't fallen off yet. NK also tests their nukes underground which cause much more seismic energy. I highly doubt an above ground detonation would do anything. Plus north korea doesn't have the capabilities that I know of launching a missile from a sub to a land target.
If I am at work I die, If I'm at home I can sit back and relax. 50/50 lol
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/13/North-Korea-launch-was-upgraded-sub-launched-missile/6091486996285/
A surface strike is a very different type of confusion wave then an earthquake.
Post by: macsak on March 21, 2017, 08:36:15 PM
That would require NK be able to percussion detonate a bomb underground something well beyond their capabilities. Even then its not guaranteed. People been saying California will fall into the sea too but that hasn't happened yet.
man, i hope omnigun is a speaker at this tomorrow...
https://ndptc.hawaii.edu/news/PRiMO17_Community_Night_Flyer/
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 10:54:28 PM
These North Korea Attack Deniers are laughable! The technology and capabilities to deliver ANY ordinance exists today. It doesn't require one nation to develop their own if another nation (or terror organization) is willing to trade/sell/give them one -- or many.
Arguing that a country doesn't possess a certain type of WMD today is shortsighted and naive.
With that logic you must be really scared of your neighbor Joe Bob and his cache of WMD's. Cause clearly anyone can get em.
Post by: omnigun on March 21, 2017, 10:57:25 PM
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2017/02/13/North-Korea-launch-was-upgraded-sub-launched-missile/6091486996285/
A surface strike is a very different type of confusion wave then an earthquake.
We still arn't 100% sure what it was. Many of their tests fail. I would not put much faith that everything will work perfectly for their plan to ever work if they wanted to do it. Then if everything did work perfectly that the big island would break off and slide into the sea as planned too. Much like I don't fear being struck by lightning.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 21, 2017, 11:20:52 PM
With that logic you must be really scared of your neighbor Joe Bob and his cache of WMD's. Cause clearly anyone can get em.
Did I say that?
(http://i.imgur.com/pRFjxv6.png)
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 21, 2017, 11:24:29 PM
We still arn't 100% sure what it was. Many of their tests fail. I would not put much faith that everything will work perfectly for their plan to ever work if they wanted to do it. Then if everything did work perfectly that the big island would break off and slide into the sea as planned too. Much like I don't fear being struck by lightning.
Lightning also has a better chance of hitting you than all the climate change disasters you're terrified of.
It's all relative. :geekdanc:
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 06:23:42 AM
Lightning also has a better chance of hitting you than all the climate change disasters you're terrified of.
It's all relative. :geekdanc:
Difference is the odds of me getting hit with lighting doesn't fluctuate much over time. The odds of climate change getting worse and fucking up my or my kids lives over time gets worse and worse.
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 06:36:54 AM
Post by: s197 on March 22, 2017, 08:12:55 AM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: London808 on March 22, 2017, 09:46:01 AM
Difference is the odds of me getting hit with lighting doesn't fluctuate much over time. The odds of climate change getting worse and fucking up my or my kids lives over time gets worse and worse.
HOLD UP
IF you believe in Climate change (which is BS) Then your chance of getting hit by lightning is actually increasing.
Post by: London808 on March 22, 2017, 09:46:46 AM
We still arn't 100% sure what it was. Many of their tests fail. I would not put much faith that everything will work perfectly for their plan to ever work if they wanted to do it. Then if everything did work perfectly that the big island would break off and slide into the sea as planned too. Much like I don't fear being struck by lightning.
Have you heard the term propaganda before ??
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 10:38:30 AM
Have you heard the term propaganda before ??
Sure everything is propaganda. You know we have aliens? NK has super hydrogen bombs and intergalactic missiles that can blow up the moon. There is a difference between propaganda and reality. If they had more capabilities they wouldn't be doing these fail tests of weak stuff. Especially when their entire point of doing this stuff is to scare people.
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 10:39:44 AM
HOLD UP
IF you believe in Climate change (which is BS) Then your chance of getting hit by lightning is actually increasing.
Weather is changing, which may or may not increase the chance of lighting strikes. Not everywhere will get more storms, some places will get less.
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 10:53:54 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 11:24:10 AM
Weather is changing, which may or may not increase the chance of lighting strikes. Not everywhere will get more storms, some places will get less.
Please post a source for that prediction so we know it's not another omnigun okole baby!
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 11:27:11 AM
Please post a source for that prediction so we know it's not another omnigun okole baby!
There is no source because I/humans can't predict the weather yet. Sorry I don't know all the knowledge of the universe. Maybe you should ask your "god" who apparently does to tell you it..
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 11:28:53 AM
There is no source because I/humans can't predict the weather yet. Sorry I don't know all the knowledge of the universe. Maybe you should ask your "god" who apparently does to tell you it..
Why do you insist on trying to insult people over religion? Are you that juvenile, or are you a Liberal? I'm thinking both.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 11:30:57 AM
Weather is changing, which may or may not increase the chance of lighting strikes. Not everywhere will get more storms, some places will get less.
You said "I/Humans can't predict the weather yet."
You predicted "Not everywhere will get more storms, some places will get less."
Therefore, you must not be human.
Post by: macsak on March 22, 2017, 11:31:47 AM
There is no source because I/humans can't predict the weather yet. Sorry I don't know all the knowledge of the universe. Maybe you should ask your "god" who apparently does to tell you it..
wait, now humans can't predict the weather?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 11:34:54 AM
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 11:42:49 AM
wait, now humans can't predict the weather?
i thought it was a "proven fact"?
Proven fact is that it is changing. And from all data its changing for the worse. I have never said I know exactly how or if it will storm in 241 days from now. You know the weather channel? They make educated guesses on the weather. It tends to be sorta accurate. But just cause they cant tell you the amount of sunlight will hit a square meter in oahu on a given day doesn't mean weather science is wrong....
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 11:48:01 AM
Proven fact is that it is changing. And from all data its changing for the worse. I have never said I know exactly how or if it will storm in 241 days from now. You know the weather channel? They make educated guesses on the weather. It tends to be sorta accurate. But just cause they cant tell you the amount of sunlight will hit a square meter in oahu on a given day doesn't mean weather science is wrong....
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Post by: macsak on March 22, 2017, 12:00:34 PM
Proven fact is that it is changing. And from all data its changing for the worse.
weather is always changing- TRUE
"all data"? - FALSE
there are actual scientists (not just at heart) that see climate change/global warming/global cooling as BS
perhaps you should edit this to "all data i believe" or "all data from climate change supporters"
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 12:06:09 PM
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 12:09:36 PM
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 12:47:59 PM
weather is always changing- TRUE
"all data"? - FALSE
there are actual scientists (not just at heart) that see climate change/global warming/global cooling as BS
perhaps you should edit this to "all data i believe" or "all data from climate change supporters"
Maybe I should ammend it to say large majority. But hey macsak you can find that one dude believing in unicorns, bigfoot, etc. Just cause "all data" excludes the few wackjobs doesn't mean its an incorrect statement. I'm personally comfortable hat if 90% of scientists say something is correct and show proof that corroborates to that statement. I would consider that correct. Even if there is a minority that disagree.
Post by: macsak on March 22, 2017, 12:58:54 PM
Maybe I should ammend it to say large majority. But hey macsak you can find that one dude believing in unicorns, bigfoot, etc. Just cause "all data" excludes the few wackjobs doesn't mean its an incorrect statement. I'm personally comfortable hat if 90% of scientists say something is correct and show proof that corroborates to that statement. I would consider that correct. Even if there is a minority that disagree.
the 90% number has been disproven many different ways...
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 01:00:29 PM
the 90% number has been disproven many different ways...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSrjAXK5pGw
Post by: Inspector on March 22, 2017, 01:01:51 PM
Maybe I should ammend it to say large majority. But hey macsak you can find that one dude believing in unicorns, bigfoot, etc. Just cause "all data" excludes the few wackjobs doesn't mean its an incorrect statement. I'm personally comfortable hat if 90% of scientists say something is correct and show proof that corroborates to that statement. I would consider that correct. Even if there is a minority that disagree.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 01:08:08 PM
It's painfully obvious nothing we've tried to teach him has been accepted. He prefers a statistical sampling of "scientists" who rely on government for funding over actual science.
I'm not arguing with a wall.
Over and out.
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 01:55:56 PM
It's painfully obvious nothing we've tried to teach him has been accepted. He prefers a statistical sampling of "scientists" who rely on government for funding over actual science.
I'm not arguing with a wall.
Over and out.
True facts, I do prefer scientists being funded by the government vs petroleum companies. If there is any degree to bia-ness I think the oil/coal/etc companies would be a bit more bias. Private funding tends to do that. You might be fired if you don't get the companies results after all.
In the end I think we are two sides shouting into a wall. I doubt either of us will change our opinions based on each others thoughts.
Post by: omnigun on March 22, 2017, 01:57:10 PM
the 90% number has been disproven many different ways...
[/quote
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 02:02:27 PM
the 90% number has been disproven many different ways...
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
CONSENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 22, 2017, 04:50:11 PM
Post by: Inspector on March 29, 2017, 12:21:04 PM
http://www.anonews.co/nk-kill-americans/
Who are we to argue???? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: FBI on March 29, 2017, 12:43:40 PM
Okay, let's ratchet up the rhetoric here:
http://www.anonews.co/nk-kill-americans/
Who are we to argue???? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I don't think the death toll will be that bad, but getting rid of mainland
Democrats, would really improve my life. Getting rid of Honolulu
Democrats would really improve Hawaii. What is the downside?
Post by: omnigun on March 29, 2017, 01:36:04 PM
Okay, let's ratchet up the rhetoric here:
http://www.anonews.co/nk-kill-americans/
Who are we to argue???? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yeah....no....the size of the nukes wouldn't have that large of an EMP affect. IF by some miracle NK can detonate them in the right altitude and timing.
Post by: Inspector on March 29, 2017, 02:49:31 PM
Yeah....no....the size of the nukes wouldn't have that large of an EMP affect. IF by some miracle NK can detonate them in the right altitude and timing.And you know this how? The same way you know 97% of all non climate scientists agree that man controls the climate? :geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Maybe I shouldn't have asked? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: omnigun on March 29, 2017, 06:09:26 PM
And you know this how? The same way you know 97% of all non climate scientists agree that man controls the climate? :geekdanc: :geekdanc: :geekdanc:
Maybe I shouldn't have asked? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Even you cant argue against the predicted size of their nukes. Which is like 10kt max right now. Which is tiny tiny tiny. You also seen their many, many failed tests and pathetic missile tests. Their failed satellites etc. And after seeing all of this you think they can somehow magic new technology out of thin air?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 29, 2017, 08:12:08 PM
Even you cant argue against the predicted size of their nukes. Which is like 10kt max right now. Which is tiny tiny tiny. You also seen their many, many failed tests and pathetic missile tests. Their failed satellites etc. And after seeing all of this you think they can somehow magic new technology out of thin air?
How many times are you going to try and win this same unwinnable argument?
Post by: whynow? on March 29, 2017, 08:45:48 PM
Face it our infrastructure is weak, old and vulnerable.
Post by: Inspector on March 30, 2017, 04:43:43 AM
Even you cant argue against the predicted size of their nukes.Don't be a horses ass, dude. Don't even try to tell me what I can or can't do. This statement is nothing but inflammatory, arrogant and elitist. It also shows you progressive roots and ignorance.
And after seeing all of this you think they can somehow magic new technology out of thin air?Dude, you are delusional. I never said anything like this at all. You are making this up and trying to put words into my mouth and incite an argument. Just go back into your little make believe world and play with your make believe, lower intelligence invisible people.
The worst part of this is you never even answered my question. I didn't ask you for an argument, I asked you to qualify yourself.I want to know what makes you the expert on NK and their capabilities. I am sorry I asked.
Post by: Inspector on March 30, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
I don't think the death toll will be that bad, but getting rid of mainlandI agree. I think it would really depend a lot on the size of the nuke and where exactly it was set off. Also. which way the wind is blowing. There may not be a lot of casualties right after the blast, but the burn victims and those exposed to a lethal dose of radiation would probably be a larger casualty group than blast victims.
Democrats, would really improve my life. Getting rid of Honolulu
Democrats would really improve Hawaii. What is the downside?
Getting rid of idiot democrats? I agree I see no downside!
Post by: drck1000 on March 30, 2017, 12:50:46 PM
Don't be a horses ass, dude. Don't even try to tell me what I can or can't do. This statement is nothing but inflammatory, arrogant and elitist. It also shows you progressive roots and ignorance.You can't buy any of my guns. . . ;D Hold on, maybe I shouldn't be hasty. It would depend on how much you are offering. . . :P :rofl:
Dude, you are delusional. I never said anything like this at all. You are making this up and trying to put words into my mouth and incite an argument. Just go back into your little make believe world and play with your make believe, lower intelligence invisible people.
The worst part of this is you never even answered my question. I didn't ask you for an argument, I asked you to qualify yourself.I want to know what makes you the expert on NK and their capabilities. I am sorry I asked.
There seem to be many here who are seemingly omnipotent, particularly cornering the market on knowledge of weapon capabilities of foreign countries/groups as well as climate expertise. I am no expert on NK or their capabilities, but I do know better than to try to argue what can't be proven to those who either 1) get all of their information from internet think tanks, or 2) argue based on beliefs as opposed to facts.
Post by: Inspector on March 30, 2017, 05:23:03 PM
You can't buy any of my guns. . . ;D Hold on, maybe I shouldn't be hasty. It would depend on how much you are offering. . . :P :rofl:Yeah, I should have known better than to ask the OMNIPOTENT ONE a question regarding weapons capabilities and climate change. I take full responsibility for my actions. Guilty as charged! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
There seem to be many here who are seemingly omnipotent, particularly cornering the market on knowledge of weapon capabilities of foreign countries/groups as well as climate expertise. I am no expert on NK or their capabilities, but I do know better than to try to argue what can't be proven to those who either 1) get all of their information from internet think tanks, or 2) argue based on beliefs as opposed to facts.
I am no expert either. But I do have about 50 years of study and reading background in WWII history. Actually I am a big fan of the air war. I think that qualifies me as an OMNIPOTENT ONE when it comes to North Korea, right? But who knows? If I find the right website that says the things that go along with my beliefs and 97% of the non climate scientists I can be an expert, too! [/sarcasm]
Post by: whynow? on March 30, 2017, 08:46:12 PM
Also remember seeing somewhere that an air blast over Oahu would be effective for about 25 mi. If the target area was JB or urban Oahu, probably only Kahuku area would be safe. Anyways, hope that the state gets their warning systems up to speed and stop these false siren blast occurring recently.
Post by: macsak on March 30, 2017, 09:12:11 PM
Although it's been many years since I heard this, I remember the word being that for PHNSY area, you would have about 11 min. before a nuke hit after the warning sounded. Now this was based on the types of warning systems of the 70's early 80's and without the sea based missile defense we are supposed to have now, so I don't know what it is now.
Also remember seeing somewhere that an air blast over Oahu would be effective for about 25 mi. If the target area was JB or urban Oahu, probably only Kahuku area would be safe. Anyways, hope that the state gets their warning systems up to speed and stop these false siren blast occurring recently.
we don't have to worry, omnigun and 97% of scientists at heart say it's gonna be ok
Post by: omnigun on March 30, 2017, 10:45:02 PM
Although it's been many years since I heard this, I remember the word being that for PHNSY area, you would have about 11 min. before a nuke hit after the warning sounded. Now this was based on the types of warning systems of the 70's early 80's and without the sea based missile defense we are supposed to have now, so I don't know what it is now.
Also remember seeing somewhere that an air blast over Oahu would be effective for about 25 mi. If the target area was JB or urban Oahu, probably only Kahuku area would be safe. Anyways, hope that the state gets their warning systems up to speed and stop these false siren blast occurring recently.
Its all about the size of the nuke....big differences between russian nukes in the 70's and 80's and shitty korean nukes.
Post by: omnigun on March 30, 2017, 10:45:43 PM
Don't be a horses ass, dude. Don't even try to tell me what I can or can't do. This statement is nothing but inflammatory, arrogant and elitist. It also shows you progressive roots and ignorance.
Dude, you are delusional. I never said anything like this at all. You are making this up and trying to put words into my mouth and incite an argument. Just go back into your little make believe world and play with your make believe, lower intelligence invisible people.
The worst part of this is you never even answered my question. I didn't ask you for an argument, I asked you to qualify yourself.I want to know what makes you the expert on NK and their capabilities. I am sorry I asked.
The countless studies and news showcasing their technology? That isnt proof enough for you?
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 09:38:02 AM
The countless studies and news showcasing their technology? That isnt proof enough for you?Could you post links or references to studies and news that you are referring to?
Post by: Inspector on March 31, 2017, 11:06:10 AM
Could you post links or references to studies and news that you are referring to?:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 11:17:50 AM
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:I honestly want to see what the source of his information is. If the sites are www.NKnukessuck.org, then I would have to doubt the information.
I have tried to avoid going there and be all cagey and stuff, but I have seen some what I view as legit intel that isn't readily available online or really publicly. Of course, I can't relay such information, but it does give me a sense of what is pure speculation (*cough* BS *cough*) and what seems be more current/plausible.
And I like popcorn. Movie popcorn, light butter and some kaki mochi! MMMMM!!!!
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:30:04 AM
South Korea said the explosion at 9am local time (1.30am BST) was the biggest of the North’s five tests so far with a yield of 10 kilotonnes.
The explosion was recorded as a 5.3 magnitude seismic event by monitors in the US, Japan, China and Europe.
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/little-boy-and-fat-man
About half the power of the nukes we used in ww2 against japan....utterly weak.
North koreas missiles
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/delivery-systems/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17399847
Many failures, They are many decades behind the rest of the world. With almost no proof of accuracy.
http://38north.org/
John Shilling, an aerospace engineer who writes for 38north.org, a North Korea-watcher website, questioned the real abilities of North Korea's arsenal. The Musudan could only make it to Guam, but it "barely works, exploding in seven out of eight tests so far," he said. Others, the "KN-08" and the "KN-14," have not been tested – only paraded as mock-ups. That threat, he said, is years out.
Post by: Inspector on March 31, 2017, 11:38:56 AM
I honestly want to see what the source of his information is. If the sites are www.NKnukessuck.org, then I would have to doubt the information.Good luck with that!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I have tried to avoid going there and be all cagey and stuff, but I have seen some what I view as legit intel that isn't readily available online or really publicly. Of course, I can't relay such information, but it does give me a sense of what is pure speculation (*cough* BS *cough*) and what seems be more current/plausible.
And I like popcorn. Movie popcorn, light butter and some kaki mochi! MMMMM!!!!
Actually, I didn't want to tell him but his position was very similar to my position 10 years ago. I have changed my position a bit because a lot can and has changed in 10 years. But I am not here trying to tell everyone I KNOW FOR A FACT what NK is capable of. I have opinions and I have not been too quick to say anything. Mostly because I am not an expert. And while I know what I feel, I can certainly be wrong (and probably am wrong).
All of this started because I posted an article that contradicted his belief system. And when he feebly tried to tear it apart I just asked him to tell me what his qualifications are that makes him an expert in this field. That is when he started a one man argument towards me. Assuming he knows my position on this subject and putting words into my mouth. He was assuming my opinion was that of the article I posted. It is just his tone and demeanor like he knows it all and he is better than everyone else that prompted me to push him for his qualifications. If he is the real deal I'll bite. But so far he has said nada about what his qualifications are. But of course we know what they are....
I prefer my movie popcorn with light butter and heavy salt. In the biggest bag I can buy. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:42:48 AM
Good luck with that!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Actually, I didn't want to tell him but his position was very similar to my position 10 years ago. I have changed my position a bit because a lot can and has changed in 10 years. But I am not here trying to tell everyone I KNOW FOR A FACT what NK is capable of. I have opinions and I have not been too quick to say anything. Mostly because I am not an expert. And while I know what I feel, I can certainly be wrong (and probably am wrong).
All of this started because I posted an article that contradicted his belief system. And when he feebly tried to tear it apart I just asked him to tell me what his qualifications are that makes him an expert in this field. That is when he started a one man argument towards me. Assuming he knows my position on this subject and putting words into my mouth. He was assuming my opinion was that of the article I posted. It is just his tone and demeanor like he knows it all and he is better than everyone else that prompted me to push him for his qualifications. If he is the real deal I'll bite. But so far he has said nada about what his qualifications are. But of course we know what they are....
I prefer my movie popcorn with light butter and heavy salt. In the biggest bag I can buy. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Fear mongering article was dumb and I voiced my opinion. I could post many articles about how the earth could be destroyed by a meteorite or aliens. Doesn't mean its going to happen and something to worry about. Simply with the lack of technology, the failures of the country its simply not a problem. Trump could just order a bombing to take out most of NK abilities in under a day probably. Technically we are still at war with them.
Post by: Heavies on March 31, 2017, 11:43:56 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 31, 2017, 11:44:35 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/09/north-korea-nuclear-test-suspected-after-huge-seismic-explosion-detected-live
South Korea said the explosion at 9am local time (1.30am BST) was the biggest of the North’s five tests so far with a yield of 10 kilotonnes.
The explosion was recorded as a 5.3 magnitude seismic event by monitors in the US, Japan, China and Europe.
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/little-boy-and-fat-man
About half the power of the nukes we used in ww2 against japan....utterly weak.
North koreas missiles
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/delivery-systems/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17399847
Many failures, They are many decades behind the rest of the world. With almost no proof of accuracy.
http://38north.org/
John Shilling, an aerospace engineer who writes for 38north.org, a North Korea-watcher website, questioned the real abilities of North Korea's arsenal. The Musudan could only make it to Guam, but it "barely works, exploding in seven out of eight tests so far," he said. Others, the "KN-08" and the "KN-14," have not been tested – only paraded as mock-ups. That threat, he said, is years out.
So, what you are saying is, there is no threat. NK will never load 2 dozen 10KT bombs onto a cargo ship and detonate inside one of our harbors.
You're also saying it won't close the harbor even though harbor operations for fuel, repairs, supplies and so on will have been destroyed. That doesn't even account for the loss of lives, including trained specialists those operations depend on.
Japan took out Pearl with no nukes. I find your assurances to be narrow-minded and shortsighted.
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:46:21 AM
5000 tons of tnt isn't something to not fear. This island would turn to chaos if it were detonated. Imagine if it took out the H1. People would go nuts.
Chances are neither of US will die from an attack. An attack that probably won't happen. People would go nuts sure, people will die, but in the end most will survive and the US wouldn't fall, the world wouldn't be destroyed unless other nuclear powers got involved.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 31, 2017, 11:49:22 AM
Chances are neither of US will die from an attack. An attack that probably won't happen. People would go nuts sure, people will die, but in the end most will survive and the US wouldn't fall, the world wouldn't be destroyed unless other nuclear powers got involved.
You're saying none of US work near a target site? Never visit a potential target site? Never use the airport -- a very probable target site?
It's amazing how you know so much about the future. :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:50:07 AM
So, what you are saying is, there is no threat. NK will never load 2 dozen 10KT bombs onto a cargo ship and detonate inside one of our harbors.
You're also saying it won't close the harbor even though harbor operations for fuel, repairs, supplies and so on will have been destroyed. That doesn't even account for the loss of lives, including trained specialists those operations depend on.
Japan took out Pearl with no nukes. I find your assurances to be narrow-minded and shortsighted.
Yes, that idea is very far fetched. I doubt the military would let a NK ship sail into the harbor. I doubt NK could detonate all the nukes at once. Hell if one nuke went off early it would destroy the others. Sure shit would be destroyed, people would die but who cares? Hawaii would heal we wouldn't all be dead. The nation wouldn't fall. The chances are slim. You are more likely to be killed in a car accident than by NK nukes.
Japan destroyed a few ships killed a few thousand men. I would HARDLY call that destroying our harbor. We rebounded in mere months. It was a big nothing in the scope of things.
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:51:14 AM
You're saying none of US work near a target site? Never visit a potential target site? Never use the airport -- a very probable target site?
It's amazing how you know so much about the future. :rofl:
I'm saying on any given day unless you live 24/7 at the airport, or military bases the average citizen in hawaii would not die. Its literally simple statistics. I'm not going to go down and track your location daily and plot it out the exact chances you would die. This is an average for the average citizen of hawaii.
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 11:53:11 AM
10,000 tons of tnt isn't something to not fear. This island would turn to chaos if it were detonated. Imagine if it took out the H1. People would go nuts.I'll see if I can post some videos that I have of blast testing done through my work. As an aside, I have been trying to arrange to witness these (or other) blast tests for a while. For a few projects that I've worked on, they've performed blast tests on scaled models to validate designs. Truly impressive stuff as well as plain interesting to me.
Chaos for Oahu? All it took was one over height transport truck taking out a pedestrian bridge and that was chaos for the greater part of a day.
Post by: macsak on March 31, 2017, 11:56:26 AM
It was a big nothing in the scope of things.
much like
climate change
Post by: Inspector on March 31, 2017, 11:56:54 AM
There's the problem right there!!! :shake: :shake: :shake:
...people would die but who cares?
He doesn't care about anyone but himself. I wonder if he is a millennial? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 31, 2017, 11:57:51 AM
AMERICAN CASUALTIES:
4 battleships sunk
4 battleships damaged
2 other ships sunk
3 cruisers damaged
3 destroyers damaged
3 other ships damaged
188 aircraft destroyed
159 aircraft damaged
2,403 killed
1,178 wounded
JAPANESE CASUALTIES:
4 midget submarines sunk
1 midget submarine grounded
29 aircraft destroyed
64 killed
1 sailor captured
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES:
68 killed
35 wounded
3 aircraft shot down
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 11:58:05 AM
And there are many more threats than "brute force" damage" to be wary of.
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 11:58:47 AM
much likeglobal warmingglobal cooling
climate change
That's the scope of things, in fact perfectly pertains to this. Climate change affects the whole world. NK nuking a tiny part of hawaii doesn't.
There's the problem right there!!! :shake: :shake: :shake:
He doesn't care about anyone but himself. I wonder if he is a millennial? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I wish I was that young. I'm just speaking from statistical odds I am trying to carry no emotion into this.
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 11:58:51 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/sep/09/north-korea-nuclear-test-suspected-after-huge-seismic-explosion-detected-live
South Korea said the explosion at 9am local time (1.30am BST) was the biggest of the North’s five tests so far with a yield of 10 kilotonnes.
The explosion was recorded as a 5.3 magnitude seismic event by monitors in the US, Japan, China and Europe.
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/little-boy-and-fat-man
About half the power of the nukes we used in ww2 against japan....utterly weak.
North koreas missiles
http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/north-korea/delivery-systems/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17399847
Many failures, They are many decades behind the rest of the world. With almost no proof of accuracy.
http://38north.org/
John Shilling, an aerospace engineer who writes for 38north.org, a North Korea-watcher website, questioned the real abilities of North Korea's arsenal. The Musudan could only make it to Guam, but it "barely works, exploding in seven out of eight tests so far," he said. Others, the "KN-08" and the "KN-14," have not been tested – only paraded as mock-ups. That threat, he said, is years out.
Thank you for your response. :thumbsup:
I will take a look when I have more time to review closer.
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 12:02:16 PM
Good luck with that!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:I don't know for any facts nor am I even close to an expert on the matter. Through indirect involvement with certain programs, I had the opportunity to attend security and threat related briefings. I will just say that it was eye opening, if even a fraction of what was discussed were to become reality. Yeah, the chances that any of them becoming a reality is low, but if any do, the impact is VERY high. One can also say that in general, it's the things you don't see coming that will kick your ass. As I mentioned previously, of course it is fun to speculate, but when people start holding such a "solid" stance based on beliefs and not facts, that's not an argument that will generally go anywhere near agreement.
Actually, I didn't want to tell him but his position was very similar to my position 10 years ago. I have changed my position a bit because a lot can and has changed in 10 years. But I am not here trying to tell everyone I KNOW FOR A FACT what NK is capable of. I have opinions and I have not been too quick to say anything. Mostly because I am not an expert. And while I know what I feel, I can certainly be wrong (and probably am wrong).
All of this started because I posted an article that contradicted his belief system. And when he feebly tried to tear it apart I just asked him to tell me what his qualifications are that makes him an expert in this field. That is when he started a one man argument towards me. Assuming he knows my position on this subject and putting words into my mouth. He was assuming my opinion was that of the article I posted. It is just his tone and demeanor like he knows it all and he is better than everyone else that prompted me to push him for his qualifications. If he is the real deal I'll bite. But so far he has said nada about what his qualifications are. But of course we know what they are....
I prefer my movie popcorn with light butter and heavy salt. In the biggest bag I can buy. :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 12:05:13 PM
Casualties of the Pearl Harbor Attack:
AMERICAN CASUALTIES:
4 battleships sunk
4 battleships damaged
2 other ships sunk
3 cruisers damaged
3 destroyers damaged
3 other ships damaged
188 aircraft destroyed
159 aircraft damaged
2,403 killed
1,178 wounded
JAPANESE CASUALTIES:
4 midget submarines sunk
1 midget submarine grounded
29 aircraft destroyed
64 killed
1 sailor captured
CIVILIAN CASUALTIES:
68 killed
35 wounded
3 aircraft shot down
Point being?
There were 470,000 people living in hawaii according to (http://ww2db.com/country/hawaii)
2403 + 68 = 2471 people died in the attack
You had a 0.005 chance to die that day.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 31, 2017, 12:07:41 PM
Point being?
There were 470,000 people living in hawaii according to (http://ww2db.com/country/hawaii)
2403 + 68 = 2471 people died in the attack
You had a 0.005 chance to die that day.
This is not an exercise in relativity. It's about the level of destruction that can be, and was, obtained on certain targets.
Stop trying to disguise your obviously losing argument by using percentages. That's totally dishonest.
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 12:09:06 PM
I don't know for any facts nor am I even close to an expert on the matter. Through indirect involvement with certain programs, I had the opportunity to attend security and threat related briefings. I will just say that it was eye opening, if even a fraction of what was discussed were to become reality. Yeah, the chances that any of them becoming a reality is low, but if any do, the impact is VERY high. One can also say that in general, it's the things you don't see coming that will kick your ass. As I mentioned previously, of course it is fun to speculate, but when people start holding such a "solid" stance based on beliefs and not facts, that's not an argument that will generally go anywhere near agreement.
I'm just saying statistically we have basically nothing to worry about. If somehow it did happen in the average scenario we still don't have all that much to worry about. Now in an utter worse case scenario maybe...maybe we have something to worry about but at that point we can also just fear nukes from china, or meteorites or super volcanoes, etc. Now i don't have secret information like maybe you do, but since i don't have it and can't get it I can't currently chance my opinions.
Post by: omnigun on March 31, 2017, 12:12:03 PM
This is not an exercise in relativity. It's about the level of destruction that can be, and was, obtained on certain targets.
Stop trying to disguise your obviously losing argument by using percentages. That's totally dishonest.
Yes that is the whole point of this....Sure destruction could happen, people will die. But what you have been saying is that it will ruin us. It won't. We recovered from that attack very quickly and went on with our lives soon after. Everyone on the island didn't die. All the buildings didn't fall oahu wasn't doomed. Hating science is the first sign of losing an argument. When you can't argue based on statistics and math that's just plain emotion.
Post by: drck1000 on March 31, 2017, 12:19:41 PM
I'm just saying statistically we have basically nothing to worry about. If somehow it did happen in the average scenario we still don't have all that much to worry about. Now in an utter worse case scenario maybe...maybe we have something to worry about but at that point we can also just fear nukes from china, or meteorites or super volcanoes, etc. Now i don't have secret information like maybe you do, but since i don't have it and can't get it I can't currently chance my opinions.Is this something I worry about on a day to day basis? Nope, not even close. That said, to say that NK isn't a threat to be concerned about is shortsighted. At least IMO.
Regarding available information. To be honest, that's also a lot of speculation as well. It's great to have opinions, and we all do. Just that you, and others, seem so set on your opinions based on beliefs and I was just pointing out that that is a recipe for arguments that are somewhat equivalent to emotional arguments as to Ford or Chevy.
Post by: Inspector on March 31, 2017, 12:21:09 PM
I don't know for any facts nor am I even close to an expert on the matter. Through indirect involvement with certain programs, I had the opportunity to attend security and threat related briefings. I will just say that it was eye opening, if even a fraction of what was discussed were to become reality. Yeah, the chances that any of them becoming a reality is low, but if any do, the impact is VERY high. One can also say that in general, it's the things you don't see coming that will kick your ass.
I have a neighbor who claims to be intimately involved in emergency preparedness for Oahu. She basically said exactly everything you stated here. What she kept stressing to me is that it won't take much for us to run out of food. She said a week is optimistic. And the real problem will start in 2-3 days. If our major port is nuked and America is at war, those civilian merchant ships with food supplies are not going to want to sail into a war zone or any where near ground zero. That was one scenario she talked about. It gets worse if we don't have electricity. Which means water becomes a problem. Things start cascading from there. Because water can get contaminated easily with radiation people are going to die from poisoning. So I asked her what about the military and the bases here. She basically said the military won't help us because their job is to protect us. So we can starve to death while they are keeping the hoards from invading.
As I mentioned previously, of course it is fun to speculate, but when people start holding such a "solid" stance based on beliefs and not facts, that's not an argument that will generally go anywhere near agreement.That is why I posted the article with a different viewpoint about this subject. I mean, let's have a discussion about the different aspects of things. It just gets bad when "facts" are thrown around as proof one is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sounds like a Democrat to me!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on March 31, 2017, 12:30:31 PM
Yes that is the whole point of this....Sure destruction could happen, people will die. But what you have been saying is that it will ruin us. It won't. We recovered from that attack very quickly and went on with our lives soon after. Everyone on the island didn't die. All the buildings didn't fall oahu wasn't doomed. Hating science is the first sign of losing an argument. When you can't argue based on statistics and math that's just plain emotion.
Show me where I said "it would ruin us." I never said any such thing.
Will you ever learn to stop putting words in other people's comments?
Post by: FBI on March 31, 2017, 05:44:03 PM
I have a neighbor who claims to be intimately involved in emergency preparedness for Oahu. She basically said exactly everything you stated here. What she kept stressing to me is that it won't take much for us to run out of food. She said a week is optimistic. And the real problem will start in 2-3 days. If our major port is nuked and America is at war, those civilian merchant ships with food supplies are not going to want to sail into a war zone or any where near ground zero. That was one scenario she talked about. It gets worse if we don't have electricity. Which means water becomes a problem. Things start cascading from there. Because water can get contaminated easily with radiation people are going to die from poisoning. So I asked her what about the military and the bases here. She basically said the military won't help us because their job is to protect us. So we can starve to death while they are keeping the hoards from invading.
That is why I posted the article with a different viewpoint about this subject. I mean, let's have a discussion about the different aspects of things. It just gets bad when "facts" are thrown around as proof one is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sounds like a Democrat to me!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
As long as Oahu is ground zero I don't give a darn. The death of Democrats do not diminish me, in fact it improves my lifestyle.
I can survive just fine without the entire Democrat and union state. I don't need Democrats. I certainly am prepared because
today's Democrats are more scary than the worst thing humanity has ever produced. I have prepared for Democrats and war.
Yes the Military will let you Democrats starve, after all Democrats have been starving and abusing them for the last 8 years.
I swore to uphold the Constitution, that oath is for life, Democrats piss on it and seek to destroy it. I did not swear to protect
the Democrat enemies of that constitution.
Post by: punaperson on April 03, 2017, 08:00:34 AM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korean-defector-tells-lester-holt-world-should-be-ready-n741901
A senior North Korean defector has told NBC News that the country's "desperate" dictator is prepared to use nuclear weapons to strike the United States and its allies.
Thae Yong Ho is the most high profile North Korean defector in two decades, meaning he is able to give a rare insight into the secretive, authoritarian regime.
According to Thae, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is "desperate in maintaining his rule by relying on his [development of] nuclear weapons and ICBM." He was using an acronym for intercontinental ballistic missiles — a long range rocket that in theory would be capable of hitting the U.S.
Or if you don't want to give NBC a click:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/03/north-korean-leader-kim-jong-un-desperate-ready-to-strike-us-defector-says.html
[Has autoplay 4 minute video interview with American analyst.]
Post by: drck1000 on April 03, 2017, 08:36:17 AM
I have a neighbor who claims to be intimately involved in emergency preparedness for Oahu. She basically said exactly everything you stated here. What she kept stressing to me is that it won't take much for us to run out of food. She said a week is optimistic. And the real problem will start in 2-3 days. If our major port is nuked and America is at war, those civilian merchant ships with food supplies are not going to want to sail into a war zone or any where near ground zero. That was one scenario she talked about. It gets worse if we don't have electricity. Which means water becomes a problem. Things start cascading from there. Because water can get contaminated easily with radiation people are going to die from poisoning. So I asked her what about the military and the bases here. She basically said the military won't help us because their job is to protect us. So we can starve to death while they are keeping the hoards from invading.Hawaii's isolation does have it's pros and cons in situations like emergency preparedness. Location in the Pacific is also a key consideration as well. It's no secret that there has been a lot of focus on the Pacific region and more so in the past 5 years for sure. I know that's keeping me busy for sure during that time period.
That is why I posted the article with a different viewpoint about this subject. I mean, let's have a discussion about the different aspects of things. It just gets bad when "facts" are thrown around as proof one is right and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sounds like a Democrat to me!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yup. Hawaii's situation is quite delicate. There's also so many with the "ainokea" attitude that I assume will depend on taking from those to did take the time to care and prepare, but without adequate means, motivation, etc to protect what they have.
As for the military helping? I am not positive either way. I do know that they have helped with disaster recovery in places like Guam and other remote locations. However, those were in the case of natural disaster (massive typhoon) and not attack. While I assume the military will place a priority on maintaining operations and mission, I would have to believe that they will be at the forefront of disaster relief. That is one of their missions in the Pacific region for sure. However, what that relief is, when it comes, will it be enough, etc is surely anyone's guess. Even in my organization, we have a group for contingency engineering and one of the main focus areas is disaster relief.
Post by: whynow? on April 03, 2017, 07:35:20 PM
Hawaii's isolation does have it's pros and cons in situations like emergency preparedness. Location in the Pacific is also a key consideration as well. It's no secret that there has been a lot of focus on the Pacific region and more so in the past 5 years for sure. I know that's keeping me busy for sure during that time period.
Yup. Hawaii's situation is quite delicate. There's also so many with the "ainokea" attitude that I assume will depend on taking from those to did take the time to care and prepare, but without adequate means, motivation, etc to protect what they have.
As for the military helping? I am not positive either way. I do know that they have helped with disaster recovery in places like Guam and other remote locations. However, those were in the case of natural disaster (massive typhoon) and not attack. While I assume the military will place a priority on maintaining operations and mission, I would have to believe that they will be at the forefront of disaster relief. That is one of their missions in the Pacific region for sure. However, what that relief is, when it comes, will it be enough, etc is surely anyone's guess. Even in my organization, we have a group for contingency engineering and one of the main focus areas is disaster relief.
HI based military assets assisted in the Fukushima event and wouldn't be surprised that "unofficially" assets are still being used to assist in the Fukushima decon in 2017. However if the bases are hit during an attack, probably couldn't count on their help for a while. With any disaster, nuke or hurricane, I will bet the state asks for military support in the form of using naval vessels aka "former ferries" to bring aid to outer islands. USS Guam and USS Puerto Rico formerly Huakai and Alakai to the rescue after Ige begs for help. We all know the real reason the Hawaii Superferry went down was because it was promoted by a republican. If Cayetano had pushed this, it would still be running today. To me these vessels would have been the best and fastest way to get goods and supplies to our islands. Wouldn't be surprised if Ige was one of the Superferry's opponents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Guam_(HST-1)
Post by: drck1000 on April 04, 2017, 08:14:36 AM
HI based military assets assisted in the Fukushima event and wouldn't be surprised that "unofficially" assets are still being used to assist in the Fukushima decon in 2017. However if the bases are hit during an attack, probably couldn't count on their help for a while. With any disaster, nuke or hurricane, I will bet the state asks for military support in the form of using naval vessels aka "former ferries" to bring aid to outer islands. USS Guam and USS Puerto Rico formerly Huakai and Alakai to the rescue after Ige begs for help. We all know the real reason the Hawaii Superferry went down was because it was promoted by a republican. If Cayetano had pushed this, it would still be running today. To me these vessels would have been the best and fastest way to get goods and supplies to our islands. Wouldn't be surprised if Ige was one of the Superferry's opponents.I was involved in "home office" support for some of that effort. Mostly running some numbers as well as problem solving some unique situations. That's the thing with disaster situations, you're having to overcome a number of different scenarios that are not typically encountered in day to day life. Like simply routing a fuel line to support construction equipment because most of the roads are impassible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Guam_(HST-1)
Yeah, if disaster or attack affects a base directly, their priority is going to be on their operations and mission. Once that is set, then the humanitarian assistance becomes available. That's not to say that the military won't help right away, just don't count on it right away.
Post by: drck1000 on April 04, 2017, 01:36:01 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN1762XX (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missiles-idUSKBN1762XX)
Post by: Sodie on April 08, 2017, 07:30:54 PM
As for the military helping? I am not positive either way. I do know that they have helped with disaster recovery in places like Guam and other remote locations. However, those were in the case of natural disaster (massive typhoon) and not attack. While I assume the military will place a priority on maintaining operations and mission, I would have to believe that they will be at the forefront of disaster relief. That is one of their missions in the Pacific region for sure. However, what that relief is, when it comes, will it be enough, etc is surely anyone's guess. Even in my organization, we have a group for contingency engineering and one of the main focus areas is disaster relief.
There are some pretty specific conditions that have to be met for federal military forces to assist with domestic disaster relief/consequence management. Their first priority is going to be "inside the gate," protecting/maintaining mission capability... That means taking care of the base, the soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines, and their equipment.
A commander can also invoke "immediate response authority" in order to "save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage within the United States."
Primary response to an emergency within the U.S. is tiered, and starts with local authorities (City and County). When the situation requires capabilities that local authorities can't provide, they ask the state for help. The state responds to the extent of their capability (to include using the National Guard when civilian response capabilities have been exhausted). When the state runs out of Schlitz, they request help from the Fed. Federal response starts with civilian responders (e.g., FEMA), and federal military forces participate only when the situation calls for capabilities unique to the military and on a "last in, first out" basis.
And they have to get reimbursed for everything they do...
Coast Guard is a little different, in that they have a designated domestic role, and they can participate in law enforcement (which federal military normally can't).
The Fukushima incident is foreign humanitarian assistance/disaster relief, and falls under a whole different ruleset...
Post by: omnigun on April 10, 2017, 10:29:40 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399076/China-deploys-150-000-troops-North-Korea-border.html
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 10, 2017, 10:30:58 AM
haha
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4399076/China-deploys-150-000-troops-North-Korea-border.html
Why do you say that?
Or are you simply trolling?
Post by: omnigun on April 10, 2017, 10:36:52 AM
Why do you say that?
Or are you simply trolling?
A little of both. I hope we do bomb the dumbass.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 10, 2017, 11:29:16 AM
A little of both. I hope we do bomb the dumbass.
After pages and pages of analysis and expert insight, all you have to justify bombing NK is "dumbass?"
You're lucky that's not the accepted criteria. You'd have been taken out long ago!
Post by: Kuleana on April 10, 2017, 12:00:58 PM
A little of both. I hope we do bomb the dumbass.
You realize of course that China's placing of troops on the border of the DPRK is not only to control any refugee crisis should the US conduct a decapitation missile strike on the DPRK, but to deter any thoughts of following-up on a US missile strike with a US-led land invasion.
Should the US decide on invading the DPRK, get ready for WWIII.
Kuleana
Post by: omnigun on April 10, 2017, 02:32:46 PM
You realize of course that China's placing of troops on the border of the DPRK is not only to control any refugee crisis should the US conduct a decapitation missile strike on the DPRK, but to deter any thoughts of following-up on a US missile strike with a US-led land invasion.
Should the US decide on invading the DPRK, get ready for WWIII.
Kuleana
I doubt we would land invade and I don't really want to do that either. Plus its not like china will just march down they are holding a line. IF WWIII starts meh as long as its not nuclear. It would stalemate fairly quickly as no major power can land invade each other.
Post by: omnigun on April 10, 2017, 02:34:48 PM
After pages and pages of analysis and expert insight, all you have to justify bombing NK is "dumbass?"
You're lucky that's not the accepted criteria. You'd have been taken out long ago!
Yeah his launching of missiles that are banned or nuke tests that are also banned are not marks of a dumbass. His murdering of his own people and the starvation and torture of so many more are all actions of an enlightened individual such as yourself.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 10, 2017, 02:41:18 PM
Yeah his launching of missiles that are banned or nuke tests that are also banned are not marks of a dumbass. His murdering of his own people and the starvation and torture of so many more are all actions of an enlightened individual such as yourself.
I was simply repeating what you wrote. If you didn't properly expound on your own comments, don't blame me.
Since you admit to trolling, I'll just leave you now, since I know feeding trolls only results in even more stupid comments from you/them.
(http://i.imgur.com/q1GPyK4.png)
Post by: Kuleana on April 10, 2017, 02:47:18 PM
I doubt we would land invade and I don't really want to do that either.
I hope so.
Plus its not like china will just march down they are holding a line.
With the millions of soldiers they have, it would be no problem for them if they decided to visit Pyongyang.
IF WWIII starts meh as long as its not nuclear. It would stalemate fairly quickly as no major power can land invade each other.
That makes sense if the generals on both sides are rational thinking. Let us hope that there are no field commanders wanting to make a name for themselves and earn another ribbon for trying.
Kuleana
Post by: littlemisssunshine on April 10, 2017, 04:40:23 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 12, 2017, 02:26:28 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/4vWOS5f.jpg?1)
Post by: Jl808 on April 12, 2017, 07:08:06 PM
BREAKING ALERT! KIM JUST ORDERED THE EVACUATION OF THE CAPITAL CITY AS "MAJOR EVENT" LOOMS
https://youtu.be/ZU1TFjolsB8
Post by: London808 on April 12, 2017, 07:29:21 PM
No idea if this is true or not.
BREAKING ALERT! KIM JUST ORDERED THE EVACUATION OF THE CAPITAL CITY AS "MAJOR EVENT" LOOMS
https://youtu.be/ZU1TFjolsB8
No MSM reporting it, BUT i also seen this today
China 'SCRAMBLES 25,000 extra troops to North Korea' & puts country on 'NATIONWIDE ALERT'
CHINA has scrambled another 25,000 troops to be militarised along the North Korean border as the country is put on ‘nationwide alert’ amid heightened tensions between the hermit state and the West, according to reports.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/791311/china-25000-troops-north-korean-border-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-xi-jinping (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/791311/china-25000-troops-north-korean-border-kim-jong-un-donald-trump-xi-jinping)
Post by: London808 on April 12, 2017, 07:47:46 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/13/north-korea-preparing-for-sixth-nuclear-test-monitoring-group-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/13/north-korea-preparing-for-sixth-nuclear-test-monitoring-group-says.html)
Post by: omnigun on April 12, 2017, 11:01:29 PM
Post by: omnigun on April 13, 2017, 02:08:44 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366
Its a nice saturday for me, got my supplies and anti radiation stuff ready if by some miracle we get hit. If not I got beer and chips to watch the fall of north korea.
Post by: drck1000 on April 13, 2017, 02:21:08 PM
Who's ready for war on 4/15/17? Its the day of the sun.Well, 4/15/17 in Korea would be tomorrow Hawaii time. . .
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-may-launch-strike-if-north-korea-reaches-nuclear-n746366
Its a nice saturday for me, got my supplies and anti radiation stuff ready if by some miracle we get hit. If not I got beer and chips to watch the fall of north korea.
I thought I read in the paper this morning that two more US navy ships (I think destroyers) were in Pearl yesterday on a stopover on the way from SD and headed to Japan/Korea. I saw the headline and read the caption of a photo, but didn't read the whole article. I thought the article said that these two were going to either join or otherwise support the carrier strike group that was already on the way to Korea (or already there by now) from Singapore.
From the article above, they mention bombers based out of Guam. I was supposed to be in Guam this weekend, but trip got cancelled.
Post by: omnigun on April 13, 2017, 02:33:17 PM
Well, 4/15/17 in Korea would be tomorrow Hawaii time. . .
I thought I read in the paper this morning that two more US navy ships (I think destroyers) were in Pearl yesterday on a stopover on the way from SD and headed to Japan/Korea. I saw the headline and read the caption of a photo, but didn't read the whole article. I thought the article said that these two were going to either join or otherwise support the carrier strike group that was already on the way to Korea (or already there by now) from Singapore.
From the article above, they mention bombers based out of Guam. I was supposed to be in Guam this weekend, but trip got cancelled.
Somehow I doubt they will do a test early in the morning. They probably have to do their parades etc first, speeches then a test. After test trump bombs the fuck out of em and if they are stupid they attack back. Then :popcorn: starts. Also I'm sure we got subs and other assists close by. And those 2 ships are in range.
Post by: Inspector on April 13, 2017, 02:42:22 PM
Well, 4/15/17 in Korea would be tomorrow Hawaii time. . .I just saw a destroyer heading out from Pearl around 1:30pm today. I was just thinking it might be heading over to NK.
I thought I read in the paper this morning that two more US navy ships (I think destroyers) were in Pearl yesterday on a stopover on the way from SD and headed to Japan/Korea. I saw the headline and read the caption of a photo, but didn't read the whole article. I thought the article said that these two were going to either join or otherwise support the carrier strike group that was already on the way to Korea (or already there by now) from Singapore.
From the article above, they mention bombers based out of Guam. I was supposed to be in Guam this weekend, but trip got cancelled.
Post by: Inspector on April 13, 2017, 02:43:35 PM
No idea if this is true or not.I think it is fake news:
BREAKING ALERT! KIM JUST ORDERED THE EVACUATION OF THE CAPITAL CITY AS "MAJOR EVENT" LOOMS
https://youtu.be/ZU1TFjolsB8
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/04/13/north-korea-scared-everyone-about-a-big-event-that-was-just-the-opening-of-a-street-n2313076
Just like them to fake everyone out!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on April 13, 2017, 02:43:42 PM
Somehow I doubt they will do a test early in the morning. They probably have to do their parades etc first, speeches then a test. After test trump bombs the fuck out of em and if they are stupid they attack back. Then :popcorn: starts. Also I'm sure we got subs and other assists close by. And those 2 ships are in range.Yeah, I am sure there is PLENTY of assets already in the area to take care of business. I just found it interesting that two more ships (I think destroyers) were headed to the area when there was already a carrier group on the way. That's on top of the assets that are already in the area on a regular/permanent basis.
Post by: Inspector on April 13, 2017, 02:49:46 PM
Somehow I doubt they will do a test early in the morning. They probably have to do their parades etc first, speeches then a test. After test trump bombs the fuck out of em and if they are stupid they attack back. Then :popcorn: starts. Also I'm sure we got subs and other assists close by. And those 2 ships are in range.
Yeah, I am sure there is PLENTY of assets already in the area to take care of business. I just found it interesting that two more ships (I think destroyers) were headed to the area when there was already a carrier group on the way. That's on top of the assets that are already in the area on a regular/permanent basis.You need to emphasize the ASSETS part of what you said. Otherwise people may think you meant ASSISTS. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: omnigun on April 13, 2017, 03:01:59 PM
You need to emphasize the ASSETS part of what you said. Otherwise people may think you meant ASSISTS. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
lol spell check/auto correct got me again. I swear it gets less accurate every update
Post by: Jl808 on April 13, 2017, 08:42:00 PM
Post by: macsak on April 13, 2017, 10:33:31 PM
Yeah, I am sure there is PLENTY of assets already in the area to take care of business. I just found it interesting that two more ships (I think destroyers) were headed to the area when there was already a carrier group on the way. That's on top of the assets that are already in the area on a regular/permanent basis.
not only 2 destroyers...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/13/us-air-force-sends-message-to-north-korea-with-display-air-power.html
Post by: drck1000 on April 13, 2017, 10:49:02 PM
not only 2 destroyers...I saw that posted via "other" sites, so I wasn't sure what to make of it, if it was for real.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/13/us-air-force-sends-message-to-north-korea-with-display-air-power.html
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: troy tanaka on April 14, 2017, 08:44:59 AM
Post by: drck1000 on April 14, 2017, 09:23:22 AM
lol spell check/auto correct got me again. I swear it gets less accurate every updateWell, another guy posted edition when I know he meant addition. . .
Post by: drck1000 on April 14, 2017, 09:25:58 AM
DonaldTrump is beginning to grow on me, I mean he can't run the country but he knows how to take on bullies around the world. Trump got the bombs, mind as well use it, now all he gotta do is legalize bazookas in the country ;)He does what he says he would, well in most cases.
They were talking about that on NPR this morning. About the promises that Trump has been keeping and other that he has changes his stance on, like NATO and China being currency manipulators. However, his stances changed AFTER meeting with NATO and meeting with Chinese officials. He's doing at least some level of due diligence and not really going off half cocked. When there are parts of this country that are surprised that Trump is fulfilling his promises, that only highlights the many bait and switch shit that others have done that we've gotten used to.
Post by: drck1000 on April 14, 2017, 09:42:59 AM
You need to emphasize the ASSETS part of what you said. Otherwise people may think you meant ASSISTS. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:I'm a mod on another gun board where there's this total truck driver hillbilly. No punctuation, spells words like how a hillbilly would speak, etc. I've gotten used to figuring out what he means. . .
That said, I was wondering if he really meant assists. As in assist in the support of the mission. Well, that doesn't quite work. Hey, it's Friday. . .
Post by: FBI on April 14, 2017, 11:11:22 AM
FBI - I can relate to your disgust and I am not a fan of the Democrats either but the last post crossed the line.
Other than bad mouthing cops directly, and after reading hundreds of
personal back and forth, comments , I am not aware of any "lines" on this site.
I understand that every thing I post is public and I am responsible for my
words.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 14, 2017, 11:22:07 AM
Other than bad mouthing cops directly, and after reading hundreds of
personal back and forth, comments , I am not aware of any "lines" on this site.
I understand that every thing I post is public and I am responsible for my
words.
The mods are very subjective in their censorship. Some people get to post anything they feel like, hijack threads, argue the same point over and over, etc., yet others can't defend themselves against personal attacks without having their comments deleted.
Equal application of the standards doesn't exist.
:stopjack:
Post by: Jl808 on April 14, 2017, 12:33:45 PM
FBI -- calling for the death of a group of people just because you disagree with their politics crosses the line.
Post by: Inspector on April 14, 2017, 12:54:55 PM
Here is an interesting article that is on topic...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35152446/hawaii-panel-asks-state-to-prepare-for-north-korea-attack?utm_content=buffer1cb0d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Post by: drck1000 on April 14, 2017, 01:19:45 PM
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:We were talking about this at lunch today. Doesn't it make you feel so much safer to throw money to study this?
Here is an interesting article that is on topic...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35152446/hawaii-panel-asks-state-to-prepare-for-north-korea-attack?utm_content=buffer1cb0d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Post by: FBI on April 14, 2017, 01:21:01 PM
Flapp Jackson -- yes we are somewhat lax with moderating. I personally don't care to police your and EFF's bickering. If we were a stickler with your bickering, you would have been banned a long time ago. If you want to continue bickering and making a fool of yourselves, be my guest. You guys can argue and throw words at each other till you're blue in the face, it makes no difference to me.
FBI -- calling for the death of a group of people just because you disagree with their politics crosses the line.
The biggest threat to my heath, safety, and welfare is the government.
Here Democrats run the government un-checked, by anything.
It is not a matter of politics. There is no such thing here.
It is all raw force, exercised by a single Party. I cross no lines.
I point out the reality and acknowledge who the enemy is.
Democrats are the government and the government is not people.
Post by: Inspector on April 14, 2017, 01:27:21 PM
We were talking about this at lunch today. Doesn't it make you feel so much safer to throw money to study this?What money? We are already passing spending bills taking us over budget. I guess we can just raise property taxes some more?
"He's aiming to get state funding to re-equip Cold War-era fallout shelters."
Can you imagine the mold in those shelters? Assuming they are not already falling apart. I guess they can just paint the whole place with KILLZ and say it's good to go.
"Hawaii Emergency Management Agency Executive Officer Toby Clairmont showed lawmakers a response plan from 1985 that hasn't been updated since."
I predict it will take another 10 years to update the plan....
To answer your question, NO!!!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 14, 2017, 02:05:23 PM
Flapp Jackson -- yes we are somewhat lax with moderating. I personally don't care to police your and EFF's bickering. If we were a stickler with your bickering, you would have been banned a long time ago. If you want to continue bickering and making a fool of yourselves, be my guest. You guys can argue and throw words at each other till you're blue in the face, it makes no difference to me.
FBI -- calling for the death of a group of people just because you disagree with their politics crosses the line.
Since I mentioned no names, it's obvious we are all aware of the offender that continues to be given wide latitude.
Not my place to tell you how to moderate, but inconsistency is a bad thing.
Post by: punaperson on April 15, 2017, 06:09:55 AM
Apparently the Pentagon favored using 30 megaton nuclear warheads in retaliation. There were other military options, but Nixon did nothing, except send a fleet of American warships into the Sea of Japan (sound familiar?). Nixon later stated that his lack of serious, immediate military action against North Korea was his greatest regret of his presidency.
As a note on the general Nixon presidency: what a huge stinking pile of lies and deceit (hard to imagine, but even worse than we knew).
Post by: robtmc on April 15, 2017, 07:53:29 AM
Today is the 48th anniversary (April 15, 1969) of the North Korean shooting down of an American NSA radar/spyplane (known as "the EC-121 shootdown") over the Sea of Japan, in which all 31 aboard were killed. I'm listening to "One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon" by Tim Weiner, who has gone through many thousands of the formerly secret documents released to the public in 2013. These documents include official government documents as well as private notes and diaries, etc. of many top-ranking people (Kissinger, Haldeman, etc.) involved in the Nixon administration.
Apparently the Pentagon favored using 30 megaton nuclear warheads in retaliation. There were other military options, but Nixon did nothing, except send a fleet of American warships into the Sea of Japan (sound familiar?). Nixon later stated that his lack of serious, immediate military action against North Korea was his greatest regret of his presidency.
As a note on the general Nixon presidency: what a huge stinking pile of lies and deceit (hard to imagine, but even worse than we knew).
Was still up at Quang Tri, getting very short when this happened. Never knew about this incident as with much of anything happening in the real world.
I should read up on it as you did. Nixon was never someone I liked, and my dislike urged me to vote against him in my first election in 1972. Only democrat vote, ever.
Post by: punaperson on April 15, 2017, 11:40:40 AM
Was still up at Quang Tri, getting very short when this happened. Never knew about this incident as with much of anything happening in the real world.I'm only a few chapters in, but I really appreciate the enormous amount of work the author did to go through the literal tons of material released in 2013. Here are a few excerpted paragraphs... they are supplemented with lots of personal statements by the actors.
I should read up on it as you did. Nixon was never someone I liked, and my dislike urged me to vote against him in my first election in 1972. Only democrat vote, ever.
* * * * *
Haldeman stayed on the plane, making sure that Nixon’s orders were executed. Even Haldeman, who knew Nixon’s taste for intrigue as well as anyone, was amazed. The plans Kissinger carried out that day were “so secret at the time that I was afraid to say anything,” Haldeman wrote in his personal diary. He felt he was “entering an entire new world.”
The flight records for the B-52 bombers carrying out the attacks would be falsified by the top American commander in Saigon, Gen. Creighton Abrams. His accomplice would be the commander of American forces in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, whose son, later a senator, was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
“In order to set the stage for a possible covert attack, and clear the books on this matter within the Bureaucracy, we should send a message to General Abrams authorizing him to bomb right up to the Cambodian border,” Kissinger told Nixon in writing before the plans were executed. A routine request for a B-52 strike on a Communist target in South Vietnam would serve as a cover for a Menu strike in Cambodia. The B-52 pilots and navigators (not the rest of the crew) would receive secret orders from ground controllers directing them to strike targets inside Cambodia. On the bombers’ return, two sets of flight reports would be filed, one true, one false.
The full scope of the destruction the United States unleashed on Cambodia remained unrevealed for three decades, due to the deliberate falsification of the bombing records, authorized by Nixon and executed by Kissinger, Haig, and General Abrams. The falsification violated the military laws of the United States. The bombing of a neutral nation arguably violated the laws of war.
Between March 1969 and August 1973, America dropped 2,756,727 tons of bombs on Cambodia. That figure was nearly five times greater than previously known, exceeding the tonnage of all Allied bombing during World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No one knows how many Cambodian civilians were killed, perhaps one hundred fifty thousand.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on April 15, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
Post by: Inspector on April 15, 2017, 03:54:18 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/15/north-korea-missile-test-latest-launch-blew-up-almost-immediately.html
Post by: omnigun on April 15, 2017, 05:20:29 PM
Post by: Inspector on April 15, 2017, 06:08:20 PM
Post by: zippz on April 15, 2017, 06:11:49 PM
North Korea missile test: Latest launch 'blew up almost immediately'
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/15/north-korea-missile-test-latest-launch-blew-up-almost-immediately.html
Not a test launch. Lil Kim strapped someone to the missile and made it explode. Just executing another relative again.
Post by: Kuleana on April 15, 2017, 09:02:33 PM
Personally, I think the way Trump is handling it, is genius. Because he is putting the burden and the cost of dealing with NK on the backs of the Chinese. If they fail then we still have a military choice. It is better that China deals with them, if they can. JMHO
China is the only country that can and should be the nation to deal with the DPRK. The US should not miscalculate as they did in 1950 in the Korean War.
Kuleana
Post by: zippz on April 15, 2017, 09:36:55 PM
I don't think NK will ever intentionally start a war. I think they will be reckless and stupid where one of their missiles unintentionally hits Japan or Hawaii. They're so stubborn where they'll say it was intentional instead of a mistake. US goes to war and China backs up NK again.
Post by: RSN172 on April 15, 2017, 09:37:52 PM
Post by: Bunker on April 15, 2017, 10:13:40 PM
The US should not miscalculate as they did in 1950 in the Korean War.
Kuleana
What do you mean by miscalculate as they did in 1950 in the Korean War? This was a very delicate situation at the time that involved the US and the Soviets. The big concern for the US was the Soviets, not the Chinese.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, Korea had been part of the Japanese empire, and North and South was divided at the 38th parallel as a result of a post WWII agreement between the Soviets and United States. Soviet backed DPRK soldiers were the aggressors who rolled into Seoul with about $75,000 soldiers, and that's when we got involved. I agree that we could have done more to end this war sooner if that's what you mean but our involvement in some capacity was inevitable.
In April 1950, a National Security Council report (NSC-68) had recommended that the United States use military force to “contain” communist expansionism anywhere it seemed to be occurring, “regardless of the intrinsic strategic or economic value of the lands in question.” Nonintervention was not considered an option by many top decision makers. At the time it was all about not allowing the expansion of Communism.
At first, the war was a defensive one -- a war to get the communists out of South Korea, and it went badly for the Allies. By the end of the summer of 1950, President Truman and General Douglas MacArthur (Commander in Charge of the Asian theater) had decided on a new strategy. Now, for the Allies, the Korean War was an offensive one: It was a war to “liberate” the North from the communists. Initially, this new strategy was a success. An amphibious assault at Inchon pushed the North Koreans out of Seoul and back to their side of the 38th parallel. But as American troops crossed the boundary and headed north toward the Yalu River, the border between North Korea and Communist China, the Chinese started to worry about protecting themselves from what they called “armed aggression against Chinese territory.” Chinese leader Mao Zedong sent troops to North Korea and warned the US to keep away from the Yalu boundary unless it wanted full-scale war.
This was something that President Truman and his advisers decidedly did not want: They were sure that such a war would lead to Soviet aggression in Europe, the deployment of atomic weapons and millions of senseless deaths. To General MacArthur, however, anything short of this wider war represented “appeasement,” an unacceptable knuckling under to the communists.
Possibly this is another part you may have been referring to but MacArthur was fired as a result: As President Truman looked for a way to prevent war with the Chinese, MacArthur did all he could to provoke it. Finally, in March 1951, he sent a letter to Joseph Martin, a House Republican leader who shared MacArthur’s support for declaring all-out war on China–and who could be counted upon to leak the letter to the press. “There is,” MacArthur wrote, “no substitute for victory” against international communism. For Truman, this letter was the last straw. On April 11, the president fired the general for insubordination. (REF: History - Korean War)
Post by: Bunker on April 15, 2017, 10:48:55 PM
I agree China should be the one and isn't doing enough. The only reason China cares about NK is for border protection.
I don't think NK will ever intentionally start a war. I think they will be reckless and stupid where one of their missiles unintentionally hits Japan or Hawaii. They're so stubborn where they'll say it was intentional instead of a mistake. US goes to war and China backs up NK again.
No missile from DPRK will successfully hit Japan or the US (to include Hawaii), even if the knucklehead launches one, intensionally or unintentionally. The Bi-Lateral BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defense System) within the USPACOM AOR (United States Pacific Command -- Area of Responsibility) will successfully destroy any BM (ballistic missile) the DPRK can launch, regardless of payload or BM trajectories, which are divided into three phases of flight (boost, midcourse, terminal). Each element in the BMDS plays an critical role to defend against hostile missiles in any phase of flight. The threat of a missile attack from DPRK is always a fear regardless of defensive measures in place. The real concern is what our response would be and the implication of our actions.
Post by: Kuleana on April 15, 2017, 10:57:25 PM
What do you mean by miscalculate as they did in 1950 in the Korean War? This was a very delicate situation at the time that involved the US and the Soviets. The big concern for the US was the Soviets, not the Chinese.
What I meant was that MacArthur severely underestimated the conventional military might of the Chinese PLA. He really thought he could just steam roll the PLA all the way to Beijing. When the war in North Korea became a stalemate, despite the air, sea, and artillery superiority US forces possessed, that was when he advocated the use of atomic weapons against China.
Please read the following article at http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/9245. It is an interesting read and can explain the historical reasons as to why the DPRK is so fixated in acquiring nuclear weapons. You will find that the DPRK already had a long history of being bombarded by WMDs from the US during the Korean War.
As for the current crises, the Trump Administration might be miscalculating the importance of the DPRK to China. China does not want a nuclearized Korean peninsula, but does want a stable DPRK.
Kuleana
Post by: Bunker on April 15, 2017, 11:35:58 PM
QuoteWhat do you mean by miscalculate as they did in 1950 in the Korean War? This was a very delicate situation at the time that involved the US and the Soviets. The big concern for the US was the Soviets, not the Chinese.
What I meant was that MacArthur severely underestimated the conventional military might of the Chinese PLA. He really thought he could just steam roll the PLA all the way to Beijing. When the war in North Korea became a stalemate, despite the air, sea, and artillery superiority US forces possessed, that was when he advocated the use of atomic weapons against China.
Please read the following article at http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/9245. It is an interesting read and can explain the historical reasons as to why the DPRK is so fixated in acquiring nuclear weapons. You will find that the DPRK already had a long history of being bombarded by WMDs from the US during the Korean War.
As for the current crises, the Trump Administration might be miscalculating the importance of the DPRK to China. China does not want a nuclearized Korean peninsula, but does want a stable DPRK.
Kuleana
Thanks...I figured you may have been referring to MacArthur and his desire. I agree with your comment about the current situation. I think the problem is that the knucklehead doesn't necessarily listen to China, which leads to problems. After all nothing has seemed to deter DPRK's advancement of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Post by: Kuleana on April 16, 2017, 07:20:57 AM
Thanks...I figured you may have been referring to MacArthur and his desire. I agree with your comment about the current situation. I think the problem is that the knucklehead doesn't necessarily listen to China, which leads to problems. After all nothing has seemed to deter DPRK's advancement of nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Exactly, China is really stuck. China agrees with the rest of the World that President Kim needs to go, but will not tolerate a US-led military solution due to the humanitarian and power vacuum it will cause as well as the highly probable escalation that can engulf surrounding nations into WWIII.
Kuleana
Post by: Rocky on April 16, 2017, 10:14:13 AM
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Here is an interesting article that is on topic...
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/35152446/hawaii-panel-asks-state-to-prepare-for-north-korea-attack?utm_content=buffer1cb0d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Wait, the stadium as an emergency backup container lay down area in case Pearl, a (THE PRIMARY TARGET) or any other base gets hit with a nuke and is unusable ? :wacko:
Isn't the stadium like 550 yards from Pearl Harbor waters ? :wave:
Who 's the gee-knee-ass' in our senate writing this one up ? :crazy:
Post by: RSN172 on April 16, 2017, 06:06:29 PM
Post by: punaperson on April 16, 2017, 09:15:33 PM
That is another way for the state to waste their limited funds. Worrying about N Korean missiles. They are years away from building a missile to even reach Hawaii and much less so to be accurate enough to hit any island while carrying a nuclear warhead. It is not something I worry about or lose even a minute's sleep about.Hey, no worries, there's more where that came from. Check you pockets. Or your bank account. Hey, if you can pay for 50,000 HPD man hours per year (on Oahu alone) to assure "public safety" via firearms registration (which didn't result in one single crime being solved using registration data), another pile of cash down the toilet to provide an illusion of security from the nuclear missile attack is child's play for our politicians.
Post by: punaperson on April 17, 2017, 03:24:06 PM
HAWAII HUNKERS DOWN
North Korea tensions have pols revisiting emergency attack plans
(http://a57.foxnews.com/www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/397/0/hawaii397_20170417_163025.jpg)
Link to the actual story, which is a minimally-revised rehash of the local story of last week by Malia Ziommerman (no mention of Tulsi Gabbard calling for Hawaii getting a missile defense system...):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/17/north-korea-tensions-have-hawaii-pols-revisiting-emergency-attack-plans.html
Post by: RSN172 on April 17, 2017, 04:38:32 PM
Post by: punaperson on April 17, 2017, 05:33:17 PM
Pure silliness. Watching Fox News right now and it was mentioned that 4 out of the last 5 mid range missile tests failed shortly after take off. S Korea should be worried because they are so close, but Hawaii? I am more concerned about having an adequate supply of good toilet paper to wipe my ass than N Korea.From the way Pence was speaking over there today in Seoul, it sounds like it's possible that the U.S. will be wiping it's ass with North Korea if the "stupid fat kid" crosses some line or other.
Post by: punaperson on April 26, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
http://news.trust.org/item/20170426161755-k74pb
U.S. may need stronger defense against North Korea missiles -admiral
Excerpts:
The United States may need to strengthen its missile defenses, particularly in Hawaii, given the advancing threat from North Korea's missile and nuclear weapons programs, the top U.S. commander in the Pacific told Congress on Wednesday.
Just hours before the entire U.S. Senate was due to receive a top-level briefing on North Korea at the White House, Admiral Harry Harris testified that he believed Pyongyang's threats against the United States needed to be taken seriously.
Harris said the defenses of Hawaii were sufficient for now but could one day be overwhelmed, and suggested studying stationing new radar there as well as interceptors to knock out any incoming North Korean missiles.
"I don't share your confidence that North Korea is not going to attack either South Korea, or Japan, or the United States ... once they have the capability," Harris told a lawmaker at one point.
Post by: punaperson on May 02, 2017, 07:20:32 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/02/hawaii-preparation-for-north-korea-nuke-attack-far-from-complete.html
Hawaii preparation for North Korea nuke attack far from complete
Kailua, a beach community on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, has everything that residents and visitors could want from a tropical paradise: exquisite beaches, crystal clear water and modern amenities. No wonder it now boasts nearly 55,000 residents and thousands of yearly tourists, including the Obamas.
But one thing this paradise doesn’t have is an adequate number of fallout shelters – there are only three with enough room for 235 people -- in case North Korea launches an intercontinental ballistic missile or nuclear attack.
People who are home or in a building that is not close to a designated shelter should go to a basement, the center of the structure or behind concrete or a dirt mound, anything with density. Anyone stuck on the freeway should pull over and get behind their car.
Post by: Kuleana on May 02, 2017, 07:52:03 AM
Hide behind your car? This'd be funny if it weren't so stupid. The government "authorities" should just admit "If we're attacked my nukes of sufficient power and accuracy most people are gonna die and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. And the following days and weeks will be really really ugly."Instead of worrying whether Hawaii can defend itself from a nuclear missile attack, why are not people realizing the reasons as to why Hawaii is a top five target for destruction and make the correct decision, accordingly?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/02/hawaii-preparation-for-north-korea-nuke-attack-far-from-complete.html
Hawaii preparation for North Korea nuke attack far from complete
Kailua, a beach community on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, has everything that residents and visitors could want from a tropical paradise: exquisite beaches, crystal clear water and modern amenities. No wonder it now boasts nearly 55,000 residents and thousands of yearly tourists, including the Obamas.
But one thing this paradise doesn’t have is an adequate number of fallout shelters – there are only three with enough room for 235 people -- in case North Korea launches an intercontinental ballistic missile or nuclear attack.
People who are home or in a building that is not close to a designated shelter should go to a basement, the center of the structure or behind concrete or a dirt mound, anything with density. Anyone stuck on the freeway should pull over and get behind their car.
HINT: Have the US military take all of its assets and relocate themselves on another island. I am sure the military industrial complex will love the multi-billion dollar contracts that project would entail and the residents of Hawaii could live without fear of nuclear annihilation.
Kuleana
Post by: omnigun on May 02, 2017, 09:48:33 AM
Instead of worrying whether Hawaii can defend itself from a nuclear missile attack, why are not people realizing the reasons as to why Hawaii is a top five target for destruction and make the correct decision, accordingly?
HINT: Have the US military take all of its assets and relocate themselves on another island. I am sure the military industrial complex will love the multi-billion dollar contracts that project would entail and the residents of Hawaii could live without fear of nuclear annihilation.
Kuleana
That would ruin our local economy AND cost the federal government billions maybe even a trillion long term. Which we would end up paying for.... I for one love the military here.
Post by: macsak on May 02, 2017, 11:23:22 AM
I for one love the military here.
you like seamen?
:shake:
Post by: omnigun on May 02, 2017, 11:29:03 AM
you like seamen?
:shake:
More than the semen that you like :shaka: :geekdanc: lol
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 02, 2017, 03:04:37 PM
Post by: Kuleana on May 02, 2017, 04:38:14 PM
That would ruin our local economy AND cost the federal government billions maybe even a trillion long term. Which we would end up paying for.... I for one love the military here.How would it ruin Hawaii's local economy and cost the federal government billions or trillions of dollars in the long-term, if the US military decided to base its operations on another island?
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 02, 2017, 04:50:07 PM
How would it ruin Hawaii's local economy and cost the federal government billions or trillions of dollars in the long-term, if the US military decided to base its operations on another island?
Kuleana
Ruin is a strong term. The military presence in Hawaii qualifies the state for additional funds to support the infrastructure and services used by service members, federal civilian employees, spouses and children.
That money would have to be reinvested on the outer island/s where the military is relocated. Schools. housing, roads, utilities, and other infrastructure would need to be increased/improved there. That may also include the local airport/s.
Military bases would need to be moved and built there, but I can't imagine Pearl Harbor's assets relocating. The Harbor is where it is for a reason.
No matter what, the income presently spent by the military on Oahu would shift to another island/s.
Post by: Kuleana on May 02, 2017, 05:07:17 PM
Ruin is a strong term. The military presence in Hawaii qualifies the state for additional funds to support the infrastructure and services used by service members, federal civilian employees, spouses and children.
Ruin was a term used by Omnigun.
That money would have to be reinvested on the outer island/s where the military is relocated. Schools. housing, roads, utilities, and other infrastructure would need to be increased/improved there. That may also include the local airport/s.
Not if they were to move on another island not currently inhabited by people.
Military bases would need to be moved and built there, but I can't imagine Pearl Harbor's assets relocating. The Harbor is where it is for a reason.
Who says the US can not build its own harbors elsewhere in the Pacific Rim. If China can build artificial harbors in the South China Sea, so can the US, anywhere.
No matter what, the income presently spent by the military on Oahu would shift to another island/s.
If the US military decides to leave its current location in Hawaii, there is always commerce and money to be made in the lands vacated by them.
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 02, 2017, 05:13:20 PM
Not if they were to move on another island not currently inhabited by people.
How many islands are not currently inhabited by people? How many of those are capable of being inhabited by people?
It sounds like you expect the military and their families to live in tents and grow their own food.
Post by: Kuleana on May 02, 2017, 05:43:48 PM
How many islands are not currently inhabited by people? How many of those are capable of being inhabited by people?
It sounds like you expect the military and their families to live in tents and grow their own food.
There are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific archipelago capable of sustaining life supplemented by provisions shipped from the continental US, no different for the military in Hawaii.
As for military families, who said the federal government is obligated to build living quarters for their spouses and families serving overseas?
Kuleana
Post by: drck1000 on May 02, 2017, 05:45:44 PM
We're moving Marines from Okinawa to Guam. And that's only one service and the Gov of Japan is paying for a good chunk of it. Still will likely take 20 years to complete. Maybe before rail...
The US hasn't built new bases in a long time... Jokingly we say that we have forgotten how.
Then again, we could build a new one for $21 Bil (cost of rail). Even then, maybe...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: littlemisssunshine on May 02, 2017, 06:19:57 PM
Post by: omnigun on May 02, 2017, 07:10:17 PM
How would it ruin Hawaii's local economy and cost the federal government billions or trillions of dollars in the long-term, if the US military decided to base its operations on another island?
Kuleana
Well for one building a base isn't cheap. You know how much it would cost to build a whole harbor, airfields, housing and other necessities? Probably a trillion dollars or more over 10 years. As for the economy the US government through the military pumps billions into Hawaii every year. Not only that tens of thousands of people are employed or connected to the military. That would mean all those people now have no jobs and are forced to move if the want. So if they have spouses or kids they have to leave too. All this unemployment would utterly wreck the local economy. We can't live off tourism alone, we don't export much products so we need money coming in.
There are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific archipelago capable of sustaining life supplemented by provisions shipped from the continental US, no different for the military in Hawaii.
As for military families, who said the federal government is obligated to build living quarters for their spouses and families serving overseas?
Kuleana
Do you even understand logistics of supply lanes? This new "island" would have to have dedicated ships and planes to supply. No longer can you batch items for the local population cause there is none on undeveloped islands. You start from scratch. As for china building islands they are spending huge amounts of money and those bases are not even 1/100th of the size of oahus. Now after that you have to find an island large enough for 20k people and build houses and entertainment for them. Its not simple....
The military is indeed obligated to provide food and shelter for the families of its soldiers...do you want half of your new island to be homeless? And all the kids to not go to school?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 02, 2017, 07:43:23 PM
There are many uninhabited islands in the Pacific archipelago capable of sustaining life supplemented by provisions shipped from the continental US, no different for the military in Hawaii.
As for military families, who said the federal government is obligated to build living quarters for their spouses and families serving overseas?
Kuleana
The topic of accompanied versus unaccompanied remote tours is too complicated to try and explain in writing to someone who doesn't understand how any of it works.
As for the 130 islands and rocks in the Hawaiian chain, logistics is a major issue. We can't arbitrarily move military bases to remote locations without necessary supply lines to support day-to-day missions. The added complications and delays would be cost-prohibitive.
Post by: Kuleana on May 02, 2017, 08:20:15 PM
Well for one building a base isn't cheap. You know how much it would cost to build a whole harbor, airfields, housing and other necessities? Probably a trillion dollars or more over 10 years. As for the economy the US government through the military pumps billions into Hawaii every year. Not only that tens of thousands of people are employed or connected to the military. That would mean all those people now have no jobs and are forced to move if the want. So if they have spouses or kids they have to leave too. All this unemployment would utterly wreck the local economy. We can't live off tourism alone, we don't export much products so we need money coming in.
Your assessment is valid if your ideal economic base for Hawaii is to primarily rely on military spending. I do not subscribe to such narrow economic views. Hawaii can diversify its economy into anything it wants with respect to its cost curves. Hawaii's economy will not crash just because the military and its families decide to leave Hawaii. There are many sharp business people in Hawaii who can and would find ways to offset the local GDP lost by an exodus of the US military.
Do you even understand logistics of supply lanes? This new "island" would have to have dedicated ships and planes to supply. No longer can you batch items for the local population cause there is none on undeveloped islands. You start from scratch. As for china building islands they are spending huge amounts of money and those bases are not even 1/100th of the size of oahus.
So what's your point?
Now after that you have to find an island large enough for 20k people and build houses and entertainment for them. Its not simple....
The military is there to serve, not be served.
The military is indeed obligated to provide food and shelter for the families of its soldiers...do you want half of your new island to be homeless? And all the kids to not go to school?
Like I mentioned earlier, the federal government may be obliged to provide for the families of military personnel, but that does not mean they have to accompany them on every deployment or overseas assignment.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 02, 2017, 08:30:38 PM
The topic of accompanied versus unaccompanied remote tours is too complicated to try and explain in writing to someone who doesn't understand how any of it works.All true, but what it comes down to is this: Hawaii is a top five target for destruction should WWIII begin due to the military footprint on the islands.
As for the 130 islands and rocks in the Hawaiian chain, logistics is a major issue. We can't arbitrarily move military bases to remote locations without necessary supply lines to support day-to-day missions. The added complications and delays would be cost-prohibitive.
The question is: do people living in Hawaii want to live under those conditions?
Many on this forum like myself lived in Hawaii during the Cold War. When those monthly civil defense sirens went off on every month, everyone prayed that it was either a test, a hurricane, or tsunami. If it was neither of those things, we all had approximately 30 minutes left to live since the only other reason for the sirens were for the warning of a nuclear attack. When the Cold War ended, we all enjoyed a sigh of relief. However, with the US adopting an imperialist foreign policy since then, Hawaii has one again become a target for destruction. No one should live in such a state of fear, especially if it can be avoided.
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 02, 2017, 10:26:08 PM
All true, but what it comes down to is this: Hawaii is a top five target for destruction should WWIII begin due to the military footprint on the islands.
The question is: do people living in Hawaii want to live under those conditions?
Many on this forum like myself lived in Hawaii during the Cold War. When those monthly civil defense sirens went off on every month, everyone prayed that it was either a test, a hurricane, or tsunami. If it was neither of those things, we all had approximately 30 minutes left to live since the only other reason for the sirens were for the warning of a nuclear attack. When the Cold War ended, we all enjoyed a sigh of relief. However, with the US adopting an imperialist foreign policy since then, Hawaii has one again become a target for destruction. No one should live in such a state of fear, especially if it can be avoided.
Kuleana
Hawaii is not a target because it houses military units.
Hawaii houses military units because it is a target.
We don't line up battleships in a neat row for torpedoes. We don't keep aircraft in neat rows on the flight line for strafing.
We learned many lessons from the attack. At any given point in time, a complete fleet of ships is out at sea in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, in transit, or whatever. Exercises, training, and trips to active humanitarian and military operations keep the fleets busy. 3rd, 5th and 7th Fleets are almost never in the same area of operations.
To attack Pearl expecting the same results as Dec 7, 1941, would be ignorant and impossible. If we ever have an aircraft carrier in port, it's in transit or participating in RIMPAC.
Post by: Inspector on May 03, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Post by: punaperson on May 03, 2017, 06:34:36 AM
Why do we constantly wait until it's is almost too late before we do anything around here? >:( >:( >:(Hey, they got the rail project started as soon as they could and they will finish it as soon as they can. They're doing what they do best!
Now, doesn't that allay your fears re North Korea targeting Hawaii? :shaka:
Post by: Kuleana on May 03, 2017, 07:04:51 AM
Hawaii is not a target because it houses military units.
Hawaii houses military units because it is a target.
No, Hawaii has and is still the headquarters of all of the military forces in the Pacific, all orders on a tactical level are routed from Hawaii. Furthermore, I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left, not to mention Hawaii is the home port of the US Navy's SLBM fleet. Consequently, Hawaii remains a vital strategic target that will most likely be eliminated should WWIII begin.
We learned many lessons from the attack. At any given point in time, a complete fleet of ships is out at sea in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, in transit, or whatever. Exercises, training, and trips to active humanitarian and military operations keep the fleets busy. 3rd, 5th and 7th Fleets are almost never in the same area of operations.
To attack Pearl expecting the same results as Dec 7, 1941, would be ignorant and impossible. If we ever have an aircraft carrier in port, it's in transit or participating in RIMPAC.
I agree, but it still does not negate why Hawaii is a top-five strategic target in the Pacific Theater for the reasons listed above.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 03, 2017, 07:12:37 AM
I am questioning why are our politicians (Both fed and state) just now thinking it would be a good idea to install advanced radar and misses capable of shooting down medium range misses and ICBM's? Would it not have been a good idea to install all of this when it became available? Is it not their duty to protect us the best they can as soon as they can? Why do we constantly wait until it's is almost too late before we do anything around here? >:( >:( >:(
Inspector,
Living in Hawaii all these years, you should know the reason why. Hawaii was and remains an expendable asset in the eyes of the military planners in DC. Why do you think, they based so many ICBMs on the islands during the Cold War? They knew the USSR as well as China would eventually know were the US arsenal was located; hence, they made sure that a considerable amount was stationed here in Hawaii to minimize the targeting of the continental US.
Hawaii and all of its residents were collateral damage as far as they were concerned.
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 07:34:54 AM
I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left
Why do you think, they based so many ICBMs on the islands during the Cold War?
where were/are the ICBMs based?
Post by: dustoff003 on May 03, 2017, 07:44:15 AM
where were/are the ICBMs based?On submarines and stored in Waikele.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 08:55:48 AM
No, Hawaii has and is still the headquarters of all of the military forces in the Pacific, all orders on a tactical level are routed from Hawaii.
Furthermore, I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left, not to mention Hawaii is the home port of the US Navy's SLBM fleet.
Consequently, Hawaii remains a vital strategic target that will most likely be eliminated should WWIII begin.
I agree, but it still does not negate why Hawaii is a top-five strategic target in the Pacific Theater for the reasons listed above.
Kuleana
I'm not sure what you know about the missions of Headquarters units, but their primary objectives are to train and equip organizations so they can be used by theater commanders if/when needed. Depending on location or event, the commanders will be on a command ship, carrier, or ground command center.
For example, when 5th and 7th fleets deploy to the Persian Gulf, they are under the command of CENTCOM in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia. Each Component Commander (Army, Navy Air Force & Marine) would report to the Theater Commander.
Taking out a Headquarters unit does not cripple the operational units under that command. The worst that could happen would be a loss of communications if NCTAMS in Wahiawa were taken out, which would then be replaced by retasking the satellites to route communications to bases in CA.
Where exactly are the Hawaii land-based ICBMs? I don't think there are any. Any missiles we have are sea-based, purely defensive or for testing at PMRF at Barking Sands, Kauai.
As mentioned, the fleets don't reside at Pearl for long. The SLBM Fleet is at sea for months at a time and rotate in port for maintenance, resupply and shore duty. Taking out one or two subs is not a mission-critical concern.
Post by: drck1000 on May 03, 2017, 09:07:51 AM
I am questioning why are our politicians (Both fed and state) just now thinking it would be a good idea to install advanced radar and misses capable of shooting down medium range misses and ICBM's? Would it not have been a good idea to install all of this when it became available? Is it not their duty to protect us the best they can as soon as they can? Why do we constantly wait until it's is almost too late before we do anything around here? >:( >:( >:(Not sure what ever happened to the systems, but they were testing and I believe had deployed "mobile" defense systems.
I know we did a bunch of radar stuff at PMRF and there's other stuff there. I'll just stop there. This is just one of those subjects that was thought of a lot and for many years.
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 10:05:40 AM
On submarines and stored in Waikele.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
he said land based, not on subs and not stored
to me, land based means in the ground and ready to fire
just looking for clarification, i guess
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 11:50:11 AM
he said land based, not on subs and not stored
to me, land based means in the ground and ready to fire
just looking for clarification, i guess
Quote
I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left, not to mention Hawaii is the home port of the US Navy's SLBM fleet.
Seems like plain English to me. "Land based", not "in storage".
Post by: dustoff003 on May 03, 2017, 12:01:39 PM
he said land based, not on subs and not stored
to me, land based means in the ground and ready to fire
just looking for clarification, i guess
Gotcha, I must not have read it all that good.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 12:34:11 PM
Gotcha, I must not have read it all that good.No worries, dusty
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 02:29:04 PM
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 02:38:15 PM
Your assessment is valid if your ideal economic base for Hawaii is to primarily rely on military spending. I do not subscribe to such narrow economic views. Hawaii can diversify its economy into anything it wants with respect to its cost curves. Hawaii's economy will not crash just because the military and its families decide to leave Hawaii. There are many sharp business people in Hawaii who can and would find ways to offset the local GDP lost by an exodus of the US military.
What? We don't have factories, we don't have massive amounts of land for agriculture the fuck do you think we will do to grow our economy passed our already tourist heavy dependence? If I were to estimate about 25-30% of our economy is military related. Do you really thing "local businesses" will fill in that multi billion dollar gap magically? Do you think we can just sell a billion pineapples or convince a few extra million people to visit us for no reason? Simple answer is no. If you lay off a quarter of your population you will go into the great depression during time 25% of the US on average was unemployed and times were BAD. So unless you want hawaii to be backwards and poor with a chunk of the population homeless you will want to keep the military. I mean whats next are you going to say you want to kick all the non Hawaiians off and leave the union and form a new country?
The military is there to serve, not be served.
Its a mixture of both, its a symbiotic relationship that we have
Like I mentioned earlier, the federal government may be obliged to provide for the families of military personnel, but that does not mean they have to accompany them on every deployment or overseas assignment.
Most miliary members don't abandon their families when they move to different locations....You don't leave your wife and kids in Nebraska while you work out of Washington for 10 years...there is a reason why we have so much military housing with actual houses not just bunks in an apartment.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 02:46:09 PM
We do not have "land based" icbms. We do not have atlas missile silos or anything near it. I would love it we did then when they get put for sale I could buy one :D All the ICBMs we have are on ships or subs. Not sure why Kuleana here is so anti military. Its one of our greatest assets and without our strategic placing we would be a poor shitty island in the middle of the pacific that no one cares about. Hell we probably wouldn't even be a state.
No. ICBMs are all land-based How can it be "INTER-CONTINENTAL" if there are not two, you know, continents involved?
Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles are on subs. Those are not ICBMs. They are SLBMs.
Subs also carry Cruise Missiles -- SLCMs.
Ships that have intermediate and long range missiles carry Cruise Missiles. Whether land or ship based, they are considered Surface-to-Surface Cruise Missiles (SSCM). Launched from an aircraft? ALCM.
Maybe before you buy one, you should study up on them so you're better informed?
:wave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missiles
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 03:12:50 PM
No. ICBMs are all land-based How can it be "INTER-CONTINENTAL" if there are not two, you know, continents involved?
Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles are on subs. Those are not ICBMs. They are SLBMs.
Subs also carry Cruise Missiles -- SLCMs.
Ships that have intermediate and long range missiles carry Cruise Missiles. Whether land or ship based, they are considered Surface-to-Surface Cruise Missiles (SSCM). Launched from an aircraft? ALCM.
Maybe before you buy one, you should study up on them so you're better informed?
:wave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missiles
I was being generic but okay you are correct. I tend to lump all long range nuclear weapons into the same group. In the end we don't have any missile silos in hawaii. Period.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 03:19:01 PM
I was being generic but okay you are correct. I tend to lump all long range nuclear weapons into the same group. In the end we don't have any missile silos in hawaii. Period.
I expect better from a Scientist at Heart! ???
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 04:59:06 PM
I expect better from a Scientist at Heart! ???
Just cause I value knowledge doesn't mean I know everything. Its all about learning...something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 05:04:00 PM
Just cause I value knowledge doesn't mean I know everything. Its all about learning...something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.
Sticks and stones, Brother! Sticks and stones!! LOL!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 05:06:41 PM
something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.
hello pot, this is kettle
you're black
Post by: Inspector on May 03, 2017, 05:13:47 PM
Just cause I value knowledge doesn't mean I know everything. Its all about learning...something you don't understand cause your line of thought is a brick wall.You might value knowledge, but most of us value truth and clarity over just knowledge which a good part of the time includes lies, deceit, propaganda and fake news. This is why most of here disagree with your "Knowledge". We have different value systems for sure. For me truth and clarity and being humble are more important than what you THINK you know as knowledge. JMHO
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 06:02:10 PM
You might value knowledge, but most of us value truth and clarity over just knowledge which a good part of the time includes lies, deceit, propaganda and fake news. This is why most of here disagree with your "Knowledge". We have different value systems for sure. For me truth and clarity and being humble are more important than what you THINK you know as knowledge. JMHO
Its quite the opposite. I value knowledge because i seek the truth (scientific facts). You folks value "truth and clarity" because it makes sense to what you desire to be true. AKA religion, denying climate facts etc. He presented me with facts and i admitted I was wrong. That's all I value, proof. Feelings and emotions are dumb and useless. Something doesn't have to absolutely "clear" to be true. I don't understand many things which i know are true. I don't understand partial physics doesn't mean just cause it isn't clear to me it isn't true.
Post by: Inspector on May 03, 2017, 06:13:58 PM
Its quite the opposite. I value knowledge because i seek the truth (scientific facts). You folks value "truth and clarity" because it makes sense to what you desire to be true. AKA religion, denying climate facts etc. He presented me with facts and i admitted I was wrong. That's all I value, proof.It's not what you said. You are now back tracking on what you said. You said you value knowledge. You did not say you value truth and clarity. Which is completely different than knowledge as I stated. If you want to be understood you should speak clearly and don't back track as it makes you look like you are not telling the truth.
How are we supposed to know what you really mean if you don't state it the first time? Understand what I am writing here. DO NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. It is meant as a rhetorical question meaning I already know the answer. If you attempt to answer the question I'll know you don't read what I write nor understand it. And I really don't want to hear your gums flap. Just read the question over and over until you understand why I asked it. Then discuss with everyone here with clarity and truth. Any time you have to back track you are not doing this.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 06:17:10 PM
Its quite the opposite. I value knowledge because i seek the truth (scientific facts). You folks value "truth and clarity" because it makes sense to what you desire to be true. AKA religion, denying climate facts etc. He presented me with facts and i admitted I was wrong. That's all I value, proof. Feelings and emotions are dumb and useless. Something doesn't have to absolutely "clear" to be true. I don't understand many things which i know are true. I don't understand partial physics doesn't mean just cause it isn't clear to me it isn't true.
Knowledge? Maybe the problem isn't what you don't know, but what you know for sure that just isn't so.
You're hilarious, since the only one demonstrating emotional outbursts on here is you!
(http://i.imgur.com/9otpXSA.jpg?1)
Post by: ren on May 03, 2017, 07:12:30 PM
Dumbasses....
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 07:31:45 PM
It's not what you said. You are now back tracking on what you said. You said you value knowledge. You did not say you value truth and clarity. Which is completely different than knowledge as I stated. If you want to be understood you should speak clearly and don't back track as it makes you look like you are not telling the truth.
How are we supposed to know what you really mean if you don't state it the first time? Understand what I am writing here. DO NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION. It is meant as a rhetorical question meaning I already know the answer. If you attempt to answer the question I'll know you don't read what I write nor understand it. And I really don't want to hear your gums flap. Just read the question over and over until you understand why I asked it. Then discuss with everyone here with clarity and truth. Any time you have to back track you are not doing this.
What? I've never said i value "truth and clarity". I value fact. Truth is ambiguous and clarity is even worse its all emotions and feelings. I don't know how someone could read what I said and not understand its pretty obvious...
Its quite the opposite. I value knowledge because i seek the truth (scientific facts). You folks value "truth and clarity" because it makes sense to what you desire to be true. AKA religion, denying climate facts etc. He presented me with facts and i admitted I was wrong. That's all I value, proof. Feelings and emotions are dumb and useless. Something doesn't have to absolutely "clear" to be true. I don't understand many things which i know are true. I don't understand partial physics doesn't mean just cause it isn't clear to me it isn't true.
I do admit I probably shouldn't of said "truth" in the 2nd sentence might of been slightly confusing but as all the other sentences spell it out fairly obviously...
Post by: omnigun on May 03, 2017, 07:35:02 PM
Knowledge? Maybe the problem isn't what you don't know, but what you know for sure that just isn't so.
You're hilarious, since the only one demonstrating emotional outbursts on here is you!
(http://i.imgur.com/9otpXSA.jpg?1)
Kind of like most of the stuff you talk about!
Like religion and most recently the wall. And the worship of trump who can do no wrong and is the answer to all your prayers.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 07:47:44 PM
Kind of like most of the stuff you talk about!
Like religion and most recently the wall. And the worship of trump who can do no wrong and is the answer to all your prayers.
How far do you intend to hijack this thread?
It's only 14 pages long, and I'd really like to see a few more expert opinions on North Korea attacking Hawaii before you force the mods to shut it down.
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
(http://i.imgur.com/v2IihgR.jpg)
Post by: Kuleana on May 03, 2017, 08:00:35 PM
We do not have "land based" icbms. We do not have atlas missile silos or anything near it. I would love it we did then when they get put for sale I could buy one :D All the ICBMs we have are on ships or subs.
What report or announcement are you basing your claim that all the islands in Hawaii are ICBM free?
Not sure why Kuleana here is so anti military. Its one of our greatest assets and without our strategic placing we would be a poor shitty island in the middle of the pacific that no one cares about. Hell we probably wouldn't even be a state.
I am not anti-military, but pro-life.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Hawaii is still one of the top five targets for destruction should WWIII take place. Apparently, the thought of being the first one to perish is not of any concern to you. However, I can speak with confidence that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 03, 2017, 08:10:40 PM
I'm not sure what you know about the missions of Headquarters units, but their primary objectives are to train and equip organizations so they can be used by theater commanders if/when needed. Depending on location or event, the commanders will be on a command ship, carrier, or ground command center.
For example, when 5th and 7th fleets deploy to the Persian Gulf, they are under the command of CENTCOM in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia. Each Component Commander (Army, Navy Air Force & Marine) would report to the Theater Commander.
Taking out a Headquarters unit does not cripple the operational units under that command. The worst that could happen would be a loss of communications if NCTAMS in Wahiawa were taken out, which would then be replaced by retasking the satellites to route communications to bases in CA.
That is exactly my ultimate point. Due to the military assets stationed on Hawaii, Hawaii and all of its residents ultimately become potential collateral damage should those assets be targeted.
Where exactly are the Hawaii land-based ICBMs? I don't think there are any. Any missiles we have are sea-based, purely defensive or for testing at PMRF at Barking Sands, Kauai.
I hope you are right. But even if you are, it still does not take Hawaii off the main targets to bomb list in the event of WWIII.
As mentioned, the fleets don't reside at Pearl for long. The SLBM Fleet is at sea for months at a time and rotate in port for maintenance, resupply and shore duty. Taking out one or two subs is not a mission-critical concern.
Let's pray those subs are not offered as bait to start WWIII, as those battleships were offered to Japan to start WWII.
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 08:43:49 PM
What report or announcement are you basing your claim that all the islands in Hawaii are ICBM free?What report or announcement are you basing your claim that any the islands in Hawaii have or had ICBMs?
However, I can speak with confidence that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii.
What report or announcement are you basing your claim that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii?
Post by: Kuleana on May 03, 2017, 09:11:29 PM
What report or announcement are you basing your claim that any the islands in Hawaii have or had ICBMs?
Please see http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v02n1p05.htm for an approximation of the number of nuclear weapons located on Hawaii during the Cold War.
What report or announcement are you basing your claim that this is a major concern for about 99.99% of the rest of the residents living in Hawaii?
If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage, I am willing to make a huge assumption that a majority of common sense individuals will choose life.
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 09:28:25 PM
Please see http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v02n1p05.htm for an approximation of the number of nuclear weapons located on Hawaii during the Cold War.
If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage, I am willing to make a huge assumption that a majority of common sense individuals will choose life.
"In 1972 there were 3100 nuclear weapons stored on Oahu alone"
in an article without citations...
not really proof of your land based ICBM claims...
"huge assumption" of majority does not equal 99.99%
Post by: Kuleana on May 03, 2017, 09:42:21 PM
"In 1972 there were 3100 nuclear weapons stored on Oahu alone"
in an article without citations...
not really proof of your land based ICBM claims...
True, but I don't think the US military will be forthcoming to officially confirm or refute my claim either. In any event, no one has yet refuted that Hawaii is still one of the top targets in a potential WWIII.
"huge assumption" of majority does not equal 99.99%
Once again statistically true.
By the way, I am sure you are not one who would choose potential death over life, right?
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 03, 2017, 10:05:22 PM
True, but I don't think the US military will be forthcoming to officially confirm or refute my claim either.
I am sure you are not one who would choose potential death over life, right?
your claim right now is roughly equal to: there may be potential UFOs being hidden somewhere in Hawaii on a military base
I don't think the US military will be forthcoming to officially confirm or refute that claim either
you are sure and and yet you still have to ask the question?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 03, 2017, 10:41:58 PM
Please see http://peacemagazine.org/archive/v02n1p05.htm for an approximation of the number of nuclear weapons located on Hawaii during the Cold War.
That article was written in 1986. That was 31 years ago.
Are you really using 31-year-old info from "Peace Magazine" as your source for military information?
I can tell you, if there were nukes here, the locations and numbers tell me they are for use on naval ships and subs and perhaps flown to a staging location somewhere in the world (Japan? Diego Garcia? ).
Based on my years in the Air Force (in the 80s & early 90s), and 24 years with a defense contractor working with all branches and Cost Guard, there have never been ICBM launch facilities in Hawaii. The logistics alone would be prohibitive, not to mention the fact that these are ISLANDS! How many homes do you know here with full basements? Now imagine a 103' tall missile (Titan II) and a silo facility below ground. There is much more to a launch site than the silo. Much, much more!
We've had missile batteries stationed on Oahu, but those are not ICBMs. Those are like the Nike missile batteries first fielded in the 1950s. Those are SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) meant to defend against aircraft and missiles during the Cold War.
I don't doubt there were a number of nukes stored in the islands (including the small atolls). The Pentagon released information last year that we stored nukes on Okinawa before the island was returned to Japan in 1972. Some Hawaiian atolls were used for nuclear testing.
As I said, that was 31 years ago, and the Cold War has been over for 26 years. Storage is one thing, and sea-launched is something else, but ICBMs in Hawaii never happened. If I'm wrong, maybe that'll be downgraded and released in another 10-20 years!
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 07:09:14 AM
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 07:11:23 AM
your claim right now is roughly equal to: there may be potential UFOs being hidden somewhere in Hawaii on a military base
Stating the possibility of nuclear weapons based on Hawaii is not as far fetched as speculating that there are alien spacecraft kept at Hickam AFB.
Whether people want to believe it or not, it is at their own peril from a political and personal safety standpoint.
Kuleana
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 07:18:19 AM
As for all those proof of land based ICBMs or other nukes. I personally have no clue on the facts of that matter. I don't believe there are any ICBM silos or anything like that here. Are there nuke in munition storage here? I don't think so either, but I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me so. I
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 07:19:27 AM
If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage, I am willing to make a huge assumption that a majority of common sense individuals will choose life.Is that the exact same group, or is there any overlap at all, as the "majority of common sense individuals" who support making it as difficult as possible for people to keep and bear arms? You know, the Bloombergian Demanding Moms and Grabby Gifford's people who initiate ballot measures for "universal background checks" for every single "transfer" of a firearm (including handing it to a friend at the range or while hunting) as part of their "common sense gun safety/gun violence prevention" legislation? Attempting to hijack the phrase "common sense" and thus place anyone who disagree with you as "irrational loonies" is very Alinskyesk of you, and it probably works with people who don't have the ability to analyze what they've just been told. But for the rest of us... FAIL.
Plus, of course, you present a "false dilemma" as a premise.
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 07:21:26 AM
That article was written in 1986. That was 31 years ago.
Are you really using 31-year-old info from "Peace Magazine" as your source for military information?
Though very old and not very academically source cited, it was published during the Cold War, which gives one view of what nuclear weapons might have been located on Hawaii at that time.
I can tell you, if there were nukes here, the locations and numbers tell me they are for use on naval ships and subs and perhaps flown to a staging location somewhere in the world (Japan? Diego Garcia? ).
Based on my years in the Air Force (in the 80s & early 90s), and 24 years with a defense contractor working with all branches and Cost Guard, there have never been ICBM launch facilities in Hawaii. The logistics alone would be prohibitive, not to mention the fact that these are ISLANDS! How many homes do you know here with full basements? Now imagine a 103' tall missile (Titan II) and a silo facility below ground. There is much more to a launch site than the silo. Much, much more!
We've had missile batteries stationed on Oahu, but those are not ICBMs. Those are like the Nike missile batteries first fielded in the 1950s. Those are SAMs (surface-to-air missiles) meant to defend against aircraft and missiles during the Cold War.
I don't doubt there were a number of nukes stored in the islands (including the small atolls). The Pentagon released information last year that we stored nukes on Okinawa before the island was returned to Japan in 1972. Some Hawaiian atolls were used for nuclear testing.
Very good info. If all true back then to now, residents of Hawaii still and currently have every reason to fear annihilation during the Cold War till today.
As I said, that was 31 years ago, and the Cold War has been over for 26 years. Storage is one thing, and sea-launched is something else, but ICBMs in Hawaii never happened. If I'm wrong, maybe that'll be downgraded and released in another 10-20 years!
Let's hope WWIII does not occur so we can finally know the truth.
Kuleana
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 07:32:17 AM
Whether people want to believe it or not, it is at their own peril from a political and personal safety standpoint.Would you have said the same thing about the people who went to work at the World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001?
What about the people at the Pulse night club June 12, 2016?
What about the people at the San Bernardino County Christmas Party December 2, 2015?
What about the people attending the music concert at the Bataclan in Paris November 13, 2015?
Etc., etc., etc.
You may want to believe that you can "lower the odds" of being the target of evil, and you may be right to some degree in some circumstances and conditions, but overall, especially given "irrational" actors, there is no guarantee of "safety", especially at the cost of disarming individuals or countries from effective self-defense.
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 07:43:01 AM
SNIPMaybe he should drive up to a munitions magazine and ask to see one. . .
Maybe before you buy one, you should study up on them so you're better informed?
:wave:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missiles
Funny story now, but not so funny then. Anyways, maybe 10 years ago after a meeting, I'm driving around an installation somewhere in the Pacific AOR. I have some time to kill and second time on this installation and decide to find what else there are. I heard that there's a pretty nice beach and MWR type area on this one area. So I am driving and looking for the place. I turn down this seemingly deserted long road and come up on a security gate, with many guns ready to stop me. . . I would later find out that that was one of the munitions magazine for the base (not nukes) and there's a reason why pretty much no one goes down that road. . . I will forever remember that road.
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 07:51:19 AM
Major concern of mine of being first to perish at outbreak of WWIII due to a nuke? Not even remotely a major concern. Have plenty of other things in life like taking care of an elderly parent than concern like this sort "could happen". Hell, I'm more concerned about what I'm going to eat for lunch today than perishing at outbreak of WWIII due to a nuke attack. I'm not moving anywhere, at least any time soon. Some of you need to start enjoying the quality of LIFE. . .
Enjoying a quality of life is what is the issue here.
It is one thing to live in the Boonietown, USA secluded from any human beings for hundred of miles, but to have the US Government arbitrarily militarize an area that makes the populace collateral damage is another thing. Taking note of this reality and trying to change the potential deadly outcome is nothing but an act to ensure the quality of life remains undisturbed.
As for all those proof of land based ICBMs or other nukes. I personally have no clue on the facts of that matter. I don't believe there are any ICBM silos or anything like that here. Are there nuke in munition storage here? I don't think so either, but I wouldn't doubt it if someone told me so. Iknowam pretty sure there is a nuke storage base in WA and also other installations around the Pacific rim have them, but didn't think we had them here. There are other installations much closer to China & NK than Oahu for that stuff, let alone subs. Interesting topic though which no doubt are ripe with conspiracy theories.
Whether there were/are or were/are no ICBMs on Hawaii will probably never be truly known by the civilian population. What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint in the continuing effort to take Hawaii off the top five targets list should WWIII becomes a reality.
Kuleana
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 08:03:37 AM
What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint in the continuing effort to take Hawaii off the top five targets list should WWIII becomes a reality.I see, so it's really just a CYA move to put some other Americans in the sights of nukes, but not you. Good to know.
I'd sure like to hear the discussion between you and the others guys about who deserves most to be targeted for death, and why. All in the context of "peace" of course.
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 08:04:33 AM
1) Enjoying a quality of life is what is the issue here.1) I hear that. :thumbsup:
2) It is one thing to live in the Boonietown, USA secluded from any human beings for hundred of miles, but to have the US Government arbitrarily militarize an area that makes the populace collateral damage is another thing. Taking note of this reality and trying to change the potential deadly outcome is nothing but an act to ensure the quality of life remains undisturbed.
3) Whether there were/are or were/are no ICBMs on Hawaii will probably never be truly known by the civilian population. What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint in the continuing effort to take Hawaii off the top five targets list should WWIII becomes a reality.
Kuleana
2) When you mention the US Gov arbitrarily militarizing an area, are you referring to Hawaii? If so, I assume you mean militarizing Hawaii back before WWII. If not, then they've pretty much always been here in terms of reference point for most people on this forum. I don't think any of you are old enough to predate the US military being in Hawaii. I am not sure when the US military first established itself here, but I've worked on facilities in Pearl that are well over 100 years old.
Yes. The reality of the situation is the US military is here and I don't see it/them going anywhere. At least not in my lifetime.
3) True and I'm with ya there. Just curious, what are the other top 5 targets that you see?
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 09:44:59 AM
1) I hear that. :thumbsup:
2) When you mention the US Gov arbitrarily militarizing an area, are you referring to Hawaii? If so, I assume you mean militarizing Hawaii back before WWII. If not, then they've pretty much always been here in terms of reference point for most people on this forum. I don't think any of you are old enough to predate the US military being in Hawaii. I am not sure when the US military first established itself here, but I've worked on facilities in Pearl that are well over 100 years old.
Yes. The reality of the situation is the US military is here and I don't see it/them going anywhere. At least not in my lifetime.
That may be true, but just like fighting for the removal of the current senseless gun control measures in Hawaii, one must never give up.
3) True and I'm with ya there. Just curious, what are the other top 5 targets that you see?
Mostly America's forward operating bases located in Europe, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and East Asia.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 09:47:57 AM
Would you have said the same thing about the people who went to work at the World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001?
What about the people at the Pulse night club June 12, 2016?
What about the people at the San Bernardino County Christmas Party December 2, 2015?
What about the people attending the music concert at the Bataclan in Paris November 13, 2015?
Etc., etc., etc.
You may want to believe that you can "lower the odds" of being the target of evil, and you may be right to some degree in some circumstances and conditions, but overall, especially given "irrational" actors, there is no guarantee of "safety", especially at the cost of disarming individuals or countries from effective self-defense.
The odds of Hawaii being out of the major targets list of a potential WWIII scenario are drastically reduced should the military footprint in Hawaii be reduced.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 09:52:47 AM
Is that the exact same group, or is there any overlap at all, as the "majority of common sense individuals" who support making it as difficult as possible for people to keep and bear arms? You know, the Bloombergian Demanding Moms and Grabby Gifford's people who initiate ballot measures for "universal background checks" for every single "transfer" of a firearm (including handing it to a friend at the range or while hunting) as part of their "common sense gun safety/gun violence prevention" legislation? Attempting to hijack the phrase "common sense" and thus place anyone who disagree with you as "irrational loonies" is very Alinskyesk of you, and it probably works with people who don't have the ability to analyze what they've just been told. But for the rest of us... FAIL.
I was not aware of hijacking any phrase.
"Irrational loonies"? Never heard of that phrase before. Where did you hijack that from?
Plus, of course, you present a "false dilemma" as a premise.
Please articulate the false dilemma that I presented.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 09:58:39 AM
I see, so it's really just a CYA move to put some other Americans in the sights of nukes, but not you. Good to know.
I was not aware I could dictate where America's military should be based? And yes, I make no apology for advocating to keep Hawaii and its residency out of harms way of potential nuclear holocaust.
I'd sure like to hear the discussion between you and the others guys about who deserves most to be targeted for death, and why. All in the context of "peace" of course.
A government that chooses to maintain its military arm and locate it in a geographic area that would not endanger its populace is a government that would gain much respect and devotion amongst its citizenry.
Kuleana
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 10:48:35 AM
You never responded to the question regarding arbitrary militarization. Anyways, my point was that the military was here before most of us and even most the generation before us. So it's not like we were subject to a time when Hawaii went from without military to with military. As in we all knew that the military was here and chose to either immigrate or move here or to stay here.
That may be true, but just like fighting for the removal of the current senseless gun control measures in Hawaii, one must never give up.
Mostly America's forward operating bases located in Europe, the Middle East, the Indian Ocean, and East Asia.
Kuleana
I for one am happy with the military presence in Hawaii. That said, I can understand how people aren't happy. Just trying to figure out the source of your discontent.
Speaking of forward operating bases, I'd be much more concerned if I was say on Guam, Okinawa or Diego Garcia. Even more worried if I was on one of the US installation in S Korea. Here? Meh.
Post by: macsak on May 04, 2017, 11:48:19 AM
"I am confident that Hawaii still has a few land based ICBMs left"
"they based so many ICBMs on the islands during the Cold War"
Where exactly are the Hawaii land-based ICBMs? I don't think there are any. Any missiles we have are sea-based, purely defensive or for testing at PMRF at Barking Sands, Kauai.
"I hope you are right." (reply by kuleana)
"Whether there were/are or were/are no ICBMs on Hawaii will probably never be truly known by the civilian population. What is important is to stay vigilant and try to lessen the possibility of a nuclear weapon footprint"
"Stating the possibility of nuclear weapons based on Hawaii"
these separate statements in this thread as it has gone along are not congruent...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 11:50:10 AM
I was not aware I could dictate where America's military should be based? And yes, I make no apology for advocating to keep Hawaii and its residency out of harms way of potential nuclear holocaust.
That's rather naive. Daniel Inoye and Daniel Akaka spent their political lives making sure Hawaii was never on the chopping block for reduction in military bases and spending.
They saw the reality of the protection and economic contributions the military brings Hawaii important to everyone here, not so much the paranoid WWIII fears you state.
These were YOUR Senators. They kept the military bases thriving for YOUR benefit. You have a voice in the government should you choose to exercise it.
Dictate? Not really.
Have an impact? Only if you really want to.
Post by: robtmc on May 04, 2017, 11:54:02 AM
these separate statements in this thread as it has gone along are not congruent...But, reading this thread up to this point has been great fun. The hysteria and paranoia on display are great fun.
ICBMs on Oahu, ROFLMAO............
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 12:40:25 PM
The odds of Hawaii being out of the major targets list of a potential WWIII scenario are drastically reduced should the military footprint in Hawaii be reduced.And your evidence for that is where? You are assuming that the attacks will be based upon some "rational" strategic decision having to do with the opponents military capability. You could very well be incorrect. I gave the examples that I did precisely because none of them were of military, or really any other particular "importance", much less militarily strategic... they were chosen because they would "make a statement", and the threat of being stopped was relatively minimal. Again, you assume that (however you are defining)"WWIII" will follow some rational pattern based upon your assumptions. Maybe. Maybe not.
An enemy, especially if the range of their weapons is limited, might be very satisfied to see Honolulu and its famous tourist beaches incinerated... for the few moments they'd have before they were themselves were incinerated.
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 01:03:10 PM
I was not aware of hijacking any phrase.
You haven't read or heard statements by civilian disarmament advocates (Bloomberg's groups, Brady, Grabby Giffords, VPC, a multitude of politicians, etc.) for the past 3+ years prefacing nearly every statement about their recommended gun control legislation using the term "commonsense"? It's intent, as is yours, is to cast those who disagree, as, obviously, lacking in "commonsense". And everyone knows "commonsense" is a good thing, therefore those who disagree with your "commonsense" proposal are not only wrong due to lacking in commonsense, but they are bad people (because they are irrational in some way to oppose what is obviously "commonsense").
"Irrational loonies"? Never heard of that phrase before. Where did you hijack that from?
There are many possible combinations of terms that would convey the derogatory intent of your use of the term "common sense" to apply only to those who agree with you.
Please articulate the false dilemma that I presented.
Kuleana quote: "If given a choice of life or potential death due to being collateral damage..."
That is not a "real world" "choice". There is no such "either/or" option in reality. It's a gross oversimplification and based upon purely speculative assumptions (including that an enemy would or would not target Hawaii based upon your assumptions as to why any enemy would or would not target Hawaii).
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 01:18:24 PM
I see, so it's really just a CYA move to put some other Americans in the sights of nukes, but not you. Good to know.
I was not aware I could dictate where America's military should be based?
Me either?
And yes, I make no apology for advocating to keep Hawaii and its residency out of harms way of potential nuclear holocaust.
But surely you realize that if you are successful in your efforts to move Hawaii further down the list of "preferred targets" (based upon all your possibly unwarranted assumptions) that some other group of American citizens in another geographical location will be elevated to the incineration list, right? I didn't ask for an apology, I just noted that it was a CYA move.
I'd sure like to hear the discussion between you and the others guys about who deserves most to be targeted for death, and why. All in the context of "peace" of course.
A government that chooses to maintain its military arm and locate it in a geographic area that would not endanger its populace is a government that would gain much respect and devotion amongst its citizenry.
Please name the possible top five military base geographic locations where they "would not endanger its populace" and/or there would be the least "collateral damage" civilian decimation if your assumptions are correct about enemy targeting. Please also include the ports where the Navy vessels and their "supplies" would be staged.
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 02:01:09 PM
And your evidence for that is where? You are assuming that the attacks will be based upon some "rational" strategic decision having to do with the opponents military capability. You could very well be incorrect. I gave the examples that I did precisely because none of them were of military, or really any other particular "importance", much less militarily strategic... they were chosen because they would "make a statement", and the threat of being stopped was relatively minimal. Again, you assume that (however you are defining)"WWIII" will follow some rational pattern based upon your assumptions. Maybe. Maybe not.
The incidents you raised were based on acts of violence conducted by individual(s). The scenario of WWIII would involve nation states.
An enemy, especially if the range of their weapons is limited, might be very satisfied to see Honolulu and its famous tourist beaches incinerated... for the few moments they'd have before they were themselves were incinerated.
How are you justifying this position that some nation state with ballistics weaponry would launch an attack for the sole purpose of seeing tourist beaches incinerated? What examples can you draw upon where a nation state ignored a military target in favor of launching an attack on a non-military target. Such acts are war crimes on the highest order.
Kuleana
Post by: Inspector on May 04, 2017, 02:06:18 PM
What? I've never said i value "truth and clarity".I guess your reading comprehension is at zero along with your knowledge about about this subject. I never said anything about you valuing truth and clarity. I said I value truth and clarity. I quoted you when you said you value knowledge. Get it straight, I wrote it clear enough for someone with even poor reading comprehension to understand.
I value fact.There you go back tracking again from your statement about valuing knowledge. Two different things here. Or don't you understand the difference? You value knowledge. I value truth. Which has to involve facts. But knowledge does not have to involve facts.
Truth is ambiguous and clarity is even worse its all emotions and feelings.
What planet are you on? Clarity has nothing to do with emotions except for your hysterics here.
I don't know how someone could read what I said and not understand its pretty obvious...Yes, it is quite obvious. You are back tracking and and trying to wiggle out from underneath the truth of your previous statements because I showed you and everyone else here that knowledge is not truth. Knowledge can be as much a lie as it can be truth. It depends on what you want to believe. Combined with my exposing your back tracking and you obviously realize you need to change what you said in order to make yourself look not as foolish as you did the first time. Unfortunately, you are looking more and more foolish every time you try to back track on your previous statement.
Its quite the opposite. I value knowledge because i seek the truth (scientific facts).Now you are being a hypocrite. If you seek knowledge then you could just as easily seek fake news. Because fake news appears as knowledge to the naive. And if truth is ambiguous as you said, then why would you now back track and say you seek truth? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe you can explain to everyone here how truth is ambiguous. I want to see what you think about this.
You folks value "truth and clarity" because it makes sense to what you desire to be true.That is absolutely false. For me, I have no predisposition to what I want something to be. I seek the truth. If it means that climate change as you define it is true then I would believe it in the exact same way you do.
AKA religion, denying climate facts etc.[/u] He presented me with facts and i admitted I was wrong.I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't care about your other conversations you are having here.
That's all I value, proof.Then provide proof that 97% of all climate scientists agree and know exactly what percentage of climate change that man affects? I dared you in another thread to provide that percentage and you ignored me. The fact is no one knows. Not even the lying scientists. How can you say you value "proof" when you won't even consider the fact that man may only be affecting the climate 0.000000000000000001%? And the proof that no one knows doesn't figure in with your ideology so you ignored my question the last time. The only correct answer here is a percentage.
Feelings and emotions are dumb and useless. Something doesn't have to absolutely "clear" to be true.It absolutely has to be clear to be the truth. What have you been smoking my dear boy? If something is not clear then it would be left up to multiple interpretations. Only one interpretation can be true. Otherwise it cannot be considered truth. The truth can not be left open to multiple interpretations. For something to be the truth everyone has to agree on the same thing. If it can be left open to interpretation then it is a theory or such. But it cannot be the truth.
[/b]I don't understand many things which i know are true.Give me an example of something you don't understand but can show proof that it is true. Would you not have to have at least some understanding of something for it to be true? Otherwise what you are doing is blind truth and that is nothing more than a belief or faith. Like religion.
I don't understand partial physics doesn't mean just cause it isn't clear to me it isn't true.Prove its true.
I do admit I probably shouldn't of said "truth" in the 2nd sentence might of been slightly confusing but as all the other sentences spell it out fairly obviously...Back tracking again I see.... You just keep proving all of my points. At least you admit it and for that I give you the credit you deserve.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:11:13 PM
How are you justifying this position that some nation state with ballistics weaponry would launch an attack for the sole purpose of seeing tourist beaches incinerated? What examples can you draw upon where a nation state ignored a military target in favor of launching an attack on a non-military target. Such acts are war crimes on the highest order.
Palestine against Israel.
Hamas against Israel.
Iraq against Saudi Arabia.
North Korea against TBA.
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 02:15:48 PM
Although at great cost, the federal government can easily relocate its military forces to a less populated area if it wanted to.
"Please name the possible top five military base geographic locations where they "would not endanger its populace" and/or there would be the least "collateral damage" civilian decimation if your assumptions are correct about enemy targeting. Please also include the ports where the Navy vessels and their "supplies" would be staged."
In the Pacific, there are many islands that the US could transform into a state-of-the-art military base, though at a large cost. With surface ships being able to refuel while at sea, the US Navy does not need static ports, since it would be a sitting target waiting for destruction. Man made docks could supplement natural island docks to offload supplies as such to the secret base. This would be 21st century military at its finest that limits potential collateral damage to non-combatants.
Kuleana
Post by: Inspector on May 04, 2017, 02:16:24 PM
Palestine against Israel.BTW, Germany, England and the USA in WWII ignored military targets and dropped bombs on/and fire bombed cities.
Hamas against Israel.
Iraq against Saudi Arabia.
North Korea against TBA.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:20:43 PM
"But surely you realize that if you are successful in your efforts to move Hawaii further down the list of "preferred targets" (based upon all your possibly unwarranted assumptions) that some other group of American citizens in another geographical location will be elevated to the incineration list, right? I didn't ask for an apology, I just noted that it was a CYA move."
Although at great cost, the federal government can easily relocate its military forces to a less populated area if it wanted to.
"Please name the possible top five military base geographic locations where they "would not endanger its populace" and/or there would be the least "collateral damage" civilian decimation if your assumptions are correct about enemy targeting. Please also include the ports where the Navy vessels and their "supplies" would be staged."
In the Pacific, there are many islands that the US could transform into a state-of-the-art military base, though at a large cost. With surface ships being able to refuel while at sea, the US Navy does not need static ports, since it would be a sitting target waiting for destruction. Man made docks could supplement natural island docks to offload supplies as such to the secret base. This would be 21st century military at its finest that limits potential collateral damage to non-combatants.
Kuleana
Please list all the programs and benefits the government now pays for you'd prefer they reduce in order to afford these isolated bases you speak of.
Food stamps, Education, Workers Comp, Healthcare, infrastructure, law enforcement, public services, salaries, benefits, retirements, .... Which ones are not so important so that you can feel safer from an attack that will in all probability never happen?
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 02:21:27 PM
Palestine against Israel.
Palestine has no ballistic weaponry.
Hamas against Israel.
Hamas has no ballistic weaponry.
Iraq against Saudi Arabia.
Iraq has not launched any ballistic weaponry to Saudi Arabia that I am not aware of.
North Korea against TBA.
This waits to be seen.
BTW, Germany, England and the USA in WWII ignored military targets and dropped bombs on/and fire bombed cities.
All of those acts were war crimes against humanity.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 04, 2017, 02:25:16 PM
Please list all the programs and benefits the government now pays for you'd prefer they reduce in order to afford these isolated bases you speak of.
Food stamps, Education, Workers Comp, Healthcare, infrastructure, law enforcement, public services, salaries, benefits, retirements, .... Which ones are not so important so that you can feel safer from an attack that will in all probability never happen?
What makes you think a ballistic missile attack from a military peer is not possible?
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:25:39 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_rocket_attacks_on_Israel
https://www.idfblog.com/facts-figures/rocket-attacks-toward-israel/
(http://i.imgur.com/Zm4HuxA.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/47fjXY8.jpg)
I also read on a 1993 website that Hawaii sold Palestine all of our ICBMs, too. :rofl:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:26:23 PM
POSSIBLE is not the same as PROBABLE.
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 02:28:11 PM
"But surely you realize that if you are successful in your efforts to move Hawaii further down the list of "preferred targets" (based upon all your possibly unwarranted assumptions) that some other group of American citizens in another geographical location will be elevated to the incineration list, right? I didn't ask for an apology, I just noted that it was a CYA move."My current job is in facilities and I am also very aware of logistics. What you appear to be proposing is equivalent to an exercise in "what ifs" on the magnitude of "what if the US were to return all native lands to their rightful indigenous people".
Although at great cost, the federal government can easily relocate its military forces to a less populated area if it wanted to.
"Please name the possible top five military base geographic locations where they "would not endanger its populace" and/or there would be the least "collateral damage" civilian decimation if your assumptions are correct about enemy targeting. Please also include the ports where the Navy vessels and their "supplies" would be staged."
In the Pacific, there are many islands that the US could transform into a state-of-the-art military base, though at a large cost. With surface ships being able to refuel while at sea, the US Navy does not need static ports, since it would be a sitting target waiting for destruction. Man made docks could supplement natural island docks to offload supplies as such to the secret base. This would be 21st century military at its finest that limits potential collateral damage to non-combatants.
Kuleana
Why are you so worried about collateral damage? There will always be collateral damage and you can't really control that. You could never have a nation where the military is completely isolated and separated from the "non-combatants". You'd have a situation where the military was pretty much it's own nation.
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 02:32:52 PM
BTW, Germany, England and the USA in WWII ignored military targets and dropped bombs on/and fire bombed cities.Really? You think those V2s weren't aimed a "military installations" in downtown London?
Kuleana's claim that an enemy wouldn't target a non-military target is both pure speculation and wishful thinking, and ignores all history. Especially if such a target was one of the only ones within the range and accuracy of its nuclear delivery vehicles. If those V2s had had the range to reach New York City that's where they would have gone... maybe a few to Boston and D.C., regardless of any lack of significant military targets in those locations. And I'm not very knowledgeable re "war crimes", but I'm pretty sure in all recent "wars" and "conflicts" that each "side" has committed what at least some people would consider fits the definition of "war crimes". Those definitions don't seem to have really prevented their occurrence. I'd guess that North Korea is no different.
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 02:43:39 PM
Really? You think those V2s weren't aimed a "military installations" in downtown London?In the case of N Korea, Iran and other "radical" states, I would have to agree. They don't care anything about rules of engagement, international law, etc.
Kuleana's claim that an enemy wouldn't target a non-military target is both pure speculation and wishful thinking, and ignores all history. Especially if such a target was one of the only ones within the range and accuracy of its nuclear delivery vehicles. If those V2s had had the range to reach New York City that's where they would have gone... maybe a few to Boston and D.C., regardless of any lack of significant military targets in those locations. And I'm not very knowledgeable re "war crimes", but I'm pretty sure in all recent "wars" and "conflicts" that each "side" has committed what at least some people would consider fits the definition of "war crimes". Those definitions don't seem to have really prevented their occurrence. I'd guess that North Korea is no different.
This situation made me remember the movie Independence Day. If one "group" is really going to strike, strike nerve centers and I would think that is a wide range of targets and not necessarily just military targets. That said, I am not a great student of history nor modern warfare.
Post by: davgdavg on May 04, 2017, 02:44:23 PM
This is a bit like, "Inconcievable." "Ballistic weaponry" doesn't mean what you think it means. It means pretty much any projectile. A bullet is a ballistic weapon. You mean to say MRBMs or ICBMs I think.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:45:21 PM
Really? You think those V2s weren't aimed a "military installations" in downtown London?
Kuleana's claim that an enemy wouldn't target a non-military target is both pure speculation and wishful thinking, and ignores all history. Especially if such a target was one of the only ones within the range and accuracy of its nuclear delivery vehicles. If those V2s had had the range to reach New York City that's where they would have gone... maybe a few to Boston and D.C., regardless of any lack of significant military targets in those locations. And I'm not very knowledgeable re "war crimes", but I'm pretty sure in all recent "wars" and "conflicts" that each "side" has committed what at least some people would consider fits the definition of "war crimes". Those definitions don't seem to have really prevented their occurrence. I'd guess that North Korea is no different.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been justified by nearly every historian, even though the collateral damage was immense. The projected loss of life had the war continued would have dwarfed the thousands killed in the bombings.
Demonstrating the ability and resolve to annihilate Japan finally forced them to surrender. Had they continued to have any hope of winning, the resulting death and destruction for all sides would have continued.
Although we targeted industrial military complexes, we also chose heavily populated areas (relatively heavy -- not many places in Japan aren't well-populated).
Depending on the intent of the mission, it might be more advantageous to strike population centers to break the will of the nation to continue fighting. Willingness to fight often means more than having a high readiness to fight.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:51:11 PM
Post by: davgdavg on May 04, 2017, 02:54:18 PM
Palestine against Israel.
Hamas against Israel.
Iraq against Saudi Arabia.
North Korea against TBA.
While I like the point and agree, there is no "Palestine." there is a Palestinian Authority and Hamas, both of which are located in Gaza and claim to represent the Arabs located throughout Israel and Gaza, but they have no state. (Nor have they ever had a state, government, language, money, military, etc. They are simply Arabs inhabiting a particular place.) Hezbollah is the other main terrorist group that launches attacks from Lebanon.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 02:59:30 PM
While I like the point and agree, there is no "Palestine." there is a Palestinian Authority and Hamas, both of which are located in Gaza and claim to represent the Arabs located throughout Israel and Gaza, but they have no state. (Nor have they ever had a state, government, language, money, military, etc. They are simply Arabs inhabiting a particular place.) Hezbollah is the other main terrorist group that launches attacks from Lebanon.
Before Hamas was a recognized group, the PLO was a terrorist group in Gaza. The UN now recognizes Palestine as a legitimate state. Things have shifted, but the history of the two groups aggression against Israel still exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestine
Post by: omnigun on May 04, 2017, 03:25:14 PM
I guess your reading comprehension is at zero along with your knowledge about about this subject. I never said anything about you valuing truth and clarity. I said I value truth and clarity. I quoted you when you said you value knowledge. Get it straight, I wrote it clear enough for someone with even poor reading comprehension to understand.
There you go back tracking again from your statement about valuing knowledge. Two different things here. Or don't you understand the difference? You value knowledge. I value truth. Which has to involve facts. But knowledge does not have to involve facts.
This is utterly wrong. "Truth" can be based on zero facts and zero evidence. For example you can believe in the truth of god but you have zero facts or evidence to back this up. "Truth is highly subjective and based on opinions. While knowledge is more decentralized from emotions.
What planet are you on? Clarity has nothing to do with emotions except for your hysterics here.
Clarity is something that makes sense to yourself. You can make sense of anything and it doesn't have to have basis in facts. Not sure what to do to make you understand this...
Yes, it is quite obvious. You are back tracking and and trying to wiggle out from underneath the truth of your previous statements because I showed you and everyone else here that knowledge is not truth. Knowledge can be as much a lie as it can be truth. It depends on what you want to believe. Combined with my exposing your back tracking and you obviously realize you need to change what you said in order to make yourself look not as foolish as you did the first time. Unfortunately, you are looking more and more foolish every time you try to back track on your previous statement.
knowl·edge
ˈnäləj/
noun
1.facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
2.awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
I still stand by the fact that "truth" is more relative than knowledge.
Now you are being a hypocrite. If you seek knowledge then you could just as easily seek fake news. Because fake news appears as knowledge to the naive. And if truth is ambiguous as you said, then why would you now back track and say you seek truth? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Maybe you can explain to everyone here how truth is ambiguous. I want to see what you think about this.
Did you just skip over the first sentence of my reply I said i used the word truth incorrectly there....I don't "seek truth" by my definitions. I seek fact.
Truth is ambiguous because you can believe anything to be true. You don't need facts to back this up. You can believe gods existence is truth. You have nothing to back this up. You can believe in the "truth" that the government has conspiracies with no real fact. Just cause you believe something is true doesn't make it so. Knowledge is like science its gathering ALL facts, then because you know all the facts you know the answer
That is absolutely false. For me, I have no predisposition to what I want something to be. I seek the truth. If it means that climate change as you define it is true then I would believe it in the exact same way you do.
I really have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't care about your other conversations you are having here.
Then provide proof that 97% of all climate scientists agree and know exactly what percentage of climate change that man affects? I dared you in another thread to provide that percentage and you ignored me. The fact is no one knows. Not even the lying scientists. How can you say you value "proof" when you won't even consider the fact that man may only be affecting the climate 0.000000000000000001%? And the proof that no one knows doesn't figure in with your ideology so you ignored my question the last time. The only correct answer here is a
percentage.
Literally posted this probably 5 times
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm
It absolutely has to be clear to be the truth. What have you been smoking my dear boy? If something is not clear then it would be left up to multiple interpretations. Only one interpretation can be true. Otherwise it cannot be considered truth. The truth can not be left open to multiple interpretations. For something to be the truth everyone has to agree on the same thing. If it can be left open to interpretation then it is a theory or such. But it cannot be the truth.
Give me an example of something you don't understand but can show proof that it is true. Would you not have to have at least some understanding of something for it to be true? Otherwise what you are doing is blind truth and that is nothing more than a belief or faith. Like religion.
Prove its true.
Wait what? Ok is partial physics clear to you? Is quantum mechanics clear to you? Are both of these "true"? My friend truth is more of something you BELIEVE not something that is fact. Hence personal truths and beliefs...
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 03:36:53 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on May 04, 2017, 03:46:31 PM
Omni - Do you mean "partial" physics? Or particle physics?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
maybe he means "physics at heart"
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 03:49:19 PM
maybe he means "physics at heart"Truth and clarity... lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on May 04, 2017, 04:23:38 PM
Truth and clarity... lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
97% of scientists who believe in partial physics think that it is truth and clarity
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on May 04, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
97% of scientists who believe in partial physics think that it is truth and clarity
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh, wait
Omimpotent is going to a blame it on spell check...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 04, 2017, 04:26:07 PM
97% of scientists who believe in partial physics think that it is truth and clarity
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Partial Physics just have to follow known properties more times than not.
Post by: drck1000 on May 04, 2017, 04:47:53 PM
They were talking/covering THAAD on the radio today.
A Korean village objections are primarily about possible pollution of local environment and basic presence of US. They want peace discussion without US forces. What do they think would happen if US forces weren't there or S Korea wasn't supported by the US?
China's objection was in effect of that they view the US gaining an upper hand in middle defense and thus cease to view China's nuclear capability as a deterrent. Yeah, I can see that. So China is having their people boycott S Korea business, travel, etc and seems like that hurting S Korea pretty bad. Just more aspects of the game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on May 04, 2017, 05:44:20 PM
Since you didn't quote me specifically like I did you, I am not going to pick through everything to go point by point.
I will say this about your idea of truth. Your idea of truth is individualistic. Not the same for society as a whole. Society as a whole has to agree on certain facts as the truth in order to operate as a lawful society. Your viewpoint of truth deals with individual beliefs. I know this because your narcissism shows through in all your posts. This is fine, I understand. I am trying to let you know where our differences lie. In individual truths you can believe what you want to believe in a free society. Whether in reality it is actually the truth or not is debatable. But in a society we have to agree to certain things, otherwise we cannot exist as a society. I will use a simplified example here. Society believes the earth is round. Their beliefs are due to photos taken from space so they see and the belief is common to most. Yet there may still be a few individualistic types that believe what a few people tell them that the earth is flat. The individual believes what he wants and to him it is real. And to him it's may be the truth even though it is not based on any facts. But it is not the truth as society agrees. This is where we differ. You are keeping it individualistic and I am speaking about society at large.
Your definition of clarity is the same. It is based on an individualistic view and I was speaking in terms of speaking to make others understand and be clear on the same matter. This is where we again differ. When society as a whole is clear and agrees about the same facts it is neither emotional nor is it based on only a belief like an individual might believe. Again, clarity in the terms I was speaking is for the masses not individual as you stated.
The link you keep saying that you posted 5 times does not answer my question. Perhaps you don't understand my question? Or perhaps I am missing something in the link you provided? If you believe it does answer my question, please cut and paste the paragraph in your link that you believe answers my question.
You stated you don't understand "partial" physics and you said it isn't clear to you yet you said it is true. I asked you to prove to me that "partial" physics is true. I have never heard of "partial" physics so I Googled it and I still can't find anything about "partial" physics. So I am asking you prove its true since you said you believe it is.
Post by: Inspector on May 04, 2017, 05:50:14 PM
Oh, waitHe can't blame it on spell check. He typed it twice in two different posts. He is not that lazy. Or maybe he is.....
Omimpotent is going to a blame it on spell check...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on May 04, 2017, 06:09:33 PM
Somewhat back to topic.I was reading a Forbes article about this. It seems it is affecting up to 20% of SK GDP. Yet the banks are predicting a 2.5% growth rate for SK. Also, I read that the boycott is starting to lose some of its legs. So it may not last much longer. The big point they made is that it will continue until China sees what the new SK president is going to do. The idea is that as long as the system is only partially in place the new president could be convinced to have it removed by continuing the economic pressure.
They were talking/covering THAAD on the radio today.
A Korean village objections are primarily about possible pollution of local environment and basic presence of US. They want peace discussion without US forces. What do they think would happen if US forces weren't there or S Korea wasn't supported by the US?
China's objection was in effect of that they view the US gaining an upper hand in middle defense and thus cease to view China's nuclear capability as a deterrent. Yeah, I can see that. So China is having their people boycott S Korea business, travel, etc and seems like that hurting S Korea pretty bad. Just more aspects of the game.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on May 04, 2017, 07:24:31 PM
Omni,
Since you didn't quote me specifically like I did you, I am not going to pick through everything to go point by point.
I will say this about your idea of truth. Your idea of truth is individualistic. Not the same for society as a whole. Society as a whole has to agree on certain facts as the truth in order to operate as a lawful society. Your viewpoint of truth deals with individual beliefs. I know this because your narcissism shows through in all your posts. This is fine, I understand. I am trying to let you know where our differences lie. In individual truths you can believe what you want to believe in a free society. Whether in reality it is actually the truth or not is debatable. But in a society we have to agree to certain things, otherwise we cannot exist as a society. I will use a simplified example here. Society believes the earth is round. Their beliefs are due to photos taken from space so they see and the belief is common to most. Yet there may still be a few individualistic types that believe what a few people tell them that the earth is flat. The individual believes what he wants and to him it is real. And to him it's may be the truth even though it is not based on any facts. But it is not the truth as society agrees. This is where we differ. You are keeping it individualistic and I am speaking about society at large.
Your definition of clarity is the same. It is based on an individualistic view and I was speaking in terms of speaking to make others understand and be clear on the same matter. This is where we again differ. When society as a whole is clear and agrees about the same facts it is neither emotional nor is it based on only a belief like an individual might believe. Again, clarity in the terms I was speaking is for the masses not individual as you stated.
The link you keep saying that you posted 5 times does not answer my question. Perhaps you don't understand my question? Or perhaps I am missing something in the link you provided? If you believe it does answer my question, please cut and paste the paragraph in your link that you believe answers my question.
You stated you don't understand "partial" physics and you said it isn't clear to you yet you said it is true. I asked you to prove to me that "partial" physics is true. I have never heard of "partial" physics so I Googled it and I still can't find anything about "partial" physics. So I am asking you prove its true since you said you believe it is.
I see, but there is a huge glaring issue with both your "truth and clarity" lets use your example of the truth that the world is round. 200 years ago society as a whole agreed the earth wasn't round. What about that? Truth was wrong.
Your google-fu is quite weak...
par·ti·cle phys·ics
noun
the branch of physics that deals with the properties, relationships, and interactions of subatomic particles.
Post by: omnigun on May 04, 2017, 07:25:48 PM
Omni - Do you mean "partial" physics? Or particle physics?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck. Also I am a little lazy.
Post by: punaperson on May 04, 2017, 07:32:31 PM
I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck. Also I am a little lazy.I guess that's one word for it. :rofl: :shaka:
Post by: robtmc on May 04, 2017, 08:06:24 PM
With surface ships being able to refuel while at sea, the US Navy does not need static ports,You really ought to stop embarrassing yourself in this thread.
Even to a profoundly non-swabbie, this statement is so over the top ignorant.
Post by: London808 on May 04, 2017, 08:45:59 PM
Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ? Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.
Post by: Inspector on May 05, 2017, 04:41:28 AM
I see, but there is a huge glaring issue with both your "truth and clarity" lets use your example of the truth that the world is round. 200 years ago society as a whole agreed the earth wasn't round. What about that? Truth was wrong.You cannot change what I said to fit your ideology. I suggest you go back and read what I wrote. First of all, my example used the FACT that society has PROOF the world is round. Second, back when you are referring to there was no PROOF. Therefore all they had was THEORY and INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS. Don't try and change the meaning of my words just because you have no argument.
Your google-fu is quite weak...My ability to use Google is sound, correct and strong. Your ability to spell and in turn provide truth and clarity to those you converse with is widely subject to ridicule. Especially compared to your laziness in typing "partial" instead of partical NUMEROUS TIMES!!!! And you have the nerve to try and tell me I'm wrong? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
par·ti·cle phys·ics
noun
the branch of physics that deals with the properties, relationships, and interactions of subatomic particles.
Does this sound familiar?
I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck. Also I am a little lazy.
You think? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Now, let's get back to the question I keep presenting to you that you keep avoiding. Your link does not provide the answer to what percentage does humankind actually affect the climate. And I know that if your link did, you would have no problems posting the paragraph with the answer to try and show me up. So now I have to either assume you don't understand the question or you know there is no answer to the question in the link you keep providing. Thereby negating your climate change fantasy. Are you going to continue to ignore my question or you going to provide the answer from the link you provided or are you finally going to admit you are wrong about your climate fantasies?
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 07:00:55 AM
Hawaii would be a target no matter if the military was here or not,
Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ? Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.
Totally wrong.
Japan did not have the resources available or foolish enough to launch an invasion of Hawaii. At least half of its army was tied down in its conquests in Asia. The Japanese objective in 1941 was to eliminate the US Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor, as to keep the Americans out from interfering with its own imperialist wars of resource accumulation in their part of the World.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 07:05:27 AM
You really ought to stop embarrassing yourself in this thread.
Even to a profoundly non-swabbie, this statement is so over the top ignorant.
I really love the emotion driven response I elicited from you. Thanks for your suggestion.
Kuleana
Post by: punaperson on May 05, 2017, 07:13:50 AM
I really love the emotion driven response I elicited from you.Now that is an "emotion driven response" if ever there was one. I'd say "pot, meet kettle", but since pots are deaf, dumb, blind, etc., introducing one to the other would be pointless.
And, yes, the above is an "emotion driven response" from me... not like all your emotionless rational objective "peace-oriented" posts in this thread.
Post by: drck1000 on May 05, 2017, 07:17:41 AM
I noticed "things" in your postings, but I don't think it's all due to spellcheck mistakes or lack of spellcheck. To me, it seems like you hear nuggets of what others drop as knowledge that you agree/like and try to parrot in an attempt to try to contribute to conversations where you clearly are swimming, as in not on solid ground.
I do misspell often if you didn't notice combination of spellcheck and lack of spellcheck. Also I am a little lazy.
Personally, I find that amusing. I have been trying to give you benefit of the doubt (not that you need it from anyone) in that are you just trying to get a rise out of some members, genuinely believe the things you are stating, or something else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 07:27:47 AM
Now that is an "emotion driven response" if ever there was one. I'd say "pot, meet kettle", but since pots are deaf, dumb, blind, etc., introducing one to the other would be pointless.
And, yes, the above is an "emotion driven response" from me... not like all your emotionless rational objective "peace-oriented" posts in this thread.
Keep all your personal attacks coming. People are watching and remembering.
Kuleana
Post by: RSN172 on May 05, 2017, 07:54:30 AM
Post by: punaperson on May 05, 2017, 08:05:55 AM
Keep all your personal attacks coming. People are watching and remembering.You're welcome. I'm sure they are.
Kuleana
Post by: davgdavg on May 05, 2017, 08:07:47 AM
Hawaii would be a target no matter if the military was here or not,
Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ? Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.
So true. I always wonder what people think would have happened. If it weren't the Americans, it would have been the Russians or British almost immediately after. The weak are always conquered by the strong. Always have been, always will be.
Post by: London808 on May 05, 2017, 08:57:19 AM
Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ? Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.
The only reason that japan or another country is not in control of Hawaii is because the Unites states is here.
Japan controlled a shit ton of the islands in the pacific and america had to recapture them 1 by 1, The only reason they could do so is because they held Hawaii. If Japan held Hawaii first then it would of been America making the 4k mile trip with a strung out supply chain. It would of totally changed the war in the pacific.
Post by: Jl808 on May 05, 2017, 10:04:01 AM
http://www.ranker.com/list/japanese-wwii-war-crimes/mel-judson
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 10:07:13 AM
Now, let's get back to the question I keep presenting to you that you keep avoiding. Your link does not provide the answer to what percentage does humankind actually affect the climate. And I know that if your link did, you would have no problems posting the paragraph with the answer to try and show me up. So now I have to either assume you don't understand the question or you know there is no answer to the question in the link you keep providing. Thereby negating your climate change fantasy. Are you going to continue to ignore my question or you going to provide the answer from the link you provided or are you finally going to admit you are wrong about your climate fantasies?
The link is basically what you want. It has all the information you need and all the sources. I won't go and do the reading for you. Hell there are even easy graphs on the site...not sure what you want me to do. Do a brief summary?
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 10:12:05 AM
I noticed "things" in your postings, but I don't think it's all due to spellcheck mistakes or lack of spellcheck. To me, it seems like you hear nuggets of what others drop as knowledge that you agree/like and try to parrot in an attempt to try to contribute to conversations where you clearly are swimming, as in not on solid ground.
Personally, I find that amusing. I have been trying to give you benefit of the doubt (not that you need it from anyone) in that are you just trying to get a rise out of some members, genuinely believe the things you are stating, or something else.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't always give my 100% to my arguments here, my level of caring is probably too low to form perfect arguments for everything. I have sort of given up hope. My English is indeed not that great i'll admit that was one of my harder classes in school. Hell I only finished up to 300 level courses in college.
But who doesn't gather knowledge from others and pass it on? I find this statement to be ridiculous. We all learn from others. The reason why it might appear I'm "swimming" is because on this forum people tend to have the same mentality. Thus ganging up and echo cambering themselves to know they are right. When someone outside comes in they are ridiculed and thought of wrong. Same thing would happen if anyone here went to some liberal gun control forum and started to speak.
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 10:21:25 AM
Could you imagine if Hawaii was still a kingdom during WW2 ? Japan would of rolled in here and taken it over for the exzact same reason America stages its military here. Its a jump of point in the pacific.
The only reason that japan or another country is not in control of Hawaii is because the Unites states is here.
Your statement is purely speculative. Yes, if we were in the 20th century or before, it was customary for the major powers of the planet to colonize and/or vassal state smaller sovereign nations. However, in the 21st century, other than the American regime change debacles in the Middle East, there has been no such activity to date.
Japan controlled a shit ton of the islands in the pacific and america had to recapture them 1 by 1, The only reason they could do so is because they held Hawaii. If Japan held Hawaii first then it would of been America making the 4k mile trip with a strung out supply chain. It would of totally changed the war in the pacific.
It was impossible for Japan to mount an adequate invasion of Hawaii and think it could hold it long enough to make it to the continental US. In 1941, Japan was fighting China, had forces spread out all over Southeast Asia, and still had to keep in reserve forces to counter the USSR should Stalin decide on an Asian campaign.
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 10:28:54 AM
I don't always give my 100% to my arguments here, my level of caring is probably too low to form perfect arguments for everything.
RIIIGGGGGHHHHHTTTTT......
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 10:30:56 AM
So true. I always wonder what people think would have happened. If it weren't the Americans, it would have been the Russians or British almost immediately after. The weak are always conquered by the strong. Always have been, always will be.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was an internationally recognized sovereign and neutral state. Russia, Great Britain, France, as well as the US to name a few had formal treaties with Hawaii. Prior to the US, there were incidences where Hawaii had been temporarily taken over, but in each case was able to regain her sovereignty. For the record, it was only the US who illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898. Would some other power occupy Hawaii, if the US returned control of Hawaii to its rightful populace, would be pure speculation.
Kuleana
Post by: drck1000 on May 05, 2017, 10:32:38 AM
I don't always give my 100% to my arguments here, my level of caring is probably too low to form perfect arguments for everything. I have sort of given up hope. My English is indeed not that great i'll admit that was one of my harder classes in school. Hell I only finished up to 300 level courses in college.I was trying to be nice, but I'll spell it out for you. Seems like you are taking the nuggets of knowledge and trying to parrot them here in an attempt to sound intelligent. Dissent, in case, particle aren't super difficult words. But I can see how if they are heard by some "expert" on TV or radio that people take them and convey them in the way you do. I see if all the time when people want to seem knowledgeable but lack the discipline or intelligence to learn more about what they are talking about. Better to keep quiet and be though ignorant then to open your mouth and remove ALL doubt.
But who doesn't gather knowledge from others and pass it on? I find this statement to be ridiculous. We all learn from others. The reason why it might appear I'm "swimming" is because on this forum people tend to have the same mentality. Thus ganging up and echo cambering themselves to know they are right. When someone outside comes in they are ridiculed and thought of wrong. Same thing would happen if anyone here went to some liberal gun control forum and started to speak.
And I don't agree with everyone here. I even disagree with people that I generally see eye to eye with. I am not ganging up on anyone. If anyone spew stupid shit, I will call them on it. Just that you happen to spew stupid shit pretty often.
Yeah, sometimes people are true visionaries and see things the masses don't see. However, when you always find yourself swimming upstream, maybe there is something else going on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 10:46:03 AM
Your statement is purely speculative. Yes, if we were in the 20th century or before, it was customary for the major powers of the planet to colonize and/or vassal state smaller sovereign nations. However, in the 21st century, other than the American regime change debacles in the Middle East, there has been no such activity to date.
As is your statement that Hawaii is on the top 5 list of targets,
that Japan would not have attacked Hawaii had the US not had its fleet here,
and that removing the military presence in Hawaii would no longer make Hawaii a high priority target.
Militarily or not, you have no supporting information to explain why your speculative statements hold any water. It's all part of a product of your imagination.
Hawaii is important to the US in many ways. Military is only one facet. You have no idea what the future WWIII opponents will see as their highest priority objectives. The US has global reach via a dozen or more weapons systems. Yet you think the next conflict will be fought just like WWII.
Amazing.
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 10:48:16 AM
As is your statement that Hawaii is on the top 5 list of targets,
that Japan would not have attacked Hawaii had the US not had its fleet here,
and that removing the military presence in Hawaii would no longer make Hawaii a high priority target.
and that there are/were ICBMs in hawaii...
Post by: Inspector on May 05, 2017, 11:01:02 AM
The link is basically what you want. It has all the information you need and all the sources. I won't go and do the reading for you. Hell there are even easy graphs on the site...not sure what you want me to do. Do a brief summary?Your reading comprehension is getting worse and worse. There is nothing in that link nor accompanying links that you provided that even comes close to answering my question. But I suspect you know that and are deflecting because you can't provide an answer. I know if you had a way of providing an answer, you would. Face it, you don't know the answer to my question and neither do 97% of all climate scientists. That my dear Omni blows a huge hole in all of the climate change science that you personally believe in. Without that one tidbit of knowledge there is no way of knowing HOW MUCH man affects the climate. And 97% of all climate scientists agree that they don't know either.
I'm done with this discussion since you are just deflecting and denying. Good luck with the rest of your discussions.
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 12:53:57 PM
As is your statement that Hawaii is on the top 5 list of targets,
that Japan would not have attacked Hawaii had the US not had its fleet here,
and that removing the military presence in Hawaii would no longer make Hawaii a high priority target.
Militarily or not, you have no supporting information to explain why your speculative statements hold any water. It's all part of a product of your imagination.
Hawaii is important to the US in many ways. Military is only one facet. You have no idea what the future WWIII opponents will see as their highest priority objectives. The US has global reach via a dozen or more weapons systems. Yet you think the next conflict will be fought just like WWII.
In all of your tirades in trying to disprove my position, you also have not provided any credible sources or documents to substantiate your own counter views. How do you know Hawaii is not a prime target in the event of WWIII or how WWIII would be fought? Did President Trump or the JCS give you a briefing or did you receive government assessment documents that disprove my contentions? If not, you only offered your own opinions, obviously supported by other forum members' opinions in this post.
Amazing.
Your are totally right. Very amazing indeed.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 12:55:44 PM
and that there are/were ICBMs in hawaii...
No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.
Kuleana
Post by: Inspector on May 05, 2017, 12:59:27 PM
and that there are/were ICBMs in hawaii...How would one go about proving that missile silos never existed in Hawaii? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 01:00:55 PM
No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.
lol, you made the claim, and then backtracked
and your only documentation was a 30+ year old magazine with uncited sources
Post by: davgdavg on May 05, 2017, 01:01:08 PM
The Kingdom of Hawaii was an internationally recognized sovereign and neutral state. Russia, Great Britain, France, as well as the US to name a few had formal treaties with Hawaii. Prior to the US, there were incidences where Hawaii had been temporarily taken over, but in each case was able to regain her sovereignty. For the record, it was only the US who illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898. Would some other power occupy Hawaii, if the US returned control of Hawaii to its rightful populace, would be pure speculation.
Your statement is purely speculative. Yes, if we were in the 20th century or before, it was customary for the major powers of the planet to colonize and/or vassal state smaller sovereign nations. However, in the 21st century, other than the American regime change debacles in the Middle East, there has been no such activity to date.
Kuleana
A free trade agreement is not a peace or non-aggression pact. Almost every country an imperial power conquers starts off with normal trade. Then they realize, "Hey, wait a second, we can just take this stuff!" and they do. I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the false impression that the world is fair and peaceful. "No Gun Zone" signs don't work, nor does simply declaring sovereignty without the means to back it up. Besides, what's to say Hawaii wouldn't have almost immediately regressed to island vs. island warfare? Besides, what the "Sovereign Hawaii" people don't want to ever talk about is that Kamehameha got in bed with the Americans for their arms and technologies- the arms he used to conquer the other islands. If it weren't for the Americans, Hawaii would have never been unified in the first place. All in all, no matter how you look at it, Hawaii was simply too primitive while being too strategically and resourcefully important.
As for London808 being speculative, no, in the 21st century: plenty of native peoples have been displaced in S. America, Russia has annexed Crimea, China would have taken over a lot of the S. China sea if it weren't for the U.S., Pakistan and India still are fighting over Kashmir, Turkey and others continue to occupy Kurdish territory, etc. Besides, if colonization stopped, it wasn't for any moral reasons, it was simply because there was no more worthwhile territory to be had.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 01:05:21 PM
lol, you made the claim, and then backtracked
and your only documentation was a 30+ year old magazine with uncited sources
... which said "nuclear warheads", not "ICBMs".
Post by: punaperson on May 05, 2017, 01:23:27 PM
No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.1. Besides the impossibility of proving a negative ((as Inspector noted)... you can't prove that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy don't exist), 2. you would seem to be implying that without official government documents to the contrary, any and all (speculated) events are equally probable (e.g. Roswell alien encounter, etc.). And that, of course, doesn't take into account that numerous government "denials" have a history of being false (e.g. See Nixon's administration creation of fraudulent documents denying the bombings of Cambodia and Laos; etc., etc., etc.).
Other than that, good point.
Post by: Inspector on May 05, 2017, 01:29:16 PM
1. Besides the impossibility of proving a negative ((as Inspector noted)...Damn, that was a good catch. I often think most of my sarcastic remarks go unnoticed or unappreciated. :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 01:38:16 PM
The Kingdom of Hawaii was an internationally recognized sovereign and neutral state. Russia, Great Britain, France, as well as the US to name a few had formal treaties with Hawaii. Prior to the US, there were incidences where Hawaii had been temporarily taken over, but in each case was able to regain her sovereignty. For the record, it was only the US who illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898. Would some other power occupy Hawaii, if the US returned control of Hawaii to its rightful populace, would be pure speculation.
Kuleana
China took over tibet.....and taiwan...and not a single shit was done.
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 01:43:51 PM
I was trying to be nice, but I'll spell it out for you. Seems like you are taking the nuggets of knowledge and trying to parrot them here in an attempt to sound intelligent. Dissent, in case, particle aren't super difficult words. But I can see how if they are heard by some "expert" on TV or radio that people take them and convey them in the way you do. I see if all the time when people want to seem knowledgeable but lack the discipline or intelligence to learn more about what they are talking about. Better to keep quiet and be though ignorant then to open your mouth and remove ALL doubt.
And I don't agree with everyone here. I even disagree with people that I generally see eye to eye with. I am not ganging up on anyone. If anyone spew stupid shit, I will call them on it. Just that you happen to spew stupid shit pretty often.
Yeah, sometimes people are true visionaries and see things the masses don't see. However, when you always find yourself swimming upstream, maybe there is something else going on.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Its already known I suck at spelling. Mixture of spellcheck and me being actually bad at it. But if that is your crux of your argument that's kinda sad... I mean there are far worse offenders out there like london808 yet I mainly catch flack. Believe what you want to believe if someone says something you don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong. Also I find many people here get their info from some conspiracy sites or crazy radio hosts. I personally watch none and listen to none. Glen beck, infowars and other similar sites are dumb. So is the other side of the spectrum like salon etc. For my facts I like to get multiple sources saying the same thing with sources. That means more than one or a few people saying one thing. Like I said before I do not really take enough time to do thorough enough arguments here. I guess thats my bad but I don't have the time to research and write term papers for every single argument. I try with what time and effort I give and voice my opinion here.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 02:03:26 PM
Its already known I suck at spelling. Mixture of spellcheck and me being actually bad at it. But if that is your crux of your argument that's kinda sad... I mean there are far worse offenders out there like london808 yet I mainly catch flack. Believe what you want to believe if someone says something you don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong. Also I find many people here get their info from some conspiracy sites or crazy radio hosts. I personally watch none and listen to none. Glen beck, infowars and other similar sites are dumb. So is the other side of the spectrum like salon etc. For my facts I like to get multiple sources saying the same thing with sources. That means more than one or a few people saying one thing. Like I said before I do not really take enough time to do thorough enough arguments here. I guess thats my bad but I don't have the time to research and write term papers for every single argument. I try with what time and effort I give and voice my opinion here.
Please define your understanding of "many", and provide a statistical or mathematical quantity for the volume of info you claim came from "conspiracy sites."
That's a typical deflection Liberals use, just like the "common sense" fallacy previously pointed out. You can't toss out words like "many" and "conspiracy sites" as if it's fact and have no idea how to quantify it.
Funny how you don't have time the research everything you post, yet you somehow believe everything you argue for is fact or truth or knowledge.
:sleeping:
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 02:09:48 PM
lol, you made the claim, and then backtracked
and your only documentation was a 30+ year old magazine with uncited sources
lol, you are not keeping score very well or mentioning that no one else has presented or uploaded any highly credible sources to justify their positions.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 02:16:33 PM
lol, you are not keeping score very well or mentioning that no one else has presented or uploaded any highly credible sources to justify their positions.
I have no documents proving the non-existence of ICBMs in Hawaii, but I do have historical publications listing the locations of actual ICBM silos in the US throughout the Cold War. By logical deductive reasoning, it is provable that operational ICBM silos did not exist in Hawaii --- ever.
You have no documentation to the contrary, even though you stated ICBMs in fact existed here.
Can't argue with a brick wall. Either you understand logic and reality, or you prefer to believe in imaginary missiles.
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 02:21:17 PM
Please define your understanding of "many", and provide a statistical or mathematical quantity for the volume of info you claim came from "conspiracy sites."
That's a typical deflection Liberals use, just like the "common sense" fallacy previously pointed out. You can't toss out words like "many" and "conspiracy sites" as if it's fact and have no idea how to quantify it.
Funny how you don't have time the research everything you post, yet you somehow believe everything you argue for is fact or truth or knowledge.
:sleeping:
Sure after complaining about not having enough time or effort to look everything up let me go ahead and find every past post everyone here and compile a database for which comes from "conspiracy sites" I do however think I remember you using infowars before. And i know you do believe in many retarded conspiracies from previous arguments.
Its like you didn't even read what I wrote...sigh....inb4 people flame but 90%+ of scientists believe in climate change. That's "many" or the majority. You don't need to have perfection arguments to argue every topic. But when you have major scientific consensus that's normally good enough for most people.
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 02:24:32 PM
A free trade agreement is not a peace or non-aggression pact. Almost every country an imperial power conquers starts off with normal trade. Then they realize, "Hey, wait a second, we can just take this stuff!" and they do. I'm sorry, but you seem to be under the false impression that the world is fair and peaceful. "No Gun Zone" signs don't work, nor does simply declaring sovereignty without the means to back it up. Besides, what's to say Hawaii wouldn't have almost immediately regressed to island vs. island warfare? Besides, what the "Sovereign Hawaii" people don't want to ever talk about is that Kamehameha got in bed with the Americans for their arms and technologies- the arms he used to conquer the other islands. If it weren't for the Americans, Hawaii would have never been unified in the first place. All in all, no matter how you look at it, Hawaii was simply too primitive while being too strategically and resourcefully important.
First of all, Kamehameha I did not seek help from the Americans, he received help from the British to unify the islands. The Americans did not come into play until they illegally annexed Hawaii in 1898.
As for London808 being speculative, no, in the 21st century: plenty of native peoples have been displaced in S. America, Russia has annexed Crimea, China would have taken over a lot of the S. China sea if it weren't for the U.S., Pakistan and India still are fighting over Kashmir, Turkey and others continue to occupy Kurdish territory, etc. Besides, if colonization stopped, it wasn't for any moral reasons, it was simply because there was no more worthwhile territory to be had.
First of all, Russia did not annex Crimea, the Crimean people held a referendum to secede from Ukraine. Second, China could have taken all of Southeast Asia for itself long before America was a nation, but never did. Colonization of the planet loss it flavor because it became more profitable to make those nations dependent on the major countries than financially administer them outright.
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 02:29:35 PM
lol, you are not keeping score very well or mentioning that no one else has presented or uploaded any highly credible sources to justify their positions.
sorry, you made the claim that there still are icbms, then said there were in the cold war, than backtracked three times, and cited "peace magazine"
and yet you are asking us for government documentation
once again, you made the original statements, it's on you to provide support other than uncited reading material
no one needs to disprove you, you have yet to prove anything
that's why i said you might as well have said there are UFOs stored on bases on oahu
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 02:29:42 PM
I have no documents proving the non-existence of ICBMs in Hawaii, but I do have historical publications listing the locations of actual ICBM silos in the US throughout the Cold War. By logical deductive reasoning, it is provable that operational ICBM silos did not exist in Hawaii --- ever.
You maybe right, but you are still making an assumption that those historical publications are telling the whole truth. By the way, who published those documents you reference?
You have no documentation to the contrary, even though you stated ICBMs in fact existed here.
True, it is my contention that awaits to be disproved.
Can't argue with a brick wall. Either you understand logic and reality, or you prefer to believe in imaginary missiles.
Your logical reasoning in this matter does not mean truth, it just means your contention has evidence, which does not automatically disprove the alternative view.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 02:30:45 PM
sorry, you made the claim that there still are icbms, then said there were in the cold war, than backtracked three times, and cited "peace magazine"
and yet you are asking us for government documentation
once again, you made the original statements, it's on you to provide support other than uncited reading material
no one needs to disprove you, you have yet to prove anything
that's why i said you might as well have said there are UFOs stored on bases on oahu
Based on your standards, it remains to be proven one way or the other.
Post by: Inspector on May 05, 2017, 02:38:23 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 02:54:17 PM
Sure after complaining about not having enough time or effort to look everything up let me go ahead and find every past post everyone here and compile a database for which comes from "conspiracy sites" I do however think I remember you using infowars before. And i know you do believe in many retarded conspiracies from previous arguments.
Its like you didn't even read what I wrote...sigh....inb4 people flame but 90%+ of scientists believe in climate change. That's "many" or the majority. You don't need to have perfection arguments to argue every topic. But when you have major scientific consensus that's normally good enough for most people.
I try to read what you write, but it's so full of incorrect spellings, word usage, horrible grammar and false facts, it's often difficult to decipher if you're as stupid as you seem, of if it's being compounded by a lack of communication skills.
If a "conspiracy site" publishes that Hillary and those on her staff transmitted classified to her own illegal server and to people not authorized to receive it, as was later proven by the FBI, does that make the facts part of a "conspiracy theory"? Do you summarily refuse to believe anything on infowars simply because it's there, with no care taken to verify the facts?
You're the very definition of "narrow minded." If it doesn't fit your world view and is accepted by those you trust as "authorities", you dismiss it out of hand. That's called being prejudiced. Liberals do that alot.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 02:55:47 PM
The documents are public record based on the nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapon free zone treaties.
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 02:59:50 PM
The documents are public record based on the nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear weapon free zone treaties.
Great! Let's pray the US Government is not lying about what they reported.
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 03:04:00 PM
Great! Let's pray the US Government is not lying about what they reported.
You seem to have a tendency to make statements without any supporting facts as if simply typing adds validity.
Unless you have evidence the government is lying, why even make that statement?
Your irrational fears continue to show ....
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 03:10:26 PM
You seem to have a tendency to make statements without any supporting facts as if simply typing adds validity.
Unless you have evidence the government is lying, why even make that statement?
Your irrational fears continue to show ....
Because the US Government has been caught lying to its citizens before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to America's full involvement in the Vietnam War and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 comes to mind.
Kuleana
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 03:14:45 PM
No one has yet provided any official government documentation to the contrary.
Kuleana
you asked for government documentation, then when you get it, you say they can be lying?
wow, just wow
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 03:33:30 PM
you asked for government documentation, then when you get it, you say they can be lying?
wow, just wow
Yes.
I am not saying everything the government issues is a lie, but it would be naïve for anyone to blindly accept everything from the government at face value.
The local Hawaii government reports that the rail is the best thing for Hawaii to ease the commuting from Kapolei to Honolulu. Do you believe in their report on that matter?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 03:49:28 PM
Because the US Government has been caught lying to its citizens before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to America's full involvement in the Vietnam War and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 comes to mind.
Kuleana
But you have no evidence they are lying about ICBMs of which you have no independent proof.
That's not rational.
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 04:02:13 PM
Yes.
I am not saying everything the government issues is a lie, but it would be naïve for anyone to blindly accept everything from the government at face value.
The local Hawaii government reports that the rail is the best thing for Hawaii to ease the commuting from Kapolei to Honolulu. Do you believe in their report on that matter?
deflect, deflect
backtrack, backtrack
la di da di
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 04:40:09 PM
I try to read what you write, but it's so full of incorrect spellings, word usage, horrible grammar and false facts, it's often difficult to decipher if you're as stupid as you seem, of if it's being compounded by a lack of communication skills.
If a "conspiracy site" publishes that Hillary and those on her staff transmitted classified to her own illegal server and to people not authorized to receive it, as was later proven by the FBI, does that make the facts part of a "conspiracy theory"? Do you summarily refuse to believe anything on infowars simply because it's there, with no care taken to verify the facts?
You're the very definition of "narrow minded." If it doesn't fit your world view and is accepted by those you trust as "authorities", you dismiss it out of hand. That's called being prejudiced. Liberals do that alot.
Twice a day a broken clock is right. Same with info wars....some stuff might be correct....much like salon might have correct info once in a while. Doesn't make it the norm. I find that when you said "authorities" its was funniest shit I heard this week, after constantly only citing TRUMP as your sole reference to many things this whole week.
Post by: omnigun on May 05, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
Because the US Government has been caught lying to its citizens before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to America's full involvement in the Vietnam War and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 comes to mind.
Kuleana
You think the citizens of oahu would notice a 150 foot hole and shipment of a 100 foot missile eh? Then kept secret for 50+ years.
Post by: Inspector on May 05, 2017, 05:13:32 PM
Because the US Government has been caught lying to its citizens before. The Gulf of Tonkin incident that led to America's full involvement in the Vietnam War and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 comes to mind.Wait. Am I missing something here? What was the lie about Sadam having WMD's?
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 05:24:32 PM
Twice a day a broken clock is right. Same with info wars....some stuff might be correct....much like salon might have correct info once in a while. Doesn't make it the norm. I find that when you said "authorities" its was funniest shit I heard this week, after constantly only citing TRUMP as your sole reference to many things this whole week.
Please list the two times daily infowars is correct as compared to being wrong. Surely you have stats to back up that slanderous statement.
Where did I only cite Trump as a SOLE reference this whole week? Again, you must have evidence to back that up. If not, then you once again have proven you can't have a mature discussion without falsely accusing others of saying things they never said.
You're becoming very boring. Same old shit, different day. :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
Post by: drck1000 on May 05, 2017, 06:59:57 PM
Its already known I suck at spelling. Mixture of spellcheck and me being actually bad at it. But if that is your crux of your argument that's kinda sad... I mean there are far worse offenders out there like london808 yet I mainly catch flack. Believe what you want to believe if someone says something you don't agree doesn't mean they are wrong. Also I find many people here get their info from some conspiracy sites or crazy radio hosts. I personally watch none and listen to none. Glen beck, infowars and other similar sites are dumb. So is the other side of the spectrum like salon etc. For my facts I like to get multiple sources saying the same thing with sources. That means more than one or a few people saying one thing. Like I said before I do not really take enough time to do thorough enough arguments here. I guess thats my bad but I don't have the time to research and write term papers for every single argument. I try with what time and effort I give and voice my opinion here.Yeah, I notice terrible spelling by others, like London. I can understand what he's trying to say, and same with you. For what it's worth, I don't agree with things he says as well and will provide feedback.
You catch flack because of your statements here. The misuse of words, I mean spelling errors, are just something people make light of because they say you use it as an excuse. I am pretty open minded and I often take time to look at things from many perspectives. I am always learning and trying to learn about and appreciate other points of view. I never said anything about anyone being wrong because they say things I don't agree with. Just that you say things that are so easily broken down with logic and rational thought process. Then when people point those things out, you deflect, make excuses, etc.
To a certain extent I enjoyed pointing out the holes in many of your arguments. Maybe not quite 90% level though... You are just so set in what you believe, which is your prerogative. Just don't expect people to just accept what you say without asking you to back it up.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on May 05, 2017, 07:07:33 PM
Difficult to quote the way your respond.
Official government documentation of non-existence?
Even if it were provided, you wouldn't believe it over the "evidence" you provided previously.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 08:37:57 PM
But you have no evidence they are lying about ICBMs of which you have no independent proof.
The only way Americans found out about the lies regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident was when the government, itself, declassified documents for public viewing years after the Vietnam War. Under your standards, there was no way Americans at that time to know the truth, unless they actually was in the Gulf of Tonkin. Regardless, the US Government lied to the American people to escalate the Vietnam War.
Likewise, with the Iraq War in 2003, there were many skeptical Americans who did not think they had WMDs. But there was no way to prove that position without going to Iraq and looking for them themselves. In the end, those who took the position that there were no WMDs were vindicated by the fact none were found.
The point being made from these two incidents is that just because independent proof was absent at the time these events were transpiring, did not make those who believed the US Government was lying in both cases, not justified in the views that they held at that time.
That's not rational.
In reality, you above all else should know many decisions made by people as well as governments are not always rational, and yet sometimes, turn out to be the correct decision.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 08:41:02 PM
Difficult to quote the way your respond.
Official government documentation of non-existence?
Even if it were provided, you wouldn't believe it over the "evidence" you provided previously.
I said I would not necessarily take anything the government says at face value. I did not say I don't believe in anything the government says.
Very different.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: macsak on May 05, 2017, 08:55:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss2hULhXf04)
Post by: Kuleana on May 05, 2017, 09:06:53 PM
Why do you go to great lengths to mock me?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 05, 2017, 09:45:35 PM
Why do you go to great lengths to mock me?
(http://i.imgur.com/NkJbosA.png)
Post by: punaperson on May 06, 2017, 06:07:54 AM
Why do you go to great lengths to mock me?Translation(s):
1. Why do you point out every inaccuracy and logical inconsistency in what I write, including that I challenge other people's statements as "speculation" while ignoring that my statements are also pure speculation (but which I'm convinced are factual about unknown future events)?
Short version:
2. Why do you (continually) disagree with me?
Post by: Inspector on May 06, 2017, 06:43:42 AM
If Iraq didn't have chemical weapons how was Sadam able to use chemical weapons in the Iran war and on his own Kurdish people just a few years before the first Iraq war? And I believe he used them after the first Iraq war around 91 or 92. This is verified proof he had them. That is not up for debate. So please answer the question, what is the lie about Iraq and chemical weapons leading up to the second Iraq war that you are referring to in your posts? Thanks.
Post by: macsak on May 06, 2017, 07:54:00 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/NkJbosA.png)
lol
it's the first one
i'm done
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
Hey Kuleana,
If Iraq didn't have chemical weapons how was Sadam able to use chemical weapons in the Iran war and on his own Kurdish people just a few years before the first Iraq war? And I believe he used them after the first Iraq war around 91 or 92. This is verified proof he had them. That is not up for debate. So please answer the question, what is the lie about Iraq and chemical weapons leading up to the second Iraq war that you are referring to in your posts? Thanks.
Your evidence is reflective of the years prior to the turn of the century. The question I raise is, "did he have them in the immediate years prior to the invasion of 2003?" and if he did, "why did he not use them against the Americans when they invaded?" Furthermore, after Iraq was occupied by the US, "why were none to be found and officially showcased to the World to justify the invasion?"
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 08:36:02 AM
lol
it's the first one
i'm done
Cool. Love you too Macsak.
Post by: Inspector on May 06, 2017, 09:04:10 AM
Your evidence if reflective of the years prior to the turn of the century. The question I raise is, "did he have them in the immediate years prior to the invasion of 2003?" and if he did, "why did he not use them against the Americans when they invaded?" Furthermore, after Iraq was occupied by the US, "why were none to be found and officially showcased to the World to justify the invasion?"Actually, the NYT printed an article claiming that the government hid the fact that the U.S. troops did find chemical weapons stores between 2004 and 2011.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/100000003173431.mobile.html?_r=1
This might answer some of your questions.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 09:26:15 AM
Actually, the NYT printed an article claiming that the government hid the fact that the U.S. troops did find chemical weapons stores between 2004 and 2011.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/100000003173431.mobile.html?_r=1
This might answer some of your questions.
It always amazes me how the "Bush lied" myth gets so much acceptance and airtime on every medium, but the truth printed by the New York Times only sees the light of day on a one-by-one basis as those still pushing that myth are enlightened.
The narrative is always being controlled by the Left, regardless of how the Left likes to accuse the Right of being the liars.
Post by: Inspector on May 06, 2017, 09:41:53 AM
For me, just the fact that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on their own people just 10 years prior was enough for me to believe they had them. Even so, I did not support the decision to invade Iraq due to not having a plan on what to do after the war. Also, the fact that it was reported during the build up to the war that chemical weapons were shipped off to Syria and a few years later Syria is using chemical weapons on their own people seems like a huge coincidence to me. But what do I know?
It always amazes me how the "Bush lied" myth gets so much acceptance and airtime on every medium, but the truth printed by the New York Times only sees the light of day on a one-by-one basis as those still pushing that myth are enlightened.
The narrative is always being controlled by the Left, regardless of how the Left likes to accuse the Right of being the liars.
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 10:01:39 AM
For me, just the fact that Iraq had and used chemical weapons on their own people just 10 years prior was enough for me to believe they had them. Even so, I did not support the decision to invade Iraq due to not having a plan on what to do after the war. Also, the fact that it was reported during the build up to the war that chemical weapons were shipped off to Syria and a few years later Syria is using chemical weapons on their own people seems like a huge coincidence to me. But what do I know?
Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 10:11:42 AM
It always amazes me how the "Bush lied" myth gets so much acceptance and airtime on every medium, but the truth printed by the New York Times only sees the light of day on a one-by-one basis as those still pushing that myth are enlightened.
The narrative is always being controlled by the Left, regardless of how the Left likes to accuse the Right of being the liars.
Well, at least President Trump shares my contention in regards to WMDs in Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. Please see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-glyn-williams/at-least-trump-got-one-thing-right_b_9612422.html for details.
Kuleana
Post by: Inspector on May 06, 2017, 10:56:20 AM
Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?It was said before and during the war that Sadam and the Iraq army had better not use the chemical weapons. If I remember correctly Bush came out and threatened Sadam saying the retaliation with the use of nuclear weapons was not off the table. He later on stopped saying that. He also threatened Sadam and anyone in the Iraq army that the excuse of just following orders to use chemical weapons will not be a defense to using them in a war crimes court.
Is that enough to thwart the use of chemical weapons? I think it is a good possibility because as we all saw during the war that the Iraq army including the guard was a bunch cowards. But we will never know for sure.
Also, not sure if you read the entire article I posted but I suggest you do as there are other suggestions as to why the chemical weapons may not have been used.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 11:08:01 AM
Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?
He did use them -- or at least tried to. All those SCUD missile attacks from Iraq toward US military bases constituted "USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS", and there are plenty of service member who came hone still exhibiting symptoms of chemical weapons.
Chem weapon detectors were going off almost nightly for weeks as Iraq expended their supplies of rockets and chemical payloads.
There was also the problem of Iraq being under UN sanctions. Inspectors were supposed to ensure the WMDs were not being stored or manufactured after the Kuwait invasion. If the WMDs were discovered, Iraq would have had worse punishments instituted.
During Iraqi Freedom, trucks were seen moving something to Syria, but there was never any intel to identify what or the final destinations. Now we've had chemical weapon attacks in Syria a couple of times at least.
Go figure.
Post by: punaperson on May 06, 2017, 12:14:52 PM
Though I recognize your position and concede to its possibility, it still does not address the question as to why did Saddam did not utilize his WMDs against the Americans during the invasion?This is another example of your (many) unwarranted assumptions. You (rather oversimply) assume that Saddam would have done something, and when he didn't, you demand an explanation, because you assume you are correct in believing that if he had them he would have used them. This is just like all your assumptions about where and why an enemy of the U.S. would or would not attack the U.S.: it is based solely upon your unfounded speculations, which you assume to be "true", and all your "questions" and backtracking follow thence.
Post by: davgdavg on May 06, 2017, 01:18:35 PM
Basically everything you have said in this entire thread is false. For what its worth, Kamehameha ceded Oahu and possibly Kauai to the British in exchange for his help in conquering the other islands, but that doesn't mean he didn't also accept and ask for help/arms from the Americans.
Anyhow, like virtually every other person with your point of view on Hawaiian sovereignty, you just choose to completely ignore historical facts and place the blame on everyone except Kamehameha and his lineage, whom are solely responsible for giving away, selling, and/or losing the islands.
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 01:51:59 PM
It was said before and during the war that Sadam and the Iraq army had better not use the chemical weapons. If I remember correctly Bush came out and threatened Sadam saying the retaliation with the use of nuclear weapons was not off the table. He later on stopped saying that. He also threatened Sadam and anyone in the Iraq army that the excuse of just following orders to use chemical weapons will not be a defense to using them in a war crimes court.
Is that enough to thwart the use of chemical weapons? I think it is a good possibility because as we all saw during the war that the Iraq army including the guard was a bunch cowards. But we will never know for sure.
Also, not sure if you read the entire article I posted but I suggest you do as there are other suggestions as to why the chemical weapons may not have been used.
This is why I conceded that your position may be entirely true. All I am saying is there are a number of credible positions on this matter. The truth will come out eventually like in the case of the Gulf of Tonkin, where the US government itself decided to come clean. Having said that, I do not understand why some posters in this thread are hell bent in keeping a closed mind to other potential outcomes when there exists cases where the prevailing view of a particular event was later determined to be false.
Kuleana
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 02:02:33 PM
This is another example of your (many) unwarranted assumptions. You (rather oversimply) assume that Saddam would have done something, and when he didn't, you demand an explanation, because you assume you are correct in believing that if he had them he would have used them. This is just like all your assumptions about where and why an enemy of the U.S. would or would not attack the U.S.: it is based solely upon your unfounded speculations, which you assume to be "true", and all your "questions" and backtracking follow thence.
You say I keep unwarranted assumptions. Everyone else's counterarguments are based on their own assumptions of what they perceive the truth is as well.
It appears to me that just because you disagree with my contentions, you overanalyze my statements and pass summary judgements based on your own opinion of what you speculate my intentions truly are.
Totally cool with that, but to disqualify my view without presenting any factual documentation of your own, unlike how Inspector has, makes you incredulous.
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 02:08:14 PM
He did use them -- or at least tried to. All those SCUD missile attacks from Iraq toward US military bases constituted "USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS", and there are plenty of service member who came hone still exhibiting symptoms of chemical weapons.Once again, I am not saying what you presented is false, but there is other credulous assessments of what the truth really is that needs to be considered. However, unless you have first-hand eye witness accounts from Iraq, I am sure you and everyone in this forum are not saying that you know more than President Trump does.
Chem weapon detectors were going off almost nightly for weeks as Iraq expended their supplies of rockets and chemical payloads.
There was also the problem of Iraq being under UN sanctions. Inspectors were supposed to ensure the WMDs were not being stored or manufactured after the Kuwait invasion. If the WMDs were discovered, Iraq would have had worse punishments instituted.
During Iraqi Freedom, trucks were seen moving something to Syria, but there was never any intel to identify what or the final destinations. Now we've had chemical weapon attacks in Syria a couple of times at least.
Go figure.
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 02:13:21 PM
Basically everything you have said in this entire thread is false.
Believe what you want. I guess you know more than President Trump does.
For what its worth, Kamehameha ceded Oahu and possibly Kauai to the British in exchange for his help in conquering the other islands, but that doesn't mean he didn't also accept and ask for help/arms from the Americans.
Speculative on your part, but indeed a possibility.
Anyhow, like virtually every other person with your point of view on Hawaiian sovereignty, you just choose to completely ignore historical facts and place the blame on everyone except Kamehameha and his lineage, whom are solely responsible for giving away, selling, and/or losing the islands.
Off topic, but the Annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898 was illegal based on US Constitutional Law; a discussion for another thread.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 03:55:21 PM
This is why I conceded that your position may be entirely true. All I am saying is there are a number of credible positions on this matter. The truth will come out eventually like in the case of the Gulf of Tonkin, where the US government itself decided to come clean. Having said that, I do not understand why some posters in this thread are hell bent in keeping a closed mind to other potential outcomes when there exists cases where the prevailing view of a particular event was later determined to be false.
Kuleana
LOL!! What you call a closed mind I call an opinion based on the accepted facts.
Is what you are trying to push in the realm of possibility? Yes, but so are extraterrestrials.
Is what you are trying to push more likely than what us "closed minded people" believe. Hell no!
To you, reasonable-thinking = closed-minded. I hope to hell you are on the jury for my murder trial. "Reasonable Doubt" to you would include just about every theory you can imagine, and a few that you can't!
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 03:58:51 PM
Once again, I am not saying what you presented is false, but there is other credulous assessments of what the truth really is that needs to be considered. However, unless you have first-hand eye witness accounts from Iraq, I am sure you and everyone in this forum are not saying that you know more than President Trump does.
Is secondhand good enough for you? I may not have been deployed, but I was in contact with those from my unit while the SCUDs were flying.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 04:07:36 PM
Once again, I am not saying what you presented is false, but there is other credulous assessments of what the truth really is that needs to be considered. However, unless you have first-hand eye witness accounts from Iraq, I am sure you and everyone in this forum are not saying that you know more than President Trump does.
You keep repeating that we must not know more than President Trump does. Trump was not in the military in the 90s and beyond. He was not the CinC before 2017. He should not be expected to know more than those with decades of military and DoD civilian/contractor service.
Why is Trump your "go to" litmus test for the information we have?
Trump gets briefs and has access to current INTEL on the situations in the world. He is not going to be the Captain of the destroyer launching Tomahawks. He's not flying the drones that take out terrorists. He's not driving the tank on the forward line into Afghanistan.
If you have a point, then say it. Otherwise the snarky "you don't know more than Trump" BS is just an irrelevant deflection. Being President does not make one immediately more knowledgeable than those who have been professionals in the defense of the US. I'd go so far as to say you are probably among the LEAST knowledgeable of the military on this forum judging by the comments you make which are void of any real understanding of DoD tactics, strategies, missions or security posture.
Post by: punaperson on May 06, 2017, 04:20:03 PM
You say I keep unwarranted assumptions. Everyone else's counterarguments are based on their own assumptions of what they perceive the truth is as well.
Yes I do. Because you have no evidence at all to support your speculations about an enemy targeting, or not, particular locations in the U.S. Neither you, nor anyone else, has any way of knowing with any degree certainty what an enemy will do, especially given that some of the enemies may be not be "rational actors". Various posters have provided either some historical evidence or some other basis for their speculations, but none of them, including you could honestly say that you can accurately predict the future... perhaps suggest that some probabilities are more likely than others, but even there it's still speculation.
It appears to me that just because you disagree with my contentions, you overanalyze my statements and pass summary judgements based on your own opinion of what you speculate my intentions truly are.
I've said that your contentions are mere speculations, and that you presented them as if they were not, yet you have no evidence that would lead one to rationally conclude that they are anything other than mere speculations. I'm not sure why you'd claim that merely pointing out the fallaciousness of your claims is "over analyzing", but whatever. Not sure why you'd use the legal term "summary judgement [sic]" here. This isn't civil litigation and, to my knowledge, neither party has requested summary judgment. But whatever. I have never once, either directly or indirectly, made any reference to your "intentions", much less speculated about them, so I have no idea what you are referring to. But whatever.
Totally cool with that, but to disqualify my view without presenting any factual documentation of your own, unlike how Inspector has, makes you incredulous.
Huh? I never "disqualified" your "view", but pointed out that what you were presenting as "factual" about the future was mere speculation. I never presented any counter scenarios as being necessarily more likely, because I know that I don't know what might happen in the various military scenarios discussed (especially if they involve someone who is not "a rational actor"). I also know that you don't know, and that you have no evidence that would convince anyone that your speculations are anything more than speculations. "Incredulous"? Yeah, why would I be anything but incredulous about your fantasy scenarios? However, your "argument" that because I don't present any "factual documentation" (for things I never claimed anyway) nor present any evidence to (impossibly) "prove a negative" re your claims therefore I'm "incredulous" is logically false, and just plain false as well.
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 06:48:38 PM
You keep repeating that we must not know more than President Trump does. Trump was not in the military in the 90s and beyond. He was not the CinC before 2017. He should not be expected to know more than those with decades of military and DoD civilian/contractor service.
Why is Trump your "go to" litmus test for the information we have?
Trump gets briefs and has access to current INTEL on the situations in the world. He is not going to be the Captain of the destroyer launching Tomahawks. He's not flying the drones that take out terrorists. He's not driving the tank on the forward line into Afghanistan.
If you have a point, then say it. Otherwise the snarky "you don't know more than Trump" BS is just an irrelevant deflection. Being President does not make one immediately more knowledgeable than those who have been professionals in the defense of the US. I'd go so far as to say you are probably among the LEAST knowledgeable of the military on this forum judging by the comments you make which are void of any real understanding of DoD tactics, strategies, missions or security posture.
Apparently you did not read the article I posted. If you had, it also documented how President Bush, Secretary of the State Powell, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld all admitted to varying degrees that there were no evidence of WMDs after the debacle invasion of Iraq in 2003. The point I have stated and provided evidence is that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 09:41:59 PM
Apparently you did not read the article I posted. If you had, it also documented how President Bush, Secretary of the State Powell, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld all admitted to varying degrees that there were no evidence of WMDs after the debacle invasion of Iraq in 2003. The point I have stated and provided evidence is that there were no WMDs in Iraq.
Kuleana
I truly, truly hate having to force-feed anyone information that has already been sourced. All you have to do is READ IT!
THERE WERE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ. THE INFORMATION ON WHAT WE FOUND WAS CLASSIFIED.
NOW THAT THE INFORMATION IS CLEARED FOR RELEASE, PEOPLE JUST WON'T ACCEPT IT. THEY PREFER THE "BUSH LIED" BULLSHIT STORY.
Why is that so hard to understand?
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: October 14, 2014
Quote
The soldiers at the blast crater sensed something was wrong.
It was August 2008 near Taji, Iraq. They had just exploded a stack of old Iraqi artillery shells buried beside a murky lake.
The blast, part of an effort to destroy munitions that could be used in makeshift bombs, uncovered more shells.
Two technicians assigned to dispose of munitions stepped into the hole. Lake water seeped in. One of them, Specialist
Andrew T. Goldman, noticed a pungent odor, something, he said, he had never smelled before.
He lifted a shell. Oily paste oozed from a crack. “That doesn’t look like pond water,” said his team leader, Staff Sgt. Eric J. Duling.
The specialist swabbed the shell with chemical detection paper. It turned red — indicating sulfur mustard, the chemical
warfare agent designed to burn a victim’s airway, skin and eyes.
All three men recall an awkward pause. Then Sergeant Duling gave an order: “Get the hell out.”
Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret
chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were
wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.
In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews
with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the
Freedom of Information Act.
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American
troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the
West.
The New York Times found 17 American service members and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to nerve or mustard
agents after 2003. American officials said that the actual tally of exposed troops was slightly higher, but that the government’s official
count was classified.
The secrecy fit a pattern. Since the outset of the war, the scale of the United States’ encounters with chemical weapons
in Iraq was neither publicly shared nor widely circulated within the military. These encounters carry worrisome implications now that the
Islamic State, a Qaeda splinter group, controls much of the territory where the weapons were found.
The American government withheld word about its discoveries even from troops it sent into harm’s way and from
military doctors. The government’s secrecy, victims and participants said, prevented troops in some of the war’s most dangerous
jobs from receiving proper medical care and official recognition of their wounds.
“I felt more like a guinea pig than a wounded soldier,” said a former Army sergeant who suffered mustard burns in 2007 and was
denied hospital treatment and medical evacuation to the United States despite requests from his commander.
Congress, too, was only partly informed, while troops and officers were instructed to be silent or give deceptive accounts of what
they had found. “ 'Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say,” said Jarrod Lampier, a recently retired Army major who was
present for the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war: more than 2,400 nerve-agent rockets
unearthed in 2006 at a former Republican Guard compound.
Jarrod L. Taylor, a former Army sergeant on hand for the destruction of mustard shells that burned two soldiers in his infantry company,
joked of “wounds that never happened” from “that stuff that didn’t exist.” The public, he said, was misled for a decade.
“I love it when I hear, ‘Oh there weren’t any chemical weapons in Iraq,’ ” he said. “There were plenty.”
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 09:47:35 PM
I truly, truly hate having to force-feed anyone information that has already been sourced. All you have to do is READ IT!
THERE WERE CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN IRAQ. THE INFORMATION ON WHAT WE FOUND WAS CLASSIFIED.
NOW THAT THE INFORMATION IS CLEARED FOR RELEASE, PEOPLE JUST WON'T ACCEPT IT. THEY PREFER THE "BUSH LIED" BULLSHIT STORY.
Why is that so hard to understand?
The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: October 14, 2014
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Based on your information, are you concluding then that President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Rice all were lying when they backtracked on their initial claims of WMD in Iraq in the article I shared in my last post?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 10:04:53 PM
Based on your information, are you concluding then that President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and National Security Adviser Rice all were lying when they backtracked on their initial claims of WMD in Iraq in the article I shared in my last post?
Lying? Depends on the definition. Refusing to disclose classified information before the originator authorizes it's disclosure is more like it.
Just because Obama and Biden couldn't keep their yaps shut, divulging classified information while bragging publicly, doesn't mean all administrations are allowed to do it.
If you ask me a question, and the answer would divulge classified information, especially highly classified info, I'd lie if that was the most effective method of diffusing you. I won't say, "That's classified", because then you'd keep prying and searching for the answer. Depending on the question, the fact it is classified might imply a specific answer. Like: "Are we planning to attack North Korea?" "Sorry, that's classified."
https://youtu.be/wpAj1kn-Cr8
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 10:17:19 PM
Lying? Depends on the definition. Refusing to disclose classified information before the originator authorizes it's disclosure is more like it.
Just because Obama and Biden couldn't keep their yaps shut, divulging classified information while bragging publicly, doesn't mean all administrations are allowed to do it.
Well then, you just explained why I do not take anything the government says at face value. Based on the evidence you presented, that was published years after the events occurred, a nation's populace should always be open minded to other potential realities, since new evidence can surface and disprove what was the accepted truths in the past.
Kuleana
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 10:35:17 PM
Well then, you just explained why I do not take anything the government says at face value. Based on the evidence you presented, that was published years after the events occurred, a nation's populace should always be open minded to other potential realities, since new evidence can surface and disprove what was the accepted truths in the past.
Kuleana
So, does that mean you now believe there were WMDs in Iraq??
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 10:41:19 PM
So, does that mean you now believe there were WMDs in Iraq??
Based on the evidence you provided, yes. No strong evidence of nuclear or biological based weapons, but definitely strong evidence that there were albeit outdated/aging/unaccounted/etc. chemical weapons in Iraq.
However, you still did not comment on whether my contention that the US Government does occasionally lie/misinform/whatever; hence, taking what the US Government issues as the truth with a grain of salt is justified.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 06, 2017, 10:48:07 PM
Based on the evidence you provided, yes. No strong evidence of nuclear or biological based weapons, but definitely strong evidence that there were albeit outdated/aging/unaccounted/etc. chemical weapons in Iraq.
However, you still did not comment on whether my contention that the US Government does occasionally lie/misinform/whatever; hence, taking what the US Government issues as the truth with a grain of salt is justified.
The government does not have the ability to make sensitive, personal or national security information public. I've always accepted that the public bases opinions on imperfect information, and sometimes misinformation. That's why I don't like to argue with conspiracy theorists (even if Omni thinks I am one!).
We have to operate on the assumption the government is doing what it must to keep us safe. That's why when Obama and Clinton lied to the public about Benghazi, not for national security or public safety,. but for political campaign damage control, it burned me up!
Faith and trust shouldn't be blind, but it does need to exist to some degree, or else you'll be looking for lies in everything the government tells us, even if the story they tell actually seems the most plausible and reasonable.
How does it feel to have your entire Bush/Iraq War dogma dismantled after preaching "They lied" for so long? :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
The good news is, they really did lie, but after the operation -- not before! :rofl:
Post by: Kuleana on May 06, 2017, 11:07:57 PM
The government does not have the ability to make sensitive, personal or national security information public. I've always accepted that the public bases opinions on imperfect information, and sometimes misinformation. That's why I don't like to argue with conspiracy theorists (even if Omni thinks I am one!).
We have to operate on the assumption the government is doing what it must to keep us safe. That's why when Obama and Clinton lied to the public about Benghazi, not for national security or public safety,. but for political campaign damage control, it burned me up!
Faith and trust shouldn't be blind, but it does need to exist to some degree, or else you'll be looking for lies in everything the government tells us, even if the story they tell actually seems the most plausible and reasonable.
How does it feel to have your entire Bush/Iraq War dogma dismantled after preaching "They lied" for so long? :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
The good news is, they really did lie, but after the operation -- not before! :rofl:
Fair enough.
Kuleana :shaka:
Post by: drck1000 on May 07, 2017, 10:49:38 AM
Yeah, I guess if you want to get technical. But I would say that you probably don't believe in 97% of what the government says. . .
I said I would not necessarily take anything the government says at face value. I did not say I don't believe in anything the government says.
Very different.
That said, there's no documentation that I can produce to sway you either way, so carry on.
Post by: omnigun on May 07, 2017, 02:44:37 PM
Post by: drck1000 on May 07, 2017, 03:01:14 PM
Quote
Definition of WMD
Title 18 U.S.C. §2332a defines weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as:
Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;
Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
Any weapon involving a disease organism; and
Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.
WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).
Want to revise statement?
Figure if you're too lazy to educate yourself, instead of talking down to you, you could use some help...
The iraq war was a huge mistake. I also believe there are no WMD's, chemical weapons yes but no nukes. Regardless who cares if Sadam has nerve gas it ain't reaching us and wasn't worth trillions of dollars spent. We could of just bombed em from afar like syria when/if they used it.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 07, 2017, 05:23:27 PM
WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).
Want to revise statement?
Figure if you're too lazy to educate yourself, instead of talking down to you, you could use some help...
It's not what he doesn't know that's the problem. It's what he knows for sure that just ain't so.
You can't teach someone who already believes he knows something. You have to first cleanse him of the "fake facts" and "inaccurate beliefs" filling his mind. Then you have a chance at least to replace the old lies with new truths.
Omni has to want to let go of his lies. All I've seen so far is a need to prove himself right -- facts be damned.
Don't get your hopes too high. You'll be disappointed if you do.
Post by: drck1000 on May 07, 2017, 05:31:48 PM
It's not what he doesn't know that's the problem. It's what he knows for sure that just ain't so.Yeah, he knows what he knows, don't confuse him with the facts. Or is it truth...
You can't teach someone who already believes he knows something. You have to first cleanse him of the "fake facts" and "inaccurate beliefs" filling his mind. Then you have a chance at least to replace the old lies with new truths.
Omni has to want to let go of his lies. All I've seen so far is a need to prove himself right -- facts be damned.
Don't get your hopes too high. You'll be disappointed if you do.
I'm mostly ignoring him, but when he says obviously inaccurate things, don't want that misinformation carrying over to others.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 07, 2017, 05:41:07 PM
The iraq war was a huge mistake. I also believe there are no WMD's, chemical weapons yes but no nukes. Regardless who cares if Sadam has nerve gas it ain't reaching us and wasn't worth trillions of dollars spent. We could of just bombed em from afar like syria when/if they used it.
Where was all this military wisdom in the 90s? Why did you not run for office or try to get appointed to the National Security cabinet? You could have saved us all that money.
:popcorn:
Post by: robtmc on May 07, 2017, 06:27:51 PM
I'm mostly ignoring him,I refuse to talk or argue with millennials.
Been there, done that.
Post by: macsak on May 07, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
I also believe there are no WMD's, chemical weapons yes but no nukes.
he's gonna say he doesn't care enough to take the time to make a clear argument, when in actuality he has no clue that WMDs include chemical weapons
or he's a weapons specialist at heart
or that 97% of climate change scientists believe that there were no WMDs
or just blame it on spellcheck
Post by: robtmc on May 07, 2017, 08:27:07 PM
he's gonna say he doesn't care enough to take the time to make a clear argument, when in actuality he has no clue that WMDs include chemical weapons
or he's a weapons specialist at heart
or that 97% of climate change scientists believe that there were no WMDs
or just blame it on spellcheck
You left out:
Blame it all on Globull Warming....After all. some Obola regime ditz tried to do that, IIRC.
Said they just needed jobs, as well, and all would be fine..........................Might have been another Obola ditz, he had so many............
Post by: omnigun on May 07, 2017, 08:37:13 PM
WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).
Want to revise statement?
Figure if you're too lazy to educate yourself, instead of talking down to you, you could use some help...
I was wrong, you are correct. But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction". You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke. "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;" Hell this discribed most large bombs. The definition isn't the greatest analogy of "mass destruction" anymore.
Please don't confuse the facts that bush was talking about nukes mainly as the reason. And that it was still an mistake. And to flapp I was not old enough in the 90's to do that. I'm old but not that old.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 07, 2017, 09:04:17 PM
I was wrong, you are correct. But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction". You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke. "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;" Hell this discribed most large bombs. The definition isn't the greatest analogy of "mass destruction" anymore.
Please don't confuse the facts that bush was talking about nukes mainly as the reason. And that it was still an mistake. And to flapp I was not old enough in the 90's to do that. I'm old but not that old.
But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".
You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.
The truth doesn't care what you personally think.
A crashed airliner often results in MASS CASUALTIES. Sandy Hook was a MASS SHOOTING. Not, 100K+, but a large number, which is the accepted definition of "Mass" in terms of WMDs.
There is no set number when defining WMD. You pulled that number out of your ass.
Post by: whynow? on May 07, 2017, 09:07:30 PM
WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).Nobody can dispute the amount of casualties from IEDs in the 2nd Gulf war. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the terrorist in the Boston Marathon bombing was found guilty of 30 charges including USE OF A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, which was an IED.
IED=IED=WMD. Most of us here know that, but for the few who still think there were no WMDs of any kind in Iraq, maybe this will help them understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing#Identification_of_suspects:_Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev
Post by: macsak on May 07, 2017, 09:10:06 PM
I was wrong, you are correct. But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction". You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke. "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;" Hell this discribed most large bombs. The definition isn't the greatest analogy of "mass destruction" anymore.
Please don't confuse the facts that bush was talking about nukes mainly as the reason. And that it was still an mistake. And to flapp I was not old enough in the 90's to do that. I'm old but not that old.
so you are saying you are wrong, but that you have a different definition of MASS, so in actuality you are correct
:wtf:
and i'll leave "discribed" out there for posterity
Post by: drck1000 on May 07, 2017, 09:51:15 PM
But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".And there are certainly non-nuclear weapons that are capable of inflicting casualties in the 100k+ range of targeted at the "right" location. There's some truly nasty stuff out there. But to hell with stated definitions. Some here know/believe better or more than anyone else. Even those who just might have some knowledge on the matter.
You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.
The truth doesn't care what you personally think.
A crashed airliner often results in MASS CASUALTIES. Sandy Hook was a MASS SHOOTING. Not, 100K+, but a large number, which is the accepted definition of "Mass" in terms of WMDs.
There is no set number when defining WMD. You pulled that number out of your ass.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 08, 2017, 12:35:27 AM
And there are certainly non-nuclear weapons that are capable of inflicting casualties in the 100k+ range of targeted at the "right" location. There's some truly nasty stuff out there. But to hell with stated definitions. Some here know/believe better or more than anyone else. Even those who just might have some knowledge on the matter.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Conventional weapons vs. WMDs.
That's the basic definition. It's one or the other. How many people, or what kind of payload, is irrelevant.
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 07:59:23 AM
Conventional weapons vs. WMDs.Yeah. I was just trying to point out (not really to you) that there are non-nuclear weapons that are capable of the arbitrary criteria of 100k+ casualties as set by our resident expert. I was specifically thinking about chemical weapons, but yes, the specific payload is irrelevant.
That's the basic definition. It's one or the other. How many people, or what kind of payload, is irrelevant.
Post by: omnigun on May 08, 2017, 10:14:51 AM
In the end if all you guys care about if me admitting I was wrong. Yes by the definition of WMD I made a mistake.
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
The thing everyone is glancing over is Bush stated it was the Nuclear WMDs he cared about. If he used the WMD definition to the "T" we could technically go to war with every single country in the world to stop them from getting WMD's. Hell im sure random African countries have bombs that could be considered a WMD.Totally an example of you "can't see the forest for the trees".
In the end if all you guys care about if me admitting I was wrong. Yes by the definition of WMD I made a mistake.
It's not the mere possession of WMD, but the history of their use, particularly on innocent civilians. If you can't see that. . . hopeless. . .
That I don't recall reading anything about Bush stating anything specifically about nuclear weapons in Iraq. He may have, but I really don't recall. It was my understanding that the concern was primarily chemical and biological WMD.
Besides the point, but. . .
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278 (https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278)
Quote
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
Post by: omnigun on May 08, 2017, 11:04:08 AM
Totally an example of you "can't see the forest for the trees".
It's not the mere possession of WMD, but the history of their use, particularly on innocent civilians. If you can't see that. . . hopeless. . .
That I don't recall reading anything about Bush stating anything specifically about nuclear weapons in Iraq. He may have, but I really don't recall. It was my understanding that the concern was primarily chemical and biological WMD.
Besides the point, but. . .
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278 (https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278)
Syria has chemical weapons, used it and we didn't spend trillions going to war with them. I remember bush saying multiple times that this was mainly about sadams nuclear program. Middle east would be off better with no war. Even if sadam stayed there would be no isis, probably no mass immigration into europe etc
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 08, 2017, 11:13:06 AM
The thing everyone is glancing over is Bush stated it was the Nuclear WMDs he cared about. If he used the WMD definition to the "T" we could technically go to war with every single country in the world to stop them from getting WMD's. Hell im sure random African countries have bombs that could be considered a WMD.
In the end if all you guys care about if me admitting I was wrong. Yes by the definition of WMD I made a mistake.
Can you post the exact times Bush said Iraq is a nuclear threat? This is from his "Ultimatum" speech.
Quote
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's
neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has
aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could
fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.
So, no, Bush did NOT state that he cared about nukes over other WMDs. You might have misinterpreted what he said, but that (once again) does not the truth make.
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 11:15:03 AM
Syria has chemical weapons, used it and we didn't spend trillions going to war with them. I remember bush saying multiple times that this was mainly about sadams nuclear program. Middle east would be off better with no war. Even if sadam stayed there would be no isis, probably no mass immigration into europe etcThat invasion of Iraq for the Iraq War (second Persian Gulf War) didn't start over night. If you look at the history, it took a while from calls for U.N. resolutions on it in 2002 to US and British forces gathering up on the Iraq border, GWB ultimatum in March 2003 and subsequent follow-up action.
Regarding GWB's statements about being primarily concerned about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, please provide links to articles on that regard. Am genuinely interested in your information source(s).
Without trying to cop out and kick the can down the road, Syria is a MUCH more delicate situation than Iraq. Syria is the prime example that I see where a MUCH bigger war could result from big brother stepping in when they side with a little brother.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 08, 2017, 11:24:32 AM
Syria has chemical weapons, used it and we didn't spend trillions going to war with them. I remember bush saying multiple times that this was mainly about sadams nuclear program. Middle east would be off better with no war. Even if sadam stayed there would be no isis, probably no mass immigration into europe etc
Where did Syria obtain those weapons? Some INTEL reports saw trucks moving something at night from Iraq to Syria before the US invaded. Those trucks' contents were never identified or located once arriving in Syria. Hmmm...
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 08, 2017, 11:29:44 AM
That invasion of Iraq for the Iraq War (second Persian Gulf War) didn't start over night. If you look at the history, it took a while from calls for U.N. resolutions on it in 2002 to US and British forces gathering up on the Iraq border, GWB ultimatum in March 2003 and subsequent follow-up action.
Regarding GWB's statements about being primarily concerned about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, please provide links to articles on that regard. Am genuinely interested in your information source(s).
Without trying to cop out and kick the can down the road, Syria is a MUCH more delicate situation than Iraq. Syria is the prime example that I see where a MUCH bigger war could result from big brother stepping in when they side with a little brother.
Iraq has a nuclear power plant. There was a time when Iraq was taking some of the nuclear material being purchased for power and weaponizing it until Israel bombed the processing plant. That was in the early 80s.
The biggest nuclear threat the US was concerned about regarding Iraq was dirty bombs. Terrorists could have been provided radiological material to be spread via conventional explosives (suicide or truck bomb) causing mass contamination of a city.
Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes. The threat was much less advanced than that.
Post by: macsak on May 08, 2017, 11:46:15 AM
Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes. The threat was much less advanced than that.
Bush said it
Because Omni says so
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 12:06:41 PM
Iraq has a nuclear power plant. 1) There was a time when Iraq was taking some of the nuclear material being purchased for power and weaponizing it until Israel bombed the processing plant. That was in the early 80s.1) Thanks! Didn't know about the Israel bombing in the early 80s. Interesting. I'll have to read more about that aspect.
2) The biggest nuclear threat the US was concerned about regarding Iraq was dirty bombs. Terrorists could have been provided radiological material to be spread via conventional explosives (suicide or truck bomb) causing mass contamination of a city.
3) Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes. The threat was much less advanced than that.
2) Yeah. It was my understanding that chemical was the primary concern, like the scene in Jarhead where they have the drill to put on the protective gear. That movie cracks me up BTW, at least parts of it. But also that the dirty bombs was a big concern. That in the post Gulf War investigations, they found proof of development of radiological weapons that involved packing bombs or missile warheads with radioactive material and the conventional warhead used as a method of dispersion, much like chemical weapons. That the UN knew about that program and Iraq hid further development of those weapons to avoid further sanctions.
3) That is my understanding. That Iraq didn't have working (developed and tested) nuclear weapon capability. As in a "weapon that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions" as opposed to a device that may contain nuclear material.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-13/local/me-2688_1_radiological-weapon (http://articles.latimes.com/1995-11-13/local/me-2688_1_radiological-weapon)
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 12:09:08 PM
Bush said itBut was it 97%?
Because Omni says so
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on May 08, 2017, 12:11:33 PM
Since the creation of Israel, Israel and Iraq have been at odds with each other. Technically, Iraq had been in a continuous state of war with Israel since 1948 until the second Iraq war. Iraq sent armies to fight Israel in 1948 and 1967. Iraq also sent in troops to help Syria's armed forces in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In 1981 Israel being afraid of another attack from Iraq, bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq that was still under construction, stating it was a threat to national security. In 1990 Saddam threatened to use nerve gas on Israel. Then during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel.
Let us not forget that a big part of removing the chemical weapons from Iraq was to also protect Israel from a chemical weapons attack (attack using WMD's). It was not made as big a deal about this because if the thought were to invade Iraq to save Israel, Iraq could have just as easily started shooting missiles with chemical weapons into Israel to provoke a war before we were ready to invade. Once other Arab countries sees Israel attacking Iraq (doesn't matter if Israel was defending itself) it was felt the other Arab countries would enter the war unprovoked and come to Iraq's aid. It is the same reason why the US convinced Israel not to enter the war after Iraq started firing missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf War. This is the reason Saddam started firing missiles into Israel even tho the war was strictly between the coalition and Iraq. He was hoping Israel would defend itself and the other Arab nations would come to the defense of Iraq.
Just saying.... :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Post by: Inspector on May 08, 2017, 12:22:12 PM
Iraq has a nuclear power plant. There was a time when Iraq was taking some of the nuclear material being purchased for power and weaponizing it until Israel bombed the processing plant. That was in the early 80s.This is absolutely correct. However, I do remember Bush stating early on that he was concerned about Iraq's nuclear program, which was in its infancy at the time and and many decades from being able to construct a nuclear warhead. And I remember him stating that if Saddam ever developed a nuclear warhead he would be a huge threat to Israel and his neighbors. Which means the main threat was the fact that Iraq had a nuclear program at all. The thought of him getting and using a nuclear device was as horrid as the little fat man in NK doing the same once he develops a missile and warhead capable of reaching the US/SK/Japan.
The biggest nuclear threat the US was concerned about regarding Iraq was dirty bombs. Terrorists could have been provided radiological material to be spread via conventional explosives (suicide or truck bomb) causing mass contamination of a city.
Iraq has NEVER tested a nuclear device. Bush did NOT state he cared about Iraq using nukes. The threat was much less advanced than that.
However, the main concern as stated by Bush and the administration was the use of chemical weapons (they commonly interchanged the words chemical weapons and WMD's back then).
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 12:53:02 PM
A very brief history lesson first:Hey. . . start your own thread. . . [kidding, kidding] :D
Since the creation of Israel, Israel and Iraq have been at odds with each other. Technically, Iraq had been in a continuous state of war with Israel since 1948 until the second Iraq war. Iraq sent armies to fight Israel in 1948 and 1967. Iraq also sent in troops to help Syria's armed forces in the Yom Kippur War in 1973. In 1981 Israel being afraid of another attack from Iraq, bombed the nuclear reactor in Iraq that was still under construction, stating it was a threat to national security. In 1990 Saddam threatened to use nerve gas on Israel. Then during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel.
Let us not forget that a big part of removing the chemical weapons from Iraq was to also protect Israel from a chemical weapons attack (attack using WMD's). It was not made as big a deal about this because if the thought were to invade Iraq to save Israel, Iraq could have just as easily started shooting missiles with chemical weapons into Israel to provoke a war before we were ready to invade. Once other Arab countries sees Israel attacking Iraq (doesn't matter if Israel was defending itself) it was felt the other Arab countries would enter the war unprovoked and come to Iraq's aid. It is the same reason why the US convinced Israel not to enter the war after Iraq started firing missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf War. This is the reason Saddam started firing missiles into Israel even tho the war was strictly between the coalition and Iraq. He was hoping Israel would defend itself and the other Arab nations would come to the defense of Iraq.
Just saying.... :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
Hmm, more history to look up. Not sure if I mentioned last time we chatted, but the history of Israel, what happened leading up to, the decades to centuries of what came before in that region, etc is something I was always interested in. One of those things that I perceived as a situation where modern people on each side just knew they hated the other side, but many may not know the full history. Just that hate of the other side was taught and that's how it was.
The SCUDs into Israel and calls for restraint were aspects that I recall though. That was also another example of the case where little brother being the reason for big brother on both sides stepping in and causing larger scale conflict/war.
Post by: Inspector on May 08, 2017, 01:03:52 PM
The SCUDs into Israel and calls for restraint were aspects that I recall though. That was also another example of the case where little brother being the reason for big brother on both sides stepping in and causing larger scale conflict/war.When I was around 10 I was beat up by 3 or 4 older kids. They were probably 16/17. I won't get into why. When my oldest brother, who just came back from his stint in the Army, saw what happened he went out and beat the crap out of those other kids. My oldest brother is 13 years older than I am making him around 23 at the time. :worship: :worship: :worship:
Post by: omnigun on May 08, 2017, 02:15:33 PM
This is absolutely correct. However, I do remember Bush stating early on that he was concerned about Iraq's nuclear program, which was in its infancy at the time and and many decades from being able to construct a nuclear warhead. And I remember him stating that if Saddam ever developed a nuclear warhead he would be a huge threat to Israel and his neighbors. Which means the main threat was the fact that Iraq had a nuclear program at all. The thought of him getting and using a nuclear device was as horrid as the little fat man in NK doing the same once he develops a missile and warhead capable of reaching the US/SK/Japan.
This
Hell North Korea has a literal fuckton of chemical weapons. But nukes are the one that cross the line for us. We don't want people to get nukes. Chemical weapons will always be easy to make.
Not sure why we need to baby Israel....they are their own country if they felt the threat from iraq they can fight their own war. inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews....that argument is getting old. Same as apologizing for slavery.
Post by: drck1000 on May 08, 2017, 03:06:05 PM
1) This1) What Inspector stated is NOT that you said previously regarding Bush's concern about nuclear weapons. Just pointing out that concern about Saddam having nuclear weapons is WAY different than concerns about a program that it in it's infancy and showing evidence of growing.
Hell North Korea has a literal fuckton of chemical weapons. But nukes are the one that cross the line for us. We don't want people to get nukes. Chemical weapons will always be easy to make.
2) Not sure why we need to baby Israel....they are their own country if they felt the threat from iraq they can fight their own war. inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews....that argument is getting old. Same as apologizing for slavery.
2) Now, the reasons behind supporting Israel is one that I always wondered about. However, not knowing as much as I should about the history and such, that is something that I will continue to wonder as I read about it on my own, which really isn't very much. Heck, there are many situations where I often wonder why the US sticks their nose in when we seemingly have a difficult time taking care of problems in the homeland. That said, international politics is something that is way above my head.
Post by: omnigun on May 08, 2017, 04:10:37 PM
1) What Inspector stated is NOT that you said previously regarding Bush's concern about nuclear weapons. Just pointing out that concern about Saddam having nuclear weapons is WAY different than concerns about a program that it in it's infancy and showing evidence of growing.
2) Now, the reasons behind supporting Israel is one that I always wondered about. However, not knowing as much as I should about the history and such, that is something that I will continue to wonder as I read about it on my own, which really isn't very much. Heck, there are many situations where I often wonder why the US sticks their nose in when we seemingly have a difficult time taking care of problems in the homeland. That said, international politics is something that is way above my head.
Same reason why we care about north korea. Its not so much their nukes now but their nukes in their future. The ones that can threaten us. We try to stop all programs before they get a foothold like Iran. They don't have to be 10 days from a nuke before we start to care...
Post by: robtmc on May 08, 2017, 04:11:20 PM
1) Thanks! Didn't know about the Israel bombing in the early 80s. Interesting. I'll have to read more about that aspect.Look for "Osirak"
They blew up something else in another strike a few years back, just recall satellite photos of the before and after. The building site was quickly bulldozed over.
Post by: London808 on May 08, 2017, 06:09:47 PM
Where did Syria obtain those weapons? Some INTEL reports saw trucks moving something at night from Iraq to Syria before the US invaded. Those trucks' contents were never identified or located once arriving in Syria. Hmmm...
Sarin is one of the easiest chemical weapons to make and use, Sadam had a bunch of it and I'm sure sold, gave and taught Syria how to make it. It is what was used this year .
Post by: Inspector on May 08, 2017, 06:16:31 PM
1) What Inspector stated is NOT that you said previously regarding Bush's concern about nuclear weapons. Just pointing out that concern about Saddam having nuclear weapons is WAY different than concerns about a program that it in it's infancy and showing evidence of growing.1) Thank you. I know he still doesn't get what I was trying to say because he quoted only part of my post for his own selfish, self centered millennial use.
2) Now, the reasons behind supporting Israel is one that I always wondered about. However, not knowing as much as I should about the history and such, that is something that I will continue to wonder as I read about it on my own, which really isn't very much. Heck, there are many situations where I often wonder why the US sticks their nose in when we seemingly have a difficult time taking care of problems in the homeland. That said, international politics is something that is way above my head.
2) The whole history is short and interesting.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 08, 2017, 08:10:41 PM
Sarin is one of the easiest chemical weapons to make and use, Sadam had a bunch of it and I'm sure sold, gave and taught Syria how to make it. It is what was used this year .
Sarin doesn't last but a few weeks, dependig on the purity of the component chemicals.
If the precursors were shipped from Iraq, then Syria could have stored them this long before mixing.
Precursors are tracked by most countries because they can be misused.
Post by: punaperson on May 09, 2017, 06:31:50 AM
Anonymous warns world to ‘prepare’ for World War 3
http://nypost.com/2017/05/08/anonymous-warns-world-to-prepare-for-world-war-3/ [note: has autoplay video of the message]
Excerpt:
The infamous hacktivist group Anonymous has released a chilling new video — urging people across the globe to “prepare” for World War 3 — as the US and North Korea continue to move “strategic pieces into place” for battle.
“All the signs of a looming war on the Korean peninsula are surfacing,” the group says in the ominous six-minute clip, posted on YouTube over the weekend.
Using their signature Guy Fawkes character, the hackers make several claims about recent military movements in the region — and alleged warnings made by Japan and South Korea about imminent nuclear attacks from the North — as they deliver their frightening prophecy.
“Watching as each country moves strategic pieces into place,” the organization says, in its notorious robotic voice. “But unlike past world wars, although there will be ground troops, the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick. It will also be globally devastating, both on environmental and economical levels.”
Post by: drck1000 on May 09, 2017, 07:14:01 AM
Look for "Osirak"Thanks! :thumbsup:
They blew up something else in another strike a few years back, just recall satellite photos of the before and after. The building site was quickly bulldozed over.
I'll look that up.
Post by: drck1000 on May 09, 2017, 07:16:57 AM
1) Thank you. I know he still doesn't get what I was trying to say because he quoted only part of my post for his own selfish, self centered millennial use.1) Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't respond. Just not worth the effort. Not really sure why I responded to the post before that. I guess I earn myself a :facepalm:
2) The whole history is short and interesting.
2) Sure is. But also one of those things where I often wonder about how much the account that I am reading or watching is slanted by "story teller's bias". Well, that's always going to be the case. It's just that the issues, conflicts, who did what to who when, etc seems to damn complicated.
Post by: davgdavg on May 09, 2017, 07:58:56 AM
This
Hell North Korea has a literal fuckton of chemical weapons. But nukes are the one that cross the line for us. We don't want people to get nukes. Chemical weapons will always be easy to make.
Not sure why we need to baby Israel....they are their own country if they felt the threat from iraq they can fight their own war. inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews....that argument is getting old. Same as apologizing for slavery.
1) Chemical weapons, especially the more lethal ones, aren't really that easy to make or store. Easier than a nuke, ok, but still rather difficult. If it were easy every terrorist group in the world would have and use them regularly.
2) The uninformed hoi polloi with their, "baby Israel" argument is what's getting old.
First off, what we get from Israel in return is a giant advantage strategically. We have hundreds of bases all across the world that I don't see you complaining about. They are (or were until muslim obama) our only reliable ally in the entire middle East. We spend billions on T&E each year, they are an invaluable part of that because they are the tip of the sword in providing real world experience.
Second, the amount of real world tactical and technological knowledge that we get from them is amazing. Beyond basically inventing modern urban anti-terrorism warfare tactics (which they train and trained our armed forces in, especially our special forces), they also provide a ton of electronic warfare technology, drone tech, defensive missile tech, etc. Whatever we do for Israel, they are virtually the only country (maybe Japan could be a distant second) that provides so much in return.
Lastly, the US hasn't put one troop on the ground or fired one missile, etc. for Israel since its birth, so not sure what you are thinking about when you say we "baby Israel," because they are Jews. Every war from 1948 onward the Israelis were on their own, except to say the U.S. provided strategic leverage so that the Russians didn't get involved, which is true. When they felt a real threat from Iraq, they did fight their own war. (If you want to count the patriot missile system, I suppose you could, but that is certainly no more or less than we do for other allies. Besides, the Israeli's played a large part in its later development, the US bankrolls that development.)
In short, you seem to just be talking out your behind, and doing it poorly. :wtf:
Post by: Inspector on May 09, 2017, 09:10:24 AM
inb4 we need to protect them cause they are jews...This statement sounds racist to me.
You are nothing but a troll.
Post by: omnigun on May 09, 2017, 09:45:23 AM
For what it's worth:
Anonymous warns world to ‘prepare’ for World War 3
http://nypost.com/2017/05/08/anonymous-warns-world-to-prepare-for-world-war-3/ [note: has autoplay video of the message]
Excerpt:
The infamous hacktivist group Anonymous has released a chilling new video — urging people across the globe to “prepare” for World War 3 — as the US and North Korea continue to move “strategic pieces into place” for battle.
“All the signs of a looming war on the Korean peninsula are surfacing,” the group says in the ominous six-minute clip, posted on YouTube over the weekend.
Using their signature Guy Fawkes character, the hackers make several claims about recent military movements in the region — and alleged warnings made by Japan and South Korea about imminent nuclear attacks from the North — as they deliver their frightening prophecy.
“Watching as each country moves strategic pieces into place,” the organization says, in its notorious robotic voice. “But unlike past world wars, although there will be ground troops, the battle is likely to be fierce, brutal and quick. It will also be globally devastating, both on environmental and economical levels.”
South Korea elected a anti-war pussy who will give money to NK. Its not happening. Would be interesting to have a war, but I doubt it would turn into ww3 with only north korea on one side. That being said I hope it happens so we can remove NK as a threat.
Post by: Inspector on May 09, 2017, 11:52:32 AM
South Korea elected a anti-war pussy who will give money to NK. Its not happening. Would be interesting to have a war, but I doubt it would turn into ww3 with only north korea on one side. That being said I hope it happens so we can remove NK as a threat.
Post by: punaperson on May 12, 2017, 11:46:28 AM
Electromagnetic pulse attack on Hawaii would devastate the state
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/12/electromagnetic-pulse-attack-on-hawaii-would-devaste-state.html
Excerpts:
With North Korea developing its nuclear and intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities, Hawaii defense experts are concerned North Korea could target the 50th state with an EMP attack. Such an explosion, if executed high enough in the atmosphere, could be hundreds of miles from Hawaii and still damage its operations and communications.
“This is not theoretical. It has already happened,” said Clairmont, noting significant damage was done to both civilian and military electrical and communications systems.
“The No. 1 threat in the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless, irresponsible and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability,” Benham said.
While some experts claim an EMP attack isn’t a likely concern, National Geographic notes a Congressional commission of scientific and military experts warned in 2004 that an EMP attack could cause a massive blackout and damage financial and power networks.
Post by: Inspector on May 15, 2017, 06:05:04 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/15/north-korea-threat-us-monitoring-claim-missile-could-carry-nuclear-warhead.html
"Aerospace expert John Schilling told Reuters the test “represents a level of performance never before seen from a North Korean missile.”
“It appears to have not only demonstrated an intermediate-range ballistic missile that might enable them to reliably strike the U.S. base at Guam,” Schilling said, “but more important, may represent a substantial advance to developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.”
Post by: drck1000 on May 15, 2017, 07:29:33 AM
North Korea threat: US ‘monitoring’ claim missile could carry nuclear warheadI saw that on the news this past weekend, but it was when I was flipping through channels (my dad still has basic cable at his house) and unfortunately, the report was in Korean, so couldn't understand much more than what sounded like a serious report and the footage of the missile test which apparently went from NK's west coast to the sea to the east.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/15/north-korea-threat-us-monitoring-claim-missile-could-carry-nuclear-warhead.html
"Aerospace expert John Schilling told Reuters the test “represents a level of performance never before seen from a North Korean missile.”
“It appears to have not only demonstrated an intermediate-range ballistic missile that might enable them to reliably strike the U.S. base at Guam,” Schilling said, “but more important, may represent a substantial advance to developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.”
It does seem like their capabilities are growing and they seem like they are testing more frequently.
Post by: omnigun on May 15, 2017, 10:00:59 AM
Post by: Inspector on May 15, 2017, 10:15:59 AM
We should of shot down the test... Don't we have a whole carrier group and new anti-missile system set up...Gettin' scared? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: Inspector on May 15, 2017, 10:20:30 AM
Post by: whynow? on May 15, 2017, 10:32:47 AM
Post by: RSN172 on May 16, 2017, 10:19:03 AM
Post by: omnigun on May 16, 2017, 01:34:43 PM
I am more scared of the stupidity of our local politicians than North Korea.
Local politicians can't nuke us though O0 :sleeping:
Post by: drck1000 on May 16, 2017, 01:54:38 PM
Quote
HAGATNA, Guam — While most of the United States is still out of reach of a missile launched by North Korea, the U.S. territory of Guam, a key military hub in the Pacific, could be within range.
That realization, coming after a missile launch over the weekend, had residents of the island casting a wary eye amid rising nuclear tensions between Pyongyang and Washington. Some worried they might find war at their doorstep, while others say they are more concerned about the potential loss of vital tourism dollars than they are a nuclear attack.
“I think it is scary since North Korea is just insane, to echo the general consensus about North Korea,” said Farron Taijeron, a 29-year-old scuba instructor in Guam.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/guam-residents-cast-wary-eye-at-north-korea-after-launch/2017/05/16/4fc3206c-3a6a-11e7-a59b-26e0451a96fd_story.html?utm_term=.dba3cedaa14d (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/guam-residents-cast-wary-eye-at-north-korea-after-launch/2017/05/16/4fc3206c-3a6a-11e7-a59b-26e0451a96fd_story.html?utm_term=.dba3cedaa14d)
I do a lot of work in Guam. Was there as recently at December and have daily correspondence with folks on-island. It is a concern, sure. Has been for a while. Is it "the sky is falling" level? Not that I can tell.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 16, 2017, 01:55:32 PM
Local politicians can't nuke us though O0 :sleeping:
According to you, neither can North Korea.
Your comment is another troll-a-gram. :stopjack:
Post by: omnigun on May 17, 2017, 11:34:26 AM
According to you, neither can North Korea.
Your comment is another troll-a-gram. :stopjack:
NK has a 0.1% chance local politicians have a 0.000000000000000000000000000001% chance.
Post by: punaperson on May 24, 2017, 02:57:58 PM
HAWAII UPDATING NUCLEAR CONTINGENCY PLAN OVER NORTH KOREA FEARS, DOCUMENTS SHOW
https://www.infowars.com/hawaii-updating-nuclear-contingency-plan-over-north-korea-fears-documents-show/
Excerpts:
The Hawaii Department of Defense is in the process of updating its nuclear contingency plan amid escalating tensions between the United States and North Korea.
Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by Motherboard’s Sarah Emerson detail the steps being taken by the Hawaiian government to prepare for the unlikely event of a nuclear attack.
One such document, dated May 1st of this year, provides an overview of the “Plan of Action and Milestones (PoAM)” for a ballistic missile defense initiative.
“While the US military may have contingency plans for such an event from a military perspective, civilian agencies must also be prepared,” the document reads. “These civilian plans have not been updated since 1985 and the capabilities of shelters have declined steadily into non-existence since the end of the Cold War.”
Though conflicting reports paint different pictures of North Korea’s intentions and capabilities, the document argues that “hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst is the burden of our government.”
“If some experts are correct that North Korea does now have or soon will have the capability to reach the Hawaiian Island with an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear (chemical or biological) warhead, it stands to reason that the government of North Korea would pose an imminent threat to the people of Hawaii.”
A third document, produced by the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, breaks down numerous aspects of the “Ballistic Missile Hazard.”
Another recent document, concerning legislation seeking funds for contingency upgrades, labels Hawaii a “strategic and symbolic target” given the United States Pacific Command’s (USPACOM) presence in Pearl Harbor — the site of the Imperial Japanese Navy Air Service’s surprise attack on U.S. Naval forces in 1941.
Post by: Bunker on May 24, 2017, 06:43:36 PM
The problem is the flight time is roughly 20 minutes depending on the missile, trajectory and flight path, so there is not too much time to prepare in that regard on the civilian side. Any type of initiative to protect the civilian population from a biological, chemical of nuclear attack will cost a great deal...likely passed off to the tax payer, and obviously the whole population cannot be protected.
However, from a military perspective, the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) for such an event is robust, redundant, and consists of multiple capabilities to defend all three phases of the BM flight path, plus it involves other allied nations and their capabilities. So the likelihood of a missile launched from North Korea actually striking Hawaii is slim to none. They can easily make the Aegis Ashore RDT&E asset at PMRF operational, which would give them an additional capability...similar to an Aegis BMD capable platform (SM-3 and SM-6 capability). A modified THAAD system has already been deployed to South Korea.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 24, 2017, 06:49:17 PM
They reference the Hawaiian government. What exactly is that?
The problem is the flight time is roughly 20 minutes depending on the missile, trajectory and flight path, so there is not too much time to prepare in that regard on the civilian side. Any type of initiative to protect the civilian population from a biological, chemical of nuclear attack will cost a great deal...likely passed off to the tax payer, and obviously the whole population cannot be protected.
However, from a military perspective, the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) for such an event is robust, redundant, and consists of multiple capabilities to defend all three phases of the BM flight path, plus it involves other allied nations and their capabilities. So the likelihood of a missile launched from North Korea actually striking Hawaii is slim to none. They can easily make the Aegis Ashore RDT&E asset at PMRF operational, which would give them an additional capability...similar to an Aegis BMD capable platform (SM-3 and SM-6 capability). A modified THAAD system has already been deployed to South Korea.
With Trump in office, a nuclear attack on Hawaii would be the equivalent of suicide by Cop.
Best we keep him there for awhile. :thumbsup:
Post by: omnigun on May 24, 2017, 10:43:33 PM
With Trump in office, a nuclear attack on Hawaii would be the equivalent of suicide by Cop.
Best we keep him there for awhile. :thumbsup:
I'm 99.99% sure any president would nuke them back. Its called MAD for a reason. If you don't nuke back its basically telling the world you are a cuck.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on May 24, 2017, 10:48:44 PM
I'm 99.99% sure any president would nuke them back. Its called MAD for a reason. If you don't nuke back its basically telling the world you are a cuck.
I'm 99.999999% sure Clinton would not nuke them. She couldn't even stay awake while our Libyan consulate was under attack. None of those murderers have ever been brought to justice.
Low energy.
Post by: macsak on May 25, 2017, 06:33:31 AM
I'm 99.99% sure any president would nuke them back. Its called MAD for a reason. If you don't nuke back its basically telling the world you are a cuck.
i'll save you guys a step:
cuck
Term of denigration used by single, white males proscribing to an "alt-right" worldview which is predictably skewed from living in their parent's basement. Fueled by a romantic fantasy that if they were able to begin a relationship with a female, their misogynistic behavior and racist values would be found to be so exciting by their partner that infidelity could not occur. This logical fallacy is fueled by an over-consumption of sadomasochistic & interracial pornography when not trolling comment sections of websites.
Jeremy smiled as he typed, "Looks like this thread has some cucks."
#alt-right#alt-reich#douche#douche-speak
Post by: omnigun on May 25, 2017, 06:52:21 AM
i'll save you guys a step:
cuck
Term of denigration used by single, white males proscribing to an "alt-right" worldview which is predictably skewed from living in their parent's basement. Fueled by a romantic fantasy that if they were able to begin a relationship with a female, their misogynistic behavior and racist values would be found to be so exciting by their partner that infidelity could not occur. This logical fallacy is fueled by an over-consumption of sadomasochistic & interracial pornography when not trolling comment sections of websites.
Jeremy smiled as he typed, "Looks like this thread has some cucks."
#alt-right#alt-reich#douche#douche-speak
That is the funniest fake definition I've read in a while
Post by: Inspector on May 25, 2017, 06:58:36 AM
i'll save you guys a step::rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
cuck
Term of denigration used by single, white males proscribing to an "alt-right" worldview which is predictably skewed from living in their parent's basement. Fueled by a romantic fantasy that if they were able to begin a relationship with a female, their misogynistic behavior and racist values would be found to be so exciting by their partner that infidelity could not occur. This logical fallacy is fueled by an over-consumption of sadomasochistic & interracial pornography when not trolling comment sections of websites.
Jeremy smiled as he typed, "Looks like this thread has some cucks."
#alt-right#alt-reich#douche#douche-speak
Sounds like the trolls here on this website!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on May 25, 2017, 07:19:17 AM
A further minor update that suggests that some officials are taking the possibility of an attack seriously...I thought this news was reported like weeks ago. Maybe just getting to inforwars now? IIRC, they were commissioning studies to see what Hawaii can do on the state and county levels. Haven't heard about much since then.
HAWAII UPDATING NUCLEAR CONTINGENCY PLAN OVER NORTH KOREA FEARS, DOCUMENTS SHOW
https://www.infowars.com/hawaii-updating-nuclear-contingency-plan-over-north-korea-fears-documents-show/
SNIP
Post by: macsak on May 25, 2017, 07:23:12 AM
That is the funniest fake definition I've read in a while
Yup, so fake
Good thing it doesn't apply to anyone on this site...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: drck1000 on May 25, 2017, 07:31:35 AM
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Sounds like the trolls here on this website!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yup, so fake
Good thing it doesn't apply to anyone on this site...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Been telling myself not to feed the trolls, but this is so :thumbsup:
Post by: Inspector on May 25, 2017, 07:40:36 AM
Been telling myself not to feed the trolls, but this is so :thumbsup:Yeah, I am done interacting with these trolls. They are not open minded enough for me to have a decent conversation with. And I noticed they are very narcissistic. And when these trolls feel they are more important than everyone else (and therefore their words are more important than everyone else's words ) a decent conversation is impossible.
Post by: whynow? on May 25, 2017, 08:43:07 AM
Yeah, I am done interacting with these trolls. They are not open minded enough for me to have a decent conversation with. And I noticed they are very narcissistic. And when these trolls feel they are more important than everyone else (and therefore their words are more important than everyone else's words ) a decent conversation is impossible.Starve em out!
Post by: London808 on May 25, 2017, 09:43:06 AM
Post by: Rocky on May 25, 2017, 09:59:09 AM
Starve em out!
Don't feed the cuck's. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Picture removed pre-mod. :shake:
Hey Mac :wave:
cuck's
:rofl: :rofl:
Post by: rklapp on May 25, 2017, 10:49:38 AM
Post by: dustoff003 on May 25, 2017, 10:52:09 AM
Haven't seen the golf ball at PH for awhile. Hopefully it's working this time or maybe they gave up and scraped it?I am sure Omni with post it's lat/long and operational status shortly.
Addition: "In January 2017 the SBX-1 was deployed into the Pacific during North Korean threats of ICBM and nuclear attacks on other nations."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: omnigun on May 25, 2017, 11:30:38 AM
Yup, so fake
Good thing it doesn't apply to anyone on this site...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I know you are trying to insinuate something, but I can say literally nothing in that definition applies to myself except I do troll other sites once in a while. This site though I take serious :geekdanc:
Post by: robtmc on May 25, 2017, 01:06:39 PM
Yeah, I am done interacting with these trolls.Been watching this sort of liberal troll behavior since the Compuserve days. Another liberal gives them a tip about a site they should go troll and attack the hated conservatives. They typically will try and offer bona fides (I support the 2A! I own firearms!) to gain acceptance.
Their compulsive need to post constantly reveals why they are there. Disruption is the game, not swaying opinion or offering anything of value.
They may or may not be paid for the trolling (I think we have one here) by unknown parties.
Post by: omnigun on May 25, 2017, 02:43:39 PM
Been watching this sort of liberal troll behavior since the Compuserve days. Another liberal gives them a tip about a site they should go troll and attack the hated conservatives. They typically will try and offer bona fides (I support the 2A! I own firearms!) to gain acceptance.
Their compulsive need to post constantly reveals why they are there. Disruption is the game, not swaying opinion or offering anything of value.
They may or may not be paid for the trolling (I think we have one here) by unknown parties.
Lol, I assume this is targeted to me and a few others, cause I share a different (unpopular) opinion of certain subjects including that Trump isn't the best thing since sliced bread. But to say I am paid is funny, I wish I was. I also physically own guns that alone would kinda be a far stretch to say I'm some sort of anti gun liberal. That and I voted full republican in this years election. Would be like if belonged to Greenpeace and regularly consumed whale meat. Or was a peta supporter who owned a dozen real fur coats and ate meat every day.
In the end I think people here label others as "trolls" to anyone who shares a different opinion then themselves and disrupt their perfect little echo chamber. If you want to think that Trumps associates apparent close association with russia is a great asset or his lack of 2a bills/blatant support or his dumb twitter posting are all super positive aspects then you are all fools. The whole point of democracy is to support the good, denounce the bad not to blindly support someone. That's what a dictatorship is.
Post by: macsak on May 25, 2017, 02:48:53 PM
Or was a pita supporter(http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/02/pita-bread.jpg)
Post by: omnigun on May 25, 2017, 02:50:16 PM
(http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/02/pita-bread.jpg)
fixed lol :crazy:
Post by: rklapp on May 25, 2017, 06:45:23 PM
Addition: "In January 2017 the SBX-1 was deployed into the Pacific during North Korean threats of ICBM and nuclear attacks on other nations."Thanks, I forgot what it was called. I didn't know that it was self propelled. I thought it had to be towed like it was before the last hurricane hit Oahu.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-based_X-band_Radar
I remember reading about how it wasn't working the way it should and had to be refitted. The radar band was too narrow for the missile ship to find the target. However, it sounds like it's useful in tracking the test missiles that Kim has been sending out to sea.
"TheUnion of Concerned Scientists reported $2.2 billion SBX is designed for long-range precision tracking and discrimination of warheads from other objects, but it "has a number of serious limitations, including a very limited electronic field of view." Based on shortcomings of the SBX, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency announced plans to develop by 2020 a long-range discrimination radar in Alaska, the scientific group said."
The funny part about Trump telling Duterte about the two nuclear submarines off the coast of North Korea is that we already know they can reach that far with their missiles. :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on May 25, 2017, 08:25:49 PM
I was working on a project near where they were working on it at Pearl in maybe the 2008-2009 timeframe. They had it out of the water and sandblasted it down to bare metal and then probably 3 or 4 layers of coating/paint went on it. It looked super good after they were finished. Then off it went on a trip up to Alaska and when it came back, it was pretty beat up again. Much endure some harsh seas!
And I've seen that thing go in the open ocean. It's actually pretty fast!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: robtmc on May 25, 2017, 08:32:06 PM
Hawaii isn't the golf ball's home port. It does come here for lots of work.
I was working on a project near where they were working on it at Pearl in maybe the 2008-2009 timeframe. They had it out of the water and sandblasted it down to bare metal and then probably 3 or 4 layers of coating/paint went on it. It looked super good after they were finished. Then off it went on a trip up to Alaska and when it came back, it was pretty beat up again. Much endure some harsh seas!
And I've seen that thing go in the open ocean. It's actually pretty fast!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Inspector on May 30, 2017, 12:20:34 PM
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/05/30/oliver-north-north-korean-missile-could-shut-down-hawaii-decades
"Where grass is a vegetable"
Post by: drck1000 on May 30, 2017, 12:51:55 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/30/us-conducts-successful-missile-intercept-test-pentagon-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/30/us-conducts-successful-missile-intercept-test-pentagon-says.html)
I do work with guys who do blasts tests to evaluate their power and how to design buildings to mitigate those effects. I keep telling them that I would want to witness the testing. I have a project that did a scaled test to defeat a specific threat last year, but I wasn't able to witness the test. This is one that seems pretty interesting to be able to witness as well.
Post by: Inspector on May 30, 2017, 02:05:04 PM
US conducts successful missile intercept test, Pentagon saysThe last few times they had successful tests they released some footage of the test. I hope they do it again for this one. Both in real time and in slow mo. It should prove interesting.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/30/us-conducts-successful-missile-intercept-test-pentagon-says.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/05/30/us-conducts-successful-missile-intercept-test-pentagon-says.html)
I do work with guys who do blasts tests to evaluate their power and how to design buildings to mitigate those effects. I keep telling them that I would want to witness the testing. I have a project that did a scaled test to defeat a specific threat last year, but I wasn't able to witness the test. This is one that seems pretty interesting to be able to witness as well.
Post by: eyeeatingfish on May 30, 2017, 06:31:15 PM
Post by: rklapp on May 30, 2017, 06:51:57 PM
Post by: macsak on June 07, 2017, 10:15:13 PM
The last few times they had successful tests they released some footage of the test. I hope they do it again for this one. Both in real time and in slow mo. It should prove interesting.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/19751/VIDEO-ICBM-Knocked-out-of-Sky-in-Successful-Test-of-Missile-Defense.aspx
(http://cmgfeeds.cmgdigital.com/photo/2017/05/30/US%20MISSILE%20TEST_8195291_ver1.0_640_360.JPEG)
Just for fun, trace the path of the 'Interceptor' from Vandenberg. It continues right into downtown Pyongyang. I’m sure this is just a coincidence.
Post by: Bunker on June 07, 2017, 10:38:02 PM
Post by: Jl808 on June 08, 2017, 06:38:40 AM
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History's latest episode is called "The Destroyer of Worlds" where he discusses the "Sword of Damocles" that hangs over humanity's head since the discovery of the atom bomb. If you have 6 hours of listen time, it's pretty interesting.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/dan-carlins-hardcore-history/id173001861?mt=2&i=1000380386551
Post by: drck1000 on June 10, 2017, 11:26:05 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170611/c5a27553a35ac8c2b0465fbd3b4bbb23.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: London808 on June 11, 2017, 05:29:51 PM
You don't have to have a nuclear detonation to use nuclear material. A conventional warhead paced with cobalt 60 (used in Industrial X-rays etc.....) would have a devastating effect. You drop one of those over any city in the US and that city is a ghosts town for a decade.
Put one in a container ship and blow it up in a port like LA and you disrupt shipping and trade. Blow up a few and you cripple americas economy worse then 9/11 ever did.
Post by: punaperson on July 05, 2017, 01:52:21 PM
PS Added a few minutes later... I started reading the comments to the article and there is a LOT of serious hostility towards Hawaii... seems people apparently have some idea it's a socialist paradise thumbing it's nose at the Trump administration... wonder where they got that idea?
North Korea ICBM test: Alaska, Hawaii pols demand better missile defense
[website includes autoplay video...]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/05/north-korea-icbm-test-alaska-hawaii-pols-demand-better-missile-defense.html
U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, told Fox News on Wednesday that the U.S. must pursue “serious diplomatic efforts” to denuclearize North Korea.
“For the past fifteen years, our leaders have let the people of Hawaii and our country down, allowing the situation in North Korea to worsen to this point of crisis where we are left with nothing but bad options,” Gabbard told Fox News in a written statement. “As long as the U.S. is waging regime change wars, we are far less likely to reach a diplomatic solution in North Korea because they have no reason to believe our promises.”
But even as she criticized the administration's approach, she stressed the need to "defend against North Korea’s threat with cutting-edge missile defense technologies" as part of the response.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on July 05, 2017, 03:02:48 PM
Once Kim Jong il became the leader, he pretended to work with the US to halt nuclear weapons testing while attempting to implement nuclear power plants. In 2002, NK announced the had been continuing their weapons development since 1998, and they conducted an underground test in 2005.
I'd like to know what Tulsi would have advised at that point while dealing with the Middle East wars. Should we have gone to war in NK as well? Should he have used UN sanctions to punish an already starving country for their leaders' decisions? Should we have used cruise missiles to level their development facilities?
Hindsight is always 20/20, but it doesn't help us define the correct path ahead. Personally, I'd like to see a coup so the Kim family no longer holds power.
Post by: RSN172 on July 05, 2017, 05:40:07 PM
Post by: Bunker on July 05, 2017, 07:16:54 PM
I would try to shoot down the NK test missiles once they were out of NK international borders, 12 miles off shore I believe it is. That would be a good test for our missiles.We already know we can successfully intercept ICBM's. Interceptors cost a lot of money, while at the same time we are increasing our inventory and advancing our BMD capability. We also need to factually know exactly what capability DPRK has. Shooting down every missile they launch provides us no new data to analyze, and cost a lot of money. This launch provided us good information to analyze and removed at lot of speculation.
Post by: drck1000 on August 09, 2017, 07:36:15 AM
Personally, I think it's a diversion. Though who knows. If they want to strike Guam, that would be like stepping on the pinky toe of an opponent.
Jokingly, some have mentioned doubts that the NK missile's targeting system is even capable of finding Guam, let alone hit it. China on the other hand. . .
Post by: macsak on August 09, 2017, 07:52:29 AM
So NK wants to target Guam, huh? Well, I'm supposed to travel there sometime in the Oct-Dec timeframe. . .
Personally, I think it's a diversion. Though who knows. If they want to strike Guam, that would be like stepping on the pinky toe of an opponent.
Jokingly, some have mentioned doubts that the NK missile's targeting system is even capable of finding Guam, let alone hit it. China on the other hand. . .
little fat boy would be stupid to launch at anyone
trump''s finger is on the button, and i don't think he would just give a warning like our last president would have
Post by: drck1000 on August 09, 2017, 07:58:18 AM
little fat boy would be stupid to launch at anyoneYeah, pretty much my thoughts. Just another way to garner attention and try to stay relevant. Sort of like the little kid who throws tantrums just to get reactions. That said, I wouldn't put it past him to try something. Though I think Guam is a pretty stupid choice of targets.
trump''s finger is on the button, and i don't think he would just give a warning like our last president would have
Someone posted a quote (or maybe a meme) from Mattis this morning.
Quote
“The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”
- Gen. James "Mad Dog Mattis
Post by: zippz on August 09, 2017, 08:17:35 AM
I wonder what is the state of our missle defense, is it ready to take down a ICBM yet? And even if it is, what is the response time if they get blindsided and Kim launches unexpectedly? First hit gets through before we can launch countermeasures?
Post by: Inspector on August 09, 2017, 08:21:32 AM
Someone posted a quote (or maybe a meme) from Mattis this morning.Now that's the way to keep someone awake all night worrying....Quote“The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”
- Gen. James "Mad Dog Mattis
GO MAD DOG!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Now my thought for the day. Since it is obvious fat boy can reach Hawaii with his nukes, how is this going to affect our tourism industry? Who is going to want to come here if he starts threatening to blow up Hawaii?
Post by: punaperson on August 09, 2017, 09:20:38 AM
Now my thought for the day. Since it is obvious fat boy can reach Hawaii with his nukes, how is this going to affect our tourism industry? Who is going to want to come here if he starts threatening to blow up Hawaii?All the more reason for Hawaii's brilliant legislators to tax the residents of "the outer islands" to pay for that tourism enhancing Oahu rail system! ;)
Post by: Inspector on August 09, 2017, 09:50:48 AM
All the more reason for Hawaii's brilliant legislators to tax the residents of "the outer islands" to pay for that tourism enhancing Oahu rail system! ;)Aaaaaah yes!!! Brilliant idea. And we can add that each elevated segment in the guideway is a concrete bunker capable of surviving a nuclear blast!!! You just have to figure out how to get in to them. But that's beside the point. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Post by: ren on August 09, 2017, 09:55:09 AM
and of course schatz always has something negative to say about the POTUS - no bipartisanship there :thumbsup:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36092282/amid-rising-tensions-north-korea-threatens-preemptive-strike-against-guam (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/36092282/amid-rising-tensions-north-korea-threatens-preemptive-strike-against-guam)
Post by: zippz on August 09, 2017, 11:30:19 AM
Post by: drck1000 on August 28, 2017, 12:53:08 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/28/north-korea-fires-unidentified-missile-reports-say.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/28/north-korea-fires-unidentified-missile-reports-say.html)
Then I get texts from my GF (who is in Japan now) saying that the news was giving warnings of NK shooting another missile this morning and advising people to take shelter in "strong buildings".
I'll be leaving for a trip with friends to Japan on Saturday. And more of this crap. . .
Post by: Inspector on August 28, 2017, 02:17:29 PM
So apparently NK shot of a few more missiles. I saw reports from different US commands that stated that US mainland as well as Hawaii and Guam (feedback from different commands) were not in jeopardy.I don't blame the Japanese for taking a missile launch so seriously considering they fly them over their country. I think the U.S just ought to let them shoot down every missile that NK launches over them. Use their missiles as test fodder for our missile defense system. I personally don't see anything wrong with that as long as the missiles are flying through Japan's airspace.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/28/north-korea-fires-unidentified-missile-reports-say.html (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/28/north-korea-fires-unidentified-missile-reports-say.html)
Then I get texts from my GF (who is in Japan now) saying that the news was giving warnings of NK shooting another missile this morning and advising people to take shelter in "strong buildings".
I'll be leaving for a trip with friends to Japan on Saturday. And more of this crap. . .
Sorry you will have to deal with this while visiting Japan. Safe travels, DRCK.
Post by: mrgaf on August 30, 2017, 02:04:26 PM
Post by: Inspector on August 30, 2017, 02:25:00 PM
Oh shit we are in deep kimchee now. North Korea reveals new fighter bomber....Funny you posted this. I read this article yesterday and forgot to post it up for everyone:
North Korea's antique airplane could be its most dangerous weapon yet
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/29/north-koreas-antique-airplane-could-be-its-most-dangerous-weapon-yet.html
"While the concept of Pyongyang using these Stalin-era planes seems far-fetched considering the nuclear weapons at its disposal, the aircrafts could be North Korea’s most deadly weapon.
The dated aircraft raisesthe concern that they could be used to transport a nuclear bomb to be dropped quite easily without triggering any radar at any specific target."
Post by: mrgaf on August 30, 2017, 08:38:27 PM
Funny you posted this. I read this article yesterday and forgot to post it up for everyone:Bwaahahahaha we really in deep doo doo!
North Korea's antique airplane could be its most dangerous weapon yet
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/29/north-koreas-antique-airplane-could-be-its-most-dangerous-weapon-yet.html
"While the concept of Pyongyang using these Stalin-era planes seems far-fetched considering the nuclear weapons at its disposal, the aircrafts could be North Korea’s most deadly weapon.
The dated aircraft raisesthe concern that they could be used to transport a nuclear bomb to be dropped quite easily without triggering any radar at any specific target."
Post by: mrgaf on August 30, 2017, 08:40:04 PM
Post by: eyeeatingfish on August 30, 2017, 11:25:57 PM
I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
Post by: Inspector on August 31, 2017, 04:36:09 AM
My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 31, 2017, 09:54:03 AM
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
I'm not sure about the conclusions. We tried to shoot down almost every SCUD that was fired from Iraq. Even though the hit ratio was low (40-50%), it showed we have the capability, even if the reliability and effectiveness isn't 100%. If we can hit 50% of their missiles, they have to increase launches by 100% to ensure they hit the same number of intended targets.
We had permission from the countries bordering Iraq to shoot at the SCUDs, NK is different. When a missile is in NK air space, and then travels into international air space, they have every right for that missile to be there. Once it crosses into another country's airspace, then they/we can legally shoot the missile down -- or try to.
Just because we can hit a missile doesn't mean we legally have that right. Just because we try and miss doesn't mean the anti-missile systems are worthless. Chances of success are about 50%, but that's much better than 0%.
Post by: drck1000 on August 31, 2017, 10:06:00 AM
I don't blame the Japanese for taking a missile launch so seriously considering they fly them over their country. I think the U.S just ought to let them shoot down every missile that NK launches over them. Use their missiles as test fodder for our missile defense system. I personally don't see anything wrong with that as long as the missiles are flying through Japan's airspace.Yeah, gotta take that stuff seriously. Though kind of reminds me of that scene from 300 when Leonidas goes to meet the emissary and the "pray that the are that stupid" to assassinate him and start the "real" war.
Sorry you will have to deal with this while visiting Japan. Safe travels, DRCK.
While NKs belligerence will certainly be on my mind while I am there, I'm not that concerned about it. One of my best friends and his whole family is already there. I join them this weekend. Really looking forward to the trip. Well, maybe not the two days at Disneyland and Disney Sea with a 3 yo and 1 yo. Haha. Well, I am looking forward to it, but the young ones can make things very fun as well as, uh, test my patience. Haha.
Post by: davgdavg on August 31, 2017, 02:13:24 PM
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
That analysis is basically %100 bull. :wtf:
We've operationally been able to shoot down missiles since at least the 90s. The Israeli's have gotten to the point where they can shoot down tiny rockets with low trajectories and hit SAM missiles (which is damn impressive btw) selectively after calculating whether or not they pose a risk, along with SRBMs, MRBMs, and likely ICBMs. Pretty amazing. Of course it's not %100. Nothing is, big whoop.
NOW, whether or not the US and regional allies choose to deploy and use those systems remains to be seen. People underestimate just how expensive it would be to actually protect the entire West coast. We are talking about billions if not trillions.
If you want possible answers about why nobody shot it down, here's just a few:
1) The trajectory was clearly attempting to not overfly Japanese land as best as possible. NK chose their best option for launching a missile which has to overfly someone due to their geographic location. They're not going to choose China or Russia out of their 4 options. So, there is no point in wasting millions of dollars on a missile for nothing.
2) We don't want to show our poker hand for a harmless missile.
3) We don't care (or would like) an inert warhead missile strike on a very, very, low population density Japan as it provides a good reason to go to war.
4) We want to observe exactly where their technology is at, what it does, etc.
Post by: Inspector on August 31, 2017, 02:50:09 PM
That analysis is basically %100 bull. :wtf:You obviously don't understand as you are mixing up two completely different defense systems for two completely different types of missiles. Our THAAD Missile Defense system is the missile defense system you are referring to being in place since the 90's is designed to shoot down short, medium and intermediate ballistic missiles with shorter ranges than the ICBM that North Korea launched. The missile defense system that is designed to defend against ICBM's is a completely different system and is still under development. And it has only about a 50% success rate so far. It is a lot harder to shoot down a missile moving much faster and going into outer space than it is to hit a much slower moving short, medium and intermediate ballistic missile.
We've operationally been able to shoot down missiles since at least the 90s. The Israeli's have gotten to the point where they can shoot down tiny rockets with low trajectories and hit SAM missiles (which is damn impressive btw) selectively after calculating whether or not they pose a risk, along with SRBMs, MRBMs, and likely ICBMs. Pretty amazing. Of course it's not %100. Nothing is, big whoop.
NOW, whether or not the US and regional allies choose to deploy and use those systems remains to be seen. People underestimate just how expensive it would be to actually protect the entire West coast. We are talking about billions if not trillions.
If you want possible answers about why nobody shot it down, here's just a few:
1) The trajectory was clearly attempting to not overfly Japanese land as best as possible. NK chose their best option for launching a missile which has to overfly someone due to their geographic location. They're not going to choose China or Russia out of their 4 options. So, there is no point in wasting millions of dollars on a missile for nothing.
2) We don't want to show our poker hand for a harmless missile.
3) We don't care (or would like) an inert warhead missile strike on a very, very, low population density Japan as it provides a good reason to go to war.
4) We want to observe exactly where their technology is at, what it does, etc.
Now as to the analysis as to why we have not tried to shoot it down, to me the analyst makes sense based on the reality of only about a 50% success rate for new technology. I'll let your arguments as to why stand as I am no expert in this sort of gamesmanship.
I would prefer that we try and use the NK missiles as test fodder. But again I am not an expert here.
Post by: davgdavg on August 31, 2017, 03:07:26 PM
You obviously don't understand as you are mixing up two completely different defense systems for two completely different types of missiles. Our THAAD Missile Defense system is the missile defense system you are referring to being in place since the 90's is designed to shoot down short, medium and intermediate ballistic missiles with shorter ranges than the ICBM that North Korea launched. The missile defense system that is designed to defend against ICBM's is a completely different system and is still under development. And it has only about a 50% success rate so far. It is a lot harder to shoot down a missile moving much faster and going into outer space than it is to hit a much slower moving short, medium and intermediate ballistic missile.
Now as to the analysis as to why we have not tried to shoot it down, to me the analyst makes sense based on the reality of only about a 50% success rate for new technology. I'll let your arguments as to why stand as I am no expert in this sort of gamesmanship.
I would prefer that we try and use the NK missiles as test fodder. But again I am not an expert here.
No, I'm not confusing the systems. You're response was directly in response to someone asking why we didn't shoot down a missile that had a SRBM or MRBM trajectory (regardless of NK's claims of theoretical distance)...you said you read an analysis about that, and also just said "missiles". Please re-read your post with the quoted post above and you will understand my post:
Also, almost any IRBM/MRBM goes into "outer space" like you say, that's not the difference between it and an ICBM...maybe you're the one who doesn't understand (and why get personal if its not your opinion?) Ballistics missiles of varying ranges are not "completely different" by any stretch of the imagination.
Lastly, that you think NK has an ICBM that can "change direction in mid flight" really says something about your understanding of this all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on August 30, 2017, 11:25:57 PM
My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.
I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 31, 2017, 03:49:18 PM
Lastly, that you think NK has an ICBM that can "change direction in mid flight" really says something about your understanding of this all.
Actually, you're wrong.
ICBMs do have the ability to make sudden, sharp changes in direction for the express purpose of avoiding anti-ballistic missiles. It's a feature that was added once the risk of an ABM hit became reasonable.
What ICBMs do NOT do is change targets in mid-flight. Once they launch, there is no way to change the target coordinates remotely. That's to prevent another party from possibly changing the target coordinates so it misses them, or even using the missile against the country that launched it.
Do some research. You'll see I'm right.
Post by: ren on August 31, 2017, 03:59:22 PM
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 31, 2017, 04:06:16 PM
I wonder if these NK ICBMs are open-sourced powered by Android?
Raspberry Pi.
Post by: robtmc on August 31, 2017, 04:37:37 PM
I'm not sure about the conclusions. We tried to shoot down almost every SCUD that was fired from Iraq. Even though the hit ratio was low (40-50%), it showed we have the capability, even if the reliability and effectiveness isn't 100%. If we can hit 50% of their missiles, they have to increase launches by 100% to ensure they hit the same number of intended targets.
IIRC, that was using the Patriot system, which was designed as an anti-aircraft system. The missile kill capability was an add-om I believe. Sort of like the evolution of the Standard misslie?
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on August 31, 2017, 04:46:30 PM
IIRC, that was using the Patriot system, which was designed as an anti-aircraft system. The missile kill capability was an add-om I believe. Sort of like the evolution of the Standard misslie?
Yes, the Patriots were around since about 1969, and the anti-missile defense function came later. They weren't as concerned about a direct hit as they were getting close enough to explode and cause shrapnel and the shock wave to damage the incoming missile enough to cause a crash.
The work being done at PMRF on Kauai is for all ABM development and testing -- cruise missiles, ICBMs, short range missiles, etc.
These systems combine to make up our missile defense shield.
Post by: Inspector on August 31, 2017, 07:43:06 PM
No, I'm not confusing the systems. You're response was directly in response to someone asking why we didn't shoot down a missile that had a SRBM or MRBM trajectory (regardless of NK's claims of theoretical distance)...you said you read an analysis about that, and also just said "missiles". Please re-read your post with the quoted post above and you will understand my post:My response was to EEF in regards to the missile that was launched and flew over Japan. That missile was determined to be an ICBM. Sorry if that wasn't clear. All I was referring to was an analysis of that missile launch and the consequences of what might happen if we shot it down.
Also, almost any IRBM/MRBM goes into "outer space" like you say, that's not the difference between it and an ICBM...maybe you're the one who doesn't understand (and why get personal if its not your opinion?) Ballistics missiles of varying ranges are not "completely different" by any stretch of the imagination.
Lastly, that you think NK has an ICBM that can "change direction in mid flight" really says something about your understanding of this all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: eyeeatingfish on August 30, 2017, 11:25:57 PM
My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.
I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
The THAAD system is not designed to shoot down ICBM's. It is a different system that we have that so far has only been 50% effective against ICBM's. It is still under development and testing. The THAAD system has been deployed in South Korea because it can be hit by NK by missiles that are only short and medium range. I am not sure what you are saying about trajectories but ICBM's travel in space for long distances and come in faster and harder than short and medium range missiles do. That is a very different trajectory than a short/medium range missile. My understanding is this is why THAAD is not capable of hitting an ICBM. The system we have in Japan that is used for ICBM's is only deployed in Japan, Alaska and parts of the mainland. And it has only been effective 50% of the time. So the analysis that I read is quite accurat in my opinion.
I am not sure what you took personally, but what I wrote was not meant to be personal. I cannot help it if you took it that way. But I will apologize for whatever it is I said that you took personally as it was not meant to be personal.
But let's look at deception. You start on me about missiles changing direction. I never wrote that. EEF wrote it. You combined my post with EEF's post and are trying to make me out to say something I didn't. I don't appreciate your attempts at this sort of deception. Go back and look and see what you did.
Post by: mrgaf on August 31, 2017, 09:37:08 PM
Those of us who worked on the system with MDA were and are privy to information that has not been fed to the public for obvious reasons. System is not perfect but, like ants, sheer numbers will win the day. The general public has only been told what they need to be told and that's that. Believe me when I say it's a pretty bad ass system and it's getting better all the time.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 01, 2017, 12:12:57 AM
Post by: mrgaf on September 01, 2017, 07:02:02 AM
The missile stuff is ridiculous. Everybody wastes so much money on that crap so that they never have to use it. That's the definition of deterrent. Guys in the industry just figured out that people will buy whatever you got if it means being slightly less afraid. It's all one huge scam.I guess I can't change your opinion, bro but if it means anything I worked on the three major arms of the missle defense system for over 10 years, nothing else, while I was in DoD. As for capabilities the public has been given just enough info to keep them entertained, no more. If the system was or is a scam I would have been the first to admit it, believe me. Sure it's not perfect yet but it's getting there. The technology, both terrestrial and in space is a marvel of science. It's much further along than J.Q. Public has been told and hopefully you understand why. I can't say anymore but the system will have its test by fire soon enough. You'll be surprised! Think of it as shooting. You don't hit the target every time at first but thru practice, you will. Anyway, it's in the Lords hands. We ain't in control.... God bless!
Post by: davgdavg on September 01, 2017, 08:55:59 AM
My response was to EEF in regards to the missile that was launched and flew over Japan. That missile was determined to be an ICBM. Sorry if that wasn't clear. All I was referring to was an analysis of that missile launch and the consequences of what might happen if we shot it down.
The THAAD system is not designed to shoot down ICBM's. It is a different system that we have that so far has only been 50% effective against ICBM's. It is still under development and testing. The THAAD system has been deployed in South Korea because it can be hit by NK by missiles that are only short and medium range. I am not sure what you are saying about trajectories but ICBM's travel in space for long distances and come in faster and harder than short and medium range missiles do. That is a very different trajectory than a short/medium range missile. My understanding is this is why THAAD is not capable of hitting an ICBM. The system we have in Japan that is used for ICBM's is only deployed in Japan, Alaska and parts of the mainland. And it has only been effective 50% of the time. So the analysis that I read is quite accurat in my opinion.
I am not sure what you took personally, but what I wrote was not meant to be personal. I cannot help it if you took it that way. But I will apologize for whatever it is I said that you took personally as it was not meant to be personal.
I took personally you stating that I "obviously" didn't understand when everything you said and quoted showed a poor grasp of the current state of the technology or even ballistic missiles. If you want to ask mrgaf who apparently knows about this stuff if my statements hold water, feel free. Anyhow, exactly like I said, people more in the know have also said, the tech is there and has been for some time to shoot down very rudimentary missiles like those of NK. Russian or Chinese MIRVs might be a different story, but I have no idea about that. Like I said, $ spent on defending a NK threat that might not even be a threat is the real issue here.
I'll leave it at that, and extend a laurel and hardy handshake to bury the hatchet. :shaka:
Post by: Inspector on September 01, 2017, 09:03:47 AM
Deception? Lol. Here are your EXACT words: "I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight." Sometimes I feel like I am taking crazy pills.You again are wrong. I did not say those words. I suggested you check out the posting but I guess you didn't. Here is the link to the direct post: https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=26882.msg255785#msg255785
I took personally you stating that I "obviously" didn't understand when everything you said and quoted showed a poor grasp of the current state of the technology or even ballistic missiles. If you want to ask mrgaf who apparently knows about this stuff if my statements hold water, feel free. Anyhow, exactly like I said, people more in the know have also said, the tech is there and has been for some time to shoot down very rudimentary missiles like those of NK. Russian or Chinese MIRVs might be a different story, but I have no idea about that. Like I said, $ spent on defending a NK threat that might not even be a threat is the real issue here.
I'll leave it at that, and extend a laurel and hardy handshake to bury the hatchet. :shaka:
Here is the quote from me:
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
Here is the quote from EEF:
My wife was in Japan when they launched that missile over Japan. I want to know why they didn't shoot it down. I also want to know that next time North Korea launches a missile in the direction of Japan, South Korea, or the US, we fire a retaliatory strike.
I am not a missile expert but I am assuming that you cannot determine where it will land by its simple trajectory given modern technology to change direction mid flight.
Not my words you are attributing to me. They are the words of EEF. You combined both my posts and EEF's post and you attributed the combined post to me. Please research your mistake here. It is quite obvious.
Post by: punaperson on September 01, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Not my words you are attributing to me. They are the words of EEF. You combined both my posts and EEF's post and you attributed the combined post to me. Please research your mistake here. It is quite obvious.He just wants to be the first person to publicly posit the hypothesis (long held by many posters here I'm sure) that "Inspector" and "eyeeatingfish" are in reality the same person. Go on...fess up! :rofl:
Post by: drck1000 on September 01, 2017, 11:03:48 AM
The most knowledge I can claim is having actually been to PMRF and having worked on projects to design and construct THADD and other similar/related facilities. Speaking to the users of the facilities was actually pretty enlightening. And yeah, there's only so much information that is released to the public. I've chatted with the R&D folks as well who sort of help tailor the project requirements. Not sure how those guys get funded, but their jobs seem pretty fun, but probably somewhat of a "grass is greener" thing.
Personally, the job I want is with another department in the larger organization that I work in that does blast design, which of course includes blast testing. ;D
Post by: robtmc on September 01, 2017, 11:26:46 AM
The most knowledge I can claim is having actually been to PMRF and having worked on projects to design and construct THADD and other similar/related facilities.Was offered a job at PMRF back in 2008 but turned it down for lack of any sort of moving assistance. The pay cut I could have tolerated, but no moving help and the wretched housing situation on Kauai did it in.
Post by: davgdavg on September 01, 2017, 11:55:45 AM
Not my words you are attributing to me. They are the words of EEF. You combined both my posts and EEF's post and you attributed the combined post to me. Please research your mistake here. It is quite obvious.
The rest of my arguments are still the same, but Well, I'll be. You are %100 right and I am wrong that I mistook that 1 sentence for yours. In one of my posts the words did get put together somehow, and I was going from that. My apologies for that error.
Post by: Inspector on September 01, 2017, 12:15:50 PM
He just wants to be the first person to publicly posit the hypothesis (long held by many posters here I'm sure) that "Inspector" and "eyeeatingfish" are in reality the same person. Go on...fess up! :rofl:Okay, okay. My alter ego is EEF. I admit it. I have two personalities. But I have to admit that Inspector is better looking!!! :love: :love: :love:
Post by: Inspector on September 01, 2017, 12:17:02 PM
The rest of my arguments are still the same, but Well, I'll be. You are %100 right and I am wrong that I mistook that 1 sentence for yours. In one of my posts the words did get put together somehow, and I was going from that. My apologies for that error.We are good then. We agree to disagree on some things. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 01, 2017, 12:18:26 PM
Was offered a job at PMRF back in 2008 but turned it down for lack of any sort of moving assistance. The pay cut I could have tolerated, but no moving help and the wretched housing situation on Kauai did it in.
I was also talked to about moving there. I think it was back in 2006 timeframe. With kids in high school and college, and just going through a divorce, it wasn't feasible at all to move.
Post by: drck1000 on September 01, 2017, 12:31:20 PM
Was offered a job at PMRF back in 2008 but turned it down for lack of any sort of moving assistance. The pay cut I could have tolerated, but no moving help and the wretched housing situation on Kauai did it in.First time I went to PMRF wasn't that long ago. First time I visited that side of Kauai. Before that, I had only been from the airport and east and around to Princeville and Hanalei area. Everything was so GREEN. It actually shocked me that the area around PMRF is quite dry, almost desert like in many areas. Never occurred to me that Kauai would be the same as pretty much every other island where the west side is pretty dry and arid. I just assumed ALL of Kauai was super green.
I was chatting with an active duty guy at PMRF and they have transports back to Oahu. But yeah, I could see it being a royal PITA to relocate there. Assuming you'd have to move via commercial shippers/movers.
I think I would enjoy a weeklong vacation at the cottages that they have out there. That's some nice beaches.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 01, 2017, 12:39:46 PM
I guess I can't change your opinion, bro but if it means anything I worked on the three major arms of the missle defense system for over 10 years, nothing else, while I was in DoD. As for capabilities the public has been given just enough info to keep them entertained, no more. If the system was or is a scam I would have been the first to admit it, believe me. Sure it's not perfect yet but it's getting there. The technology, both terrestrial and in space is a marvel of science. It's much further along than J.Q. Public has been told and hopefully you understand why. I can't say anymore but the system will have its test by fire soon enough. You'll be surprised! Think of it as shooting. You don't hit the target every time at first but thru practice, you will. Anyway, it's in the Lords hands. We ain't in control.... God bless!
Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.
Post by: macsak on September 01, 2017, 12:44:25 PM
Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.
Post by: Flapp_Jackson on September 01, 2017, 12:46:37 PM
Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.
That only applies if the nukes are in the hands of rational government leaders. When you have an idealogical or religious zealot who decides to arm terrorists to do the deed, an active defense is the only option. NK knows what the repercussions would be for them launching on the US. Radicals and rogue elements may not care.
Post by: mrgaf on September 01, 2017, 07:59:49 PM
I took personally you stating that I "obviously" didn't understand when everything you said and quoted showed a poor grasp of the current state of the technology or even ballistic missiles. If you want to ask mrgaf who apparently knows about this stuff if my statements hold water, feel free. Anyhow, exactly like I said, people more in the know have also said, the tech is there and has been for some time to shoot down very rudimentary missiles like those of NK. Russian or Chinese MIRVs might be a different story, but I have no idea about that. Like I said, $ spent on defending a NK threat that might not even be a threat is the real issue here.
I'll leave it at that, and extend a laurel and hardy handshake to bury the hatchet. :shaka:
You hit the nail on the head! MIRV's are the Achilles heel of the C2BMC. When I retired two years ago fro DoD they were making great progress in resolving the MIRV problem. One must remember is all it takes is 1 MIRV warhead to make it thru. The Swarm concept seems like the only viable way with the present technology to overcome the MIRV.
Post by: mrgaf on September 01, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
Forgive me for presuming but I'm a little jaded when it comes to throwing our tax money down the military techno hole. You obviously have way more experience than me and that's got to count for something. I just thing the whole premise of "we will stop their missiles and they can't stop ours" is a race to oblivion. The whole point of nukes is never having to use them, so the whole idea of a nuclear arms race seems absurd unless someone stands to massively profit from it. That's more of a philosophical argument, though.Understand. Earlier MIRV's were mentioned. They are or at least they were the Achilles heel of the C2BMC. I'm sure there was/is waste going on with the BMDS. Littile known fact; the SBX1 (Gods golf ball I used to call it) is actually built on a surplus Russian oil rig! Ain't that a bitch! :wtf: :geekdanc:
Post by: London808 on September 01, 2017, 08:15:07 PM
NK has 58+ Diesel electric subs that America will have next to no chance of stopping.
Post by: dustoff003 on September 01, 2017, 08:26:22 PM
You guys still think that if a nuke is used on America it will come by missile.........
NK has 58+ Diesel electric subs that America will have next to no chance of stopping.
The USCG could take out NK diesel electric subs if they even make it to the US.
If not our the CG one of our USN cruisers or destroyers could just hit it when they are topside charging their batteries.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: mrgaf on September 01, 2017, 08:41:08 PM
You guys still think that if a nuke is used on America it will come by missile.........Cavitation, cavitation, cavitation. End of the diesel/electric deployment....
NK has 58+ Diesel electric subs that America will have next to no chance of stopping.
Post by: hvybarrels on September 01, 2017, 10:35:56 PM
You guys still think that if a nuke is used on America it will come by missile.........
NK has 58+ Diesel electric subs that America will have next to no chance of stopping.
I was wondering how difficult it would be to put a dirty bomb in a shipping container or a hijacked yacht. That would make sense for a non-state terrorist organization but not for NK. The whole reason they are developing nukes is to make us think twice about invading. Once they actually use them it defeats the whole purpose of owning them.
Post by: oldfart on September 02, 2017, 07:17:34 PM
Post by: robtmc on September 03, 2017, 10:51:35 AM
I was wondering how difficult it would be to put a dirty bomb in a shipping container or a hijacked yacht. That would make sense for a non-state terrorist organization but not for NK. The whole reason they are developing nukes is to make us think twice about invading. Once they actually use them it defeats the whole purpose of owning them.Curious if Honolulu harbor has the same sort of radiation monitors the major mainland ports do to scan incoming traffic.
Post by: London808 on September 03, 2017, 01:11:17 PM
I was wondering how difficult it would be to put a dirty bomb in a shipping container or a hijacked yacht. That would make sense for a non-state terrorist organization but not for NK. The whole reason they are developing nukes is to make us think twice about invading. Once they actually use them it defeats the whole purpose of owning them.
For more effect what they could do is take a boat/ship of them he coast of California and/or Texas, load a nuke onto a balloon rig using weather balloons or similar, set the bomb with an altimeter and tell it to demonstrate at the highest point ( explode when the lift generated is no longer generated and/or the ballon pops due to expansion)
This would have the same effect as a high altitude air burst, creating an EMP that would destroy most of America.
The costs, skills and technology are already available, it would not rely on miniaturization technology and it would be near impossible to detect/stop
Post by: oldfart on September 03, 2017, 01:30:39 PM
For more effect what they could do is take a boat/ship of them he coast of California and/or Texas, load a nuke onto a balloon rig using weather balloons or similar, set the bomb with an altimeter and tell it to demonstrate at the highest point ( explode when the lift generated is no longer generated and/or the ballon pops due to expansion)...
This would have the same effect as a high altitude air burst, creating an EMP that would destroy most of America.
The costs, skills and technology are already available, it would not rely on miniaturization technology and it would be near impossible to detect/stop
Sounds like an unpublished Tom Clancy-Jack Ryan novel to me.
Post by: London808 on September 03, 2017, 01:46:30 PM
...
Sounds like an unpublished Tom Clancy-Jack Ryan novel to me.
"In 2004, two Russian generals, both EMP experts, warned the EMP Commission that the design for Russia’s super-EMP warhead, capable of generating high intensity EMP fields of 200,000 volts per meter, was “accidentally” transferred to North Korea, and that due to “brain drain,” Russian scientists were in North Korea, helping with their missile and nuclear weapon programs. South Korean military intelligence told their press that Russian scientists are in North Korea helping develop an EMP nuclear weapon. In 2013, a Chinese military commentator stated North Korea has super-EMP nuclear weapons."
"For instance, North Korea could make an EMP attack against the United States by launching a short-range missile off a freighter or submarine or by lofting a warhead to 30 kilometers burst height by balloon. While such lower-altitude EMP attacks would not cover the whole US mainland, as would an attack at higher-altitude (300 kilometers), even a balloon-lofted warhead detonated at 30 kilometers altitude could blackout the Eastern Grid that supports most of the population and generates 75 percent of US electricity."
"Thus, even if North Korea only has primitive, low-yield nuclear weapons, and if other states or terrorists acquire one or a few such weapons as well as the capability to detonate them at an altitude of 30 kilometers or higher over the United States. As, the EMP Commission warned over a decade ago in its 2004 Report, “the damage level could be sufficient to be catastrophic to the Nation, and our current vulnerability invites attack.” "
Even the best fiction is based on fact,
http://www.38north.org/2017/06/wgraham060217/ (http://www.38north.org/2017/06/wgraham060217/)
Post by: London808 on September 03, 2017, 01:51:15 PM
Post by: drck1000 on September 03, 2017, 02:19:27 PM
Curious if Honolulu harbor has the same sort of radiation monitors the major mainland ports do to scan incoming traffic.I know at least one that has (or had them). I did the design of the entry and exit to accommodate the equipment. Pretty interesting stuff. This was over 10 years ago, so maybe they went with different technology.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: mrgaf on September 03, 2017, 08:27:39 PM
Again NK doesn't need to use a missile to launch nukes (f on NK) a diesel electric submarine with a nuke and ballon launch system or a short range surface fired missile would do the same if not better job. Even if we detected the launch In time we would not have a significant chance or reacting.Take a look at this then you'll understand that the detection of the mini-sub is, for a better word, elementary. Extremely easy to detect by surface, sub-surface, airborne deployed sono-bouys or submarine detection grids.......
As for the balloons, you have a point.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ON_irzFAU9c
Post by: eyeeatingfish on September 03, 2017, 09:52:44 PM
I read an analysis on this. And the so called expert said that the technology needed to shoot down a missile is much more sophisticated than all the space, satellite and weapon technology combined. And it is just in its infancy. The fact is that we have missed as many test missiles as we have hit them. With that in mind the expert said if we were to attempt to hit the missile and we miss it not only would be an embarrassment, but it would also send an unintentional message to NK and the the rest of our enemies that we are full of hot air and our missile defense system does not work. This would embolden NK to not only continue but they will probably stop at nothing to get to the nuclear power country status that seems to be their goal. He said some other things which I don't remember at this time but that was the gist of his comments.
This is not my opinion I am just repeating what I remember from the analysis.
I agree that a miss would make him think we weren't as strong as we might claim. I don't see this situation ending peacefully. If he keeps launching "test" missiles over our allies, sooner or later someone isn't going to take it any longer.
Post by: RSN172 on September 04, 2017, 11:34:53 PM
Post by: davgdavg on September 05, 2017, 09:19:09 AM
Take a look at this then you'll understand that the detection of the mini-sub is, for a better word, elementary. Extremely easy to detect by surface, sub-surface, airborne deployed sono-bouys or submarine detection grids.......
As for the balloons, you have a point.....
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ON_irzFAU9c
I'm curious if I am misunderstanding something. Like the video says, cavitation is dependent on velocity of the blades/sub. Keep the blades slow enough, and there is no cavitation, right? I thought a sub will normally stay below that velocity except in an emergency situation. I was pretty sure this has been done since WWII.
I think it was in 2014 or 2015 that a Swedish Gotland class sub evaded the entire Reagan battle group and theoretically sunk the carrier before disappearing again during exercises. My understanding was that the only realistic way to get one of those subs is when it is recharging its batteries or maybe after its fired something.
Whether NK has subs of that quality is suspect, but theoretical ability is there for a nearly silent sub.
Post by: mrgaf on September 05, 2017, 07:40:57 PM
I'm curious if I am misunderstanding something. Like the video says, cavitation is dependent on velocity of the blades/sub. Keep the blades slow enough, and there is no cavitation, right? I thought a sub will normally stay below that velocity except in an emergency situation. I was pretty sure this has been done since WWII.
I think it was in 2014 or 2015 that a Swedish Gotland class sub evaded the entire Reagan battle group and theoretically sunk the carrier before disappearing again during exercises. My understanding was that the only realistic way to get one of those subs is when it is recharging its batteries or maybe after its fired something.
Whether NK has subs of that quality is suspect, but theoretical ability is there for a nearly silent sub.
You are correct. Great example. The Stirling AIP propulsion is a real marvel and is unbelievably quiet. Most modern day subs have two counter- rotating screws for noise cancellation due to cavitation. This allows them to speed up considerably compared to the older, single screw boats. However it's not just cavitation. Drop a wrench when someone is listening, you've been caught. As for running silent, the submariner service says "there's submarines and there's targets". I don't think NK has the same level of technology or silent running as the Swedish boat. If they are coming me thinks we'll detect and hopefully grow a set of balls and destroy.
Post by: davgdavg on September 06, 2017, 12:13:28 PM
You are correct. Great example. The Stirling AIP propulsion is a real marvel and is unbelievably quiet. Most modern day subs have two counter- rotating screws for noise cancellation due to cavitation. This allows them to speed up considerably compared to the older, single screw boats. However it's not just cavitation. Drop a wrench when someone is listening, you've been caught. As for running silent, the submariner service says "there's submarines and there's targets". I don't think NK has the same level of technology or silent running as the Swedish boat. If they are coming me thinks we'll detect and hopefully grow a set of balls and destroy.
Cool, thanks. I always wondered about in The Hunt for Red October if they would really be able to hear singing or things like a wrench dropping. Sounds like it would possible. I'm curious to see how a twin prop works in terms of fluid dynamics, but I guess that is all classified stuff.
Post by: robtmc on September 07, 2017, 08:32:12 AM
I'm curious to see how a twin prop works in terms of fluid dynamics, but I guess that is all classified stuff.Maybe some small boats have a twin prop setup?
I have just two outboards, but have read about some inboard-outboard (stern drive?) setups having dual props on them. Never looked for one to see if the props are counter rotating.
Post by: mrgaf on September 07, 2017, 08:11:43 PM
You are correct. Great example. The Stirling AIP propulsion is a real marvel and is unbelievably quiet. Most modern day subs have two counter- rotating screws for noise cancellation due to cavitation. This allows them to speed up considerably compared to the older, single screw boats. However it's not just cavitation. Drop a wrench when someone is listening, you've been caught. As for running silent, the submariner service says "there's submarines and there's targets". I don't think NK has the same level of technology or silent running as the Swedish boat. If they are coming me thinks we'll detect and hopefully grow a set of balls and destroy.Must make a Correction to my above statement. Been awhile since my sub days and seems like CRS creeps into my head once in a while.
Actually submarines did employ twin counter rotating screws quite some time ago, the idea being that they rotate opposite of each other it would cancel cavitation noise but it's quite the opposite. They actually produce more noise. Solutions have been two very precision screws far enough away from each other, should lower or at least retain a low cavitation at higher RPM. The Russians have employed this in some of their subs as have other navies. Most screws nowadays encorporate ubeliveably prescision screws with optimum pitch and shape as well as razor sharp leading and trailing edges. To protect these screws most subs have a shroud around the screws and probably assist in cavitation noise. If you look at he new Virginia class fast attack boats they employ a reverse shroud designed to permit max flow in with a thinner, more concentrated propulsion output.
NK could employ this on their mini subs but I still have very serious doubts about their silent running abilities. In my day Ruskie subs were very noisy and the U.S. Navy was so far advanced in their detection and silent running technologies that we could actually tell which sub it was, class wise, we were listening to. One of the boats I served on (USS PINTADO) literally tailed a ruskie nuke with only 100 yards separation their aft to our bow. After matching them turn for turn, we pulled up along along side of them at about 500' and yelled "boom boom" in Russian over the transmit transducer then pulled a hard turn to port and disappeared before they knew what happened. Oh well no more sea stories 😜😀⚓️
Post by: davgdavg on September 08, 2017, 11:58:23 AM
One of the boats I served on (USS PINTADO) literally tailed a ruskie nuke with only 100 yards separation their aft to our bow. After matching them turn for turn, we pulled up along along side of them at about 500' and yelled "boom boom" in Russian over the transmit transducer then pulled a hard turn to pose and disappeared before they knew what happened. Oh well no more sea stories 😜😀⚓️
That. is. awesome.