|
Don't worry guys, some guy says god is okay with trump sending a bit of the sun towards best korea https://twitter.com/publicroad/status/895066260056281088
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
Are... are people under the impression that North Korea is able to field an amount of nuclear ICBMs that rivals everything the USSR was able to put together? I don't mean to downplay the threat too much but it hasn't gone that far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Syrian Lannister posted:Rolling stone reporting Glen Campbell dead at 81 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waNGoWV194c TheGreasyStrangler posted:Are... are people under the impression that North Korea is able to field an amount of nuclear ICBMs that rivals everything the USSR was able to put together? I think most people aren't so much worried about the North Koreans but the orange toddler who is continuing to aggravate the situation and potentially making things far worse. Handsome Ralph fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
I've been at work today and haven't had a chance to dig into the news about DPRK beyond the OMFG SKY IS FALLING tweets. Is there evidence that suggests that DPRK has miniaturized nuclear weapons on ICBMs and is capable of actually deploying them, or is this "North Korea has hypothetically figured out how to miniaturize a nuke and put it on one of their homebuilt ICBMs of unknown capability"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
It seems like NK has an icbm sized nuclear device but nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:I've been at work today and haven't had a chance to dig into the news about DPRK beyond the OMFG SKY IS FALLING tweets. Is there evidence that suggests that DPRK has miniaturized nuclear weapons on ICBMs and is capable of actually deploying them, or is this "North Korea has hypothetically figured out how to miniaturize a nuke and put it on one of their homebuilt ICBMs of unknown capability"? The DIA agrees. quote:“The IC [intelligence community] assesses North Korea has produced nuclear weapons for ballistic missile delivery, to include delivery by ICBM-class missiles,” the assessment states, in an excerpt read to The Washington Post. Two U.S. officials familiar with the assessment verified its broad conclusions. It is not known whether the reclusive regime has successfully tested the smaller design, although North Korea officially claimed last year that it had done so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
I hope they do try to pop off a nuke at Guam. I bet it doesn't hit within 30 miles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
TBeats posted:You probably shouldn't ignore the country with nukes if they say they want to use them. I am picturing one of Kim's generals saying the same loving thing. TheGreasyStrangler posted:Are... are people under the impression that North Korea is able to field an amount of nuclear ICBMs that rivals everything the USSR was able to put together? How many ICBMs under North Korean control is ok with you? Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
To be fair. It doesn't matter how many you have. Its how many you can launch before your sites are erased and how many of those hit anything of value. I wouldn't want to test either. But that is something to consider. Also. Maddow bringing up Flynn's 2013 scare job that put us through the same scare, reminding us that this entire poo poo storm may not be true. Making solid points.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
How much weight should I put in this analysis? I mean it feels in line with what I thought I knew about the Norks but that was all pre-2017 worst timeline ever. And its imgur, not the best place to find quality analysis . How powerful is North Korea's military? An in-depth analysis
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Huh... https://twitter.com/PACAF/status/895062493361340416
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Oh so now the administration is listening to the IC
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Nystral posted:How much weight should I put in this analysis? I mean it feels in line with what I thought I knew about the Norks but that was all pre-2017 worst timeline ever. And its imgur, not the best place to find quality analysis . It's a high school student working from open source info. Not to say that it's bad, but some parts look a little optimistic to me. I'm rereading Victor Cha's book and it's a pretty sober assessment of the situation at least as of 2013.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:To be fair. It doesn't matter how many you have. Its how many you can launch before your sites are erased and how many of those hit anything of value. Is Seoul a target of value? Kadina? Yokuska? Tokyo? We keep moving the goal posts, years ago North Korea revealed their capability with nuclear weapons, they're now showing that they can threaten the mainland US with them. Regionally they've been a credible threat for years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Actually pretty normal. B-1s took over that particular job from B-52s last year I think. B-1s don't carry nukes btw
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:Actually pretty normal. B-1s took over that particular job from B-52s last year I think. Yup. B-1Bs would need a Depot refit to carry again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Godholio posted:How many ICBMs under North Korean control is ok with you? 0. The point is that with a few nukes NK cannot ensure MAD, and they aren't the USSR reborn. What's NK's economy look like without China blatantly opening up the floodgates of support? Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:03
|
|
TheGreasyStrangler posted:0. The point is that with a few nukes NK cannot ensure MAD, and they aren't the USSR reborn. What's NK's economy look like without China blatantly opening up the floodgates of support? they don't have to chuck it at the US or a US-interest for it to be bad, hth
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Oh so now the administration is listening to the IC Rampant, unrestrained hypocrisy is about the only stable thing you can expect from this administration at this point. It's truly amazing. Orwell invented some amazing words about exactly this kind of stuff but I'm still not entirely convinced it wouldn't make him say, "poo poo dude, tone it down a bit" when he looked over the golden pissbaby's "there's a tweet for everything" history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
TBeats posted:they don't have to chuck it at the US or a US-interest for it to be bad, hth Its not happening. North Korea wants nukes for one reason only: To guarantee their borders. They know lobbing it at anyone will only result in nukes in turn, Kim may be nuts, but his generals are probably aware that their stockpile is vastly outnumbered, and a single nuke would be all China needs as an excuse to overthrow them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
TBeats posted:they don't have to chuck it at the US or a US-interest for it to be bad, hth Show me where I said it wasn't bad CommieGIR posted:Its not happening. North Korea wants nukes for one reason only: To guarantee their borders. Yes, this is where I'm coming from. I'm more responding to people (not here) acting like North Korea is about to unleash hell upon Small Town America, which is the kind of rhetoric that got us in this situation in the first place. The anecdote with the reporter posted earlier reminded me of some posts on reddit that raised my blood pressure, and I really should try to avoid reading that horrible site. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not happening. North Korea wants nukes for one reason only: To guarantee their borders. What makes you think the guys who work for him are sane because they're generals? Or let me edit that, not as batshit cray-cray as he is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Mr. Mambold posted:What makes you think the guys who work for him are sane because they're generals? Somebody in that organization has been a stabilizing force. North Korea doesn't need nuclear-equipped ICBMs to pose an immediate threat to the entirety of Japan and South Korea; they've maintained that capability for a while. Having those nukes gives them a greater bargaining chip but not if they actually use them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Mueller and his Dream Team all left REALLY high-paying legal jobs. Total salaries at random law firms: Mueller $3.4m, others $5.8m, $2m, $1.4m etc. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...0d7e_story.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:33
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its not happening. North Korea wants nukes for one reason only: To guarantee their borders. yeah. if you're wrong, that's one hell of a fuckup, so we should just go with "it's definitely not happening" and risk one hell of a fuckup. e: and fwiw, i feel pretty much the same way about the current US administration having nukes. boop the snoot fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Mueller and his Dream Team all left REALLY high-paying legal jobs. the book deals they'll make will cover it
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:47
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Mueller and his Dream Team all left REALLY high-paying legal jobs. Like I said before, this is a once in a lifetime chance. If this really happens, they go down in law history and command even higher prices
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
TheGreasyStrangler posted:0. The point is that with a few nukes NK cannot ensure MAD, and they aren't the USSR reborn. What's NK's economy look like without China blatantly opening up the floodgates of support? MAD's not necessary to have a reasonably effective deterrent. China's only got 200-300 warheads total and a couple dozen ICBMs - granted, they're thermonuclear vs Hiroshima-style atomic warheads, and they're solid-fueled MIRVed missiles with all of China to hide in, but that's still a vast difference from the 1,000s to 10,000s of warheads that the US and Soviets/Russia fielded. All you really need for a deterrent is to ensure that the potential cost to an attacker is high enough to remove military action from consideration. Having a good shot at getting a few Fat Man devices into the greater Seoul and Tokyo metro areas with MRBMs and lofted ICBMs would probably be enough to bring a normal Western leader to the table, but the whole rationale surrounding nukes breaks down when there are no rational actors in the room 
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Internet Wizard posted:Oh so now the administration is listening to the IC No, Trump probably saw it on Fox News. This is a guy who wants a one page PDB with maps and graphics but also demands 50 pages daily of fawning press coverage and printed out tweets. If there's one lesson to learn from the past 25 or so years, it's that you need a credible deterrent to keep the US from changing your regime. Saddam and Qaddafi learned that lesson the hardest way; DPRK has the threat of flooding Seoul first with artillery and then with brainwashed refugees. That they would develop a nuclear capability as the ultimate form of deterrence over the past two decades seems almost natural. The deterrent value of nukes is pretty obvious in this case, but what could they hope to realistically compel through the threat of their use here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:MAD's not necessary to have a reasonably effective deterrent. China's only got 200-300 warheads total and a couple dozen ICBMs - granted, they're thermonuclear vs Hiroshima-style atomic warheads, and they're solid-fueled MIRVed missiles with all of China to hide in, but that's still a vast difference from the 1,000s to 10,000s of warheads that the US and Soviets/Russia fielded. so basically defcon irl
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:The deterrent value of nukes is pretty obvious in this case, but what could they hope to realistically compel through the threat of their use here? for the US to back down on the rhetoric. the big goddamn problem is, if there is one thing trump has consistently shown, it's his complete inability to avoid being goaded into brinkmanship. we're literally at the mercy of whether or not Mattis and McMaster can talk him down or people like Bannon and Miller talk him up. brains fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Aug 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
I don't think Bannon and Miller want a nuclear exchange either. I mean I hope anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:38
|
|
brains posted:for the US to back down on the rhetoric.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:I don't think Bannon and Miller want a nuclear exchange either. Any time you want to evaluate domestic or foreign policy from either the Pus Elemental's or Forehead Words' point of view, you only need to ask yourself one question: will it kill more white or non-white people? If it kills more white people, it's bad. If it kills more non-white people, it's good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
cowboy elvis posted:I don't think Bannon and Miller want a nuclear exchange either. Bannon wants to rip a portal open to the evil dimension he comes from and flood the WH with boiling masses of void crabs. Nukes may allow him to do this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
We must secure the existence of Joe Biden and a future for his camaro
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
TBeats posted:and then everyone will want to get nukes because we will back down if they get them post-WW2 foreign policy of the US and USSR/Russia already showed that the only way to survive is either get nukes or friends with nukes. That genie ain't being put back in the bottle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
Diamond Joe drives a corvette now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/895081686681124864
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:08 |
|
|
You wouldn't think it'd be possible to get your tongue and your nose in someone's rear end in a top hat but here we are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 05:04
|
|
