Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
29 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: U.s. may be preparing for preemptive nuke strike on n. Korea. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-stealth-bombers-guam-tacti...

They have themselves convinced it will be completely effective and limited to 100 casualties.

One has to wonder: are they out of their Fucking minds?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Pontifex Maximus
United States
CA
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-stealth-bombers-guam-tacti...

They have themselves convinced it will be completely effective and limited to 100 casualties.

One has to wonder: are they out of their Fucking minds?


Why do War Crimes hold such fascination for The Donald. He spoke so glowingly about them during the campaign (executing prisoners, hunting down the families of terrorists) it seems like he cant wait to commit his own

Never mind the fact the planners here are banking on everything going precisely the way they think it will to avoid a humanitarian nightmare.

Does he think this will distract us from the rather depressing (for him) news lately
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There is simply no way that any of his generals would back such a plan. None. Dropping that bomb would trigger an attack on South Korea, make us an international pariah, and probably draw China into the conflict immediately. It would probably also shatter NATO.

The whole notion is lunacy. Were he to issue such an order, I expect that you'd see some serious resignations from the military and probably his senior defense advisors.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
well he would never be able to leave the US for fear of arrest for war crimes.

Also when they retaliated with a dirty bomb or some other WMD in one of your major cities you could hardly claim it was terrorism.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
well he would never be able to leave the US for fear of arrest for war crimes.

Also when they retaliated with a dirty bomb or some other WMD in one of your major cities you could hardly claim it was terrorism.


That would be well down the list of his immediate problems.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
whose trumps or N koreas? you don;'t think they would just let it go without some form of retaliation?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
I hate to say this, but FAKE NEWS.

Not a chance in hell we use nukes. And on the tiny chance Trump can convince the military generals for a first strike attack on NK, there's no need to use nukes.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric "Shippy McShipperson" Mowrer
United States
Vancouver
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Ami. Geek.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
growlley wrote:
whose trumps or N koreas? you don;'t think they would just let it go without some form of retaliation?


Lots of other bad things happen to Trump (and the US) long before NK has any chance of retaliation. Unjustified, pre-emptive nuclear strikes would garner a lot more than war crimes trials.

The fact that anyone is even discussing it, even if as a far fetched scenario, is disturbing. Not that the government doesn't discuss such disturbing scenarios before, during, and after Trump, but I sure as hell don't want to hear about it.

And if anyone managed to convince someone with access to go along with it (agree with Ken there that isn't likely) it would be game over for the US.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Professional Agitation Consultant... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
really? at least 30% of your voters would be going ra ra USA #1 - we showed those <insert some rascist term here>.
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
I hate to say this, but FAKE NEWS.

Not a chance in hell we use nukes. And on the tiny chance Trump can convince the military generals for a first strike attack on NK, there's no need to use nukes.


I've been getting buzz for a while now that some modern military leaders think war is fun and easy again. And that our main problem has been being too cautious and getting walked on as a result.

Mr. Trump didn't come up with estimates of 100% victory and minimal losses based on very weak intelligence. Someone else did that.

I wouldn't worry though. There's no chance that Donald Trump will be elected president anyway.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
I hate to say this, but FAKE NEWS.

Not a chance in hell we use nukes. And on the tiny chance Trump can convince the military generals for a first strike attack on NK, there's no need to use nukes.


The problem is, with any typical war-mongering president seeking to boost his approval rating with a foreign war, that'd be true.

Trump seems to have...a bit of a ?fetish? for nuclear weapons, you could say?

MSNBC, March 30, 2016 wrote:
MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They`re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?


Fox News, March 31, 2016 wrote:
BOLLING: Donald, I understand they are not taking the cards off the table for ISIS or Islamic terror. But when Chris expanded to Europe, what about that?

TRUMP: Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability.


And then, of course, there was always this (1 minute in)...


The gossip (and yeah, I'm not saying that article is particularly worth calling "news") that he is particularly enamored with the idea of still-massively-powerful, small-yield, 'cleaner' tactical nukes...well, hell, this is the guy that believes you can scrub the coal real good or something and it turns 'clean'.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wendell
United States
Yellow Springs
Ohio
flag msg tools
Si non potes reperire Berolini in tabula, ludens essetis non WIF.
badge
Hey, get your stinking cursor off my face! I got nukes, you know.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-stealth-bombers-guam-tacti...

They have themselves convinced it will be completely effective and limited to 100 casualties.

One has to wonder: are they out of their Fucking minds?


No serious observer who hasn't taken Trump's salt believes that.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rusty McFisticuffs
United States
Arcata
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Like I said in the last thread about "OUR MILITARY IS PLANNING TO INVADE LUXEMBOURG" or whatever, planning for various contingencies is what these guys do, and we want that. I expect we have decades worth of various plans for nuking North Korea, filed alongside plans for releasing flying squirrels with tabs of LSD into the airspace over their leadership compounds, or for airdropping Volkswagens packed with clowns into central Pyongyang.

Regarding the concern that B2s with tactical nukes in Guam means anything--we spent millions of man-hours flying B52s loaded with nuclear bombs in big circles, around the clock, "loitering" within range of the Soviet Union. That didn't exactly mean we were going to nuke Russia; that was just in case we, you know, needed to.

The thing to watch for is some... "provocation" from NK (or, based on how 9/11 was used to support invading Iraq, really any Asian country would do). When "North Korean terrorists" burn down the Reichstag, that's when shit's about to go down. Not before.
29 
 Thumb up
1.57
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AJ Cooper
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Eh, Pentagon strategy wonks are constantly developing all sorts of scenarios. There must be thousands, tens of thousands, of "plans" like this resting quietly in files, dozens or hundreds crazier than this. They weren't meant to be executed or see the light of day, it is just contingency on contingency.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
kuhrusty wrote:
Like I said in the last thread about "OUR MILITARY IS PLANNING TO INVADE LUXEMBOURG" or whatever, planning for various contingencies is what these guys do, and we want that.

I can only hope that we have updated War Plan Red recently.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trent Boardgamer
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Talmanes wrote:
Eh, Pentagon strategy wonks are constantly developing all sorts of scenarios. There must be thousands, tens of thousands, of "plans" like this resting quietly in files, dozens or hundreds crazier than this. They weren't meant to be executed or see the light of day, it is just contingency on contingency.


At least a few people get it.

What would be concerning, is if the planning wasn't done.

Australia also does these exact same military planning strategies, as do North Korea and China.

I'm glad we don't leave military decisions up to most of the people commenting in this thread. I see some stupid comments in RSP, but some of these are taking the cake.

And no it's not just gossip, this planning commenced quite some time ago.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Of Course we have contingency plans. Trump's comments have indicated a callous disregard for the idea of not using nukes and republican actions on russia and the fbi have convinced me if he went to attack with nukes they wouldnt stop him, he'll they would back him.

And I've seen comments from military officials over the last year displaying the attitude yet again that we can easy peasy win a war with only air power.

That attitude seems to return every time we get a new crop of military leaders who havn't failed with that approach yet.

The odds may be low but really they are incalculable. 1/1000? 1/10,000? Who knows. It is a non zero possibility and it could happen tommorow.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearhug78 wrote:
And no it's not just gossip, this planning commenced quite some time ago.



It's not the "planning" anyone objects to.

It's our current idiot-in-chief who is shuffling through the various briefings he gets and is all 'hey, what are all these cool plans about? Wow, some seem to use nukes - I LOVE nukes - let's actually do some of these and see what happens!'

THAT is the possibility that everyone finds concerning.
6 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott O'Brien
United States
Connellsville
PA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
Bearhug78 wrote:
And no it's not just gossip, this planning commenced quite some time ago.



It's not the "planning" anyone objects to.

It's our current idiot-in-chief who is shuffling through the various briefings he gets and is all 'hey, what are all these cool plans about? Wow, some seem to use nukes - I LOVE nukes - let's actually do some of these and see what happens!'

THAT is the possibility that everyone finds concerning.


if you actually believe this part then you are a complete delusional fool.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Erik Henry
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
maxo-texas wrote:
They have themselves convinced it will be completely effective and limited to 100 casualties.

Kind of like Rumsfeld’s “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.” Or Cheney’s “My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators.”
6 
 Thumb up
1.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Xander Fulton
United States
Astoria
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sao123 wrote:
XanderF wrote:
Bearhug78 wrote:
And no it's not just gossip, this planning commenced quite some time ago.



It's not the "planning" anyone objects to.

It's our current idiot-in-chief who is shuffling through the various briefings he gets and is all 'hey, what are all these cool plans about? Wow, some seem to use nukes - I LOVE nukes - let's actually do some of these and see what happens!'

THAT is the possibility that everyone finds concerning.


if you actually believe this part then you are a complete delusional fool.


All I can say is that I really hope you are right.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Trent Boardgamer
Australia
Perth
Western Australia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
XanderF wrote:
Bearhug78 wrote:
And no it's not just gossip, this planning commenced quite some time ago.



It's not the "planning" anyone objects to.

It's our current idiot-in-chief who is shuffling through the various briefings he gets and is all 'hey, what are all these cool plans about? Wow, some seem to use nukes - I LOVE nukes - let's actually do some of these and see what happens!'

THAT is the possibility that everyone finds concerning.


As soon as the weapons exist the possibility of their use needs to exist or there is no point in having them, unless you actually use them.

The threat of military force has to be perceived as real, otherwise it's ineffective and is actually more likely to lead to conflict.

If you are going to take a hard line stance with foreign powers, you had certainly best know your capabilities and have the forces in position to enable those capabilities. Anything less is incompetence.

It seems some people here get too caught up on the Trump hating to even see logic anymore.

So far, Trump has initiated less conflict than Obama did, so it is a little amusing some here are trying to label him the warmonger.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Erik17 wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
They have themselves convinced it will be completely effective and limited to 100 casualties.

Kind of like Rumsfeld’s “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.” Or Cheney’s “My belief is, we will, in fact be greeted as liberators.”


Yes, very "kind of like that".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
AJ Cooper
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Bearhug78 wrote:
XanderF wrote:
Bearhug78 wrote:
And no it's not just gossip, this planning commenced quite some time ago.



It's not the "planning" anyone objects to.

It's our current idiot-in-chief who is shuffling through the various briefings he gets and is all 'hey, what are all these cool plans about? Wow, some seem to use nukes - I LOVE nukes - let's actually do some of these and see what happens!'

THAT is the possibility that everyone finds concerning.


As soon as the weapons exist the possibility of their use needs to exist or there is no point in having them, unless you actually use them.

The threat of military force has to be perceived as real, otherwise it's ineffective and is actually more likely to lead to conflict.

If you are going to take a hard line stance with foreign powers, you had certainly best know your capabilities and have the forces in position to enable those capabilities. Anything less is incompetence.

It seems some people here get too caught up on the Trump hating to even see logic anymore.

So far, Trump has initiated less conflict than Obama did, so it is a little amusing some here are trying to label him the warmonger.

.. and we certainly hope it stays that way.

The concern is that he sometimes appears to be irrational, and that he also seems to have an odd fascination with nuclear weapons. That combination is cause for worry.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aloha!
United States
Kalamazoo
Michigan
flag msg tools
Meega, nala kwishta!
badge
AAGH! YOU'RE TOUCHING ME!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bearhug78 wrote:
So far, Trump has initiated less conflict than Obama did, so it is a little amusing some here are trying to label him the warmonger.

True and I hope it stays that way. My concern is his eagerness for a dick-measuring contest with a nuclear state. Twitter diplomacy is probably a shitty idea when nukes are in the mix.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.