|
Edwird -> RE: Video - Trump Patriots Clash With Soros Hate Mob (4/17/2017 6:24:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aylee
I saw no reason to reply to anything he got off Wiki. Wiki is good at some stuff, but at politics and current people, not so much. I dislike lines being taken out of context.
As far as the Norks and nuclear weapons. . . Well, we don't have bugs. President Nixon ended that. We don't have gas, we signed the treaty and began destroying what we had. Which should be all gone by 2023.
So imagine the following conversation, somewhere on the Korean Peninsula, in the not too distant future:
“Damn, the North Koreans just drenched 1st of the 9th with a mix of VX, GB, and high explosive. There’s now a three mile-wide gap in our defense. The Norks are pouring through en masse.”
“Wow; bad day for the Manchus. Hmmm…what to do, what to do? We don’t have any bio to hit back with, and it would be too slow anyway. Chemical…anything left on Johnson Island?”
“Not a drop. And Blue Grass Army Depot says the little bit it has left isn’t reliable enough to trust firing it from a cannon.”
“Nukes? Nah, don’t bother answering; that would be first use which we’ve renounced. How about we just bomb them more?”
“We’re already bombing them at max capability. The planes simply can’t do anymore and neither can the pilots. It’s not like we were slacking, after all…”
You may, gentle reader, begin to see the problem with renouncing first use of nukes when we have nothing – and I cannot emphasize this enough – NOTHINGNOTAFUCKINGTHINGZIPZILCHNADA besides nukes to use on either a conventional threat too strong to defeat or in retaliation for the use of non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction on us: “Hey world, let us have it!”
Wow, how psychotropically induced a ranting is that? That's a 12.5 on a scale of 1-10, any day.
News for you; The US doesn't have a first strike renounce on nukes, and never has.
Even US or Russian nukes would have a difficult time making it across the ocean or over the north pole if aimed at each other, though it is possible to get a few across if we all let loose the whole arsenal.
But North Korea? Please.
A country (the US) with thirteen times population of NK and armed forces the most powerful and (conventionally) well equipped in the world, by far, doesn't have enough planes and their ordnance to deal with a dinky little country of 25 million? Please.
How about you read some modicum of US history?
The only reason China, who was very poor at the time (1950), sent their troops across the border was because one of MacArthur's generals (with approval of the latter) sent US troops into China to chase N. Koreans, in direct contravention of orders expressly forbidding such venture from Army HQ, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the administration.
That was and still is considered an invasion of that country, by any standards.
So wake up to reality: The US forces would easily counteract anything NK did with only conventional arms. Just even recent history re Iraq (a larger country than NK) Afghanistan, and pretty much wherever we want aside Russia or China.
There is no reason whatsoever to have troops on the ground unless the US intends to occupy, which in that instance would be considered as declaration of war against China, so then all your notions about chem weapons capability of NK being thereby irrelevant, after those mental meanderings being quite fantastic to begin with.
People with whatever disinclination to facts or reality seek out their own kind, hence the Glenn Reynolds, the Glen Becks, etc.
I'm not claiming that Wiki is the most accurate source for everything (as I stated and accounted for already), but after reading what you just spewed out of your sick head, I seriously doubt you would consider the Library of Congress as a creditable source either.
Why would you expect anyone to take you seriously?
You are incapable of honesty of any sort.
|
|
|
|
