Left wing hypocrisy on Obama

[marharth]

China, no. North korea? Hell yes.

 

If we just started steamrolling every country it would cause another world war. Besiders we weren't fighting the war for the rebels, we are just supporting them.

 

It was a qoute from liberty prime....

There is a very good chance North Korea has nuclear weapons. I hope you retract that statement.

 

We aren't fighting the war for them maybe, but we are still launching missiles at the country.

 

I really am not following your logic here. We can attack Lybia since citizens are being repressed, but hands off other countries that have massively repressive regimes?

[Pyrosocial]

Let me try and rephrase it...

 

The rebels already started fighting, they were fighting for themselves. So when they asked for assistance against a clearly oppressive goverment, we gave them what they asked for. And to my knowledge we don't even have any geound forces in the area, it's all tact missile strikes and air raids.

 

If a large resistance formed in north korea that could topple the government, and help us eliminate the threat of nuclear fire, then we could "assist". Not fight their battles. We have had enough of that.

[HeyYou]

Don't forget Yemen.

 

No, Obama is NOT the president that I thought I had voted for. He is indeed Bush Jr. II. Too many of the same policies are in place, and all that Hope and Change he promised turned out to be smoke and mirrors. The "health care reform" bill did nothing to reform health care, and opened a serious can of worms with the government REQUIRING you to purchase a product from a private company.

 

No, Saddam did NOT ask us to come in and boot him out. Nor did the Taliban. The Libyan rebels don't stand a hope in hell without direct support from outside sources. We support more 'oppressive' governments than we are trying to topple. We change loyalties at the drop of a hat, turn on our allies when it looks like the opposition is actually going to be successful. That's gotta be confidence inspiring for the rest of our allies eh?

 

The US CAN'T AFFORD to fight everyone elses war, especially when there is zero chance of ever getting paid back for the expense. When 40% of our budget is borrowed money, fighting yet another war is just flat out stupid. But then, "stupid" is EXACTLY what I expect from washington DC these days.

[grannywils]

China, no. North korea? Hell yes.

 

If we just started steamrolling every country it would cause another world war. Besiders we weren't fighting the war for the rebels, we are just supporting them.

 

It was a qoute from liberty prime....

There is a very good chance North Korea has nuclear weapons. I hope you retract that statement.

North Korea does have nuclear weapons, Marharth. The question has been their ability to deliver them.

 

 

We aren't fighting the war for them maybe, but we are still launching missiles at the country.

 

I really am not following your logic here. We can attack Lybia since citizens are being repressed, but hands off other countries that have massively repressive regimes?

 

Am out of town now with limited access to a computer, but will get back to this topic on my return.....

[marharth]

China, no. North korea? Hell yes.

 

If we just started steamrolling every country it would cause another world war. Besiders we weren't fighting the war for the rebels, we are just supporting them.

 

It was a qoute from liberty prime....

There is a very good chance North Korea has nuclear weapons. I hope you retract that statement.

North Korea does have nuclear weapons, Marharth. The question has been their ability to deliver them.

 

 

We aren't fighting the war for them maybe, but we are still launching missiles at the country.

 

I really am not following your logic here. We can attack Lybia since citizens are being repressed, but hands off other countries that have massively repressive regimes?

 

Am out of town now with limited access to a computer, but will get back to this topic on my return.....

Shouldn't be too hard, they don't need ICBMs to launch a attack.

[RZ1029]

Wh---What?! You don't need ICBMs to launch a nuke half way around the world? Your logic, it is flawed. If they delivered it in a plane, it would be picked up on a radar, intercepted, and then likely shot down after it refused to turn back. In order to launch a nuke that we would not be able to intercept and destroy in some way shape or form, they would need long-range missile capabilities. Even if launched from a submarine using a missile system similar to the Tomahawk missiles currently in use by the US military (which only has one nuclear variant- using the W80 nuclear warhead which is a variable yield nuke that puts out between 5kt and 150kt yield. That's 1/3-10x yield compared to the 'Little Boy' we dropped on Hiroshima. It would cover approximately 20 square miles at most, in the initial impact. Obviously the radiation and the shockwave will have much more wide-spread effects) the range on the missiles is fairly impressive, but still lacking.

 

2,500 km, about 1600 miles, more or less. It is approximately 6000 miles between California and North Korea. They would have to send a submarine three-quarters of the way across the Pacific in order to launch a missile, assuming they have the capabilities of some of the most advanced (portable) nuclear weapon systems the US does. Which I wouldn't put past them, but it is still unlikely.

 

By the way, if we launch a nuclear barrage at North Korea, I assure you it will be a nice, level nuclear hell-hole by the time they realize what hit them.

 

PS: Tomahawk missiles only fly at about 550mph max. That's a 3 hour flight time. The US LGM-30 Minuteman missiles have a estimated speed of 15,000pmh. North Korea would be wasted while their missiles were still en-route. I feel like I forgot some other bit of useful information here.

 

Also... nuking China is a bad idea.

 

EDIT: Remembered what I forgot to remember. The US does have a missile defense system, but it's (tested) success rate is far from 100% (something like 60%, if I remember right), so don't count on that to save us. Also... if my search history were to be currently investigated by the FBI, I might have some explaining to do, with searches along the lines of 'ICBM', 'distance from North Korea to California', etc.

Edited July 24, 2011 by RZ1029

[marharth]

Wh---What?! You don't need ICBMs to launch a nuke half way around the world? Your logic, it is flawed. If they delivered it in a plane, it would be picked up on a radar, intercepted, and then likely shot down after it refused to turn back. In order to launch a nuke that we would not be able to intercept and destroy in some way shape or form, they would need long-range missile capabilities. Even if launched from a submarine using a missile system similar to the Tomahawk missiles currently in use by the US military (which only has one nuclear variant- using the W80 nuclear warhead which is a variable yield nuke that puts out between 5kt and 150kt yield. That's 1/3-10x yield compared to the 'Little Boy' we dropped on Hiroshima. It would cover approximately 20 square miles at most, in the initial impact. Obviously the radiation and the shockwave will have much more wide-spread effects) the range on the missiles is fairly impressive, but still lacking.

 

2,500 km, about 1600 miles, more or less. It is approximately 6000 miles between California and North Korea. They would have to send a submarine three-quarters of the way across the Pacific in order to launch a missile, assuming they have the capabilities of some of the most advanced (portable) nuclear weapon systems the US does. Which I wouldn't put past them, but it is still unlikely.

 

By the way, if we launch a nuclear barrage at North Korea, I assure you it will be a nice, level nuclear hell-hole by the time they realize what hit them.

 

PS: Tomahawk missiles only fly at about 550mph max. That's a 3 hour flight time. The US LGM-30 Minuteman missiles have a estimated speed of 15,000pmh. North Korea would be wasted while their missiles were still en-route. I feel like I forgot some other bit of useful information here.

 

Also... nuking China is a bad idea.

 

EDIT: Remembered what I forgot to remember. The US does have a missile defense system, but it's (tested) success rate is far from 100% (something like 60%, if I remember right), so don't count on that to save us. Also... if my search history were to be currently investigated by the FBI, I might have some explaining to do, with searches along the lines of 'ICBM', 'distance from North Korea to California', etc.

That's not my point though. Either way, saying that any plane would be picked up on radar is wrong. North Korea wouldn't be able to use nukes as a way to knock out the country through force, they would use them as a terror attack only attacking a single city or multiple cities.

 

You are right though since we are talking about the USA attacking first, which I kind of disregarded.

 

The reason I even brought it up is because someone said that we should help any country that is being oppressed and has people fighting for their freedom as well. North Korea may not have people already fighting, but a lot of other places do. China is a example of that even if it may not be entirely violent fighting.

[Pyrosocial]

North Korea would only ever use nukes as a threat anyway, they know they can't win a war against the stronger countries.

 

XD hopefully the FBI counter terrorism unit doesn_ blast you door open. Great job researching all of that though, that's great information.

[RZ1029]

Umm... I'm not going to lie, I knew a lot of that off the top of my head, it was mostly double-checking statistics. Especially on the distance from US-> North Korea, and the speed of the Tomahawk and Minuteman missiles.

 

Besides, there's an SBI office about 4 minutes away, if they had noticed, they'd already be here.

[HeyYou]

North Korea would only ever use nukes as a threat anyway, they know they can't win a war against the stronger countries.

 

XD hopefully the FBI counter terrorism unit doesn_ blast you door open. Great job researching all of that though, that's great information.

 

Don't be so sure of that. Our buddy Kim hasn't demonstrated the most rational of thinking processes...... and he is well aware the US is reluctant to use any force.... as it might annoy China. So, whether China wishes it or not, they are indeed protecting N. Korea. (I don't think dropping a nuke or six in someones back yard would greatly endear them to us..... they would feel the effects of any nuclear effort used against little kimmy as well.)

 

Our missile defense system is pretty much useless. It is limited range, needs a fair bit of advanced warning, and is woefully inadequate to cover much of either of our seaboards. Not to mention simply setting one up within the continental united states is a violation of several nuclear arms treaties..... (like that really carries a lot of water.....) A short range missile launched from a sub would have a pretty good chance of striking it's target...... consider what even a Hiroshima sized bomb would do to Los Angeles, or San Francisco....... that would be a mess. Putting it mildly. Or how about DC? Time it right, and take out a fair percentage of the US leadership (giggle, snort.) in one blow. (and lets also not forget that the anti-missile systems were designed to stop ICBM's, that come in from the stratosphere, I don't think they are capable of hitting a missile that flys nap-of-the-earth..... and does it's best to hide from Radar.)

 

Now granted, at this point, Kim's nuclear program isn't very advanced, he has tested two weapons, one of which didn't work very well at all, and the second only sorta worked. But, he could also simply sell one to some third party, and have THEM transport it here, and set it off some place that would be really unpleasant for us. (anywhere at all, even in some empty desert, would have a profound effect on american morale.......)