|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Feb 2, 2018 22:56:21 GMT
Anytime any liberal says anything about Trump’s rhetoric being “dangerous”, THIS is what they’re really saying.
Discuss:
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 2, 2018 23:27:30 GMT
Anytime any liberal says anything about Trump’s rhetoric being “dangerous”, THIS is what they’re really saying. Discuss: Never. They don't have the capability. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 2, 2018 23:44:22 GMT
Anytime any liberal says anything about Trump’s rhetoric being “dangerous”, THIS is what they’re really saying. Discuss: Never. They don't have the capability. According to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, they are "a handful of months away" from being able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US. Or we can believe movieliker. |
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Feb 2, 2018 23:48:09 GMT
Never. They don't have the capability. According to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, they are "a handful of months away" from being able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US. Or we can believe movieliker. Translation: Send money now. We also think climate change is real and so give us trillions of dollars for that too. Experts... or conflict of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 3, 2018 1:37:06 GMT
Never. They don't have the capability. According to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, they are "a handful of months away" from being able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US. Or we can believe movieliker. Big deal. Russia and China have been able to blow us up for decades. And they haven't done it yet. I wonder why? |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 3, 2018 2:03:26 GMT
Big deal. Russia and China have been able to blow us up for decades. And they haven't done it yet. I wonder why? You should do more than just wonder about that; you should think it through and come up with the answer. You will not be comforted. Even so, I can't help but notice that the goalposts moved about seventy miles between your first and second replies in this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Feb 3, 2018 2:09:06 GMT
According to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, they are "a handful of months away" from being able to deliver a nuclear warhead to the US. Or we can believe movieliker. Big deal. Russia and China have been able to blow us up for decades. And they haven't done it yet. I wonder why? I think Sting sang the why in the 80s "It would be such an ignorant thing to do if the Russians love their children too." |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 3, 2018 2:23:49 GMT
Big deal. Russia and China have been able to blow us up for decades. And they haven't done it yet. I wonder why? You should do more than just wonder about that; you should think it through and come up with the answer. You will not be comforted. Even so, I can't help but notice that the goalposts moved about seventy miles between your first and second replies in this thread. You are not making any sense Harold. My "I wonder why?" was a rhetorical question. And my position hasn't changed on this subject since North Korea first starting developing missiles. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 3, 2018 2:26:40 GMT
Big deal. Russia and China have been able to blow us up for decades. And they haven't done it yet. I wonder why? I think Sting sang the why in the 80s "It would be such an ignorant thing to do if the Russians love their children too." Sting is a pussy. Russia doesn't shoot missiles at the United States because they don't want to be destroyed in retaliation. The Russian people have nothing to do with it. It is the Russian leaders who don't want to die. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 3, 2018 2:43:15 GMT
You should do more than just wonder about that; you should think it through and come up with the answer. You will not be comforted. Even so, I can't help but notice that the goalposts moved about seventy miles between your first and second replies in this thread. You are not making any sense Harold. My "I wonder why?" was a rhetorical question. And my position hasn't changed on this subject since North Korea first starting developing missiles. Your position on this changes back and forth constantly between "They can't do it" and "They won't do it" - over and over. You changed between the first and second post in this thread when faced with some factual pushback. Both are indefensible positions, but since you never occupy either position for more than a single reply, you get to tell yourself all is well. Yes, I know you intended "I wonder why?" as a snarky rhetorical question, but what I am telling you is that it is not actually rhetorical, not by a damned sight. In order for "They won't do it because Russian and China never did" to be a functional argument, you have to understand why. And before you can understand that, you have to understand why each of the two nuked up in the first place. While your at it, go through the process with each known nuclear power in turn - why did [country] develop nuclear weapons? Please do not waste everyone's time by pretending it was for the same reason in each case; that is false. Different nuclear powers went through very different circumstances that led them to nuke up. Don't rush on this. Take your time, but stay out of the swamp of moral relativism, because that will lead you far astray. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 3, 2018 2:45:12 GMT
I think Sting sang the why in the 80s "It would be such an ignorant thing to do if the Russians love their children too." Great. That's awesome. Very reassuring. How many children does Kim Jong Un have, just out of curiosity? I really don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 3, 2018 2:54:13 GMT
You are not making any sense Harold. My "I wonder why?" was a rhetorical question. And my position hasn't changed on this subject since North Korea first starting developing missiles. Your position on this changes back and forth constantly between "They can't do it" and "They won't do it" - over and over. You changed between the first and second post in this thread when faced with some factual pushback. Both are indefensible positions, but since you never occupy either position for more than a single reply, you get to tell yourself all is well. Yes, I know you intended "I wonder why?" as a snarky rhetorical question, but what I am telling you is that it is not actually rhetorical, not by a damned sight. In order for "They won't do it because Russian and China never did" to be a functional argument, you have to understand why. And before you can understand that, you have to understand why each of the two nuked up in the first place. While your at it, go through the process with each known nuclear power in turn - why did [country] develop nuclear weapons? Please do not waste everyone's time by pretending it was for the same reason in each case; that is false. Different nuclear powers went through very different circumstances that led them to nuke up. Don't rush on this. Take your time, but stay out of the swamp of moral relativism, because that will lead you far astray. Baloney. I never changer my position. Each answer was to a different question (different replies to different posts) And you are over complicating things. Every country that got nuclear weapons did it because the United States had them. They didn't want to be at a disadvantage in global relations. Same reason Kim Jung-un wants them. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 3, 2018 3:22:29 GMT
Baloney. I never changer my position. Each answer was to a different question (different replies to different posts) And you are over complicating things. Every country that got nuclear weapons did it because the United States had them. They didn't want to be at a disadvantage in global relations. Same reason Kim Jung-un wants them. REALLY?? England got nukes because the US had them? Pakistan? Israel? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Canada? Do they "want to be at a disadvantage in global relations"? Incorrect. Try again. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 3, 2018 3:28:12 GMT
Baloney. I never changer my position. Each answer was to a different question (different replies to different posts) And you are over complicating things. Every country that got nuclear weapons did it because the United States had them. They didn't want to be at a disadvantage in global relations. Same reason Kim Jung-un wants them. REALLY?? England got nukes because the US had them? Pakistan? Israel? Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Canada? Do they "want to be at a disadvantage in global relations"? Incorrect. Try again. Now you are over complicating things again. I think you know the answer. Maybe you are just bored and looking for something to do. The "enemies" of the United States got them because the US had them. The "allies" of the United States got them because our enemies had them. But you knew that already. |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 3, 2018 4:02:48 GMT
Now you are over complicating things again. I think you know the answer. Maybe you are just bored and looking for something to do. The "enemies" of the United States got them because the US had them. The "allies" of the United States got them because our enemies had them. But you knew that already. No, I absolutely am not. This isn't an exercise in being pedantic. It is worthless trying to predict how someone will behave with their nuclear weapons if you don't understand why they got them. Take India and Pakistan as an example. They didn't develop their respective nuclear programs just because they wanted be players in international relations, and they didn't just decide to get into an arms race with each other for the heck of it. They initiated their respective programs because they were engaging in frequent and ongoing hot wars over disputed territory. Whether India initially went down the nuclear road just to gain an advantage in that contest, or whether they feared that Pakistan would beat them to it and wanted to avoid that is irrelevant, really; each nation went nuclear to advance or defend their position in a specific contest that they felt was existential, and they were not willing to depend on the support of a sponsor nuclear state, nor the good offices of their enemy adhering to a non-proliferation treaty to assure that position. The US initially developed nukes to win WWII. The US and the Soviet Union ended up in contest for domination of Europe, and then ultimately the world. ("Domination" is an over-simplification, but it gets the point across.) The development of more, and more powerful, weapons and delivery systems was a direct result of the desire not to fall behind in that existential contest. The current state of nuclear affairs with Russia is just a downstream relic of that contest. Over what are the US and North Korea vying? What hope would NK possibly have in achieving any sort of parity, or even a deterrent posture vs the US? Seriously. You have to have an answer to that question to even begin to correlate North Korean actions with Russia (formerly the USSR). Otherwise, your confidence that things will work out the same is just whistling past the graveyard. |
|
