It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump the surrender monkey

page: 11
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: gariac

I don't trust kim with anything, but a couple of US ships and submarines is all that's needed to destry NK, lil kim knows it, Trump knows it, and those troops aren't needed there.
Total waste of money so I can see why Trump wants them out.



The only difference the troops being in place makes is how much damage the north could do before they get pushed back. No troops means more damage.

NK would be destroyed though, kim knows it, he ain't invading anytime soon. Same with Putin and the EU, it's all just lame fear mongering.
I can only speak for my situation in Britain, but half of Russia's dirty money is locked up in London, Putin isn't going to destroy his assets here.
Kim, knows his government buildings etc would be totalled quickly if he invaded, he ain't stupid, and Trump knows it.
Sorry, but that is absolute rubbish. Have you forgotten about Abramovich for one? So essentially what you are saying is: this particular North Korea isn't as bad as the other North Korea from about 2 years ago, because...?




posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: gariac

Those exercises are meaningless, since any war with NK is automatically a nuclear war involving the major powers. Conventional exercises are simply for show, and cost us entirely too much to continue (both in dollars and in diplomatic standing). Further, our 30k troops would be instantly crushed by NK's millions-of-men-strong army - unless it went nuclear, which again it would without question.


While the post you were replying to was full of nonsense, I have to tell you, this part is not true. There are absolutely scenarios where a conflict with NK would be non-nuclear. People used to say this same stuff during the cold war, that every proxy war would turn into a nuclear war, and it never happened. Further, NK's "million man army" is grossly overhyped. Most of that million "soldiers" are auxiliaries, militia and logistics/support troops. Most are malnourished commoners who would simply be conscripted if there was a war. They're poorly trained, poorly equipped, and not as fanatical as the propaganda would have you believe. Further, North Korea's military equipment is mostly obsolete and poorly maintained. Their navy and air force are a joke. Their tanks are all old and falling apart. Much of their rocket artillery that the media likes to claim would level Seoul can't even reach Seoul and would be quickly destroyed in our opening attack.

Source: Every defector from North Korea, ever

ETA: I also meant to say the exercises are actually very important. They help the units develop best practices and get all the logistics streamlined, help the mixed units and joint operations get used to working with each other with different procedures and technologies, etc. We learn something every time we have an exercise that we apply to the future. You might think we should have all this figured out by now, but technology and tactics are constantly changing.
edit on 12 6 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: knoxie
what we learned this week.

kim loves his country and his people and is very honorable.

Trudeau has a "special place in hell"


Navarro apologizes for "special place in hell" comment

As much as you guys would like our relationship with Canada to fall apart just so you'd have something to bash the president about, it's not going to. Canada is one of our closest allies, our top trading partner. This is a sibling squabble. It will all get worked out.

Prospects of war with Korea going down, relationships with allies not disintegrating, economy is doing fine. All the death and destruction you guys hoped for to damage Trump just isn't coming to pass. Whatever will you live for?


Actually Trump is fighting proxy wars (Syria and Yemen), so plenty of blood spilled in the name of Trump. This is indisputable.

Trump has not improved the situation with the DPRK. He stirred it up then brought it back to where it was.


Cute deflection. This lightweight response pretty much conceded to everything I said. The situation with the DPRK is absolutely improved by any measure. At this point, I'm not sure if you're even serious that's so absurd. I'll address your other drivel now.

He inherited Syria and Yemen, and he's working to get us out of there. He's already talked about pulling troops out of Syria, but unlike Obama he's going to wait for the right time to do it so it doesn't become a bigger problem in the future like Iraq did.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: gariac

Yeah, that's why NK hasn't launched any Ballistic missiles lately huh?

How does your convoluted (and wrong) world view reconcile this?

Scratch that. I've read the garbage you spew on here. You simply ignore all facts and information that doesn't go along with your debunked narrative, developing your own talking points and alternative facts.

Hoax


fact check

No need to launch missiles. They work. No need to test their H bomb. It works. Most of all, Kim suckered Trump into this one of one meeting, something his father and grandfather couldn't achieve. Kim is a God.

While Trump slept, the DPRK worked. The DPRK holds all the cards. Kim whooped Trump. Deal with it.


Funny how that link doesn't address anything you said. Their missile program isn't done. They've yet to master guidance nor re-entry technology. That's kind of important if you want to nuke someone. Right now they're still incapable of nuking us. You've been fooled by propaganda. Open your mind.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

While some of your points are valid, the premise that all-out conventional warfare is possible in a nuclearized world is simply not accurate.

Full-scale conventional warfare between two or more super-powers in the shadow of nuclear weapons is NOT possible. One side will eventually resort to nukes, and then the other. It's just not possible. It would likely start with theater nukes, then longer range tactical nukes...and ultimately full-on intercontinental and submarine based strategic nukes.

Game Over...thanks for playing!



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Lol he stopped military action and said he wanted to remove troops in exchange for the same promise Kim has already given 8 times..

Fair enough if he actually gets them to VERIFIABLY denuclearize then it would be expensive, but worth it..


However if he doesn’t this is an unmitigated disaster...and I think it is fair to say there is VERY little chance he would actually denuclearize.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Because we invaded Iraq under false pretenses and the vast majority of the American people wanted him to..


I don’t think the vast majority of Americans wanted the president to blow Kim for free.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

The guidance part isn’t the primary concern AT ALL..


The nuclear part is and has always been, just because he can’t nuke the US doesn’t mean he can’t nuke other allies and/or kick off a global nuclear war.

Kim has already made this EXACT same promise 8 times..

It is his go to play.. he suggests he might disarm.. the west gives him consesions.. then he laughs and doesn’t do it.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Only if your only concern is him nuking the US.. which has never even been a real concern in the first place.

He is able to nuke multiple allies just fine and as a nuclear power could easily kick off s global nuclear exchange..


Unless trump somehow pulls off actual verifiable denuclearization.. trump just gave away the farm for nothing..


He is even talking about pulling out troops out which would give the Korean Peninsula to China instantly.. and so far he has done it all for free..



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Don’t you blame obama for Iraq/Afghanistan when he inherently Ed all of that too?!?!

Lol



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You are absolutely correct, NK are infants when it comes to nukes, especially rocket based nukes.

However, NK doesn't have to nuke the continental US. All they have to do is explode a nuke at about 150 miles over Kansas.

NK has already proven then can put something in orbit, so that's not an issue. And they've already proven they have a device big enough to cause a complete meltdown from an EMP perspective (300kt. is plenty).

So yes, you're right; NK can't nuke the US directly (and their targeting can't hit the broad side of a state which rules Hawaii out)...BUT...they can cause enough trouble with a nuke to warrant a nuclear response.

And that's just talking about nukes.

NK has other things which could create a nuke response too, things such as chemical weapons. A mass chemical attack on South Korea would likely result in a nuclear attack on NK also, so it's not just nukes on nukes. It's WMD's on WMD's.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Trump 'gave away' nothing!

What, do you think he just handed Kim the proverbial 'football' and said ..."we're good, ol' buddy! We'll let Rodman take it from here!"???????

I think you need to go back and study foreign policy (or study it the first time). Troops mean nearly nothing in today's world. It's just a formality from an age gone by. Do you see millions of American troops on the Russian border, or the Chinese border? Are there DMZ's all over the world??? C'mon, man!



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: face23785

While some of your points are valid, the premise that all-out conventional warfare is possible in a nuclearized world is simply not accurate.

Full-scale conventional warfare between two or more super-powers in the shadow of nuclear weapons is NOT possible. One side will eventually resort to nukes, and then the other. It's just not possible. It would likely start with theater nukes, then longer range tactical nukes...and ultimately full-on intercontinental and submarine based strategic nukes.

Game Over...thanks for playing!



Really? Because we've had a nuclearized world for decades and it's been in a state of pretty much non-stop war. None of them have gone nuclear. Nobody is crazy enough. That's why it's so imperative that someone who might be crazy enough like NK or Iran doesn't get a deliverable nuclear weapon. That was the entire point of the NPT. The more parties you have with nuclear weapons, the more likely it is for one of them to lose it and use one. It's not impossible that the majors powers would, but it's crazy unlikely. I'd be okay with every nation completely giving them up, but until that happens the next most sane thing is to not let small regional actors who have a screw loose get them.


originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: face23785

You are absolutely correct, NK are infants when it comes to nukes, especially rocket based nukes.

However, NK doesn't have to nuke the continental US. All they have to do is explode a nuke at about 150 miles over Kansas.

NK has already proven then can put something in orbit, so that's not an issue. And they've already proven they have a device big enough to cause a complete meltdown from an EMP perspective (300kt. is plenty).

So yes, you're right; NK can't nuke the US directly (and their targeting can't hit the broad side of a state which rules Hawaii out)...BUT...they can cause enough trouble with a nuke to warrant a nuclear response.

And that's just talking about nukes.

NK has other things which could create a nuke response too, things such as chemical weapons. A mass chemical attack on South Korea would likely result in a nuclear attack on NK also, so it's not just nukes on nukes. It's WMD's on WMD's.



Even if you intend to use it as a sub-orbital EMP, it has to be guided and the warhead has to survive the trip. It's not as easy as you think. They stopped their program before they demonstrated either of these abilities. They don't have a deliverable weapon yet.
edit on 12 6 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

Don’t you blame obama for Iraq/Afghanistan when he inherently Ed all of that too?!?!

Lol


No, I actually don't. I blame him for leaving Iraq too soon, but obviously he didn't start either of them.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

The guidance part isn’t the primary concern AT ALL..


The nuclear part is and has always been, just because he can’t nuke the US doesn’t mean he can’t nuke other allies and/or kick off a global nuclear war.

Kim has already made this EXACT same promise 8 times..

It is his go to play.. he suggests he might disarm.. the west gives him consesions.. then he laughs and doesn’t do it.




Um, yes it does mean that. The nuke is useless if the only place you can set it off is in your own country. He has no way to get one to us or to one of our allies. Guidance is very important, and you're ignoring the re-entry technology, which they haven't figured out yet.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Lol he stopped military action and said he wanted to remove troops in exchange for the same promise Kim has already given 8 times..

Fair enough if he actually gets them to VERIFIABLY denuclearize then it would be expensive, but worth it..


However if he doesn’t this is an unmitigated disaster...and I think it is fair to say there is VERY little chance he would actually denuclearize.


No military action was stopped. We do these drills all the time. We cut down on the frequency of them during sequestration to save money. They are important, because they help readiness and efficiency, but not doing them for a few months while we see if NK is serious about peace won't hurt us. If they start to # around again, we can start doing exercises again no problem.

Removing troops was mentioned, and no commitment was made. We won't be removing troops unless the peninsula denuclearizes and a lasting peace is made. After that, what do we need troops there for?

You've been listening to propaganda all day haven't you?



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: gariac

I can't fault him if it looks like some kind of stability can be reached between the two Korea's, must be expensive keeping all those troops there.
Who needs troops these days though, remote control drones and missiles is the way forward and NK knows it...I'd be saving the cash on lots of foreign US bases if I was Trump, starting with Germany as well.


The two Koreas made steps towards peace two months ago. Without trumps involvement.


But but Trump was going to Armageddonzz!!

Now Trump goes into summit with signings about peace.

But buh but Hilldog Hillary was supposed to but couldn’t either way Trump bad either way.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Martin75

What makes you think there’s going to be peace?


No hilldog



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: gariac

South Korea pays fifty percent of the costs of having our bases there. The cost to the U.S. will go up if we have them here.


Really were you ever in the military. Having troops garrisoned in thr US is always cheaper. To supply a US base you use a tractor trailer. To send supplies to Korea is a 24 hr flight. Everyone in Korea receives combat pay people in the US dont. Holding military excersizes costs 10 times more then doing it within the US. Overseas personnel cost an additional $10,000 to $40,000 per personnel per year depending on duty assignment.

So no its not cheaper and thats just stupid even thinking thats possible.



posted on Jun, 12 2018 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: gariac

South Korea pays fifty percent of the costs of having our bases there. The cost to the U.S. will go up if we have them here.


Really were you ever in the military. Having troops garrisoned in thr US is always cheaper. To supply a US base you use a tractor trailer. To send supplies to Korea is a 24 hr flight. Everyone in Korea receives combat pay people in the US dont. Holding military excersizes costs 10 times more then doing it within the US. Overseas personnel cost an additional $10,000 to $40,000 per personnel per year depending on duty assignment.

So no its not cheaper and thats just stupid even thinking thats possible.


Well said. She never has even the slightest idea what she's posting. Allergic to research.




top topics



 
35
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join