President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

Some people are crazy. I'd trust you and BG with nukes. I wouldnt trust GITH with them. Make sense?

I'd very much prefer a diplomatic solution but didnt we try that for 8 years of O?

I think we've tried it even longer than that, actually. Yeah, realistically, I don't know if there is anything we could do to get them to stop developing long distance nuclear weapons, which sucks. I'm also with you that if there was a way to take out that regime without starting a war, I'd be cool with that, but that isn't practical.

And thank you for trusting me with nukes . I wouldn't go so far as saying I trust N. Korea with long range nuclear capabilities, and in an ideal world, no country would have nuclear weapons, as their entire existence is asinine from a survival of the species perspective.

I keep thinking we are about to get our answer to the Fermi paradox with this conflict. Maybe we can't find intelligent life in the universe, because it keeps killing itself. I still maintain that the most likely scenario in which a nuclear war starts is precisely the scenario Trump and Un are setting up--a game of chicken that ramps up rhetoric so high that someone convinces themselves a pre-emptive strike is their only recourse. If you read up on Un, it becomes pretty clear that there is no way he would launch a nuclear attack at us, unless he was convinced one was coming his way. They see their nukes as a deterrent and a way to gain respect on the international stage. Their goal is not to develop these to first-strike the US. The regime is not suicidal. They don't see it as their sacred mission to kamikaze the USA.

[TranaGreg]

just for the record I wouldn't trust any of y'all with nukes ... I was going to say with the obvious exception of steve of course, but after thinking about it he'd probably just leave them in a diner in rural oklahoma somewhere, so maybe that's not such a great idea either ...

[cardboardbox]

just for the record I wouldn't trust any of y'all with nukes ... I was going to say with the obvious exception of steve of course, but after thinking about it he'd probably just leave them in a diner in rural oklahoma somewhere, so maybe that's not such a great idea either ...

someone with that many usernames probably is a bit crazy so I'd have to say no nukes for steve.

[heyelander]

And thank you for trusting me with nukes . I wouldn't go so far as saying I trust N. Korea with long range nuclear capabilities, and in an ideal world, no country would have nuclear weapons, as their entire existence is asinine from a survival of the species perspective.

I was thinking about that the other day... listening to some NPR story on how much latitude the military chain of command had to question an order from the president to launch (basically none). If you saw a full volley of missles incoming... do you launch yours? It's very important that your rivals think yes from a deterrent point of view, but if the time actually were to come... what would be the point? Wouldn't it be better for the survival of the species to just stand down and say "you win... earth is yours, enjoy the shit show you've just created..."

[Redbirds Fan]

Since everyone seems to think we are getting nuked, maybe not getting nuked would be something we could get out of the deal. Just a thought.

You are wise beyond your years, Mandy.

[Redbirds Fan]

I dont believe anyone is advocating dropping a nuke on NK or anyone for that matter.

And that's why I say you are just wordy-wording. You want something to be done, but you won't come out and say what it is, or you have no idea what you want.

There are some facts we have to accept. One is that we cannot "shoot down" North Korean ICBMs or anyone else's ICBMs. That technology does not exist.

Another is that if we send in so much as a bass boat full of the Mississippi National Guard, the number of deaths in Seoul will be staggering, and a large number of those dead will be American citizens. (And lest we forget, South Korea is still an ally.)

What is it about Trump that renders him incapable of ignoring the crazy antics of Kim Jong-un? North Korea has made the same threats against us for the last 40 years. None of our former presidents escalated it into an international nuclear crisis and sent our allies into fits.

And while I'm on a rant, sheep, let me point out that Trump's "calm before the storm" remark wasn't harmless fun. Somewhere out there, our enemies wondered what the hell he meant. Somewhere they ratcheted up pressure on sources, tightened down security. Somewhere, people got hurt in the process, and some of those people were likely ours.

North Korea has wet-dreamed about reducing us to ashes, and they have not been shy about it. We have to take them seriously, but we don't have to stoop to their level. But that is one of the problems you have when you elect a 'businessman', who has never played for any stakes other than money, and who could always declare bankruptcy and start over if things went tits up.

Don't get me started.

[Judge Jude]

Since everyone seems to think we are getting nuked, maybe not getting nuked would be something we could get out of the deal. Just a thought.

mannequins - they grow up so fast! feels like yesterday since I...... [DELETED]

[Redbirds Fan]

yes, in retrospect the ussr seemed rational ... in the moment, well, maybe not so much ...

By way of perspective, the "bury you" speech was 1956, and helped spur the arms race which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, etc. The shoe banging was 1960. I know this because I had a roomate in college who would have a few too many beers and decide he was Khrushchev.

[Sour Masher]

I was thinking about that the other day... listening to some NPR story on how much latitude the military chain of command had to question an order from the president to launch (basically none). If you saw a full volley of missles incoming... do you launch yours? It's very important that your rivals think yes from a deterrent point of view, but if the time actually were to come... what would be the point? Wouldn't it be better for the survival of the species to just stand down and say "you win... earth is yours, enjoy the shit show you've just created..."

Yes, the right answer if you see us all as the same species/family/team in the grand scheme of things is to not add to the nuclear fall out, but that just isn't who most of us are. Most people are gonna launch right back, even if it means a mass extinction event, which again, may be the answer to the Fermi paradox. Maybe intelligent life always snuffs itself at this stage, when we are smart enough to destroy ourselves, but still too dumb not to do that.

Thank all that is good in the world that Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov, "the man who saved the world," had the good sense not to do that when, in 83, the Soviet system indicated we had launched several nukes toward them. That incident, if perceived and responded to differently, following the MAD doctrine of the time, could have ended our species, because of a computer malfunction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_S...alarm_incident

Here is a brief synopsis of what happened, from his wikipedia page. There was a 2014 documentary about him as well.

"On 26 September 1983, just three weeks after the Soviet military had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, Petrov was the duty officer at the command center for the Oko nuclear early-warning system when the system reported that a missile had been launched from the United States, followed by up to five more. Petrov judged the reports to be a false alarm,[1] and his decision is credited with having prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear attack on the United States and its NATO allies that could have resulted in large-scale nuclear war. Investigation later confirmed that the Soviet satellite warning system had indeed malfunctioned."

An interesting aside to that incident is that Petrov credited his decision to his civilian training that allowed him to think beyond chain of command and protocol, and do what he thought was right, even though he was uncertain the attack data was in error: "in a 2013 interview, Petrov said at the time he was never sure that the alarm was erroneous. He felt that his civilian training helped him make the right decision. He said that his colleagues were all professional soldiers with purely military training and, following instructions, would have reported a missile strike if they had been on his shift."

So, even though he thought it was likely the attack was a computer error, he was not sure, and in those circumstances, many of his colleagues would have reported a strike up the chain of command, with potentially catastrophic consequences for most life on the planet.

[cardboardbox]

start over if things went tits up.

who the hell decided that tits up was a bad thing? I like them in all directions.

[Redbirds Fan]

who the hell decided that tits up was a bad thing? I like them in all directions.

I guess "belly up" might have been the better colloquialism.

[cardboardbox]

I guess "belly up" might have been the better colloquialism.

heh, I know the saying, just always thought it didnt make sense.

[TranaGreg]

who the hell decided that tits up was a bad thing? I like them in all directions.

excellent point!

just a guess - I'd bet it was a term farmers used (when a cow dies & rolls onto it back)

[umjewman]

For the record, I currently only have two user names.

Well sure, but how many do some of your other alter-egos have?

[Midnight Otter]

Well sure, but how many do some of your other alter-egos have?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯