- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Let's talk about military spending
Posted on 3/19/17 at 5:12 am to WhiskeyPapa
Posted on 3/19/17 at 5:12 am to WhiskeyPapa
Great research. And I conveyed the same thought in one paragraph two pages ago. Without copying and pasting. Expressing original thought.
And guess what, I think those articles say we will use them as a first strike if necessary.
And guess what, I think those articles say we will use them as a first strike if necessary.
3
Posted on 3/19/17 at 5:35 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Great research. And I conveyed the same thought in one paragraph two pages ago. Without copying and pasting. Expressing original thought.
And guess what, I think those articles say we will use them as a first strike if necessary.
My my. Aren't you the backpedaling putz.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 5:44 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
And guess what, I think those articles say we will use them as a first strike if necessary.
Or maybe not. I guess you didn't click on the link to the War on the Rocks article. You might have seen this.
TAKING FIRST-USE OF NUKES OFF THE TABLE: GOOD FOR THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD
DARYL G. KIMBALL
JULY 14, 2016
The United States first used nuclear weapons more than 70 years ago on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fearing the threat from massive Soviet conventional forces and possible large-scale use of chemical and biological weapons, U.S. military and political leaders decided to keep the option to use nuclear weapons first in a conflict. Today, the United States in the world’s dominant global military power and the Soviet Union is long gone. The Cold War-era policy of not ruling out nuclear first-use poses a grave risk to the security of the United States and is not suitable for today’s global security and political environment.
The greatest threat to the United States and to any nation is from the enormous and indiscriminate destructive effects of nuclear weapons. It is in the interest of the United States that, as long as these weapons exist, all nuclear-armed states agree that the sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to respond to a nuclear attack by other nuclear-armed states and only when the survival of the state or one of its allies is at stake. It is time for the United States to adopt this policy.
In April 2009, President Barack Obama made clear that he sought “to put an end to Cold War thinking” and pledged to “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy and urge others to do the same.”
On June 6, 2016, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes pledged that the president “will continue to review whether there are additional steps that can be taken to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our own strategies and to reduce the risk of inadvertent use.
Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin reported earlier this week that among the changes under consideration is the adoption of a clear no-first–use doctrine. Such a shift would build upon earlier adjustments made to U.S. nuclear policy in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, which said the United States should pursue the objective of making deterrence against a nuclear attack the “sole purpose” of the nuclear arsenal.”
LINK
Why don't you actually try and find sources that support your positions instead of trumpeting your ignorance?
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 5:47 am
Posted on 3/19/17 at 5:50 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
And guess what, I think those articles say we will use them as a first strike if necessary.
Whatever.
"Given these realities, responsible leaders understand that military options that can lead to mutual national suicide should not be on the table. As McGeorge Bundy, George Kennan, Robert McNamara, and Gerard Smith wrote in Foreign Affairs in 1982 about nuclear weapons first-use contingency plans in Europe, “No one has ever succeeded in advancing any persuasive reason to believe that any use of nuclear weapons, even on the smallest scale, could reliably be expected to remain limited….”
It has been estimated that the use of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of tens of millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds of millions and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural, economic, health, and environmental consequences for billions of people. It is impossible to imagine any U.S. political objective worth this cost."
LINK
fricking morons might think it is a good idea.
Their couldn't be ANY upside to a US first strike with nuclear weapons in a NATO country. The idea is ludicrous on its face.
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 5:59 am
Posted on 3/19/17 at 5:57 am to WhiskeyPapa
Dumbass, do you honestly think I cannot find research that is the counter point to those articles? That someone in a position of authority does not think that tactical nukes (as a minimum) are an acceptable response? Because if they are not (you moron) then why have them?
Son of a bitch you are one of the most ignorant people on this board.
Congrats for copying and pasting. Again.
Son of a bitch you are one of the most ignorant people on this board.
Congrats for copying and pasting. Again.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:01 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Dumbass, do you honestly think I cannot find research that is the counter point to those articles?
Yeah. I actually thought of that.
What changes has the Trump Administration made on this position on first strike policy since last July?
Dumb shite.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:03 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Congrats for copying and pasting. Again.
Yeah, I wondered about that. You can surely find a tutorial that can show you how to do it.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:05 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Son of a bitch you are one of the most ignorant people on this board.
Oh well. I knew off the top of my head that the US was not no-way, not no-how, going to use first strike nuclear weapons in a NATO country, because you know - no national objective could possibly be worth it.
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 9:19 am
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:08 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
That someone in a position of authority does not think that tactical nukes (as a minimum) are an acceptable response? Because if they are not (you moron) then why have them?
If you were to actually acquaint yourself with any of this, you might discover a concept called 'deterrence.'
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:11 am to WhiskeyPapa
Dude, I cannot help you it you had a lackluster (at best) career as a Marine. I am sorry that your glory days are long past you and you are now just a bitter old man sitting at a keyboard. I come here to have stimulating discussions and to enjoy myself. You come here to just be "that guy." You do not have the respect of your fellow Marines (or other posters) because you are the constant critic and contrarian. You add nothing meaningful to what is posted (and that is hard to do on this board). Congrats on being a miserable person. My only regret is that Chicken will not add an "ignore" function at this site. There are only (about) five people I would apply that to and you would be at the top of the list. You are absolutely worthless as a poster.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:22 am to Wolfhound45
Your issue, and others have said it too, with cutting and pasting material as sort of a bad or useless thing is what President Lincoln called counterfeit logic.
What could be better than citing actual sources for your argument?
Next time just stomp your foot and say, "I don't like that!"
What could be better than citing actual sources for your argument?
Next time just stomp your foot and say, "I don't like that!"
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:25 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
You come here to just be "that guy."
It is not hard to be 'that guy' when ignorant fools like you want to come around.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:25 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Oh, and stand by for his boot camp photo.
GT23 is a prophet.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:27 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
fricking morons...
quote:
Their couldn't be ANY upside...
Good stuff.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:34 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
you would be at the top of the list
No way I could do that. He's almost serviceable as a beejon replacement.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:36 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Dude, I cannot help you it you had a lackluster (at best) career as a Marine.
I got to do a lot of cool stuff and go to a lot of cool places.
I got to ride the USS James K Polk SSBN 645. I hung out in the missile compartment and -- speaking of nuclear weapons -- they let me do a test firing of the missile battery. That was very cool. All the subs in our squadron had Poseidon missiles with 10 warheads each.
This post was edited on 3/19/17 at 6:52 am
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:46 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
You do not have the respect of your fellow Marines (or other posters) because you are the constant critic and contrarian.
I think you and a couple of others don't like me saying that we should cut Israel loose and let them sink or swim on their own.
I have to wonder if you and your buddies don't support the status quo, which has just about brought us to the brink of disaster.
It must be up your arse to be contradicted on your ridiculous position on first strike nuclear weapons by US forces.
I guess showing you up for a fool is contrarian, huh?
Posted on 3/19/17 at 6:53 am to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
I think you and a couple of others don't like me saying that we should cut Israel loose and let them sink or swim on their own.
No, that's not it. I don't care about your thoughts on anything.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 7:31 am to DisplacedBuckeye
I see you Sea Soldiers are still going strong.
Posted on 3/19/17 at 8:42 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
I think you and a couple of others don't like me saying that we should cut Israel loose and let them sink or swim on their own. No, that's not it.
I don't care about your thoughts on anything.
Proverbs 28:1
Page 24 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News