|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 14 2017 05:02 zlefin wrote: yawn, bombs dropped in war zones; feels like it could easily be regarded as a total non-issue and ignored. But I guess it's soemthing to talk about, and explosions are cool.
Yes, this is my reaction as well. But check out Cable New's hard dick over this stunt. I am concerned about how easily Cable can get lead around even though we have been dropping huge numbers of bombs all over the world.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/benfedele_/status/852585069533417473 ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9T9mMqWAAA08nm.jpg)
EDIT: also,
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 14 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 04:48 m4ini wrote:On April 14 2017 04:30 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:15 a_flayer wrote: I read that this bomb has like a 1 mile radius. That's insane, how can they be sure that everyone in a 1 mile radius is ISIS? Sounds like someone is doing a lot of generalizing... "The main attribute of the MOAB is that it causes overpressure," Dr. Adam Lowther, the director of the US Air Force's school of deterrence, told Business Insider on Thursday in a phone interview.
That overpressure, caused when the bomb detonates at a low altitude over its target, is designed to crush underground tunnels and bunkers like the ones often used by ISIS.
"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB. Business insiderIt doesn't sound too mismatched for target. I mean this is Trump so of course all dials set up to 11. It is if they intended to destroy the tunnes/caves. What you quoted is marketing talk. The bomb is effective against caves/tunnels due to pressure, yes - but not against the tunnels, but against what's in it. The primarily role is as "shock and awe" weapon, psychological warfare. Other than that, it's just a huge bomb - that's it. There's no clever "cave crushing pressure" mechanism to it, it's as dumb a bomb as they come. The tunnels will actually be most likely unscathed for the most part. Not the people in them, again, due to the pressure, but the tunnels. Here's some "none marketing talk". The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter", except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances, soft-to-medium surface targets, and for anti-personnel purposes. Because of the size of the explosion, it is also effective at LZ clearance and mine and beach obstacle clearance. Injury or death to persons will be primarily caused by blast or fragmentation. It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use. The massive weapon provides a capability to perform psychological operations, attack large area targets, or hold at-risk threats hidden within tunnels or caves. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htmDon't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind at all if they throw it in a remote location if there's only taliban/isis around. I just would've liked them to own it - they dropped that bomb right there because that's where the green beret died. Which is fine, and also a powerful message, if they'd own it. edit: explosion radius btw is 150m, not a mile - so it's not as bad is it sounds. edit2: man, american articles on this bomb are ridiculous, quoting similarities to little boy because it had 15ktons. Either it's ridiculous sensationalism or people actually don't understand the difference between "tons" and "kilotons". That's where the mile radius comes from. They're literally quoting the bomb that hit Hiroshima as equivalent, which had that mile radius. To be perfectly honest, I only see personal choice in whose account you trash or trust. I'd have to see much more to show "not against the tunnels but against what's in it" to an Occam's razor "yes, dropping a big bomb over a tunnel system is first designed to collapse and kill, secondly psychological shock and awe, and the PhD is not a marketing shill."
First, read the actual press release of the forces.
Second, your own PhD states what i'm telling you.
"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB.
Targets in caves. The press release talks about "obstacles" in regards to cleaning the areas, which includes IEDs which most likely would've set off.
A tiny bit of common sense would've been enough though. There's a reason bunker busters exist and were primarily used. That reason isn't because MOAB would've been more effective, because it isn't. It actually can't be as long as it isn't a shaped charge, which again, obviously, it isn't. It fires above ground, so only directly underneath you'd get actual pressure on a tunnel, because the shockwave 2m around the bomb already disperses sideways, not downwards.
I don't see anything wrong with it being retaliation strike to show "if you kill our guys, we'll bring the big guns". I do see a lot wrong with pretending that it was something else entirely.
|
On April 14 2017 05:21 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:48 m4ini wrote:On April 14 2017 04:30 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:15 a_flayer wrote: I read that this bomb has like a 1 mile radius. That's insane, how can they be sure that everyone in a 1 mile radius is ISIS? Sounds like someone is doing a lot of generalizing... "The main attribute of the MOAB is that it causes overpressure," Dr. Adam Lowther, the director of the US Air Force's school of deterrence, told Business Insider on Thursday in a phone interview.
That overpressure, caused when the bomb detonates at a low altitude over its target, is designed to crush underground tunnels and bunkers like the ones often used by ISIS.
"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB. Business insiderIt doesn't sound too mismatched for target. I mean this is Trump so of course all dials set up to 11. It is if they intended to destroy the tunnes/caves. What you quoted is marketing talk. The bomb is effective against caves/tunnels due to pressure, yes - but not against the tunnels, but against what's in it. The primarily role is as "shock and awe" weapon, psychological warfare. Other than that, it's just a huge bomb - that's it. There's no clever "cave crushing pressure" mechanism to it, it's as dumb a bomb as they come. The tunnels will actually be most likely unscathed for the most part. Not the people in them, again, due to the pressure, but the tunnels. Here's some "none marketing talk". The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter", except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances, soft-to-medium surface targets, and for anti-personnel purposes. Because of the size of the explosion, it is also effective at LZ clearance and mine and beach obstacle clearance. Injury or death to persons will be primarily caused by blast or fragmentation. It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use. The massive weapon provides a capability to perform psychological operations, attack large area targets, or hold at-risk threats hidden within tunnels or caves. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htmDon't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind at all if they throw it in a remote location if there's only taliban/isis around. I just would've liked them to own it - they dropped that bomb right there because that's where the green beret died. Which is fine, and also a powerful message, if they'd own it. edit: explosion radius btw is 150m, not a mile - so it's not as bad is it sounds. edit2: man, american articles on this bomb are ridiculous, quoting similarities to little boy because it had 15ktons. Either it's ridiculous sensationalism or people actually don't understand the difference between "tons" and "kilotons". That's where the mile radius comes from. They're literally quoting the bomb that hit Hiroshima as equivalent, which had that mile radius. To be perfectly honest, I only see personal choice in whose account you trash or trust. I'd have to see much more to show "not against the tunnels but against what's in it" to an Occam's razor "yes, dropping a big bomb over a tunnel system is first designed to collapse and kill, secondly psychological shock and awe, and the PhD is not a marketing shill." First, read the actual press release of the forces. Second, your own PhD states what i'm telling you. Show nested quote +"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB.
Targets in caves. The press release talks about "obstacles" in regards to cleaning the areas, which includes IEDs which most likely would've set off. A tiny bit of common sense would've been enough though. There's a reason bunker busters exist and were primarily used. That reason isn't because MOAB would've been more effective, because it isn't. It actually can't be as long as it isn't a shaped charge, which again, obviously, it isn't. It fires above ground, so only directly underneath you'd get actual pressure on a tunnel, because the shockwave 2m around the bomb already disperses sideways, not downwards. I don't see anything wrong with it being retaliation strike to show "if you kill our guys, we'll bring the big guns". I do see a lot wrong with pretending that it was something else entirely. Wouldn't a fuel air explosive like the MOAB be really good for clearing out cave systems just through its creation of vacuums and pressure differentials?
|
On April 14 2017 05:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 05:21 m4ini wrote:On April 14 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:48 m4ini wrote:On April 14 2017 04:30 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:15 a_flayer wrote: I read that this bomb has like a 1 mile radius. That's insane, how can they be sure that everyone in a 1 mile radius is ISIS? Sounds like someone is doing a lot of generalizing... "The main attribute of the MOAB is that it causes overpressure," Dr. Adam Lowther, the director of the US Air Force's school of deterrence, told Business Insider on Thursday in a phone interview.
That overpressure, caused when the bomb detonates at a low altitude over its target, is designed to crush underground tunnels and bunkers like the ones often used by ISIS.
"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB. Business insiderIt doesn't sound too mismatched for target. I mean this is Trump so of course all dials set up to 11. It is if they intended to destroy the tunnes/caves. What you quoted is marketing talk. The bomb is effective against caves/tunnels due to pressure, yes - but not against the tunnels, but against what's in it. The primarily role is as "shock and awe" weapon, psychological warfare. Other than that, it's just a huge bomb - that's it. There's no clever "cave crushing pressure" mechanism to it, it's as dumb a bomb as they come. The tunnels will actually be most likely unscathed for the most part. Not the people in them, again, due to the pressure, but the tunnels. Here's some "none marketing talk". The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter", except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances, soft-to-medium surface targets, and for anti-personnel purposes. Because of the size of the explosion, it is also effective at LZ clearance and mine and beach obstacle clearance. Injury or death to persons will be primarily caused by blast or fragmentation. It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use. The massive weapon provides a capability to perform psychological operations, attack large area targets, or hold at-risk threats hidden within tunnels or caves. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htmDon't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind at all if they throw it in a remote location if there's only taliban/isis around. I just would've liked them to own it - they dropped that bomb right there because that's where the green beret died. Which is fine, and also a powerful message, if they'd own it. edit: explosion radius btw is 150m, not a mile - so it's not as bad is it sounds. edit2: man, american articles on this bomb are ridiculous, quoting similarities to little boy because it had 15ktons. Either it's ridiculous sensationalism or people actually don't understand the difference between "tons" and "kilotons". That's where the mile radius comes from. They're literally quoting the bomb that hit Hiroshima as equivalent, which had that mile radius. To be perfectly honest, I only see personal choice in whose account you trash or trust. I'd have to see much more to show "not against the tunnels but against what's in it" to an Occam's razor "yes, dropping a big bomb over a tunnel system is first designed to collapse and kill, secondly psychological shock and awe, and the PhD is not a marketing shill." First, read the actual press release of the forces. Second, your own PhD states what i'm telling you. "The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB.
Targets in caves. The press release talks about "obstacles" in regards to cleaning the areas, which includes IEDs which most likely would've set off. A tiny bit of common sense would've been enough though. There's a reason bunker busters exist and were primarily used. That reason isn't because MOAB would've been more effective, because it isn't. It actually can't be as long as it isn't a shaped charge, which again, obviously, it isn't. It fires above ground, so only directly underneath you'd get actual pressure on a tunnel, because the shockwave 2m around the bomb already disperses sideways, not downwards. I don't see anything wrong with it being retaliation strike to show "if you kill our guys, we'll bring the big guns". I do see a lot wrong with pretending that it was something else entirely. Wouldn't a fuel air explosive like the MOAB be really good for clearing out cave systems just through its creation of vacuums and pressure differentials?
I am pretty sure that the answer is "It's complicated, ask an expert and/or test it". Both it being effective and Trump saying "Let's drop the biggest bomb we have!!!!" are plausible scenarios for me. I don't think it is that important to be honest. If you drop bombs on stuff, i don't particularly care what type of bomb it is.
It sounds like a pretty expensive bomb though?
|
It isn’t even the largest bomb we have or the most powerful. It is an almost 15 year old weapon that never really saw use.
|
On April 14 2017 05:21 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 05:05 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:48 m4ini wrote:On April 14 2017 04:30 Danglars wrote:On April 14 2017 04:15 a_flayer wrote: I read that this bomb has like a 1 mile radius. That's insane, how can they be sure that everyone in a 1 mile radius is ISIS? Sounds like someone is doing a lot of generalizing... "The main attribute of the MOAB is that it causes overpressure," Dr. Adam Lowther, the director of the US Air Force's school of deterrence, told Business Insider on Thursday in a phone interview.
That overpressure, caused when the bomb detonates at a low altitude over its target, is designed to crush underground tunnels and bunkers like the ones often used by ISIS.
"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB. Business insiderIt doesn't sound too mismatched for target. I mean this is Trump so of course all dials set up to 11. It is if they intended to destroy the tunnes/caves. What you quoted is marketing talk. The bomb is effective against caves/tunnels due to pressure, yes - but not against the tunnels, but against what's in it. The primarily role is as "shock and awe" weapon, psychological warfare. Other than that, it's just a huge bomb - that's it. There's no clever "cave crushing pressure" mechanism to it, it's as dumb a bomb as they come. The tunnels will actually be most likely unscathed for the most part. Not the people in them, again, due to the pressure, but the tunnels. Here's some "none marketing talk". The MOAB weapon is based upon the same principle as the BLU-82 "Daisy Cutter", except that it is larger and has a guidance system. The weapon is expected to produce a tremendous explosion that would be effective against hard-target entrances, soft-to-medium surface targets, and for anti-personnel purposes. Because of the size of the explosion, it is also effective at LZ clearance and mine and beach obstacle clearance. Injury or death to persons will be primarily caused by blast or fragmentation. It is expected that the weapon will have a substantial psychological effect on those who witness its use. The massive weapon provides a capability to perform psychological operations, attack large area targets, or hold at-risk threats hidden within tunnels or caves. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htmDon't get me wrong. I wouldn't mind at all if they throw it in a remote location if there's only taliban/isis around. I just would've liked them to own it - they dropped that bomb right there because that's where the green beret died. Which is fine, and also a powerful message, if they'd own it. edit: explosion radius btw is 150m, not a mile - so it's not as bad is it sounds. edit2: man, american articles on this bomb are ridiculous, quoting similarities to little boy because it had 15ktons. Either it's ridiculous sensationalism or people actually don't understand the difference between "tons" and "kilotons". That's where the mile radius comes from. They're literally quoting the bomb that hit Hiroshima as equivalent, which had that mile radius. To be perfectly honest, I only see personal choice in whose account you trash or trust. I'd have to see much more to show "not against the tunnels but against what's in it" to an Occam's razor "yes, dropping a big bomb over a tunnel system is first designed to collapse and kill, secondly psychological shock and awe, and the PhD is not a marketing shill." First, read the actual press release of the forces. Second, your own PhD states what i'm telling you. Show nested quote +"The MOAB has a very narrow target set," a US Air Force official told Business Insider. "Basically," the official said, "targets in an environment like caves or canyons or clearing minefields" are ideal for the MOAB.
Targets in caves. The press release talks about "obstacles" in regards to cleaning the areas, which includes IEDs which most likely would've set off. A tiny bit of common sense would've been enough though. There's a reason bunker busters exist and were primarily used. That reason isn't because MOAB would've been more effective, because it isn't. It actually can't be as long as it isn't a shaped charge, which again, obviously, it isn't. It fires above ground, so only directly underneath you'd get actual pressure on a tunnel, because the shockwave 2m around the bomb already disperses sideways, not downwards. I don't see anything wrong with it being retaliation strike to show "if you kill our guys, we'll bring the big guns". I do see a lot wrong with pretending that it was something else entirely. I now see I mistook your psychological warfare sentence following "against what's in it." Sorry.
|
it seems extremely wasteful to build and drop bombs that cost a third of a billion or fire off nearly a billion in tomahawk missles to blow up a portion of syrian airfields when we are simultaneously having a discussion about how to pay for our citizens' basic healthcare
|
On April 14 2017 07:01 IgnE wrote: it seems extremely wasteful to build and drop bombs that cost a third of a billion or fire off nearly a billion in tomahawk missles to blow up a portion of syrian airfields when we are simultaneously having a discussion about how to pay for our citizens' basic healthcare I'd say this was an apples to oranges complaint, since these weapons were already built and paid for, if there wasn't 50 billion more dollars being funnelled into the military.
|
Donald Trump’s true believers are losing the faith.
As Trump struggles to keep his campaign promises and flirts with political moderation, his most steadfast supporters — from veteran advisers to anti-immigration activists to the volunteers who dropped their jobs to help elect him — are increasingly dismayed by the direction of his presidency.
Their complaints range from Trump’s embrace of an interventionist foreign policy to his less hawkish tone on China to, most recently, his marginalization of his nationalist chief strategist, Steve Bannon. But the crux of their disillusionment, interviews with nearly two dozen Trump loyalists reveal, is a belief that Trump the candidate bears little resemblance to Trump the president. He’s failing, in their view, to deliver on his promise of a transformative “America First” agenda driven by hard-edged populism.
"Donald Trump dropped an emotional anchor. He captured how Americans feel," said Tania Vojvodic, a fervent Trump supporter who founded one of his first campaign volunteer networks. "We expect him to keep his word, and right now he's not keeping his word."
Earlier this week, Vojvodic launched a Facebook group called, “The concerned support base of President Trump,” which quickly drew several dozen sign-ups. She also changed the banner on her Facebook page to a picture of Bannon accompanied by the declaration: “Mr. President: I stand with Steve Bannon.”
"I'm not so infatuated with Trump that I can't see the facts," she said. "People's belief, their trust in him, it’s declining."
The swiftness and abruptness of Trump’s shift from bomb-throwing populist outsider to a more mainstream brand of Republican has taken the president’s stalwarts by surprise.
“It was like, here’s the chance to do something different. And that’s why people’s hopes are dashed,” said Lee Stranahan, who, as a former writer at Breitbart News, once worked with Bannon. “There was always the question of, ‘Did he really believe this stuff?’ Apparently, the answer is, ‘Not as much as you’d like.’”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
The deflation of Trump’s base threatens to further weaken a president who’s already seen his public support drop to historic lows. Frustration among the president’s allies has intensified in recent days, with many expressing worry that Bannon, the intellectual pillar of the nationalist movement that catapulted Trump to the presidency, is being pushed out.
As Bannon’s influence wanes, on the rise is a small group of Wall Street-connected advisers whose politically moderate and globalist views are anathema to the populist cause.
The palace intrigue intensified this week after Trump refused to say he still had confidence in Bannon and downplayed the former Breitbart chairman's role in his campaign victory. And it’s feeding suspicions that the president is changing his priorities.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the president’s most vocal backers on Capitol Hill, said he’s been disheartened by the chief strategist’s isolation.
"A lot of us look at Steve Bannon as the voice of conservatism in the White House," said King, who has known Bannon for years.
The displeasure over Bannon’s reduced status has trickled down to Trump’s grass-roots army of volunteers. Among those unsettled is Shane Bouvet, a 24-year-old campaign volunteer and blue-collar single father from Illinois who became something of a hero in the Trump movement. On the eve of the inauguration, Trump, who had read about how Bouvet trekked across the country by car so he could watch the swearing-in, gave him a check for $10,000.
Bouvet later said the gift saved the life of his father, who was battling cancer and needed the money to cover medical costs.
That day, Bouvet also was introduced to Bannon. The two spoke briefly, and Bouvet came to identify with the adviser who, like him, represented a “forgotten America” that Trump had appealed to with his blue-collar pitch. He said in an interview that he still supports the president, but is troubled by reports that Bannon is on the outs and that senior adviser Jared Kushner, a New York City real estate scion, is accumulating influence.
Source
|
On April 14 2017 07:01 IgnE wrote: it seems extremely wasteful to build and drop bombs that cost a third of a billion or fire off nearly a billion in tomahawk missles to blow up a portion of syrian airfields when we are simultaneously having a discussion about how to pay for our citizens' basic healthcare Its a pretty pathetic example of how inefficient and overly expensive US military equipment is these days.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Being clunky and impractical is a pretty standard feature of weapons that have larger-than-necessary kaboom power. But daaamn, that's some good freedom we're giving them.
|
Norway28674 Posts
On April 14 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote: You know, I just realized something. This bombing has a pretty hilarious "if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?" vibe to it. It's not a nuke but it's the closest the clown can get without triggering MAD.
I heard Little Boy is about 1000 times more powerful than this one? Basically nukes are in a whole other league.
|
The strength in this bomb is its ability to make oxygen no longer be in caves. I think that's awesome.
|
I wonder if we'll get a civilian body count on this bomb. I'll bet the psychology effect on ISIS is no joke, though.
|
|
On April 14 2017 08:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2017 03:13 LegalLord wrote: You know, I just realized something. This bombing has a pretty hilarious "if we have nuclear weapons, why can't we use them?" vibe to it. It's not a nuke but it's the closest the clown can get without triggering MAD. I heard Little Boy is about 1000 times more powerful than this one? Basically nukes are in a whole other league.
Yeah this was nothing close to an atomic bomb like Little boy, which again, is not even close to some of the hydrogen bombs.
|
A state appeals court in Florida on Thursday affirmed a circuit court’s decision to order Trump National Doral Miami golf resort to pay a small paint company and its attorney hundreds of thousands of dollars after failing to pay a tenth of that for paint and other materials during a renovation project.
Lawyer fees — in addition to the initial missing payment of $32,535.87 — were originally awarded to The Paint Spot, a local store nearby Trump National, in July 2016, as reported by the Miami Herald. Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto applied a 75 percent additional fee on top of the attorney Daniel Vega’s billed time as well, because his firm, Taylor Espino Vega & Touron, had taken the case on a contingency fee basis. The total at the time was $282,949.91.
But the Trump Organization appealed the decision, alleging that the paint company had filed a construction lien incorrectly, naming a contractor who had worked on a separate project. On Wednesday, Florida’s Third District Court of Appeals ruled that “Trump failed to establish that it was adversely affected by the error.”
The court also pointed to an unfortunate bit of testimony from contractor Straticon’s construction manager, Jamie Gram.
“[T]he decision not to pay [Paint Spot] had nothing to do with a defective Notice to Owner,” Gram said, according to the decision. “They weren’t paid because Mr. Trump had already paid [subcontractor] M&P a decent amount of money of the contract … and there was still a lot of work that needed to be completed, so we used the money, M&P’s remaining balance, plus additional funds to pay to get the work done.”
Vega told Daily Business Review on Thursday that he expected the appeals court legal fees to be similarly multiplied by 1.75.
The result is a massive bill for a relatively small disagreement over paint.
Source
|
The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
North Korea has warned that a "big event" is near, and U.S. officials say signs point to a nuclear test that could come as early as this weekend.
The intelligence officials told NBC News that the U.S. has positioned two destroyers capable of shooting Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, one just 300 miles from the North Korean nuclear test site.
www.nbcnews.com
Trump definitely flexing the military more so than Obama.
|
On April 14 2017 09:03 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote + The U.S. is prepared to launch a preemptive strike with conventional weapons against North Korea should officials become convinced that North Korea is about to follow through with a nuclear weapons test, multiple senior U.S. intelligence officials told NBC News.
North Korea has warned that a "big event" is near, and U.S. officials say signs point to a nuclear test that could come as early as this weekend.
The intelligence officials told NBC News that the U.S. has positioned two destroyers capable of shooting Tomahawk cruise missiles in the region, one just 300 miles from the North Korean nuclear test site. www.nbcnews.comTrump definitely flexing the military more so than Obama. He can swing his dick around all he wants. But remember who has to fight this shit war. And who has to foot the bill. There's more damage to be done than rewards to be gained.
This is stupid and invites an aggressive act against America and her interests. If he does launch an attack, immediate impeachment proceedings will follow.
|
On April 14 2017 07:01 IgnE wrote: it seems extremely wasteful to build and drop bombs that cost a third of a billion or fire off nearly a billion in tomahawk missles to blow up a portion of syrian airfields when we are simultaneously having a discussion about how to pay for our citizens' basic healthcare
It is. It's an incredibly ridiculous waste. It's completely and utterly indefensible. But have fun with that conversation with conservative warhawks.
|
|
|
|