Comments 1 - 40 of 60       Last »     Search these comments

1   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 3, 9:32am  

Paywall = Show us the money!
2   Booger   2017 Sep 3, 9:39am  

How many North Koreans were killed in the blast?
3   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 3, 10:10am  

Why did Trump allow N.K. to get a hidrogyn bomb?
Thought Trump said talk was useless,coming from a
all tweet & no action president.
4   Patrick   2017 Sep 3, 10:11am  

Ugh, even worse than Pakistan having the bomb.
5   curious2   2017 Sep 3, 10:40am  

Patrick says
Ugh, even worse than Pakistan having the bomb.

I still think Pakistan is worse. The NK regime has comparatively limited ambitions: control of a small patch of ground, extortion, and respect. They don't expect everyone in the world to submit to the North Korean way of living. Meanwhile, Pakistan is a terrorist state leading a Muslim world plan against blasphemy.
6   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 3, 11:11am  

Will Trump protect America from an nuclear armed Muslim nation?

"Pakistan is one of nine states to possess nuclear weapons, and the only Muslim majority country to do so."
"Current stockpile (usable and not) 130 warheads[7][9]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Trump/Rep/Cons will do nothing to protect America.
Christian Rep/Cons will allow a BLASPHEMOUS nation to survive.
Sorry ,they won't be making it to heaven.
7   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 11:19am  

We're fucked.
8   FortWayne   2017 Sep 3, 11:32am  

Star Wars will make it all obsolete
9   Patrick   2017 Sep 3, 12:50pm  

FortWayne says
Star Wars will make it all obsolete


Maybe it's possible. It would certainly be worth a lot.

Though they may still be able to sneak a bomb onto a boat.
10   Shaman   2017 Sep 3, 12:55pm  

I'm pretty sure the USA has anti-ICBM defenses, be they lasers or rail guns or missiles. Twenty-five years ago we were shooting down SCUD missiles with Patriot missiles in the first gulf war. You try convincing me that they haven't improved a thousand fold by now with computer advances.

However, if we had a great defense against nuclear tipped ICBMs, we would be best served to keep its existence and certainly any details a state secret. Sort of a nice little surprise for anyone who wants to attack!
11   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 3, 5:35pm  

HEY YOU says
Why did Trump allow N.K. to get a hidrogyn bomb?


Well, to answer that, we need to go back to NK's first nuclear test in 2006 under Bush, and their second in 2009 under Obama...

... but the real answer is in the Agreed Framework, which started in 1994 under Clinton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework

and a man named Abdul Q. Khan who was a key Pakistani Nuclear Scientist. Pakistan gave North Korea key technologies for atomic weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

Although in fairness, cooperation between Pakistan and North Korea on Nukes goes back to the 1970s.
12   Shaman   2017 Sep 3, 5:51pm  

I think we've pushed North Korean time table back far enough so that their recent acquisition of an H-bomb is fairly irrelevant. I'm not worried about a small rogue nation launching a nuke at us. I'm worried about a real nuclear power like Russia or China launching 500 nukes at us because I doubt we can deal with shit like that.

Rogue nations are so five minutes ago.
13   Y   2017 Sep 3, 6:03pm  

drop sanctions on nk, export porno tapes to them laced with ebola. only the elite will have access, primary targets.
so simple yet so effective...
14   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 6:10pm  

curious2 says
If you consider the risk of putting a nuclear weapon on a boat or plane, for example, Pakistan has much more traffic to the USA. Even if the original manufacture of the weapon could be proved, the sender would deny everything, because "Allah is the best deceiver."


TwoScoopsMcGee says

and a man named Abdul Q. Khan who was a key Pakistani Nuclear Scientist. Pakistan gave North Korea key technologies for atomic weapons.


It's also possible many other countries and Islamic terrorist organizations already have some or all of the blueprints required to make a nuclear bomb. They would need scientists, the parts, and the equipment to assemble a nuclear bomb which is not easy.
My fear, both Pakistan and NK could easily give to terrorists a few nuclear devices, and would do so if we were to attack them. They may already have made those threats behind the scenes to us.
15   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 6:22pm  

The responsibility on the N Koreans achieving nukes lies almost entirely on Obama. This hydrogen bomb completely changes the equation to the negative. If Trump was President instead of Obama during those critical 8 years, NK would not have been a problem today. This is the problem I always see with pussy democrat Presidents when it comes to foreign policy and reigning in two bit dictators and terrorists. Democrats just aren't tough enough to deal with these threats.
I supported Obama for his second term. I'm already sorry.
16   MisdemeanorRebel   2017 Sep 3, 6:23pm  

The big threat from a state is sub-launched nukes, or even a nuclear "Fire Ship" submarine.

Our outfield is so far back and deep, a bunt between 2nd and 3rd off Long Beach isn't being considered.

The first move the US should do is start putting SAMs at key coastal utilites and double the coast guard with subchasers. We still act like it's 1945 in many ways, as if subs aren't transoceanic and we don't have huge coastlines very difficult to patrol due to sheer size.
17   PeopleUnited   2017 Sep 3, 6:41pm  

North Korea is all hot air. The would not dare attack the US or our allies. The threat is a phantom threat made by a guy with nothing to gain and everything to lose by actually using his weapons. The world media is creating hysteria over nothing but saber rattling. Gee that's a nice saber Kimfuck. To bad you don't have the balls to use it. You are never going to be anything more than a punk with a bad haircut. Kim wouldn't dare attack. Now, if Kim was dead, all bets are off. We should consider some reverse psychology here and tell Kim how great he is and and how glad we are his people are finally safe from western oppression.
18   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 6:54pm  

The best solution is to nuke Pyongyang when they have a major event and we know the whole leadership of NK including that ugly brat will be there.
If I was President, I would do it.
19   PeopleUnited   2017 Sep 3, 7:01pm  

Nukes are not necessary if all we want is to take out the little leader. Send in every drone we have and they would find him. But I don't see how killing the bad haircut boy helps anything. If Kimfuck is dead, the military of NK might just take over and start a real war.
20   bob2356   2017 Sep 3, 7:01pm  

Strategist says
The responsibility on the N Koreans achieving nukes lies almost entirely on Obama


NK detonated it's first warhead in 2006 when Obama was a senator. Using technology supplied by pakistan. How exactly was Senator Obama responsible pray tell?
21   anonymous   2017 Sep 3, 7:03pm  

jazz_music says
BTW the entire UK just banned Fox News last week. The nerve of those commie snowflakes! Pepe toad-butt will be coming to feast on their tears.

You've posted that a couple of times. You need to check your facts.
22   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 7:19pm  

PeopleUnited says
If Kimfuck is dead, the military of NK might just take over and start a real war.

The devil we don't know cannot be worse than the devil we know...Kimfuck the third.



bob2356 says

NK detonated it's first warhead in 2006 when Obama was a senator. Using technology supplied by pakistan. How exactly was Senator Obama responsible pray tell?

Because most of their nuke technology was acquired after that event in the last 10 or 11 years when Obama was President. Obama did not do anything to stop it, but kicked the can down the road. Trump would have got the job done if he was President then. Now, after the Hydrogen bomb, I think it's too late.
It was not a good day for me. It's not a good day for the world.
We live in a fucked up world.
23   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 7:21pm  

null says
jazz_music says
BTW the entire UK just banned Fox News last week. The nerve of those commie snowflakes! Pepe toad-butt will be coming to feast on their tears.

You've posted that a couple of times. You need to check your facts.


Our friend Jazz only reads anti American trash, which is why he is calling for a revolution to overthrow the US government.
24   bob2356   2017 Sep 3, 7:22pm  

Strategist says
It's also possible many other countries and Islamic terrorist organizations already have some or all of the blueprints required to make a nuclear bomb. They would need scientists, the parts, and the equipment to assemble a nuclear bomb which is not easy.
My fear, both Pakistan and NK could easily give to terrorists a few nuclear devices, and would do so if we were to attack them. They may already have made those threats behind the scenes to us.


Every country in the world knows how to make a nuclear bomb. It's not very hard. A Princeton undergrad named John Aristotle Phillips made a successful design in 1976 as his term paper (see a book called The Atom Bomb Kid). The problem is getting the fissionable fuel to make the bomb which costs billions to do. I'm not sure why a country would spend billions building a bomb then give it to terrorists. The retribution would be the same whether a country bombed us directly or used a terrorist to do it.
25   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 7:37pm  

bob2356 says
Strategist says
It's also possible many other countries and Islamic terrorist organizations already have some or all of the blueprints required to make a nuclear bomb. They would need scientists, the parts, and the equipment to assemble a nuclear bomb which is not easy.
My fear, both Pakistan and NK could easily give to terrorists a few nuclear devices, and would do so if we were to attack them. They may already have made those threats behind the scenes to us.


Every country in the world knows how to make a nuclear bomb. It's not very hard. A Princeton undergrad named John Aristotle Phillips made a successful design in 1976 as his term paper (see a book called The Atom Bomb Kid). The problem is getting the fissionable fuel to make the bomb which costs billions to do.

I agree with you. It's easy to get information on how to make a nuclear bomb, but getting the materials is the hard part.

bob2356 says
I'm not sure why a country would spend billions building a bomb then give it to terrorists. The retribution would be the same whether a country bombed us directly or used a terrorist to do it.

I can already think of 3 reasons:
1. Individuals with control of the nukes in a country could sell the bomb to terrorists or other countries for monetary gain. Pakistan has already done that.
2. A country like Pakistan or NK could sell a nuclear bomb to terrorists who would blow up NY City just because they hate us.
3. If attacked, these generals and dictators knowing their end has come, could just start giving away their nukes just for revenge.
26   curious2   2017 Sep 3, 7:53pm  

jazz_music says
curious2 says
the notion of a secret and reliable shield against ICBMs sounds like wishful thnking.


Your video looks merely like more wishful thinking and confirmation bias. One commentator says the most likely purpose of the machine is to keep the Chinese guessing about what it's for. Maybe it was designed for drone surveillance back in the era of film photography, but got delayed and overtaken by better designs. Nothing about it suggests it could intercept an ICBM traveling at over 10k MPH.

It's odd how easily you slide from opposing what people in government are doing to believing that the people in government must know what they're doing and will protect us. Your credulity reminds me of the people who believed Iraq caused 9/11. There wasn't any direct evidence, there wasn't even a direct accusation, but some people believed it.
27   curious2   2017 Sep 3, 8:05pm  

jazz_music says
Could it not launch an interceptor the same as they launch from the ground only in a fraction of the time?


No, it is too small to launch anything that could stop an ICBM.

jazz_music says
What is your question exactly?


I did not ask you a question, nor would I. You tend to believe what you want to believe, regardless of evidence. You have asked me a question, and my answer to you remains the same as before: your dubious assertion about neutralizing missiles has no foundation. It is merely wishful thinking on your part, which you maintain by watching videos that provide enough ambiguity that you can imagine whatever you want to believe.
28   PeopleUnited   2017 Sep 3, 8:19pm  

Strategist says
Our friend Jazz only reads anti American trash, which is why he is


... anti- American
29   PeopleUnited   2017 Sep 3, 8:22pm  

Strategist says

The devil we don't know cannot be worse than the devil we know...Kimfuck the third.


kimfuck may be NK's Sadam. that can of worms should not be opened by US. let china deal with their minion.
30   HEY YOU   2017 Sep 3, 8:38pm  

EMP,short for "We're so screwed."
31   Y   2017 Sep 3, 8:55pm  

You don't attack those countries. You destroy them as quickly as possible to contain and control their nukes...

Strategist says
My fear, both Pakistan and NK could easily give to terrorists a few nuclear devices, and would do so if we were to attack them
32   anonymous   2017 Sep 3, 8:56pm  

jazz_music says
Missiles are neutralized all the time, every year, like I said: threat always launched from Kwajalein and interceptor launched from Vandenberg. ABL has also successfully neutralized threats which could have included ballistic missiles.

Do you doubt that? Did you look up BMDO? They were renamed MDA in 2002 when we withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972.

What do you think they did on orbit for 2 years? Nothing? No testing of space-based weapons or counter measures?

My opinion is our defenses are multiple and can be brought to bear simultaneously.

All these successful developments, tests and war games must add up to some real capability.


Hate to butt in with the revolution plans you have with Kimfuck, but we would prefer no NK missiles have the capability to even launch any missiles.
By the way, how is your day going? You must be really happy that Kimfuck is gaining the capacity to destroy the evil capitalists like NK Japan and USA.
33   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 8:58pm  

jazz_music says
PeopleUnited says
... anti- American


That clown has no idea what I read, nor will he ever.

His attacks on me are blind, wild, and irresponsible. I have him on ignore for his petulance.


he he he.
Who is that asshole Jazz? I can hardly wait to find out.
34   Y   2017 Sep 3, 9:01pm  

Link?

jazz_music says
null says
You've posted that


checked
35   Strategist   2017 Sep 3, 9:03pm  

null says

Hate to butt in with the revolution plans you have with Kimfuck, but we would prefer no NK missiles have the capability to even launch any missiles.
By the way, how is your day going? You must be really happy that Kimfuck is gaining the capacity to destroy the evil capitalists like NK Japan and USA.


Hey that was me. Did i screw up again?
36   MAGA   2017 Sep 3, 9:11pm  

Speaking of Korea, I spent this morning with one of our Korean War veterans in the VA Hospital hospice.

Become a VA Volunteer. It will change you forever!
37   Y   2017 Sep 4, 6:23am  

nuke nk or kiss sk goodbye.
once kim gets icbms he will threaten to launch unless US conventional forces are withdrawn from the peninsula.
then he invades the south.
then he threatens to nuke anybody/everybody unless he gets freebies for NK to survive. who needs industry when you have nukes?
window is closing fast to put this fat fuck down...
38   bob2356   2017 Sep 4, 7:44am  

Strategist says
bob2356 says
I'm not sure why a country would spend billions building a bomb then give it to terrorists. The retribution would be the same whether a country bombed us directly or used a terrorist to do it.

I can already think of 3 reasons:
1. Individuals with control of the nukes in a country could sell the bomb to terrorists or other countries for monetary gain. Pakistan has already done that.
2. A country like Pakistan or NK could sell a nuclear bomb to terrorists who would blow up NY City just because they hate us.
3. If attacked, these generals and dictators knowing their end has come, could just start giving away their nukes just for revenge.


1. Monetary gain? WTF. It cost billions to make a bomb. Only 9 countries have ponied up enough money to make it happen. Where are terrorists getting that kind of money? Pakistan sold technology and expertise not bombs.

2&3 Again why would they give a bomb worth billions to terrorists to possibly fuck up an attack instead of attacking us directly. Generals in a military organization are going to hand over atomic bombs to some bearded goat herders? WTF? That's just a stupid idea. Fissionable materials have distinctive characteristics. We would know where the bomb came from anyway.
39   FuckTheMainstreamMedia   2017 Sep 4, 8:10am  

I would be super surprised if we didn't have a very good middle defense system. Unfortunately I can post why I believe that is so.

I will say that people in this thread are underestimating the US ability to keep things under wraps.

Also can someone please explain to me why building a defensive middle system is "ratcheting up the tensions"? That makes no sense to me. Of course I understand why the Chinese and Russians claim that. But no clue why the US media just laps it up.
40   Strategist   2017 Sep 4, 8:18am  

bob2356 says
I can already think of 3 reasons:
1. Individuals with control of the nukes in a country could sell the bomb to terrorists or other countries for monetary gain. Pakistan has already done that.
2. A country like Pakistan or NK could sell a nuclear bomb to terrorists who would blow up NY City just because they hate us.
3. If attacked, these generals and dictators knowing their end has come, could just start giving away their nukes just for revenge.


1. Monetary gain? WTF. It cost billions to make a bomb. Only 9 countries have ponied up enough money to make it happen. Where are terrorists getting that kind of money? Pakistan sold technology and expertise not bombs.

It may cost $billions for a nuclear program and a prototype. After that it's just an assembly line. Individuals within a country with access to bombs and enriched uranium could just sell a couple for a few $million.

bob2356 says
2&3 Again why would they give a bomb worth billions to terrorists to possibly fuck up an attack instead of attacking us directly. Generals in a military organization are going to hand over atomic bombs to some bearded goat herders? WTF? That's just a stupid idea. Fissionable materials have distinctive characteristics. We would know where the bomb came from anyway.

Generals know if they use a nuke against us they will be history. So all they have to do is give a couple of nukes to far away terrorist groups and hope it vaporizes New York. Any retaliation will fall on the terrorist groups who are just too eager to martyr themselves. And good luck finding out where the bomb came from after NY is vaporized.
The best prevention is to make sure unfriendly countries don't acquire nukes in the first place.

Comments 1 - 40 of 60       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions