Why a U.S. Military Strike against N.Korea would be disastrous

[The Sage of Main Street]

'Has North Korea just developed an H-bomb for its missiles? They say they have and to deny it would be reckless...time and again we have seen the analysts wrong about the N. Korean military potential.

Yet...............Using nuclear weapons against North Korea is a terrible idea. More than 70 years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat, it seems odd to have to put this in writing, but the past several weeks of heightened tensions with North Korea have made it a necessity.


As the crisis on the Korean peninsula deepens, voices calling for military action to halt North Korea’s nuclear programme have grown stronger and bolder. Last week, Kevin James, a research fellow from the London School of Economics, went a step further, writing that the administration should “nuke North Korea now: it’s the only option”. His argument is based on the assumption that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is an irrational actor, and that nuclear deterrence is a not an option.

This ignores a fundamental reality. The United States has been in a deterrence relationship with North Korea for decades.'

'Since the suspension of the Korean war in 1953, North Korea has held Seoul, the world’s fourth-largest metropolis, and home to roughly 25 million people, hostage. Pyongyang has thousands of artillery pieces trained on the South Korean capital, a mere 40km south of the border with North Korea. Shells fired from those batteries can reach their targets in roughly 45 seconds. That puts close to 35,000 US troops and 100,000 American civilians directly in harm’s way should a major conflict break out on the Korean peninsula.


To make matters worse, North Korea possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and can deploy these toxins on an array of artillery shells and missiles. All of South Korea, Japan, and the vast majority of US military assets in the region are well within the range of these weapons. Within minutes of a US military strike, hundreds of these weapons would be launched at both civilian and military targets, inflicting devastating casualties, and causing significant delays in the arrival of American reinforcements to the Korean peninsula.

Thus realists understand there will be no U.S. military action against N. Korea....it is just bluster designed to eventually get a sit down with the N. Korean leader to negotiate some sort of arrangement....meaning we will have to live with a nuclear armed N. Korea. That is reality.'

Our only real hope of protection from N. Korea is to perfect a anti-missile system which may be years away.

In the meantime we should develp the best possible strike plan for N. Korea just in case they go absolutely nuts and launch an attack against the U.S. We must be prepared for the devastation that such an event would cause...definitely in S. Korea and Japan but very likely for our West Coast particuarly and perhaps the entire nation....we have entered a very dangerous era for America...people need to understand that and civil defense measures must be enacted like never before.
US military strike against North Korea would be disastrous

A Think Tank Is One With a Gas Leak

The author you so sightlessly cite helped FUBARack Wussein Obambi get his disastrous Iran deal.

hehheh I just wanted to suck the progressives into the debate. Irregardless............... In a surprisingly candid interview earlier this month, Steve Bannon, the now ousted White House chief strategist, told a reporter that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it … they got us”.

Diploma Dumbo Frauds Invented the Term "Grammar Nazi"

Only posters who are incapable of thinking logically would use a nonsensical word like "irregardless." Why are Netwits too lazy and irresponsible to teach themselves grammar? History will judge this medium harshly.

 

[EverCurious]

I think folks are uneducated when it comes to Kim's history, as well as the mentality of the N. Korean's in general.

In 2011 he took power; rumors say that he killed his uncle, and just recently his older brother, to cement his position. Perhaps it's false, but most believe it.

Why wasn't his older brother chosen to lead (as would be tradition)? Take a wild guess because truth is weirder than fiction here. Because he went to Disneyland in Japan in 2001.


As much as we'd like to believe that Kim is sane, myself included, there are very good indicators that he is not. In his six years in power he has come off as a ruthless dictator willing to do anything to remain in power, nothing yet has defused that impression either.

 

[Peach]

And they just launched a nuke. Time to find a political solution for the region.

Putin is teaming up with Xi to "deal with the situation". Neither can be trusted farther than fat Kim can be thrown; yet a US military option could bring a missle to South Korea.

Xi, Putin agree to 'appropriately deal' with N.Korea nuclear test: Xinhua

They will not go beyond sanctions or constructing some phoney diplomatic deal which will do nothing in regards to the status quo....as in the status quo works for them but works against us.

Your military option being of a conventional nature would certainly provoke a retaliatory strike by N. Korea and the eventual engagement of China.... in my estimation a 'conventional first strike' by Trump would be a terrible mistake.

As I wrote, a missle on So. Korea. Putin & Xi claim they are getting the matter under control, I hope they do and they need to confer with the US President also.

bwaaaa did you just fall off the turnip truck? If you believe that b.s. I have a bridge to sell you as they say. I do expect China or Russia or China & Russia to come up with some b.s. diplomatic plan that would be touted as something that would solve the problem...rubbish...what they will come with is something that would preserve the status quo....thus worthless.

AS I WROTE, neither are more reliable than fat Kim. Read all comments, the rabid right adored Putin, I have always despised KGB Vlad. Still, he will have Trump for lunch. Trump isn't educated enough in the true evil nature of "free Russia".

 

[Sundance508]

'Has North Korea just developed an H-bomb for its missiles? They say they have and to deny it would be reckless...time and again we have seen the analysts wrong about the N. Korean military potential.

Yet...............Using nuclear weapons against North Korea is a terrible idea. More than 70 years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat, it seems odd to have to put this in writing, but the past several weeks of heightened tensions with North Korea have made it a necessity.


As the crisis on the Korean peninsula deepens, voices calling for military action to halt North Korea’s nuclear programme have grown stronger and bolder. Last week, Kevin James, a research fellow from the London School of Economics, went a step further, writing that the administration should “nuke North Korea now: it’s the only option”. His argument is based on the assumption that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is an irrational actor, and that nuclear deterrence is a not an option.

This ignores a fundamental reality. The United States has been in a deterrence relationship with North Korea for decades.'

'Since the suspension of the Korean war in 1953, North Korea has held Seoul, the world’s fourth-largest metropolis, and home to roughly 25 million people, hostage. Pyongyang has thousands of artillery pieces trained on the South Korean capital, a mere 40km south of the border with North Korea. Shells fired from those batteries can reach their targets in roughly 45 seconds. That puts close to 35,000 US troops and 100,000 American civilians directly in harm’s way should a major conflict break out on the Korean peninsula.


To make matters worse, North Korea possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and can deploy these toxins on an array of artillery shells and missiles. All of South Korea, Japan, and the vast majority of US military assets in the region are well within the range of these weapons. Within minutes of a US military strike, hundreds of these weapons would be launched at both civilian and military targets, inflicting devastating casualties, and causing significant delays in the arrival of American reinforcements to the Korean peninsula.

Thus realists understand there will be no U.S. military action against N. Korea....it is just bluster designed to eventually get a sit down with the N. Korean leader to negotiate some sort of arrangement....meaning we will have to live with a nuclear armed N. Korea. That is reality.'

Our only real hope of protection from N. Korea is to perfect a anti-missile system which may be years away.

In the meantime we should develp the best possible strike plan for N. Korea just in case they go absolutely nuts and launch an attack against the U.S. We must be prepared for the devastation that such an event would cause...definitely in S. Korea and Japan but very likely for our West Coast particuarly and perhaps the entire nation....we have entered a very dangerous era for America...people need to understand that and civil defense measures must be enacted like never before.
US military strike against North Korea would be disastrous

A Think Tank Is One With a Gas Leak

The author you so sightlessly cite helped FUBARack Wussein Obambi get his disastrous Iran deal.

hehheh I just wanted to suck the progressives into the debate. Irregardless............... In a surprisingly candid interview earlier this month, Steve Bannon, the now ousted White House chief strategist, told a reporter that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it … they got us”.

Diploma Dumbo Frauds Invented the Term "Grammar Nazi"

Only posters who are incapable of thinking logically would use a nonsensical word like "irregardless." Why are Netwits too lazy and irresponsible to teach themselves grammar? History will judge this medium harshly.

I am infamous for that woid...used it for years to flush out the snowflakes who when unable to deal with a topic will attempt to play the role of a 'grammar cop' hehheh

The first time I used the woid online years ago...For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.
   
   
   
2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
   
   
   
3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.
   
   
   
4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.
   
   
   
5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.
   
   
   
6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.
   
   

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

 

[Sundance508]

And they just launched a nuke. Time to find a political solution for the region.

Putin is teaming up with Xi to "deal with the situation". Neither can be trusted farther than fat Kim can be thrown; yet a US military option could bring a missle to South Korea.

Xi, Putin agree to 'appropriately deal' with N.Korea nuclear test: Xinhua

They will not go beyond sanctions or constructing some phoney diplomatic deal which will do nothing in regards to the status quo....as in the status quo works for them but works against us.

Your military option being of a conventional nature would certainly provoke a retaliatory strike by N. Korea and the eventual engagement of China.... in my estimation a 'conventional first strike' by Trump would be a terrible mistake.

As I wrote, a missle on So. Korea. Putin & Xi claim they are getting the matter under control, I hope they do and they need to confer with the US President also.

bwaaaa did you just fall off the turnip truck? If you believe that b.s. I have a bridge to sell you as they say. I do expect China or Russia or China & Russia to come up with some b.s. diplomatic plan that would be touted as something that would solve the problem...rubbish...what they will come with is something that would preserve the status quo....thus worthless.

AS I WROTE, neither are more reliable than fat Kim. Read all comments, the rabid right adored Putin, I have always despised KGB Vlad. Still, he will have Trump for lunch. Trump isn't educated enough in the true evil nature of "free Russia".

Hey...can't look down at the Russians too much cuz we got the clinton crime family (though the progressives are fixated on hating Russia for some reason)...maybe cuz dey be white folk heh heh......anyhow we got the Clinton's and the list of bodies linked to the Clinton's is longer than the one linked to Putin in regards to that.
Hillary Clinton Is A Sick Woman Addicted To Power, And It’s Pitiful To Watch

‘Clinton death list’: 33 spine-tingling cases

 

[Bush92]

I'm sorry, have we all lost our collective minds here? I mean I can almost forgive the millennial because they weren't alive back then and their education sucked, but I'm old enough to remember the Red Scare. How we were told that Russia had nukes pointed at each of our major cities and could wipe us out very quickly.

That was in the 50s and 60s. This isn't our first nuclear rodeo.

We have the capability to take out ICBMs shortly after they are launched and have had that ability for decades.

The little fat kid in NK is decades behind us. He is no threat.

You seem to live in a fantasy world...Unfortunately Russia had the ability back in the days of the cold war to wipe us out quickly and they still do...as well as China now.....but Russia being rather rational did not want to take the gamble and understood the doctrine of mutual assured destruction...however someone like Kim with a completely alien world view and possibly with psychiatric problems is a horse of a different color....cannot be equated with Russia at any level. The leader of the hermit kingdom aka a rogue state could possibly even be suicidal...a lot of unknowns in regards to him.

Where you got the totally mistaken idea that we have the capacity to take out ICBM's is beyond me. Now there is a possibility that we may have some electronical ability to occasionally sabotage one of their launches but that is not a comprehensive missile defense and there is no gaurantee that it even works though some do claim we have had some success with it...not known for sure though.

So you want to wait until there is a mushroom cloud over a major U.S. city? Real smart.

That is not what I am saying....I am just considering how this may play out...what could possibly happen. Personally, I would like to see a nuclear pre-emptive strike on N. Korea....that is the only way it could be done in my opinion without China responding militarily...China has no fear of a conventional sort of confrontation with us...they do not want a all out nuclear war...and if we nuke n. korea...that would sober China up real fast. I suggest using tactical nukes aka neutron bombs with little or no radiation fall out.

Looking at the geography, it is difficult to see a way without So. Korea impact; also, hundreds of thousands of deaths equals war, with Nukes(.) But, lil' Kim is secure only with China providing necessities, cutting off trade would hurt him, his loyalists have families in the countrysides already short on food rations. An internal solution is possible. The Chinese rid themselves of Madam Mao and the Gang of Four.

Not going to happen in a totalitarian regime. People will have to die due to years of inaction going back to Clinton's.

 

[Sundance508]

And they just launched a nuke. Time to find a political solution for the region.

No they didnt.

North Korea defies predictions — again — with early grasp of weapons milestone

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

And they just launched a nuke. Time to find a political solution for the region.

No they didnt.

North Korea defies predictions — again — with early grasp of weapons milestone

Not sure why you posted this and I wont bother reading.

 

[Sundance508]

I'm sorry, have we all lost our collective minds here? I mean I can almost forgive the millennial because they weren't alive back then and their education sucked, but I'm old enough to remember the Red Scare. How we were told that Russia had nukes pointed at each of our major cities and could wipe us out very quickly.

That was in the 50s and 60s. This isn't our first nuclear rodeo.

We have the capability to take out ICBMs shortly after they are launched and have had that ability for decades.

The little fat kid in NK is decades behind us. He is no threat.

Why didn't we shoot down that missile he fired over Japan?

Why Didn’t the US Shoot Down That North Korean Missile?

 

[dannyboys]

they just launched a nuke.
You got a link on that?

yea, it's a tough problem to be sure. but it doesn't help with people making stuff up as we go, does it?

testing one underground isn't the same as launching one.

How many have they tested underground so far? How many would be too many for you?
How many ICBM missile tests is too many for you?
The POINT is the Pervert wants to be able to sell the nuclear bomb tipped ICBMs to other country.
How much money do you think ISIS or any of the hundreds of terrorists groups would be willing to spend to put a NK made nuclear bomb in a white delivery cube van in NYC?
Most of the Pervert's rockets have been sitting in launchers for over fifty years.
How many would actually fire a rocket instead of just blowing up?
The Pervert's C&C is in HIS FUCKING MANSION!!!!!
Drop a MOAB from 50K on top of the Pervert's head and his 'generals' stationed two hundred miles away at the border with SK will stand around and die of thirst before they would take any personal initiative and press any buttons for fear the Pervert was only testing their loyalty.

 

[iceberg]

they just launched a nuke.
You got a link on that?

yea, it's a tough problem to be sure. but it doesn't help with people making stuff up as we go, does it?

testing one underground isn't the same as launching one.

How many have they tested underground so far? How many would be too many for you?
How many ICBM missile tests is too many for you?
The POINT is the Pervert wants to be able to sell the nuclear bomb tipped ICBMs to other country.
How much money do you think ISIS or any of the hundreds of terrorists groups would be willing to spend to put a NK made nuclear bomb in a white delivery cube van in NYC?
Most of the Pervert's rockets have been sitting in launchers for over fifty years.
How many would actually fire a rocket instead of just blowing up?
The Pervert's C&C is in HIS FUCKING MANSION!!!!!
Drop a MOAB from 50K on top of the Pervert's head and his 'generals' stationed two hundred miles away at the border with SK will stand around and die of thirst before they would take any personal initiative and press any buttons for fear the Pervert was only testing their loyalty.

how many have they tested so far?
Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program - Wikipedia - feel free to look it up.
how many is too many for me? all of 'em.

the rest of your bullshit is still bullshit.testing one underground is not the same thing as launching a nuke. just admit that and you'll feel much better. if not that, stop telling me how *i* must think and feel cause you're confused on terminology.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

'Has North Korea just developed an H-bomb for its missiles? They say they have and to deny it would be reckless...time and again we have seen the analysts wrong about the N. Korean military potential.

Yet...............Using nuclear weapons against North Korea is a terrible idea. More than 70 years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat, it seems odd to have to put this in writing, but the past several weeks of heightened tensions with North Korea have made it a necessity.


As the crisis on the Korean peninsula deepens, voices calling for military action to halt North Korea’s nuclear programme have grown stronger and bolder. Last week, Kevin James, a research fellow from the London School of Economics, went a step further, writing that the administration should “nuke North Korea now: it’s the only option”. His argument is based on the assumption that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is an irrational actor, and that nuclear deterrence is a not an option.

This ignores a fundamental reality. The United States has been in a deterrence relationship with North Korea for decades.'

'Since the suspension of the Korean war in 1953, North Korea has held Seoul, the world’s fourth-largest metropolis, and home to roughly 25 million people, hostage. Pyongyang has thousands of artillery pieces trained on the South Korean capital, a mere 40km south of the border with North Korea. Shells fired from those batteries can reach their targets in roughly 45 seconds. That puts close to 35,000 US troops and 100,000 American civilians directly in harm’s way should a major conflict break out on the Korean peninsula.


To make matters worse, North Korea possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and can deploy these toxins on an array of artillery shells and missiles. All of South Korea, Japan, and the vast majority of US military assets in the region are well within the range of these weapons. Within minutes of a US military strike, hundreds of these weapons would be launched at both civilian and military targets, inflicting devastating casualties, and causing significant delays in the arrival of American reinforcements to the Korean peninsula.

Thus realists understand there will be no U.S. military action against N. Korea....it is just bluster designed to eventually get a sit down with the N. Korean leader to negotiate some sort of arrangement....meaning we will have to live with a nuclear armed N. Korea. That is reality.'

Our only real hope of protection from N. Korea is to perfect a anti-missile system which may be years away.

In the meantime we should develp the best possible strike plan for N. Korea just in case they go absolutely nuts and launch an attack against the U.S. We must be prepared for the devastation that such an event would cause...definitely in S. Korea and Japan but very likely for our West Coast particuarly and perhaps the entire nation....we have entered a very dangerous era for America...people need to understand that and civil defense measures must be enacted like never before.
US military strike against North Korea would be disastrous

A Think Tank Is One With a Gas Leak

The author you so sightlessly cite helped FUBARack Wussein Obambi get his disastrous Iran deal.

hehheh I just wanted to suck the progressives into the debate. Irregardless............... In a surprisingly candid interview earlier this month, Steve Bannon, the now ousted White House chief strategist, told a reporter that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it … they got us”.

Diploma Dumbo Frauds Invented the Term "Grammar Nazi"

Only posters who are incapable of thinking logically would use a nonsensical word like "irregardless." Why are Netwits too lazy and irresponsible to teach themselves grammar? History will judge this medium harshly.

I am infamous for that woid...used it for years to flush out the snowflakes who when unable to deal with a topic will attempt to play the role of a 'grammar cop' hehheh

The first time I used the woid online years ago...For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.
   
   
   
2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
   
   
   
3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.
   
   
   
4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.
   
   
   
5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.
   
   
   
6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.
   

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

I'd Rather Be a "Grammar Nazi" Than Not See Grammar

Laziness, stupidity, dishonesty, slavishly following the wandering herd of Grammar Zombies. Why should we listen to what you have to say about North Korea if you know so little about a basic school subject and why it is taught? Do you want our kids to study Gender Identity instead?

First you pretend to use it only to provoke the "snowflakes" (who, just like you, have no standards), then you defend its use. Why give the Diploma Dumbos ammunition for their unfounded claim that their longer school attendance makes them mentally superior?

A permissive dictionary is a contradiction in terms. Sixties brats and beyond took over the formerly great dictionaries and turned them into clumps of roachshit-splattered paper.

Finally, you paint for us your splotchy self-portrait of a superhero standing up to a cruel language-dictatorship, when what you really are is self-indulgent and chaotic.

 

[dannyboys]

they just launched a nuke.
You got a link on that?

yea, it's a tough problem to be sure. but it doesn't help with people making stuff up as we go, does it?

testing one underground isn't the same as launching one.

How many have they tested underground so far? How many would be too many for you?
How many ICBM missile tests is too many for you?
The POINT is the Pervert wants to be able to sell the nuclear bomb tipped ICBMs to other country.
How much money do you think ISIS or any of the hundreds of terrorists groups would be willing to spend to put a NK made nuclear bomb in a white delivery cube van in NYC?
Most of the Pervert's rockets have been sitting in launchers for over fifty years.
How many would actually fire a rocket instead of just blowing up?
The Pervert's C&C is in HIS FUCKING MANSION!!!!!
Drop a MOAB from 50K on top of the Pervert's head and his 'generals' stationed two hundred miles away at the border with SK will stand around and die of thirst before they would take any personal initiative and press any buttons for fear the Pervert was only testing their loyalty.

how many have they tested so far?
Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program - Wikipedia - feel free to look it up.
how many is too many for me? all of 'em.

the rest of your bullshit is still bullshit.testing one underground is not the same thing as launching a nuke. just admit that and you'll feel much better. if not that, stop telling me how *i* must think and feel cause you're confused on terminology.

You're funny.
The US ought to have dropped MOABS at the first sign of the Pervert's father building a nuclear bomb making installation.
The problem is asshole, NK has tested numerous underground nuclear bombs and no one has had the stones to stop them.
The pervert is now facing a US administration that WILL destroy the pervert's nuclear bomb making program once and for all!
All it will take is a few NK rockets to land in SK and it's GAME ON!!!!!
China has stated if the pervert shoots first then China won't help NK.
Kind makes one wonder if anyone in the Trump administration has ever read about the Gulf of Tonkin?
HAA HAAAA!

 

[iceberg]

they just launched a nuke.
You got a link on that?

yea, it's a tough problem to be sure. but it doesn't help with people making stuff up as we go, does it?

testing one underground isn't the same as launching one.

How many have they tested underground so far? How many would be too many for you?
How many ICBM missile tests is too many for you?
The POINT is the Pervert wants to be able to sell the nuclear bomb tipped ICBMs to other country.
How much money do you think ISIS or any of the hundreds of terrorists groups would be willing to spend to put a NK made nuclear bomb in a white delivery cube van in NYC?
Most of the Pervert's rockets have been sitting in launchers for over fifty years.
How many would actually fire a rocket instead of just blowing up?
The Pervert's C&C is in HIS FUCKING MANSION!!!!!
Drop a MOAB from 50K on top of the Pervert's head and his 'generals' stationed two hundred miles away at the border with SK will stand around and die of thirst before they would take any personal initiative and press any buttons for fear the Pervert was only testing their loyalty.

how many have they tested so far?
Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program - Wikipedia - feel free to look it up.
how many is too many for me? all of 'em.

the rest of your bullshit is still bullshit.testing one underground is not the same thing as launching a nuke. just admit that and you'll feel much better. if not that, stop telling me how *i* must think and feel cause you're confused on terminology.

You're funny.
The US ought to have dropped MOABS at the first sign of the Pervert's father building a nuclear bomb making installation.
The problem is asshole, NK has tested numerous underground nuclear bombs and no one has had the stones to stop them.
The pervert is now facing a US administration that WILL destroy the pervert's nuclear bomb making program once and for all!
All it will take is a few NK rockets to land in SK and it's GAME ON!!!!!
China has stated if the pervert shoots first then China won't help NK.
Kind makes one wonder if anyone in the Trump administration has ever read about the Gulf of Tonkin?
HAA HAAAA!

i think they should have stopped it before it got to this point. for the most part i think we agree, i just don't need the namcalling in the mix but hey, your post and all have fun.

but none of that changes the fact he didn't "launch" a nuke.

 

[Sundance508]

'Has North Korea just developed an H-bomb for its missiles? They say they have and to deny it would be reckless...time and again we have seen the analysts wrong about the N. Korean military potential.

Yet...............Using nuclear weapons against North Korea is a terrible idea. More than 70 years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat, it seems odd to have to put this in writing, but the past several weeks of heightened tensions with North Korea have made it a necessity.


As the crisis on the Korean peninsula deepens, voices calling for military action to halt North Korea’s nuclear programme have grown stronger and bolder. Last week, Kevin James, a research fellow from the London School of Economics, went a step further, writing that the administration should “nuke North Korea now: it’s the only option”. His argument is based on the assumption that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is an irrational actor, and that nuclear deterrence is a not an option.

This ignores a fundamental reality. The United States has been in a deterrence relationship with North Korea for decades.'

'Since the suspension of the Korean war in 1953, North Korea has held Seoul, the world’s fourth-largest metropolis, and home to roughly 25 million people, hostage. Pyongyang has thousands of artillery pieces trained on the South Korean capital, a mere 40km south of the border with North Korea. Shells fired from those batteries can reach their targets in roughly 45 seconds. That puts close to 35,000 US troops and 100,000 American civilians directly in harm’s way should a major conflict break out on the Korean peninsula.


To make matters worse, North Korea possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and can deploy these toxins on an array of artillery shells and missiles. All of South Korea, Japan, and the vast majority of US military assets in the region are well within the range of these weapons. Within minutes of a US military strike, hundreds of these weapons would be launched at both civilian and military targets, inflicting devastating casualties, and causing significant delays in the arrival of American reinforcements to the Korean peninsula.

Thus realists understand there will be no U.S. military action against N. Korea....it is just bluster designed to eventually get a sit down with the N. Korean leader to negotiate some sort of arrangement....meaning we will have to live with a nuclear armed N. Korea. That is reality.'

Our only real hope of protection from N. Korea is to perfect a anti-missile system which may be years away.

In the meantime we should develp the best possible strike plan for N. Korea just in case they go absolutely nuts and launch an attack against the U.S. We must be prepared for the devastation that such an event would cause...definitely in S. Korea and Japan but very likely for our West Coast particuarly and perhaps the entire nation....we have entered a very dangerous era for America...people need to understand that and civil defense measures must be enacted like never before.
US military strike against North Korea would be disastrous

A Think Tank Is One With a Gas Leak

The author you so sightlessly cite helped FUBARack Wussein Obambi get his disastrous Iran deal.

hehheh I just wanted to suck the progressives into the debate. Irregardless............... In a surprisingly candid interview earlier this month, Steve Bannon, the now ousted White House chief strategist, told a reporter that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it … they got us”.

Diploma Dumbo Frauds Invented the Term "Grammar Nazi"

Only posters who are incapable of thinking logically would use a nonsensical word like "irregardless." Why are Netwits too lazy and irresponsible to teach themselves grammar? History will judge this medium harshly.

I am infamous for that woid...used it for years to flush out the snowflakes who when unable to deal with a topic will attempt to play the role of a 'grammar cop' hehheh

The first time I used the woid online years ago...For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.
   
   
   
2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
   
   
   
3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.
   
   
   
4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.
   
   
   
5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.
   
   
   
6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

I'd Rather Be a "Grammar Nazi" Than Not See Grammar

Laziness, stupidity, dishonesty, slavishly following the wandering herd of Grammar Zombies. Why should we listen to what you have to say about North Korea if you know so little about a basic school subject and why it is taught? Do you want our kids to study Gender Identity instead?

First you pretend to use it only to provoke the "snowflakes" (who, just like you, have no standards), then you defend its use. Why give the Diploma Dumbos ammunition for their unfounded claim that their longer school attendance makes them mentally superior?

A permissive dictionary is a contradiction in terms. Sixties brats and beyond took over the formerly great dictionaries and turned them into clumps of roachshit-splattered paper.

Finally, you paint for us your splotchy self-portrait of a superhero standing up to a cruel language-dictatorship, when what you really are is self-indulgent and chaotic.

'Has North Korea just developed an H-bomb for its missiles? They say they have and to deny it would be reckless...time and again we have seen the analysts wrong about the N. Korean military potential.

Yet...............Using nuclear weapons against North Korea is a terrible idea. More than 70 years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat, it seems odd to have to put this in writing, but the past several weeks of heightened tensions with North Korea have made it a necessity.


As the crisis on the Korean peninsula deepens, voices calling for military action to halt North Korea’s nuclear programme have grown stronger and bolder. Last week, Kevin James, a research fellow from the London School of Economics, went a step further, writing that the administration should “nuke North Korea now: it’s the only option”. His argument is based on the assumption that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is an irrational actor, and that nuclear deterrence is a not an option.

This ignores a fundamental reality. The United States has been in a deterrence relationship with North Korea for decades.'

'Since the suspension of the Korean war in 1953, North Korea has held Seoul, the world’s fourth-largest metropolis, and home to roughly 25 million people, hostage. Pyongyang has thousands of artillery pieces trained on the South Korean capital, a mere 40km south of the border with North Korea. Shells fired from those batteries can reach their targets in roughly 45 seconds. That puts close to 35,000 US troops and 100,000 American civilians directly in harm’s way should a major conflict break out on the Korean peninsula.


To make matters worse, North Korea possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and can deploy these toxins on an array of artillery shells and missiles. All of South Korea, Japan, and the vast majority of US military assets in the region are well within the range of these weapons. Within minutes of a US military strike, hundreds of these weapons would be launched at both civilian and military targets, inflicting devastating casualties, and causing significant delays in the arrival of American reinforcements to the Korean peninsula.

Thus realists understand there will be no U.S. military action against N. Korea....it is just bluster designed to eventually get a sit down with the N. Korean leader to negotiate some sort of arrangement....meaning we will have to live with a nuclear armed N. Korea. That is reality.'

Our only real hope of protection from N. Korea is to perfect a anti-missile system which may be years away.

In the meantime we should develp the best possible strike plan for N. Korea just in case they go absolutely nuts and launch an attack against the U.S. We must be prepared for the devastation that such an event would cause...definitely in S. Korea and Japan but very likely for our West Coast particuarly and perhaps the entire nation....we have entered a very dangerous era for America...people need to understand that and civil defense measures must be enacted like never before.
US military strike against North Korea would be disastrous

A Think Tank Is One With a Gas Leak

The author you so sightlessly cite helped FUBARack Wussein Obambi get his disastrous Iran deal.

hehheh I just wanted to suck the progressives into the debate. Irregardless............... In a surprisingly candid interview earlier this month, Steve Bannon, the now ousted White House chief strategist, told a reporter that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it … they got us”.

Diploma Dumbo Frauds Invented the Term "Grammar Nazi"

Only posters who are incapable of thinking logically would use a nonsensical word like "irregardless." Why are Netwits too lazy and irresponsible to teach themselves grammar? History will judge this medium harshly.

I am infamous for that woid...used it for years to flush out the snowflakes who when unable to deal with a topic will attempt to play the role of a 'grammar cop' hehheh

The first time I used the woid online years ago...For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.
   
   
   
2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
   
   
   
3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.
   
   
   
4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.
   
   
   
5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.
   
   
   
6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

I'd Rather Be a "Grammar Nazi" Than Not See Grammar

Laziness, stupidity, dishonesty, slavishly following the wandering herd of Grammar Zombies. Why should we listen to what you have to say about North Korea if you know so little about a basic school subject and why it is taught? Do you want our kids to study Gender Identity instead?

First you pretend to use it only to provoke the "snowflakes" (who, just like you, have no standards), then you defend its use. Why give the Diploma Dumbos ammunition for their unfounded claim that their longer school attendance makes them mentally superior?

A permissive dictionary is a contradiction in terms. Sixties brats and beyond took over the formerly great dictionaries and turned them into clumps of roachshit-splattered paper.

Finally, you paint for us your splotchy self-portrait of a superhero standing up to a cruel language-dictatorship, when what you really are is self-indulgent and chaotic.

'Has North Korea just developed an H-bomb for its missiles? They say they have and to deny it would be reckless...time and again we have seen the analysts wrong about the N. Korean military potential.

Yet...............Using nuclear weapons against North Korea is a terrible idea. More than 70 years after the first and only use of nuclear weapons in combat, it seems odd to have to put this in writing, but the past several weeks of heightened tensions with North Korea have made it a necessity.


As the crisis on the Korean peninsula deepens, voices calling for military action to halt North Korea’s nuclear programme have grown stronger and bolder. Last week, Kevin James, a research fellow from the London School of Economics, went a step further, writing that the administration should “nuke North Korea now: it’s the only option”. His argument is based on the assumption that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is an irrational actor, and that nuclear deterrence is a not an option.

This ignores a fundamental reality. The United States has been in a deterrence relationship with North Korea for decades.'

'Since the suspension of the Korean war in 1953, North Korea has held Seoul, the world’s fourth-largest metropolis, and home to roughly 25 million people, hostage. Pyongyang has thousands of artillery pieces trained on the South Korean capital, a mere 40km south of the border with North Korea. Shells fired from those batteries can reach their targets in roughly 45 seconds. That puts close to 35,000 US troops and 100,000 American civilians directly in harm’s way should a major conflict break out on the Korean peninsula.


To make matters worse, North Korea possesses one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, and can deploy these toxins on an array of artillery shells and missiles. All of South Korea, Japan, and the vast majority of US military assets in the region are well within the range of these weapons. Within minutes of a US military strike, hundreds of these weapons would be launched at both civilian and military targets, inflicting devastating casualties, and causing significant delays in the arrival of American reinforcements to the Korean peninsula.

Thus realists understand there will be no U.S. military action against N. Korea....it is just bluster designed to eventually get a sit down with the N. Korean leader to negotiate some sort of arrangement....meaning we will have to live with a nuclear armed N. Korea. That is reality.'

Our only real hope of protection from N. Korea is to perfect a anti-missile system which may be years away.

In the meantime we should develp the best possible strike plan for N. Korea just in case they go absolutely nuts and launch an attack against the U.S. We must be prepared for the devastation that such an event would cause...definitely in S. Korea and Japan but very likely for our West Coast particuarly and perhaps the entire nation....we have entered a very dangerous era for America...people need to understand that and civil defense measures must be enacted like never before.
US military strike against North Korea would be disastrous

A Think Tank Is One With a Gas Leak

The author you so sightlessly cite helped FUBARack Wussein Obambi get his disastrous Iran deal.

hehheh I just wanted to suck the progressives into the debate. Irregardless............... In a surprisingly candid interview earlier this month, Steve Bannon, the now ousted White House chief strategist, told a reporter that “there’s no military solution [to North Korea’s nuclear threats], forget it … they got us”.

Diploma Dumbo Frauds Invented the Term "Grammar Nazi"

Only posters who are incapable of thinking logically would use a nonsensical word like "irregardless." Why are Netwits too lazy and irresponsible to teach themselves grammar? History will judge this medium harshly.

I am infamous for that woid...used it for years to flush out the snowflakes who when unable to deal with a topic will attempt to play the role of a 'grammar cop' hehheh

The first time I used the woid online years ago...For example, one BoopieJones (awesome screen name notwithstanding) challenged the very existence of the word. Another reader, JustDenny, was noticeably shaken by the use of the word, e-shouting "oh no!!!" before noting that the word is a double-negative.

In response, I would like to say that "irregardless" is a word. It is, at least according to Merriam-Webster and Scrabble.

But I'm not going to stop there. No. I would also like to contend that "irregardless" is the baddest-ass word of all time. This is for several reasons, which I will now explain.

1. It's the only word where attaching the "ir-" prefix to the root word has the exact same meaning as the root word: Throwing an "ir-" in front of normal, less bad-ass words that begin with "R" changes the meaning to the opposite of the word. Irrefutable. Irreverent. Irrelevant. Irresponsible. Not "irregardless." It doesn't care what the rules of grammar are. It means exactly the same thing as "regardless," and that's the way it likes it.
   
   
   
2. Against all odds, against all logic, and (ir)regardless of everyone hating it, it has achieved official word status: How can you not pull for the underdog in this case? "Irregardless" went up against the rules of grammar, stick-by-the-book lexicographers, and the fact that it's a completely redundant word. Didn't matter. Whatever didn't kill it made it stronger. It's the hardest-working word in the dictionary, and it should have earned your respect by now.
   
   
   
3. Even though it's a word, Merriam-Webster says you shouldn't use it: Can you name another word in the dictionary that the dictionary says you shouldn't use? Even really bad swear words don't have a dictionary-imposed boycott. That just makes me want to use it more.
   
   
   
4. It simultaneously makes sense and doesn't make sense: You can think of the word in one of two ways: (1) it should mean the opposite of "regardless," or something along the lines of "keeping the facts in regard," or (2) it could mean "regardless of the fact that something is regardless." The latter of the two is like double-super regardless, and it's the meaning I prefer. "Irregardless" really, really doesn't care what the facts are or what you think. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, such as when a course of action is ridiculously counterintuitive. "Irregardless of the fact that you are very thirsty, you should eat this pile of salt." Stuff like that.
   
   
   
5. It practices what it preaches: Irregardless of the rules of grammar, "irregardless" is a word. It's self-reflexive. It's the exception that proves the rule. It talks the talk and walks the walk. Is there another word like that? No, because "irregardless" is bad-ass. It is a text-based Chuck Norris roundhouse-kicking everything else in the dictionary into submission.
   
   
   
6. If you think about it long enough, it will blow your mind: It's the Mobius Strip of words, but it's also packed with Eminem's aggressively apathetic attitude. It's completely unique, completely confusing, and it couldn't give a rat's ass about any of that. It just is what it is. If you don't like it, don't use it.

So that's my argument. I think "irregardless" should be embraced and celebrated. And damn it, I'm going to use it every chance I get.

I'd Rather Be a "Grammar Nazi" Than Not See Grammar

Laziness, stupidity, dishonesty, slavishly following the wandering herd of Grammar Zombies. Why should we listen to what you have to say about North Korea if you know so little about a basic school subject and why it is taught? Do you want our kids to study Gender Identity instead?

First you pretend to use it only to provoke the "snowflakes" (who, just like you, have no standards), then you defend its use. Why give the Diploma Dumbos ammunition for their unfounded claim that their longer school attendance makes them mentally superior?

A permissive dictionary is a contradiction in terms. Sixties brats and beyond took over the formerly great dictionaries and turned them into clumps of roachshit-splattered paper.

Finally, you paint for us your splotchy self-portrait of a superhero standing up to a cruel language-dictatorship, when what you really are is self-indulgent and chaotic.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Irregardless....is a real word. You are just using it wrong.


Kory Stamper, a lexicographer for Merriam-Webster and author of "Word by Word: The Secret Life of Dictionaries," tells us that "irregardless" is a word in the dictionary, and how to use it correctly.
"Irregardless" is a word and we're duty-bound to enter it.

'My name is Kory Stamper and I am a lexicographer for Merriam-Webster. That means I am a writer and editor of dictionaries.

One word that gets a lot of vitriol is the word "irregardless." There is a dictionary entry for "irregardless." "Irregardless" is a word. This inspires specific vehement hatred in people. "Irregardless" is a word and we're duty-bound to enter it.

"Irregardless" is a word. It is related to "regardless." It is actually a blend of two words. It's a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless." People hate it because they say that it has no use — why not just use "regardless"?

But actually in the dialect that "irregardless" comes from, it has a specific use that doesn't translate well in print. It's basically an emphatic use of "regardless." So if you’re a native speaker of certain dialects that use "irregardless" you use "irregardless" to shut down further conversation on a topic. I might say, “Dad, let me borrow the car. I'm a really good driver.” And he'll say, “Regardless, I'm not comfortable.” I'll say, “Oh but come on. I'll get it detailed, and I'll put gas in it.” He’ll say, “Irregardless, no.”

http://aux.avclub.com/word-by-word-makes-the-surprisingly-convincing-case-for-1798190707

Got dat Chump....now bugger off and quit disrupting mah thread. hehheh

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I think the USA should start using the missiles launched by NK as tests for it's anti-missile systems.

What better practice than live fire drills? And what's NK gonna do if we shoot down their missiles? Nuke us? (how can they if they have no missiles after we shoot them down?)

We have laser weapons that we need to test, rail guns and dedicated missile defense systems.

I say let's get busy testing them on NK missiles already.

 

[Sundance508]

they just launched a nuke.
You got a link on that?

yea, it's a tough problem to be sure. but it doesn't help with people making stuff up as we go, does it?

testing one underground isn't the same as launching one.

How many have they tested underground so far? How many would be too many for you?
How many ICBM missile tests is too many for you?
The POINT is the Pervert wants to be able to sell the nuclear bomb tipped ICBMs to other country.
How much money do you think ISIS or any of the hundreds of terrorists groups would be willing to spend to put a NK made nuclear bomb in a white delivery cube van in NYC?
Most of the Pervert's rockets have been sitting in launchers for over fifty years.
How many would actually fire a rocket instead of just blowing up?
The Pervert's C&C is in HIS FUCKING MANSION!!!!!
Drop a MOAB from 50K on top of the Pervert's head and his 'generals' stationed two hundred miles away at the border with SK will stand around and die of thirst before they would take any personal initiative and press any buttons for fear the Pervert was only testing their loyalty.

how many have they tested so far?
Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program - Wikipedia - feel free to look it up.
how many is too many for me? all of 'em.

the rest of your bullshit is still bullshit.testing one underground is not the same thing as launching a nuke. just admit that and you'll feel much better. if not that, stop telling me how *i* must think and feel cause you're confused on terminology.

You're funny.
The US ought to have dropped MOABS at the first sign of the Pervert's father building a nuclear bomb making installation.
The problem is asshole, NK has tested numerous underground nuclear bombs and no one has had the stones to stop them.
The pervert is now facing a US administration that WILL destroy the pervert's nuclear bomb making program once and for all!
All it will take is a few NK rockets to land in SK and it's GAME ON!!!!!
China has stated if the pervert shoots first then China won't help NK.
Kind makes one wonder if anyone in the Trump administration has ever read about the Gulf of Tonkin?
HAA HAAAA!

i think they should have stopped it before it got to this point. for the most part i think we agree, i just don't need the namcalling in the mix but hey, your post and all have fun.

but none of that changes the fact he didn't "launch" a nuke.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate....as in....it is not easy to communicate with a dumbass. Not even to mention there are so many in that category on this board.

 

[Sundance508]

I think the USA should start using the missiles launched by NK as tests for it's anti-missile systems.

What better practice than live fire drills? And what's NK gonna do if we shoot down their missiles? Nuke us? (how can they if they have no missiles after we shoot them down?)

We have laser weapons that we need to test, rail guns and dedicated missile defense systems.

I say let's get busy testing them on NK missiles already.

What will they think if our attempt to shoot down one of their missles fails....and as has been pointed out...our anti-missle capability is far from being perfect....far from being reliable. So we try and we fail...what then? Obviously they will boast and gloat and feel emboldened even moreso.

 

[dannyboys]

they just launched a nuke.
You got a link on that?

yea, it's a tough problem to be sure. but it doesn't help with people making stuff up as we go, does it?

testing one underground isn't the same as launching one.

How many have they tested underground so far? How many would be too many for you?
How many ICBM missile tests is too many for you?
The POINT is the Pervert wants to be able to sell the nuclear bomb tipped ICBMs to other country.
How much money do you think ISIS or any of the hundreds of terrorists groups would be willing to spend to put a NK made nuclear bomb in a white delivery cube van in NYC?
Most of the Pervert's rockets have been sitting in launchers for over fifty years.
How many would actually fire a rocket instead of just blowing up?
The Pervert's C&C is in HIS FUCKING MANSION!!!!!
Drop a MOAB from 50K on top of the Pervert's head and his 'generals' stationed two hundred miles away at the border with SK will stand around and die of thirst before they would take any personal initiative and press any buttons for fear the Pervert was only testing their loyalty.

how many have they tested so far?
Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program - Wikipedia - feel free to look it up.
how many is too many for me? all of 'em.

the rest of your bullshit is still bullshit.testing one underground is not the same thing as launching a nuke. just admit that and you'll feel much better. if not that, stop telling me how *i* must think and feel cause you're confused on terminology.

You're funny.
The US ought to have dropped MOABS at the first sign of the Pervert's father building a nuclear bomb making installation.
The problem is asshole, NK has tested numerous underground nuclear bombs and no one has had the stones to stop them.
The pervert is now facing a US administration that WILL destroy the pervert's nuclear bomb making program once and for all!
All it will take is a few NK rockets to land in SK and it's GAME ON!!!!!
China has stated if the pervert shoots first then China won't help NK.
Kind makes one wonder if anyone in the Trump administration has ever read about the Gulf of Tonkin?
HAA HAAAA!

i think they should have stopped it before it got to this point. for the most part i think we agree, i just don't need the namcalling in the mix but hey, your post and all have fun.

but none of that changes the fact he didn't "launch" a nuke.

I NEVER claimed the pervert "launched a nuke".
Some other poster did.
Bill Clinton literally paid the pervert's father blackmail money to try to stop him. Didn't work. Never works....ever!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

What will they think if our attempt to shoot down one of their missles fails....and as has been pointed out...our anti-missle capability is far from being perfect....far from being reliable. So we try and we fail...what then? Obviously they will boast and gloat and feel emboldened even moreso.

C'mon....you know how that works.....

If we fail to shoot down one of their missiles we simply say we didn't shoot at THAT one.

You know...."We LET THAT ONE GO" to measure trajectories, capabilities ...blah blah blah....

But if we hit even ONE...we claim 100% success rate and drop flyers over NK to demoralize the generals and soldiers