U.S. has no defense against Russian nuclear attack

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,704
Reaction score
9,629
Points
1,265
The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.

The nicest thing that can be said about this approach to security is that it opened the way to reductions in nuclear arsenals on both sides. The arms reductions have been substantial, but in a way they don’t matter: Russia still has an assured capacity to obliterate America’s society and economy. That isn’t going to change, because Moscow doesn’t trust Washington and nuclear weapons are its sole remaining claim to superpower status.

A few U.S. leaders, most notably Ronald Reagan, understood what a bad bargain this was. They saw that a security system based on “mutual assured destruction” would be unable to cope with enemies who were irrational, or accident prone, or unable to secure their arsenal against a breakdown in the chain of command. They also understood that miscommunication and misjudgments are common in confrontations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even rational leaders can make mistakes when arsenals are poised to launch on a hair trigger.

However, Reagan’s efforts to develop ballistic missile defenses of the homeland were derailed by the end of the Cold War, because many observers assumed the waning of superpower rivalries would diminish the danger of nuclear conflict. Missile defense lost its urgency until the end of the Clinton years, when the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea reignited interest. George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the treaty banning homeland missile defenses, but his concern too was mainly with North Korea (and to a lesser extent Iran) – Russia was not a focus of his administration’s modest missile defense efforts.

The Obama Administration has followed the lead of past Democratic administrations in viewing homeland missile defense as (1) too hard, (2) too expensive, and (3) too destabilizing. Until Russia unexpectedly invaded Ukraine, Obama’s security team preferred to focus on further reductions in nuclear arsenals and maintaining a minimal defensive shield on the West Coast oriented to North Korea. To the extent it thought at all about the possibility of Russian nuclear aggression, its solution was a survivable retaliatory capability — in other words, offensively-based deterrence.

That deterrent — a “triad” of land-based and sea-based missiles plus bombers — is arguably the most important feature of the U.S. military posture for the simple reason that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the most important threat. However, on the day deterrence fails, America’s highly capable strategic force will be little comfort because it can’t do anything to intercept incoming warheads. All it can do is lay waste to Russia.

The minimal defensive system the Obama Administration has sustained against North Korea’s fledgling nuclear threat, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, can potentially intercept warheads attacking from any direction, but more than a dozen Russian warheads would overwhelm it. So here we sit, able to detect a Russian launch almost immediately and retaliate with devastating force, but powerless to defend our homeland and loved ones from nuclear aggression.

This is the kind of strategic myopia that eventually leads to catastrophe. What America needs is a layered, resilient defensive network against Russian ballistic missiles that at least can negate the kind of limited attack resulting from a strategic error or miscalculation. That network would presumably include elements on land, at sea and in space that could give defenders multiple shots against any incoming warheads. After all, if you have three layers that are each 80% effective, then cumulatively only one in a hundred warheads would get through to their targets.

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. - Forbes

Bravo obama!!! Bravo!!!

 

JWBooth

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
10,215
Reaction score
2,365
Points
255
Location
Fredonia Republic
As Russia is completely surrounded by US nukes, they have no incentive to use them anyway.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.

The nicest thing that can be said about this approach to security is that it opened the way to reductions in nuclear arsenals on both sides. The arms reductions have been substantial, but in a way they don’t matter: Russia still has an assured capacity to obliterate America’s society and economy. That isn’t going to change, because Moscow doesn’t trust Washington and nuclear weapons are its sole remaining claim to superpower status.

A few U.S. leaders, most notably Ronald Reagan, understood what a bad bargain this was. They saw that a security system based on “mutual assured destruction” would be unable to cope with enemies who were irrational, or accident prone, or unable to secure their arsenal against a breakdown in the chain of command. They also understood that miscommunication and misjudgments are common in confrontations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even rational leaders can make mistakes when arsenals are poised to launch on a hair trigger.

However, Reagan’s efforts to develop ballistic missile defenses of the homeland were derailed by the end of the Cold War, because many observers assumed the waning of superpower rivalries would diminish the danger of nuclear conflict. Missile defense lost its urgency until the end of the Clinton years, when the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea reignited interest. George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the treaty banning homeland missile defenses, but his concern too was mainly with North Korea (and to a lesser extent Iran) – Russia was not a focus of his administration’s modest missile defense efforts.

The Obama Administration has followed the lead of past Democratic administrations in viewing homeland missile defense as (1) too hard, (2) too expensive, and (3) too destabilizing. Until Russia unexpectedly invaded Ukraine, Obama’s security team preferred to focus on further reductions in nuclear arsenals and maintaining a minimal defensive shield on the West Coast oriented to North Korea. To the extent it thought at all about the possibility of Russian nuclear aggression, its solution was a survivable retaliatory capability — in other words, offensively-based deterrence.

That deterrent — a “triad” of land-based and sea-based missiles plus bombers — is arguably the most important feature of the U.S. military posture for the simple reason that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the most important threat. However, on the day deterrence fails, America’s highly capable strategic force will be little comfort because it can’t do anything to intercept incoming warheads. All it can do is lay waste to Russia.

The minimal defensive system the Obama Administration has sustained against North Korea’s fledgling nuclear threat, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, can potentially intercept warheads attacking from any direction, but more than a dozen Russian warheads would overwhelm it. So here we sit, able to detect a Russian launch almost immediately and retaliate with devastating force, but powerless to defend our homeland and loved ones from nuclear aggression.

This is the kind of strategic myopia that eventually leads to catastrophe. What America needs is a layered, resilient defensive network against Russian ballistic missiles that at least can negate the kind of limited attack resulting from a strategic error or miscalculation. That network would presumably include elements on land, at sea and in space that could give defenders multiple shots against any incoming warheads. After all, if you have three layers that are each 80% effective, then cumulatively only one in a hundred warheads would get through to their targets.

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. - Forbes

Bravo obama!!! Bravo!!!


...Officially at any rate. Can't admit to having countermeasures to ICBMs without prompting the advent of better ICBMs.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
Don't get too excited. A katusha rocket isn't an ICBM, and "several miles away" isn't ICBM distance (which would be hundreds or more likely thousands.)

Lasers dissipate quickly inside the atmosphere making them all but useless for missle shoot-downs.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
But fear not, USA has a secret weapon for handling ICBMs. We have God on our side. ;)
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
"The Army, meanwhile, is looking at laser defense platoons with either three 100-kw lasers mounted on large trucks or five 50-kw lasers mounted on smaller Stryker armored vehicles.

These power levels can take out cruise missiles, drones, and manned aircraft at ranges of a few miles. Longer ranges would require hundreds of kilowatts, however, and killing a ballistic missile in boost phase would take about a thousand kilowatts — one megawatt or more. An ICBM warhead, designed to survive the heat of reentry, is practically laser-proof."
Laser Weapons Lower Expectations Higher Threats Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
"So why do rail guns matter, besides generating cool clickable video? Three words: impact, range, and reloads.

Impact. Accelerated electromagnetically down a set of rails — hence the name — that 23 pound projectile moving at Mach 7 has 32 megajoules of energy. The Chief of Naval Research Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder, likened the
impact to “a freight train going through the wall at a hundred miles an hour” in a recent phone call with reporters. It doesn’t have an explosive warhead, but then it hardly needs one. According to official Pentagon modeling, the sheer impact is enough to meet “every single mission” the Navy and Marine Corps have for naval gunfire, although some really tough targets may require multiple shots. With the right targeting system, the rail gun could shoot down incoming aircraft, cruse missiles, and even ballistic missiles."

"Range.The rail gun can hit targets “over a hundred miles” away, said Klunder. That’s farther than existing Naval guns and even the Navy’s standard anti-ship missile, the aging Harpoon. That’s farther than the 65 nautical mile minimum distance the Navy calculates its ships must stay away from shore to stay (mostly) out of range of land-based missiles."
Navy s Magnetic Super Gun To Make Mach 7 Shots At Sea In 2016 Adm. Greenert Breaking Defense - Defense industry news analysis and commentary

Hundred mile range makes railguns good for local (city defense) anti-meteor defense too.
 

Delta4Embassy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2013
Messages
25,745
Reaction score
3,032
Points
280
Location
Earth
While turning a big falling rock into lots of little rocks spreads the damage out over a wider area, it could be preferable to a big one taking out a whole city vs smaller less-powerful impacts peppering a larger area.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,594
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.

The nicest thing that can be said about this approach to security is that it opened the way to reductions in nuclear arsenals on both sides. The arms reductions have been substantial, but in a way they don’t matter: Russia still has an assured capacity to obliterate America’s society and economy. That isn’t going to change, because Moscow doesn’t trust Washington and nuclear weapons are its sole remaining claim to superpower status.

A few U.S. leaders, most notably Ronald Reagan, understood what a bad bargain this was. They saw that a security system based on “mutual assured destruction” would be unable to cope with enemies who were irrational, or accident prone, or unable to secure their arsenal against a breakdown in the chain of command. They also understood that miscommunication and misjudgments are common in confrontations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even rational leaders can make mistakes when arsenals are poised to launch on a hair trigger.

However, Reagan’s efforts to develop ballistic missile defenses of the homeland were derailed by the end of the Cold War, because many observers assumed the waning of superpower rivalries would diminish the danger of nuclear conflict. Missile defense lost its urgency until the end of the Clinton years, when the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea reignited interest. George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the treaty banning homeland missile defenses, but his concern too was mainly with North Korea (and to a lesser extent Iran) – Russia was not a focus of his administration’s modest missile defense efforts.

The Obama Administration has followed the lead of past Democratic administrations in viewing homeland missile defense as (1) too hard, (2) too expensive, and (3) too destabilizing. Until Russia unexpectedly invaded Ukraine, Obama’s security team preferred to focus on further reductions in nuclear arsenals and maintaining a minimal defensive shield on the West Coast oriented to North Korea. To the extent it thought at all about the possibility of Russian nuclear aggression, its solution was a survivable retaliatory capability — in other words, offensively-based deterrence.

That deterrent — a “triad” of land-based and sea-based missiles plus bombers — is arguably the most important feature of the U.S. military posture for the simple reason that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the most important threat. However, on the day deterrence fails, America’s highly capable strategic force will be little comfort because it can’t do anything to intercept incoming warheads. All it can do is lay waste to Russia.

The minimal defensive system the Obama Administration has sustained against North Korea’s fledgling nuclear threat, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, can potentially intercept warheads attacking from any direction, but more than a dozen Russian warheads would overwhelm it. So here we sit, able to detect a Russian launch almost immediately and retaliate with devastating force, but powerless to defend our homeland and loved ones from nuclear aggression.

This is the kind of strategic myopia that eventually leads to catastrophe. What America needs is a layered, resilient defensive network against Russian ballistic missiles that at least can negate the kind of limited attack resulting from a strategic error or miscalculation. That network would presumably include elements on land, at sea and in space that could give defenders multiple shots against any incoming warheads. After all, if you have three layers that are each 80% effective, then cumulatively only one in a hundred warheads would get through to their targets.

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. - Forbes

Bravo obama!!! Bravo!!!

You go fuck yourself! Russia did not invade the Ukraine. You are trying to get this country barbecued. The best defense is to stop trying to provoke them through US aggression.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,704
Reaction score
9,629
Points
1,265
The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.

The nicest thing that can be said about this approach to security is that it opened the way to reductions in nuclear arsenals on both sides. The arms reductions have been substantial, but in a way they don’t matter: Russia still has an assured capacity to obliterate America’s society and economy. That isn’t going to change, because Moscow doesn’t trust Washington and nuclear weapons are its sole remaining claim to superpower status.

A few U.S. leaders, most notably Ronald Reagan, understood what a bad bargain this was. They saw that a security system based on “mutual assured destruction” would be unable to cope with enemies who were irrational, or accident prone, or unable to secure their arsenal against a breakdown in the chain of command. They also understood that miscommunication and misjudgments are common in confrontations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even rational leaders can make mistakes when arsenals are poised to launch on a hair trigger.

However, Reagan’s efforts to develop ballistic missile defenses of the homeland were derailed by the end of the Cold War, because many observers assumed the waning of superpower rivalries would diminish the danger of nuclear conflict. Missile defense lost its urgency until the end of the Clinton years, when the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea reignited interest. George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the treaty banning homeland missile defenses, but his concern too was mainly with North Korea (and to a lesser extent Iran) – Russia was not a focus of his administration’s modest missile defense efforts.

The Obama Administration has followed the lead of past Democratic administrations in viewing homeland missile defense as (1) too hard, (2) too expensive, and (3) too destabilizing. Until Russia unexpectedly invaded Ukraine, Obama’s security team preferred to focus on further reductions in nuclear arsenals and maintaining a minimal defensive shield on the West Coast oriented to North Korea. To the extent it thought at all about the possibility of Russian nuclear aggression, its solution was a survivable retaliatory capability — in other words, offensively-based deterrence.

That deterrent — a “triad” of land-based and sea-based missiles plus bombers — is arguably the most important feature of the U.S. military posture for the simple reason that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the most important threat. However, on the day deterrence fails, America’s highly capable strategic force will be little comfort because it can’t do anything to intercept incoming warheads. All it can do is lay waste to Russia.

The minimal defensive system the Obama Administration has sustained against North Korea’s fledgling nuclear threat, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, can potentially intercept warheads attacking from any direction, but more than a dozen Russian warheads would overwhelm it. So here we sit, able to detect a Russian launch almost immediately and retaliate with devastating force, but powerless to defend our homeland and loved ones from nuclear aggression.

This is the kind of strategic myopia that eventually leads to catastrophe. What America needs is a layered, resilient defensive network against Russian ballistic missiles that at least can negate the kind of limited attack resulting from a strategic error or miscalculation. That network would presumably include elements on land, at sea and in space that could give defenders multiple shots against any incoming warheads. After all, if you have three layers that are each 80% effective, then cumulatively only one in a hundred warheads would get through to their targets.

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. - Forbes

Bravo obama!!! Bravo!!!

You go fuck yourself! Russia did not invade the Ukraine. You are trying to get this country barbecued. The best defense is to stop trying to provoke them through US aggression.
Do you even know who is provoking them, you stupid unreal sack of shit? Take a guess.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,807
Reaction score
38,703
Points
2,190
Star Wars was always a fantasy....just like the movie

All it does is move the strategic nuclear war into space. It encourages the development of satellite killer technology and only encourages more not less nuclear weapons.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,594
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
Do you even know who is provoking them, you stupid unreal sack of shit? Take a guess.
Let me see...

...currently, we have over 1000 bases around the world; we're the only country on the planet, running around making up bullshit reasons, to attack sovereign nations; we're threatening Iran (a Russian ally); we're running military exercises in the Black Sea; we're lying about Russia in the Ukraine; we're backing the Nazi regime in Kiev; we forced down the price of oil to stick it to the Russian economy...

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, we have irresponsible pieces of shit like you thinking we can win a nuclear war with them.
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
6,891
Points
280
The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really.

The nicest thing that can be said about this approach to security is that it opened the way to reductions in nuclear arsenals on both sides. The arms reductions have been substantial, but in a way they don’t matter: Russia still has an assured capacity to obliterate America’s society and economy. That isn’t going to change, because Moscow doesn’t trust Washington and nuclear weapons are its sole remaining claim to superpower status.

A few U.S. leaders, most notably Ronald Reagan, understood what a bad bargain this was. They saw that a security system based on “mutual assured destruction” would be unable to cope with enemies who were irrational, or accident prone, or unable to secure their arsenal against a breakdown in the chain of command. They also understood that miscommunication and misjudgments are common in confrontations such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even rational leaders can make mistakes when arsenals are poised to launch on a hair trigger.

However, Reagan’s efforts to develop ballistic missile defenses of the homeland were derailed by the end of the Cold War, because many observers assumed the waning of superpower rivalries would diminish the danger of nuclear conflict. Missile defense lost its urgency until the end of the Clinton years, when the prospect of a nuclear-armed North Korea reignited interest. George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the treaty banning homeland missile defenses, but his concern too was mainly with North Korea (and to a lesser extent Iran) – Russia was not a focus of his administration’s modest missile defense efforts.

The Obama Administration has followed the lead of past Democratic administrations in viewing homeland missile defense as (1) too hard, (2) too expensive, and (3) too destabilizing. Until Russia unexpectedly invaded Ukraine, Obama’s security team preferred to focus on further reductions in nuclear arsenals and maintaining a minimal defensive shield on the West Coast oriented to North Korea. To the extent it thought at all about the possibility of Russian nuclear aggression, its solution was a survivable retaliatory capability — in other words, offensively-based deterrence.

That deterrent — a “triad” of land-based and sea-based missiles plus bombers — is arguably the most important feature of the U.S. military posture for the simple reason that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is the most important threat. However, on the day deterrence fails, America’s highly capable strategic force will be little comfort because it can’t do anything to intercept incoming warheads. All it can do is lay waste to Russia.

The minimal defensive system the Obama Administration has sustained against North Korea’s fledgling nuclear threat, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, can potentially intercept warheads attacking from any direction, but more than a dozen Russian warheads would overwhelm it. So here we sit, able to detect a Russian launch almost immediately and retaliate with devastating force, but powerless to defend our homeland and loved ones from nuclear aggression.

This is the kind of strategic myopia that eventually leads to catastrophe. What America needs is a layered, resilient defensive network against Russian ballistic missiles that at least can negate the kind of limited attack resulting from a strategic error or miscalculation. That network would presumably include elements on land, at sea and in space that could give defenders multiple shots against any incoming warheads. After all, if you have three layers that are each 80% effective, then cumulatively only one in a hundred warheads would get through to their targets.

The U.S. Has No Defense Against A Russian Nuclear Attack. Really. - Forbes

Bravo obama!!! Bravo!!!

You go fuck yourself! Russia did not invade the Ukraine. You are trying to get this country barbecued. The best defense is to stop trying to provoke them through US aggression.
Putin has admitted sending troops into Crimea. They took over government buildings and military installations. Russian trucks allegedly carrying only aid make regular illegal entry into Ukraine territory and refuse to allow inspections of the cargo. Journalist speak to troops from Russia on the streets of Donestk all the time. When foreign troops with foreign trucks, tanks, anti aircraft missiles, etc. cross a border escorted and supported by armed soldiers, it's an invasion.
 

Camp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
6,891
Points
280
Do you even know who is provoking them, you stupid unreal sack of shit? Take a guess.
Let me see...

...currently, we have over 1000 bases around the world; we're the only country on the planet, running around making up bullshit reasons, to attack sovereign nations; we're threatening Iran (a Russian ally); we're running military exercises in the Black Sea; we're lying about Russia in the Ukraine; we're backing the Nazi regime in Kiev; we forced down the price of oil to stick it to the Russian economy...

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, we have irresponsible pieces of shit like you thinking we can win a nuclear war with them.
You missed the honesty accurate stuff. Did great on the Russian propaganda stuff however.
 
OP
Theowl32

Theowl32

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
18,704
Reaction score
9,629
Points
1,265
Do you even know who is provoking them, you stupid unreal sack of shit? Take a guess.
Let me see...

...currently, we have over 1000 bases around the world; we're the only country on the planet, running around making up bullshit reasons, to attack sovereign nations; we're threatening Iran (a Russian ally); we're running military exercises in the Black Sea; we're lying about Russia in the Ukraine; we're backing the Nazi regime in Kiev; we forced down the price of oil to stick it to the Russian economy...

Did I miss anything?

Oh yeah, we have irresponsible pieces of shit like you thinking we can win a nuclear war with them.
What did this country make up? Oh, here we go again folks. WMDS! BooooooooSH! Iraq!!!!!

You are nothing but a typical left wing democrat billboard. You are nothing but an American hating sack of shit. Your intelligence may rise to the level of banana slug but I doubt it.

Let us know how much you care about oppressed people and then let us know how much you want saddam still in power, like the double talking, hypocritical sack of ignorant shit you are.

You are a typical bloviated moron who does not understand one thing about logistics. If you did, you would not ask moronic questions about why we have bases all around the world. Most of which are welcomed by the countries where we have them. You know nothing about troop deployment readiness, you certainly do not get anything about transit routes.

You are a fucking idiot. You are so fucking stupid that not only did you vote for an unqualified asshat like obama only due to the color of his skin, but you fucking brag about. Like the deranged sack of shit you are.

Now, go back to your little puppet strings. Better known as democrat liberal talking points. Let us all know how innocent the world is. Let us all know how America is to blame for everything.

You stupid fucking tool bag. You fucking puppet. You fucking moron.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,594
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
Putin has admitted sending troops into Crimea. They took over government buildings and military installations. Russian trucks allegedly carrying only aid make regular illegal entry into Ukraine territory and refuse to allow inspections of the cargo. Journalist speak to troops from Russia on the streets of Donestk all the time. When foreign troops with foreign trucks, tanks, anti aircraft missiles, etc. cross a border escorted and supported by armed soldiers, it's an invasion.
Crimea asked for Russian assistance. They did not want to be part of the Nazi regime in Kiev.
 

Billo_Really

Litre of the Band
Joined
Aug 14, 2005
Messages
31,149
Reaction score
2,594
Points
1,115
Location
Long Beach, Ca
What did this country make up? Oh, here we go again folks. WMDS! BooooooooSH! Iraq!!!!!

You are nothing but a typical left wing democrat billboard. You are nothing but an American hating sack of shit. Your intelligence may rise to the level of banana slug but I doubt it.

Let us know how much you care about oppressed people and then let us know how much you want saddam still in power, like the double talking, hypocritical sack of ignorant shit you are.

You are a typical bloviated moron who does not understand one thing about logistics. If you did, you would not ask moronic questions about why we have bases all around the world. Most of which are welcomed by the countries where we have them. You know nothing about troop deployment readiness, you certainly do not get anything about transit routes.

You are a fucking idiot. You are so fucking stupid that not only did you vote for an unqualified asshat like obama only due to the color of his skin, but you fucking brag about. Like the deranged sack of shit you are.

Now, go back to your little puppet strings. Better known as democrat liberal talking points. Let us all know how innocent the world is. Let us all know how America is to blame for everything.

You stupid fucking tool bag. You fucking puppet. You fucking moron.
I'm not a democrat.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top