What If We Got Nuked ?

[Siete]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

If ISIL had nukes and a viable delivery system, you might have had a point, but the trouble is, they don't. Nuking a city could be done via bringing one in on a truck, but the chances are almost 100 percent that the radioactivity would give it away before it could be detonated.

As far as taking out the grid via EMP? Not only would you need a medium yield nuclear weapon, but you would also need a missile delivery system that would put it 10 miles above the middle of the USA.

ISIL has neither.

Every city in the US doesn't monitor for radiation and one ship in a port would be enough.

right ... and a terrorist could unload a ship, toss a nuke under his arm and go blow up LA.

no worries Gibbs is on duty.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I predicted 15 years ago that it would happen within 20-25 years.

What exactly was your prediction, and what country started it?

A terrorist group, no nation other than the one who provided the technology. The predict was that a nuclear device would be detonated somewhere in the continental United States.

Terrorist groups don't have the connections to get nukes, and even if they did, what nuclear capable country in their right mind would give it to them? They would be concerned that it could be used against them, as most nuclear powers are non Islamic nations.

Oh and Pakistan.

The government of Pakistan would probably be the last one to give terrorists nukes. Why? ISIL hates their government and wants to make them part of the Caliphate.

And yet Osama Bin Laden vacationed there for a number of years before he was killed on a raid that wasn't sanctioned or supported by the Pakistani Government in fact they tossed the person who confirmed OBL location in jail for passing that information on to the US.

I have to ask if you believe the daesh are the only terrorist group in the world and for the record when I came up with the scenario I never stated it would specifically be Muslim terrorist but they would be the most likely suspect.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

If ISIL had nukes and a viable delivery system, you might have had a point, but the trouble is, they don't. Nuking a city could be done via bringing one in on a truck, but the chances are almost 100 percent that the radioactivity would give it away before it could be detonated.

As far as taking out the grid via EMP? Not only would you need a medium yield nuclear weapon, but you would also need a missile delivery system that would put it 10 miles above the middle of the USA.

ISIL has neither.

Every city in the US doesn't monitor for radiation and one ship in a port would be enough.

right ... and a terrorist could unload a ship, toss a nuke under his arm and go blow up LA.

no worries Gibbs is on duty.

Do you realise what a small one megaton device sitting in a harbor would do to a city ?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

If ISIL had nukes and a viable delivery system, you might have had a point, but the trouble is, they don't. Nuking a city could be done via bringing one in on a truck, but the chances are almost 100 percent that the radioactivity would give it away before it could be detonated.

As far as taking out the grid via EMP? Not only would you need a medium yield nuclear weapon, but you would also need a missile delivery system that would put it 10 miles above the middle of the USA.

ISIL has neither.

Every city in the US doesn't monitor for radiation and one ship in a port would be enough.

Think about what you just said. Yes, you are correct, not every city has radiation monitors, but most of the large ones do, and commercial ports check for radiation when the ships go through customs.

And as i mentioned in a recent post exploding a small device in a harbor before customs would still be devastating.

 

[miketx]

My dick fell off

I figured you would have it.

 

[namvet]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

Conservatives around the world? What "conservatives"? Kindly provide legitimate sources.

Reality: the world thinks Donald is a buffoon and other than maybe loons/neonazis like LePen don't understand wtf he's doing in office.

Well unless you count Donald's handlers in the kremlin

and how many millions who voted him in ??? we have plans to eliminate you and you're ilk so keep on eating those used tampons

 

[imawhosure]

Leftists are ridiculous. They are the "love" machines. Human nature has not changed through recorded human history, and the only thing that keeps these big mouth liberals flapping their jaws is the United States military. Without others fearing our military, and us actually doing something when need be, the left would be the 1st to go if we were invaded and lost.

Why?

When the invaders see the people always doing the riots, screaming, throwing crap, and being totally disruptive, we all know damn well who they will get rid of 1st!

 

[bodecea]

Kinda like what you guys did with Obama for the past 8 years.

There were good REASONS to blame Obama (the race hustler & jihadist)

Because we got nuked?

 

[bodecea]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

Conservatives around the world? What "conservatives"? Kindly provide legitimate sources.

Reality: the world thinks Donald is a buffoon and other than maybe loons/neonazis like LePen don't understand wtf he's doing in office.

Well unless you count Donald's handlers in the kremlin

and how many millions who voted him in ??? we have plans to eliminate you and you're ilk so keep on eating those used tampons

Well, yes. We know you Alt-Righties have plans....but it won't get done with you hiding under your beds.

 

[Timmy]

You dopes have been watching too many James Bond movies .

Nuke bombs aren't just lying around in suitcases . It's a fantasy .

 

[yiostheoy]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

In "One Second After" by Forstchen (can't remember his first name), it was presumed that the Chinese had nuked the USA because they had the most to gain from it. They next occupied the western North America on a humanitarian pretext while Mexico occupied the Southwest.

While UBL and his immediate successors who are all dead now would have nuked a US city if they could, they could not.

Whether ISIS or Al Qaeda would do it now if they could, I don't think their current leadership would.

N.Korea or Iran probably would -- these are led by insane leadership.

I think Trump and Israel need to act fast and overwhelmingly to ensure that N.Korea and Iran never obtain the capability to launch nuclear missiles.

 

[busybee01]

I am a conservative and I voted for a constitutional conservative of which neither Clinton or Trump are. The fact is that the danger of nukes comes from Iran which is aligned with Russia. Even now they are working to undermine the US in Afghanistan which puts our troops in danger. Apparently that is okay for Comrade Trump and his followers. Assad is a puppet of Putin and the mullahs. Naturally he is saying exactly what they want him to say.

Japan is a lousy analogy. Clearly Japan was causing mischief in the world and there was no doubt about that. If you look at the attacks in America that have occurred since 9/11, had a total ban on any citizens entering the country from those 7 countries, the attacks still would have occurred. The people who launched these attacks came from other countries not covered in the attempted ban. The ban is totally useless and Trump's attempts to scare Americans is pure demagoguery.

National security does not mean that we throw away all our freedoms. A President does not get to violate the constitution by making up laws. Several of his executive orders are illegal. They are making law that only the Congress has the power to do.

 

[Timmy]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

In "One Second After" by Forstchen (can't remember his first name), it was presumed that the Chinese had nuked the USA because they had the most to gain from it. They next occupied the western North America on a humanitarian pretext while Mexico occupied the Southwest.

While UBL and his immediate successors who are all dead now would have nuked a US city if they could, they could not.

Whether ISIS or Al Qaeda would do it now if they could, I don't think their current leadership would.

N.Korea or Iran probably would -- these are led by insane leadership.

I think Trump and Israel need to act fast and overwhelmingly to ensure that N.Korea and Iran never obtain the capability to launch nuclear missiles.

Iran is not crazy . If anything , they are one if the most stable countries in that area! Oh the irony .

They talk a lot of shit because they have too. Everyone hates the Persians and they border a bunch of dumpster fires .

 

[protectionist]

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, came out and declared that terrorists will be among the Syrian refugees, the leftist loons still go around crabbing about discrimination.

One wonders would this pathological obsession with discrimination, still grip these loons, if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Would they have opposed going to war with Japan in 1941, because they might have thought we'd be discriminating against a non-white ethnic group ? Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed. What would it take to deprogram these warped robots, to realize that NOTHING is more important than national security. Sure, freedom is important, but you don't have too much freedom when you're DEAD.

Discrimination ? We discriminate between law abiding people and criminals by putting criminals in jail, while the law abiders walk free. Do liberals oppose that ? Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

Right now, conservatives all over the world are scratching their heads in amazement to see American liberals protesting President Trump's immigration/travel ban. Even when the president of Syria, Bashar Assad

With conservatives you seem to be meaning dictators? If you can tell something about a person from looking as it's friend, citing Assad seems to be not a great source. I'm European and an overwhelming majority of those in democratic countries think of the immigration ban as something that will aggravate not help the fight against terrorism.

if the jihadists nuked a few of our cities ? Or knocked out our power grid with an EMP attack ?

Both kinds of attacks require a technology base and recourses that terrorist simply do not have. If you would cite the possibility of a dirty bomb, you might, I repeat might have a valid point. But both the material and the implementation of that are very difficult. An being able to pull of such an attack means you have to have a network in place, something the travel ban will do nothing to prevent

Would they have said ? >> "Oh! All Japanese are not bad. It's only the radical ones. " Would they have complained that we were discriminating against Germans and Italians ?

Apples and oranjes, WWII was started by nation states attacking other nation states. Who is the enemy in the fight against terror? If you are suggesting to attack anyone who is Muslim I suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself why you are any better than them. If you don't, then please give me a clear answer to my question. Who is the enemy? How do you stop a few people hiding in a sea of people who just want to get along in the world?

We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, and thousands of Americans have been killed and maimed.

Wrong on so many levels. Timothy Mcveigh was not Muslim. I'm just wondering how would having the travel ban in place prevented any terrorist attack?

Muslims live by a doctrine (the Koran) which advocates (if not commands) the mass killing of non-Muslims, as well as the violation of scores of US laws. It also demands supremacism over all else (including the Constitution). which is illegal by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2, part 1), and illegal by our sedition laws.

Most muslims have no problem abiding by secular law. Btw there is pretty horrendous stuff in the Bible, are you asserting incest, slavery and stoning people for being gay is acceptable? The 9th circuit court found that the travel ban was in violation of the establishment clause, which is also part of the constitution.

1. Saying that the immigration ban is "something that will aggravate not help the fight against terrorism" is like saying that Eisenhower's order to carpet bomb Germany in WWII, would aggravate not help the fight agains the Nazis.

2. When you show some evidence that ISIS, with all their Billions$$$, could not buy themselves some nuclear scientists and technicians, and the material necessary, let's hear it. In the meantime, I see no reason to believe that they could not do this, aided by the immigration of them into the USA.

3. Have you been living in a cave ? There are no "apples & oranges" here.. In World War 2, we were attacked by the Japanese. In World War 3 (the current world war against the international jihad), we've been attacked by al Qaeda (9/11) + dozens of attacks since then.
Who is the enemy in the fight against terror ? For your edification, that is jihadist terror, and it is many enemies (I'm sure your liberal press is OMITTING from telling you about. Ever hear of al Qaeda ? ISIS ? the Taliban ? Al Shabbab ? Hamas ? Hezbollah ? Al Nusra ? Boko Haram ? the Muslim Brotherhood ? (and their dozens of front groups in the US)....and many more.

4. YOU are who need sto take a good hard look, but not in the mirror. You need to take a good hard look in THE KORAN - where you will find mass genocide advocated (if nor commanded) - cover to cover, wife beating (4:34) pedophilia (65:4), slavery, severe oppression of women, etc. You have much to learn.

5. For starters, one way you can "stop a few people hiding in a sea of people who DON'T
want to get along in the world" is with an immigration ban.

6.. You said my statement >> "We have been attacked dozens (if not hundreds) of times in America since the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, " was wrong.
Are you kidding ? Are you really that ignorant that you don't know of all the attacks we've had ?

7. "Most" Muslims ? There's the problem. It doesn't take very many Muslim loons to kill a lot of Americans. In 9/11, only 19 of them killed 3,000 people. In the LAX shooting, ONE jihadist killed 3 people. The Beltway Sniper killed 19. Nidal Hasan killed 13, and wounded 35 at Fort Hood. In the Boston Marathon 2 guys killed 3 people, and maimed many more. In San Bernardino, 2 jihadists killed 14 people. In Orlando, 1 guy killed 49. Get it ?

 

[protectionist]

I am a conservative and I voted for a constitutional conservative of which neither Clinton or Trump are. The fact is that the danger of nukes comes from Iran which is aligned with Russia. Even now they are working to undermine the US in Afghanistan which puts our troops in danger. Apparently that is okay for Comrade Trump and his followers. Assad is a puppet of Putin and the mullahs. Naturally he is saying exactly what they want him to say.

Japan is a lousy analogy. Clearly Japan was causing mischief in the world and there was no doubt about that. If you look at the attacks in America that have occurred since 9/11, had a total ban on any citizens entering the country from those 7 countries, the attacks still would have occurred. The people who launched these attacks came from other countries not covered in the attempted ban. The ban is totally useless and Trump's attempts to scare Americans is pure demagoguery.

National security does not mean that we throw away all our freedoms. A President does not get to violate the constitution by making up laws. Several of his executive orders are illegal. They are making law that only the Congress has the power to do.

Which means the ban should be a wider ban covering more countries, or better yet, covering all Muslims, or still better yet, just ban immigration entirely. Last thing the US needs now is more people. There's really no secure way to know who is a danger and who isn't (with very few exceptions.

 

[protectionist]

If ISIL had nukes and a viable delivery system, you might have had a point, but the trouble is, they don't. Nuking a city could be done via bringing one in on a truck, but the chances are almost 100 percent that the radioactivity would give it away before it could be detonated.

As far as taking out the grid via EMP? Not only would you need a medium yield nuclear weapon, but you would also need a missile delivery system that would put it 10 miles above the middle of the USA.

ISIL has neither.

How do you know what ISIS has ? (or can easily generate). Anyone with billions, can obtain this capability, and ISIS does have the wealth.

As for "bringing one in", last I heard only 5% of shipping containers in "our" ports were being inspected. What's to stop terrorist from shipping nuclear bombs in that way. And "our" ports aren't even ours. Most of them are foreign owned.

Plus, a nuclear or EMP capability to be constructed here. What's to stop that ? Present evidence with source links, if you have any.

 

[protectionist]

I guess it would mean that the only nation to ever have actually dropped nukes on others, and then pranced around the globe deciding who else could have them, would gain a better understanding of the reality of what anyone having them really means for the world.

Wrong guess.

 

[protectionist]

Conservatives around the world? What "conservatives"? Kindly provide legitimate sources.

Reality: the world thinks Donald is a buffoon and other than maybe loons/neonazis like LePen don't understand wtf he's doing in office.

Well unless you count Donald's handlers in the kremlin

I don't need sources because my statement was a conjecture (I said "must be")

Your statement however was NOT a conjecture. You attempted to present a fact >> "the world thinks Donald is a buffoon" So if YOU have "legitimate sources." for that, let's hear them.

 

[Doc1]

If ISIL or any other terrorist organization had nukes and a viable delivery system, I would be worried, but they don't, so I'm not. Like another poster already said, the most a terrorist organization would be able to come up with is a dirty bomb, but the chances of it being detected before it was detonated are very high.

If we're gonna get nuked, it's gonna come from another nation, not a terrorist organization.

ISIS is not the existent problem although I do believe that someone could indeed get a tactical Nuke in.
There are many things to watch here.
1) Iran and China have both been working to put in place oil purchasing that does NOT involve the US Dollar (This is what got Kdaffy Duck killed)
2) We still have troops and materiel on the Russian border.
3) Russia is buzzing our ships and has a Spy ship off of our East Coast4) Russia is skirting UK air space with their bombers
4) Russia has also told us to back the frog off in Syria
5) China is playing chicken with us in the South China Sea.

The world is poised for something very bad to happen.

 

[protectionist]

Yes of course, it's all different when it's those other guys.

It is what it is.

Trump didn't pull US troops out of Iraq in 2011, right when al Qaeda in Iraq was morphing quickly into ISIS. He didn't fail to attack ISIS long convoys (as ex US generals advised) on open, desert roads where they would have been sitting ducks, he didn't allow ISIS to slaughter people by the thousands, and build up to a stronger level.

He didn't fill up his presidential administration with Muslim Brotherhood rogues (as Obama did), and he didn't send out attack dogs (Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, etc) to city mayors, threatening them with US Justice Dept lawsuits if they didn't comply with his wishes to let rioters riots (ex Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings - "give them space to destroy") and having the police stand down, allowing rioter punks to throw rocks at them, loot and burn buildings.

All this was Obama's doing. His despicable record.