Started By
Message
locked post

AP tweets should US shoot down N Korea missles if shot at Guam. Guam resident responds.

Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:01 pm
Posted by CAD703X
Liberty Island
Member since Jul 2008
78089 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:01 pm



THIS IS THE FACE OF YOUR MEDIA PEOPLE
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 1:03 pm
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422567 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:02 pm to
HOLY shite

i think the AP is implying the missiles would not hit Guam, but that assumption probably needs to be actually stated
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 1:03 pm
Posted by BestBanker
Member since Nov 2011
17479 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:02 pm to
you beat me to the avi change.
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:03 pm to
This is what you get when you have half your population with no understanding of actual war.
Posted by AuburnTigers
Member since Aug 2013
6953 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:03 pm to
Democrats gonna democrat
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67488 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:04 pm to
quote:

This is what you get when you have half your population with no understanding of actual war

Or much else in the real world
Posted by Lsuhoohoo
Member since Sep 2007
94540 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:07 pm to
It appears they deleted this tweet.
Posted by roadGator
Member since Feb 2009
140539 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:08 pm to
What the frick is wrong with liberals?
Posted by theenemy
Member since Oct 2006
13078 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:08 pm to
quote:

should US shoot down N Korea missles if shot at Guam.


First we need to know how many missiles it would take to sink or capsize it.

What can it withstand?
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 1:13 pm
Posted by ibleedprplngld
Lafayette, LA
Member since Jan 2012
4303 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

It appears they deleted this tweet.


Probably best not to imply that you're that stupid to suggest the US should allow a foreign nation to murder it's people. Just a thought.
Posted by CAD703X
Liberty Island
Member since Jul 2008
78089 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:09 pm to
quote:

It appears they deleted this tweet.



good job, official 'face' of the AP. because once you erase something you've said on the internet, it goes away for good.
Posted by MFn GIMP
Member since Feb 2011
19348 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

i think the AP is implying the missiles would not hit Guam, but that assumption probably needs to be actually stated

I read this article this morning. That's not what the AP was insinuating at all. The article said that the cons to shooting down any missiles that NK shoots at Guams is that 1) It could not work and we will have egg on our face and 2) It is an act of war, on our part, against NK.

Yes, the AP said that the US shooting down missiles aimed at a US territory and military base is an act of war by the US.
Posted by Salmon
On the trails
Member since Feb 2008
83583 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:10 pm to
quote:

It appears they deleted this tweet.



I still see it

and here is the article to go along with it

LINK
This post was edited on 8/11/17 at 1:14 pm
Posted by SirWinston
PNW
Member since Jul 2014
81810 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:11 pm to
The more I think about it the more confident I am that TRUMP will win His re-election.

SW
Posted by Wtodd
Tampa, FL
Member since Oct 2013
67488 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:11 pm to
quote:

What the frick is wrong with liberals?

Chicken would have to create an entire board to answer this question
Posted by Jack Bauers HnK
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
5713 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:12 pm to
Same logic with police to them. It would be aggressive to do anything against an armed perp unless you know for sure he's actually going to shoot and that the bullets will actually hit you.
Posted by Jack Bauers HnK
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
5713 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

If U.S. territory is threatened, countermeasures are a no-brainer. But if the missiles aren’t expected to hit the island — the stated goal is to have them hit waters well offshore — should it? Could it?


I guess that's the point they were trying to make, the assumption is that we know for sure the missiles wouldn't actually hit Guam.
Posted by CAD703X
Liberty Island
Member since Jul 2008
78089 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:15 pm to
quote:

and here is the article to go along with it

LINK


the best is the last line of the article where they say we better have unanimous agreement from our allies before doing this.

like the missiles heading towards guam will pause and wait for the debate and voting to take place.
Posted by MrLarson
Member since Oct 2014
34984 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:18 pm to
Do nothing because it might not work? What in the frick is wrong with these people?


quote:

THE CONS

A big problem is that failure would not only be humiliating, but could actually weaken the U.S. position more than doing nothing at all.

The U.S. has pumped billions of dollars into its missile defense systems and sold hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth to its allies, including the very controversial deployment of a state-of-the-art system known by its acronym, THAAD, in South Korea. The U.S. military has also conducted two ICBM interceptor tests since May. Officials called them successes, but critics say they don’t replicate actual conditions close enough to be a fair gauge.

Taking out Guam-bound missiles would require successful intercepts by ship-based SM-3 “hit-to-kill” missiles over the Sea of Japan or land-based PAC-3 “Patriot” missiles on Guam. The ship-based defenses are designed to kill a missile that’s in midflight, while the ground-based ones take out whatever missiles make it through and are in the final stage.

But it’s highly questionable whether either or both would be able to take down the full salvo of four North Korean missiles. President Donald Trump hinted the defense system still needs beefing up on Thursday when he told reporters the U.S. will be spending billions more on them.

A failed intercept would likely embolden the North to move ahead even faster. It could also have a chilling psychological impact on allies like Japan and South Korea, which might seek to build up their own nuclear forces independently of Washington. Rival powers China and Russia, meanwhile, might see the exposed weakness as an opportunity to push forward more assertive policies of their own.

Even if it were successful, a policy of shooting down missiles would undoubtedly raise tensions, and put an uncomfortable squeeze on American allies on the front lines.

Worst of all, if American intentions aren’t clear, an attempt to intercept a missile might be misinterpreted by Pyongyang — or Beijing or Moscow — and escalate into a real shooting war.

On a technical level, just as the North learns valuable information on its capabilities with each launch, so does the U.S. military. Shooting down the missiles would cut that intelligence off.


Posted by TigerB8
End Communism
Member since Oct 2003
9312 posts
Posted on 8/11/17 at 1:19 pm to
stay classy MSM, stay classy!
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram