- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: You wake up Wednesday morning to find the USA has hit NK
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:12 am to AU_Right
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:12 am to AU_Right
quote:
You think if Hillary won that little strike on Syria would be it? We would be at a full blown war, because that's what she does. While making it look like some humanitarian retaliation...pipeline back in business.
Same scenario, but HRC is in the WH, same response.
0
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:14 am to udtiger
quote:
Knowing nothing else (world reaction/counter attack/etc), what would be your first thought?
If this was 2001, I'd be dead. I was stationed just north of Seoul at that time.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:14 am to udtiger
I hope the Chinese approved it first.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:24 am to udtiger
I would log on the PoliBoard and post that meme with Ron Burgundy drinking a longneck and saying "Boy, that escalated quickly".
But I would not nuke North Korea without also nuking Iran.
But I would not nuke North Korea without also nuking Iran.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:26 am to udtiger
I should short Samsung?
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:34 am to LSU5508
quote:From what I recall, modern nuclear weapons leave relatively no fallout, as opposed to a dirty bomb.
Not only will is cause massive civilian casualties, it will leave that area unusable for thousands of years.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:36 am to udtiger
quote:Fascist globalist establishment business as usual.
With tactical nukes at all suspected nuclear facilities, and has levelled all military and governmental facilities in Pyongyang (including all of fat boy's know locations).
Knowing nothing else (world reaction/counter attack/etc), what would be your first thought?
Posted on 4/9/17 at 11:58 am to udtiger
Unless we have absolute, concrete proof that the North Koreans have nukes on missiles ready to go to hit Japan and the western United States intending to launch within hours there is no chance in hell we would use nukes first.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 12:00 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
modern nuclear weapons leave relatively no fallout,
I don't believe this is correct.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 12:29 pm to LSU5508
quote:
it will leave that area unusable for thousands of years.
You should take a look at Japan. I know it was an "atom" bomb, but that area is not unusable
Posted on 4/9/17 at 12:40 pm to udtiger
Grab water, food, bullets, and guns. Gas up the cars and GTFO of town. The clock is ticking, and you don't want to be stuck in a major metropolitan area.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 12:48 pm to udtiger
My first thought would be the type of nuke being used. Is it something like a 1 kiloton bunker busting warhead? If so, then I have no problem with it. If the U.S. starts lobbing 100 + kiloton strategic nukes then I'll worry.
NK is a problem the U.S./world is going to have to face head on. Unless NK has a 180 deg shift in their posturing/rhetoric, the conflict will be inevitable, so the sooner the NK regime is taken out, the better.
NK is a problem the U.S./world is going to have to face head on. Unless NK has a 180 deg shift in their posturing/rhetoric, the conflict will be inevitable, so the sooner the NK regime is taken out, the better.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 1:00 pm to udtiger
We aren't going to hit NK with nukes first.
So I don't have to worry about this.
I don't see us pre-emptively attacking NK. For all they have done... it's all been talk. Now, if they fire one shot that lands in an ally's country, all bets are off.
So I don't have to worry about this.
I don't see us pre-emptively attacking NK. For all they have done... it's all been talk. Now, if they fire one shot that lands in an ally's country, all bets are off.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 2:15 pm to Machine
quote:
"using nukes isn't as bad as somebody i don't like possessing some"
Link to me saying that.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 2:32 pm to LSU5508
quote:
it will leave that area unusable for thousands of years.
Hiroshima
Posted on 4/9/17 at 2:35 pm to Ponchy Tiger
MAGA 
Posted on 4/9/17 at 2:37 pm to udtiger
My reaction initially would be why nukes?
What brought us to the conclusion that nukes were the best option?
The only situation I can think of where nukes could be a option as a first strike would be if we were facing a insurmountable situation. Where we knew our enemy was planning attack us with nukes.
What brought us to the conclusion that nukes were the best option?
The only situation I can think of where nukes could be a option as a first strike would be if we were facing a insurmountable situation. Where we knew our enemy was planning attack us with nukes.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 2:37 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
quote:
If this was 2001, I'd be dead. I was stationed just north of Seoul at that time.
NK Koksan guns would be leveling Seoul and the entire north end from Camp Casey on down.
Posted on 4/9/17 at 3:50 pm to udtiger
Id be worried a bit. NK would most certainly attack the South
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News