US defence boss: We could refuse a nuclear strike order from Donald Trump

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by cerberus, Nov 19, 2017.

  1. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of an illegal order.
     
  2. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was never adequately funded as Reagan proposed and if any research did start back then it was over Democrats objections.
     
  3. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So was nuking Japanese civilians illegal?
     
  4. camp_steveo

    camp_steveo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2008
    Messages:
    23,014
    Likes Received:
    6,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What was the law of war at the time, and what does that have to do with today's laws?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Onus is entirely on you to prove that it was "never adequately funded as St Reagan proposed".

    FTR St Reagan TRIPLED the national debt with military spending. Hard to imagine that NONE of that money was spent on a futile missile defense system ORDERED by the CinC.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it couldn’t. Even the Tsar Bomba wouldn’t destroy South Korea with a single attack.

    There’s an entire THAAD battery in South Korea on top of South korea’s own multiple batteries of Patriots.

    Individually, THAAD has a better than 50% interception rate and with 2 dozen interceptors at launch ready all the time, that guarantees that a single missile has almost no chance of making it through the defenses.
     
  7. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Since I was a sentient adult at the time I remember it well and remember the jeers and catcalling from the left at Reagan's "star wars" stupidity and I remember Congress laughing at funding it. The best part is I was a liberal at the time and thought Reagan was a moron for proposing such nonsense. Live and learn. The onus if there was one is on you to prove me a liar. Good luck and I hope you learn something in the attempt.
     
  8. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes I'm sure the people of Seoul are resting easy at the thought of a nuclear missle headed their way. Easy to say from the other side of the world though isn't it.
     
  9. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BZZZT Wrong!

    Onus is entirely on YOU to prove YOUR baseless allegation that no funding was ever provided towards missile defense systems per what St Reagan proposed.
     
  10. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but it's just not worth the effort to me to educate you. If you doubt my memory on this research it yourself or just choose to disbelieve someone who lived it. Your call and I truly don't care what you choose to do. Have a nice day.
     
  11. Bear513

    Bear513 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    Messages:
    7,576
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol
     
  12. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your FAILURE to substantiate your own bogus allegation only harms YOUR credibility, not mine.
     
  13. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not here to be credible or to harm others credibility. Neither am I here to educate people who refuse to educate themselves. I'm here to discuss and debate and that is all.
     
  14. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Part of discussion and debate is to maintain credibility by substantiating allegations that you have made. Failure to do so harms not only your own credibility but also negates the discussion and makes it into nothing more than a serious of ever more preposterous claims on your part.

    That you don't want to participate in a normal discussion and debate is duly noted.
     
  15. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look at it this way. I'm an eyewitness and you are a lawyer demanding I verify what I saw but that's not the way it works. It's incumbent on the person seeking to destroy the credibility of a witness to prove they are either lying or just misremembering. Besides that I'm getting tired of kids in here saying "oh yeah? Prove it" when I tell them about things that occurred before they were born. It's just not worth my time or effort to educate you. If you think I'm full of **** then do some research and find out for yourself. I truly don't care either way but definitely have more respect for those that have the initiative and curiosity to do so. Be who you are.
     
  16. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Translation: I have no facts to counter your argument so here’s an emotional dog whistle to try and distract you from my drive to commit nuclear genocide on an entire country.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry but you don't get to rewrite the rules of debating to suit yourself.

    The reason I ask for substantiation is because what you are alleging lacks credibility.

    If you cannot substantiate it and want to stipulate that it is nothing more than just YOUR OPINION then it will be treated as such.

    However if you make statements that you allege are factual then the rules of debate require you to provide credible substantiation otherwise you forfeit the position and your credibility suffers accordingly.

    That is entirely on you and you alone.
     
  18. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I love these " translation" responses. LOL
     
  19. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now we are debating debating?


    These are pretty good rules for online debate

    http://www.zerothposition.com/2016/04/21/ten-simple-rules-for-debating/
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2017
  20. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I recommend that you read #3.

     
  21. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Funny because I was going to recommend you read that. I'm well informed because I was there while you are just spouting what you believe to be so with no verification. Here's a good article you could read that tells the star wars story just as I remember it. Read it if you want. Ignore it if you will.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-wars-initiative-huge-success-despite-critics
     
  22. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If I’m wrong, perhaps maybe you can counter anything I said with my previous post rather than your bullshit attempt at distraction.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  23. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not distraction to point out that your confidence in stopping a nuclear missle is easier to have from a thousand miles away than it is from ground zero. That's just fact.
     
  24. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A single nuclear missiles has functionally zero chance of getting through both THAAD and the Patriots.

    It’s also pretty easy for you to advocate mass nuclear attacks on North Korea when you don’t live downwind of the Fallout.
     
  25. sawyer

    sawyer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Messages:
    11,892
    Likes Received:
    2,768
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For one thing "zero chance" is absurd and for another thing why are you so certain NK can and or would only launch one missle?
     

Share This Page