Page 13 of 27 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 396

Thread: 2019 American Political Scene

  1. #181
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Its these small margin wins where i think electronic voting may be vulnerable. Few hundreds to low thousands. This means elections at the local level could be more susceptible say city municipal level but harder for state or nation wide.

    Having said that we recently had a state election get decided over as little as 5000 votes that is for a total count of over 40 million. I was amazed it came down to the line that close !! First past the post system can do that some times. Have you ever had a national election get decided on such a thin margin ?
    Yes, several. In 1961 the conservative Menzies government secured its majority by 130 votes in a single seat - ironically the result of a handful of preference votes from the Communist Party. In 2010 the parliament was hung, with the ALP & LNP having the same number of seats. I don't have seat by seat breakdowns, but I will guarantee you there were seats decided by a few hundred votes.

    In my home state the 1999 election was effectively decided by 16 votes in one seat. I am certain other states have had similarly close votes at various times. Fortunately our systems are sufficiently robust that people respect the result.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  2. #182
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,545
    Since the discussion has veered towards voter fraud, adding to what DE said: The land of a million polling stations: India's general election by the numbers

    New Delhi, India (CNN)With general elections due by May, India will embark on the world's biggest exercise in democracy over the coming months.

    Here are the key numbers to consider as hundreds of millions of Indians prepare to decide who governs them for the next five years.

    — 875 million
    The size of the electorate. The last time India voted to choose a new national government, more than 830 million people were eligible to vote -- and more than 550 million cast their ballots. India's election authorities say that number will swell to 875 million this time round.

    — 545
    The total number of seats in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of parliament. Of these, two are filled by nominees from the Anglo-Indian community. For the rest, each seat represents a geographical constituency. The party that wins a majority of seats forms the government. If no single party wins enough seats, a coalition of parties can come together to govern and choose the Prime Minister.

    — 1 million
    The number of polling stations. Coordinating more than 800 million voters is an incredible logistical challenge -- and that includes setting up a million polling stations across the country to make sure all those who are eligible to vote, can.

    — 10 million
    Ensuring the integrity of the voting process also means deploying vast human resources. That includes an army of election officials. In fact, authorities say more than 10 million election officials will be managing the polling as it unfolds over several weeks.

    — 464
    The total number of political parties that participated in India's last general election, back in 2014. While a handful of national parties -- including Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the principal opposition Congress Party -- tend to dominate in New Delhi, smaller parties often exert great influence in different regions. In the event of a hung parliament, they also play a defining role in the formation of a coalition government.

    — 8,251
    The total number of candidates fielded by different parties across India during the 2014 contest. The number reflects both the vastness and diversity of India's political system, with hundreds of parties -- representing people with varying cultures and customs -- contesting.

    — 282
    In 2014, the BJP won 282 seats in the Lok Sabha, the largest majority commanded by a single party in 30 years. With its allies, the party sailed comfortably past the 300 mark -- a reflection of the popularity of its leader Modi, who became Prime Minister, and who will be seeking re-election this year.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  3. #183
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    "Take heed, my lord, the welfare of us all Hangs on the cutting short that fraudful man." Shakespeare Henry Vl

  4. #184
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,656
    I recommend these Ladies 'Gaslit Nation' podcast; bit extreme at points but very insightful: https://www.patreon.com/posts/24843802

  5. #185
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Watched highlights of the Kim/Trump summit. Here is my take on it.

    in 2019 Kim Yo Jong is still the hottest woman ever. How hot is she? I've tried to post this 5 times and her hottness has caused the WAB to have internal server error each time. Not even Elizabeth Warren can do that

    Name:  kim2.jpg
Views: 180
Size:  59.2 KB
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 01 Mar 19, at 22:21.
    Human Scum. Proud Never Trumper

  6. #186
    Former Staff Senior Contributor Ironduke's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Aug 03
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    12,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Watched highlights of the Kim/Trump summit. Here is my take on it.

    in 2019 Kim Yo Jong is still the hottest woman ever. How hot is she? I've tried to post this 5 times and her hottness has caused the WAB to have internal server error each time. Not even Elizabeth Warren can do that
    Apparently she's on twitter as KimYoJong1. You should check it out.
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  7. #187
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Now that this thread has turned to a discussion on US/N.K. relations:

    It's glaringly obvious that the U.S. has no reason to be concerned about N.K.'s nuclear weapons. Here's my theory for debate:

    First of all, China has N.K.'s back. And I'll suggest Russia does too. N.K. is within both nuclear powers' sphere of influence and the Korean people's desire for reunification of the Koreas is only going to happen on terms that are acceptable to Russia and China. U.S. concerns can't be anything more than it's fear of the reunification of the Koreas on terms that are unacceptable to the US.

    And I'll start the debate ball rolling by saying that the more Trump negotiates, or at least pretends to negotiate, the more the US loses to China's gameplan.

    Is anyone convinced that the US is concerned in the least with N.K.'s nukes? That would be hard to believe after some have already proclaimed that the US has no concerns over China's nukes!

    And of course my opinion is that nuclear weapons on a significant scale are a necessary deterrent to US attack. As would be adequately demonstrated with the case of Iran. (not to raise the issue of Russia/China likewise having Iran's back.

    Opinions?

  8. #188
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Now that this thread has turned to a discussion on US/N.K. relations:

    It's glaringly obvious that the U.S. has no reason to be concerned about N.K.'s nuclear weapons. Here's my theory for debate:
    Showing absolutely zero reading and knowledge of the area.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    First of all, China has N.K.'s back.
    China's two best group armies have been training to INVADE North Korea. We have training photos and articles of need to protect China's borders to prevent unintended migration. Translation: China is going to keep the North Koreans in North Korea no matter what. The only way this unintended migration is going to occur is when a US-South Korean forces drives north.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    And I'll suggest Russia does too. N.K. is within both nuclear powers' sphere of influence
    Putin has already stated that he wants nothing to do with North Korea.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    and the Korean people's desire for reunification of the Koreas
    The South Koreans do not want to support 25+ million North Koreans who do not know how to work a modern economy and would be living off welfare paid for by the South Koreans.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    is only going to happen on terms that are acceptable to Russia and China. U.S. concerns can't be anything more than it's fear of the reunification of the Koreas on terms that are unacceptable to the US.
    Yeah, Russia and China wants the US to fund it. The US wants South Korea and China to fund it. The South Koreans don't want to fund it. Basically, they all want the North Koreans to stay in North Korea.

    In the 1980s to 1990s, Chinese leader DXP was talking to the Americans on unifying North Korea under South Korean rule. He wanted American troops to stay in a unified Korea to prevent a war between Korea and Japan. That's how much he thought of North Korea as nothing more than a beggar,

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    And I'll start the debate ball rolling by saying that the more Trump negotiates, or at least pretends to negotiate, the more the US loses to China's gameplan.
    China's game plan is to keep the North Koreans in North Korea. Any war against the US would only drive the refugees northward since no one is stupid enough to go through the DMZ.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Is anyone convinced that the US is concerned in the least with N.K.'s nukes? That would be hard to believe after some have already proclaimed that the US has no concerns over China's nukes!
    North Korean nukes is a simple fact that the US and South Korea would have to invade all of North Korea to rid of North Korean nukes; making them financially responsible for the North Korean mess

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    And of course my opinion is that nuclear weapons on a significant scale are a necessary deterrent to US attack.
    You opinion is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    As would be adequately demonstrated with the case of Iran. (not to raise the issue of Russia/China likewise having Iran's back.
    Iran doesn't have a nuke. At best, they have some zero-yield test devices.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 31 Mar 19, at 20:24.

  9. #189
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    Showing absolutely zero reading and knowledge of the area.
    I'm o.k. with your interpretation of the US's concern or lack of concern with N.K. nukes. But you can't very well have it both ways when you're already made the claim that the US isn't concerned with China's nukes. So make up your mind and then we'll find some agreement. I think you're trying to debate a point where there's no disagreement to debate?

    A. It's glaringly obvious that the U.S. has no reason to be concerned about N.K.'s nuclear weapons.
    B. It's obvious that the US has great concern for N.K.'s nuclear weapons.
    C. None of the above.

    Here's my theory: Trump is blowing smoke, but being conned by China/N.K. because we all know that N.K. doesn't need nukes, but has no intention of giving them up without something significant in trade. That's been adequately proven already. But my theory is that N.K. can agree to give up it's nukes for minimal gains in exchange from the US. So what could that be? I would suggest SECURITY and guaranteed immunity from US aggression. And so what would that entail? Well, we could start with imagining the ceasing of military operations between US/S.K. Or, whatever any of us could imagine would be advantageous to Kim. This has got to be a win/win for N.K. and China in that N.K. has nothing to lose by trading off it's nukes for US concessions. And if that indicates how I have zero reading and zero knowledge, then you'll have to provide something of substance that says otherwise. That's where the rubber meats the road my friend!

    China's two best group armies have been training to INVADE North Korea. We have training photos and articles of need to protect China's borders to prevent unintended migration. Translation: China is going to keep the North Koreans in North Korea no matter what. The only way this unintended migration is going to occur is when a US-South Korean forces drives north.
    I'll take your word for it! Are you trying to make a point which pertains to something I've said?

    Putin has already stated that he wants nothing to do with North Korea.
    I'll take your word on that. Same question?

    The South Koreans do not want to support 25+ million North Koreans who do not know how to work a modern economy and would be living off welfare paid for by the South Koreans.
    Could be true? But I will suggest that you have no reason to think that North Korea's people couldn't be gainfully employed in a united Korea. Or at least I have no idea why you would be offering that. Offhand my assumption is that North Korea's people are hardworking individuals due to necessity.

    Yeah, Russia and China wants the US to fund it. The US wants South Korea and China to fund it. The South Koreans don't want to fund it. Basically, they all want the North Koreans to stay in North Korea.
    Agreed! But that doesn't answer in any way the ambitions of the Korean people to reunite the two Koreas.

    In the 1980s to 1990s, Chinese leader DXP was talking to the Americans on unifying North Korea under South Korean rule. He wanted American troops to stay in a unified Korea to prevent a war between Korea and Japan. That's how much he thought of North Korea as nothing more than a beggar,
    Maybe in the 80's and 90's but it's a complete non-starter to suggest that China desire a US presence in their region of influence today.

    China's game plan is to keep the North Koreans in North Korea. Any war against the US would only drive the refugees northward since no one is stupid enough to go through the DMZ.
    I'm not suggesting there's going to be a war against the US in Korea. In fact I consistently suggest the opposite in that any war that directly involves any of the nuclear powers is prohibitive, due to MAD. [b]And you claim the opposite, unless you're changing your mind.

    North Korean nukes is a simple fact that the US and South Korea would have to invade all of North Korea to rid of North Korean nukes; making them financially responsible for the North Korean mess.
    Maybe, but I would suggest that S. Korea is toast if the US tried.


    [/quote]Iran doesn't have a nuke. At best, they have some zero-yield test devices.[/QUOTE]

    Why do you persist on telling me the obvious when in fact I've never claimed that Iran has nuclear weapons. And this is not the first time you've used that tactic. It makes no sense and makes no points in your favour so please stop it!

    If you have any interest in debating my theory as I've pesented it above, then please do so.

  10. #190
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    I'm o.k. with your interpretation of the US's concern or lack of concern with N.K. nukes. But you can't very well have it both ways when you're already made the claim that the US isn't concerned with China's nukes. So make up your mind and then we'll find some agreement. I think you're trying to debate a point where there's no disagreement to debate?

    A. It's glaringly obvious that the U.S. has no reason to be concerned about N.K.'s nuclear weapons.
    B. It's obvious that the US has great concern for N.K.'s nuclear weapons.
    C. None of the above
    Oh for Pete sakes! The US is not afraid of a nuclear war with North Korea. The US is afraid of WINNING a nuclear war with North Korea. So is South Korea for that matter. They both get stuck with the bill to rebuild North Korea. Clear enough for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Here's my theory: Trump is blowing smoke, but being conned by China/N.K. because we all know that N.K. doesn't need nukes, but has no intention of giving them up without something significant in trade.
    Your obsession with Trump makes your posts stupid beyond hope. This thing goes all the way back to Clinton and THE AGREED FRAMEWORK. KJI did in fact agreed to disarm as in THE AGREED FRAMEWORK. I suggest you start reading up on that to see why we got here today AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP!

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    That's been adequately proven already. But my theory is that N.K. can agree to give up it's nukes for minimal gains in exchange from the US. So what could that be? I would suggest SECURITY and guaranteed immunity from US aggression. And so what would that entail? Well, we could start with imagining the ceasing of military operations between US/S.K. Or, whatever any of us could imagine would be advantageous to Kim. This has got to be a win/win for N.K. and China in that N.K. has nothing to lose by trading off it's nukes for US concessions. And if that indicates how I have zero reading and zero knowledge, then you'll have to provide something of substance that says otherwise. That's where the rubber meats the road my friend!
    Trump promised all that but there's one thing that KJU demands that the US (I don't care which POTUS) cannot guarrantee. Regieme security from inside as well as outside. In short, KJU wants Trump to promise help against his internal enemies AND THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Hell, even China is not promising that.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    I'll take your word for it! Are you trying to make a point which pertains to something I've said?

    I'll take your word on that. Same question?
    To show that neither China nor Russia has nor wants to watch North Korea's back. If anything, China would smack KJU down before he can do anything stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Could be true? But I will suggest that you have no reason to think that North Korea's people couldn't be gainfully employed in a united Korea. Or at least I have no idea why you would be offering that. Offhand my assumption is that North Korea's people are hardworking individuals due to necessity.
    If they could have done it, they would already have done it instead of being country poor bumpkins that they are. China has offerred help to modernize the North Korean economy and they refused to follow the Chinese lead. There is a reason why their living standards ain't on par with South Korea and China and it ain't the American, South Korean, nor Chinese faults.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Agreed! But that doesn't answer in any way the ambitions of the Korean people to reunite the two Koreas.
    Would you like to join the Americans since we are all British at one time? This generation has no ties nor do they want any ties with the North, especially if you tell them that they would need to give up half their wealth to support NK's welfare roles.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Maybe in the 80's and 90's but it's a complete non-starter to suggest that China desire a US presence in their region of influence today.
    Read what I wrote! TO PREVENT A WAR BETWEEN A UNIFIED KOREA AND JAPAN! The Chinese are certainly in no position to influence this one way or the other. If anything, they would be cheering on Korea.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    I'm not suggesting there's going to be a war against the US in Korea. In fact I consistently suggest the opposite in that any war that directly involves any of the nuclear powers is prohibitive, due to MAD. [b]And you claim the opposite, unless you're changing your mind.
    Wars between nuclear weapons powers.

    1953 Korean War (Soviet manned MiG-15s against the USAF)
    1969-73 Sino-Soviet Border War
    1979-90 South Africa vs USSR in Angola
    1999 Kargil War

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Maybe, but I would suggest that S. Korea is toast if the US tried.
    Your suggestion lacks any facts.

    1) North Korean nukes are not mated to their delivery vehicles. Meaning that it would take hours to get a nuclear weapon ready for delivery. By that time, South Korean F-16s would already have destroyed the launch sites.

    2) The North Koreans are extremely worried about a SOUTH KOREAN INVASION. The annual exercise is 300,000+ men. The North Koreans have been holding 500 men exercises die to lack of funds.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    Why do you persist on telling me the obvious when in fact I've never claimed that Iran has nuclear weapons. And this is not the first time you've used that tactic. It makes no sense and makes no points in your favour so please stop it!
    You're the one who points to a nuclear deterrence. Since Iran is under neither the Russian nor the Chinese nuclear umbrella, then clearly the only Iranian nuclear deterrence are their zero-yield devices. The Russian nuclear umbrella only covers the former USSR republics not in NATO (including the UKR). The Chinese nuclear umbrella covers no one but China. China offerred it to North Korea in exchange for KJI to abandon his nukes. KJI said no. Pakistan asked China for her nuclear umbrella. China said no.

    Quote Originally Posted by montgomery View Post
    If you have any interest in debating my theory as I've pesented it above, then please do so.
    Your "theory" has ZERO FOUNDATION and is nothing more than comic book writings. It NEITHER conforms to history nor the facts on the ground.

    You insult my friends by telling them they elected the wrong man. You insult me by saying I was an American lackey. Your insult this forum's intelligence by using propaganda as fact. You pretend to know more than actual military men and a well published economist (DOR). You insult all of us by implying that there are no men of honour in either the US or the West.

    Yeah, you're treated like the troll that you are.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 01 Apr 19, at 04:53.

  11. #191
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,545
    Sir,
    Kargil happened in 1999. You can also add Balakote air-strikes on 26th-Feb this year under Pakistani nuclear sabre rattling, whatever the ISI propaganda script says. I have a question. What if the Chinese are preparing to go up the nuke chain by increasing the number of nukes, say to 3000. They certainly have the money. Pros/cons, from a NATO perspective. I'd still like to believe MAD, even then wouldn't be applicable between US & China.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  12. #192
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Sir,
    Kargil happened in 1999.
    I stand corrected.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    What if the Chinese are preparing to go up the nuke chain by increasing the number of nukes, say to 3000.
    They can't. They stopped fissile material production in 1997. Their entire stock has been accounted for by the IAEA (as with every NPT member). They have enough for around 400 warheads.

    If they were to ramp up production, the IAEA would know about it and even then, they would be far, far, far behind. Russia and the US have enough fissile materials for aorund 60,000 warheads each.

    Seriously, it's not worth it to the Chinese to ramp up production. It's not money wisely spent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    They certainly have the money. Pros/cons, from a NATO perspective. I'd still like to believe MAD, even then wouldn't be applicable between US & China.
    MAD indicates that you're destroyed beyond recovery. That no longer applies. The US and Russia can do either counter-force, counter-value, or counter-population but they have to choose one. Basically, you choose either to destroy the military or the civilians but not both. Either way, one of those leadership structures would remain intact. If you mixed them up, you can inflict extremely unacceptable damage but the country could recover with some sort of leadership intact. The rest of the nuclear weapons powers are restricted to limited counter-value forces.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 01 Apr 19, at 05:08.

  13. #193
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I stand corrected.

    They can't. They stopped fissile material production in 1997. Their entire stock has been accounted for by the IAEA (as with every NPT member). They have enough for around 400 warheads.

    If they were to ramp up production, the IAEA would know about it and even then, they would be far, far, far behind. Russia and the US have enough fissile materials for aorund 60,000 warheads each.

    Seriously, it's not worth it to the Chinese to ramp up production. It's not money wisely spent.

    MAD indicates that you're destroyed beyond recovery. That no longer applies. The US and Russia can do either counter-force, counter-value, or counter-population but they have to choose one. Basically, you choose either to destroy the military or the civilians but not both. Either way, one of those leadership structures would remain intact. If you mixed them up, you can inflict extremely unacceptable damage but the country could recover with some sort of leadership intact. The rest of the nuclear weapons powers are restricted to limited counter-value forces.
    MAD doesn't mean anything close to that, it means what it says it means. How am I going to get it through your thick skull that neither the US or Russia will/would be willing to accept military defeat by the other. And as well, neither side has the power superiority to defend itself against the other.

    Sure, one of the leadership structures could or might remain intact. Then they can defeat the enemy with charred sticks!

    You know this shit well enough yourself skipper but you are for some reason intent on arguing your ridiculous notion that either side would/will be willing to suffer the consequent losses of a nuclear showdown. It's only you and your vaingloious spewing of false bravado who is even contemplating that the US or Russia would give nuclear war a go. It's fu--ing sick and it's not worth my time to debate it further.

    And now that you understand that, you can damn well come to grips with the fact that the US running roughshod over the world's small countries is rapidly coming to an end.

    So here's something to occupy your mind with:

    Israel is safe from an attack by Iran because the US has Israel's back.
    I suggest that Iran is safe from an attack by the US because both Russia and China have Iran's back.
    And I'll go out on a limb and also suggest that Sryia is now Russia's and it 'nearly' completely safe from US/Nato led war.

    And those three claims will give you something to debate with me, now that I've set you straight on what MAD is all about.

    Chew on that you senile old coot, or have me banned from your forum if it gives you heartburn. This crap from you just ain't worth it any longer so I'll wager a case of bullets for your machine gun with you that you can't have me banned from the forum, before I've just quit.

  14. #194
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,545
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I stand corrected.

    They can't. They stopped fissile material production in 1997. Their entire stock has been accounted for by the IAEA (as with every NPT member). They have enough for around 400 warheads.

    If they were to ramp up production, the IAEA would know about it and even then, they would be far, far, far behind. Russia and the US have enough fissile materials for aorund 60,000 warheads each.

    Seriously, it's not worth it to the Chinese to ramp up production. It's not money wisely spent.
    How on earth do the Chinese think of taking on the USN, for example, if they can't match nukes for nukes. I guess, what the Chinese are doing from time to time w.r.t the US is plain frothing from the mouth. The Chinese have neither the capacity or the capability to do jackshit to the US military. It's just propaganda for the subjects.

    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    MAD indicates that you're destroyed beyond recovery. That no longer applies. The US and Russia can do either counter-force, counter-value, or counter-population but they have to choose one. Basically, you choose either to destroy the military or the civilians but not both. Either way, one of those leadership structures would remain intact. If you mixed them up, you can inflict extremely unacceptable damage but the country could recover with some sort of leadership intact. The rest of the nuclear weapons powers are restricted to limited counter-value forces.
    I though counter-value and counter-population are the same thing.

    Apart from US & Russia, other countries nuke arsenals are for a nuclear strike, not for a nuclear war. I think this is what you're hinting.
    Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

  15. #195
    Banned Patron
    Join Date
    26 Mar 19
    Location
    vancouver island
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    How on earth do the Chinese think of taking on the USN, for example, if they can't match nukes for nukes. I guess, what the Chinese are doing from time to time w.r.t the US is plain frothing from the mouth. The Chinese have neither the capacity or the capability to do jackshit to the US military. It's just propaganda for the subjects.



    I though counter-value and counter-population are the same thing.

    Apart from US & Russia, other countries nuke arsenals are for a nuclear strike, not for a nuclear war. I think this is what you're hinting.
    What is it that is preventing everybody from just getting straight to the point on nuclear arms? The only possible reason has to be because of the arrogance of the military mindset.

    Nuclear weapons, the only really effective WMD, are strictly intended as a defensive deterrent. It's quite ridiculous to contemplate China standing up to the US in a war that goes nuclear, but the US or China are both prohibited from using nukes because of the counter strike. In the case of these two, the US will never have the confidence to rule out China getting a few through to the US.

    Excepting in a case of rationality not being the deciding factor, and that is somewhat possible when a psychopath is at the helm. With a war hungry hawk by his side in Bolton.

    Could it be that this discussion is still very alive and wasting everybody's time because of Trump?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2018 American Political Scene
    By astralis in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2014
    Last Post: 31 Dec 18,, 00:27
  2. 2017 American Political Scene
    By YellowFever in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 2571
    Last Post: 29 Dec 17,, 21:34
  3. American political duplication between Riyadh and Israel
    By ahmed in forum International Politics
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 29 Apr 07,, 22:06

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •