Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave b

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-
bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

> If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

They do not have that many nukes and they have NO boosters capable of
lofting them yet.

That does not even start to cover final guidance and detonation
hardware.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-
bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

And you;re the one that knows
nothing about our defenses, because if you did, you'd know that
much
of it is nothing but a series of prototypes, developed over the
years
and deployed hastily.

Actually YOU know nothing about it. North Korea has been utterly
techno-stupid for decades! What they do now they are getting
handheld in, and they are not steadily developing ANY prototypes, you
stupid fuck. Even their submarine is a russian design. They are
trying out smuggled in systems from Russia, their original helper
outer. They also have staff on hand to help them.
You must be blind to not see those mobile launch platform roots.
They have ZERO jets. Their MLRS is from 1947.

Did you ever even look at some of the war games videos that take
place at the DMZ?

We are vastly superior to them.

5 orbital launch attempts just to try to put up a satellite using
'60s russian technnology. If they ever got it up there, do you
really think it is actually still up there?

We are talking about a nation that cannot see that failing to keep
your people fed is a national failure. That isn't about sanctions,
that is about stupid stubborn communist governance. Communism fails.
This is but one proof.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that thinks we have defenses for the "crappy' NK
missiles. The truth is, we don't know exactly what capability they
have,

Oh we most certainly DO know exactly what they have and evrything
they are developing.

> they tested ICBMs that worked two years ago.

No. They fired the booster, then downed it. There has been no
"successful" test of an ICBM in many decades because NO NATION would
allow it and the test REQUIRES it. All these dirty, rule breaking
players can do is test the boster launch, then they have to down it.
Even then we see nearby nations protesting their behavior.

It is getting to the time where North Korea will be told they will
be kicked out of the UN unless they comply with the rules they said
they would comply with when we let them into it.

I think there may be a submarine that gets destroyed while it is
still in drydock, and we may even see some launchers and launch sites
get big time butt hurts, and we might see some facilities in Iran get
squashed like the filthy bugs they are as well.

We are in for a ride, and maybe then you will finally see that we
are indeed still superior.

The poker hand is about to be called on these bad players, and
their shit is weak in the world stage.

Intercontinental, you know.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:2ddf2e80-0971-4ee4-acfc-5e9caa10252d@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51- bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

They do not have that many nukes


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destr
uction


"North Korea has a military nuclear weapons program[6] and, as of
early 2019, is estimated to have an arsenal of approximately
20–30 nuclear weapons and sufficient fissile material for an
additional 30–60 nuclear weapons."

First you claim we know exactly what NK has, then you deny what we
do know and can estimate.





and they have NO boosters capable of
lofting them yet.

Wrong, always wrong.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41174689


"Missiles that can reach the US

Throughout 2017, North Korea tested several missiles demonstrating
the rapid advances of its military technology.

The Hwasong-12 was thought to be able to reach as far as 4,500km
(2,800 miles), putting US military bases on the Pacific island of
Guam well within striking distance.

Later, the Hwasong-14 demonstrated even greater potential with
some studies suggesting it could travel as far as 10,000km if
fired on a maximum trajectory.

This would have given Pyongyang its first truly intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM), capable of reaching New York.

Eventually, the Hwasong-15 was tested, peaking at an estimated
altitude of 4,500km - 10 times higher than the International Space
Station.

If fired on a more conventional "flatter" trajectory, the missile
could have a maximum range of some 13,000km, putting all of the
continental US in range."

Nice try, dumbfuck.

The very citation you give does not read the way YOU wrote it.
Nice try, punk.

It states O to 20 to 30.

I lean toward ZERO number being more correct.

As far as the rockets go, just putting an NK moniker on old russian
booster tech is pretty lame and the US most certain does have a
handle on what they have. Trump's dismissal is proof that he does
sometimes listen to his military underlings. The dopey bastard just
does not know how to keep his retarded mouth shut.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:04:44 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

You're the one that thinks we have defenses for the "crappy' NK
missiles. The truth is, we don't know exactly what capability they
have,

Oh we most certainly DO know exactly what they have and evrything
they are developing.

Sure we do, ROFL. Just like we knew Saddam had WMDs and knew the USSR
was on the verge of collapse before it actually happened. And we had a
whole lot more assets on those countries as opposed to the hermit
kingdom.

WRong, always wrong.

they tested ICBMs that worked two years ago.

No. They fired the booster, then downed it. There has been no
"successful" test of an ICBM in many decades because NO NATION would
allow it and the test REQUIRES it.

ROFL. What "no nation would allow it"? What does that even mean?
NK doesn't give a rat;s ass about what any country, the UN, etc says.
And of course they tested an ICBM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_North_Korean_missile_tests

"North Korea tested its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) named Hwasong-14 on July 4.[45][46] It launched from the Panghyon Aircraft Factory 8 km southeast of Panghyon Airport.[47] It was aimed straight up at a lofted trajectory and reached more than 2,500 km into space.[48] It landed 37 minutes later,[49] more than 930 km from its launch site,[50] into Japan's exclusive economic zone.[51] Aiming long, the missile would have traveled 7,000–8,000 km or more, reaching Alaska, Hawaii, and maybe Seattle.[49][52][53][54][55] Its operational range would be farther, bringing a 500 kg payload to targets in most of the contiguous United States 9,700 km away."




All these dirty, rule breaking

players can do is test the boster launch, then they have to down it.
Even then we see nearby nations protesting their behavior.

Unbelievably stupid, even for you. First you say they are 'dirty rule
breakers", then you say they have to down it? Now you're contradicting
yourself in the same sentence.

It is getting to the time where North Korea will be told they will
be kicked out of the UN unless they comply with the rules they said
they would comply with when we let them into it.

ROFL. Stupid, even for you. NK has been thumbing their noses at the
UN for decades. They have refused to comply with resolution after
resolution, including ones that BAN MISSILE TESTS. And obviously a
country that's already isolated, trade embargoed, etc, doesn't give
a rat's ass about being kicked out of the UN.

I think there may be a submarine that gets destroyed while it is
still in drydock, and we may even see some launchers and launch sites
get big time butt hurts, and we might see some facilities in Iran get
squashed like the filthy bugs they are as well.

Yeah, dream on. Even Trump isn't that stupid. There never really was
a time where we could have done that, unless you're willing to risk
another Korean War. With all the artillery and rockets that NK has
aimed at Seoul, no one is going to risk it, which of course is why
no action was taken BEFORE NK had nuclear weapons. No one is going to
do it now that they have them, that's for sure. Unless Trump has gone
totally nuts, he'd need the approval of SK for any strike and he's not
going to get that.

We are in for a ride, and maybe then you will finally see that we
are indeed still superior.

The poker hand is about to be called on these bad players, and
their shit is weak in the world stage.

Intercontinental, you know.

What poker hand is going to be called? Trump says KJU is his buddy,
that he trusts him, that he's sure he will make the right decisions and
that it's perfectly fine for KJU to be testing missiles right now that
can carry nuclear warheads to SK. Which of course NK is doing.

Wrong, always wrong, but boy this is very wrong, even for you.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-
bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

They do not have that many nukes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction


"North Korea has a military nuclear weapons program[6] and, as of early 2019, is estimated to have an arsenal of approximately 20–30 nuclear weapons and sufficient fissile material for an additional 30–60 nuclear weapons."

First you claim we know exactly what NK has, then you deny what we do
know and can estimate.





and they have NO boosters capable of
> lofting them yet.

Wrong, always wrong.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41174689


"Missiles that can reach the US

Throughout 2017, North Korea tested several missiles demonstrating the rapid advances of its military technology.

The Hwasong-12 was thought to be able to reach as far as 4,500km (2,800 miles), putting US military bases on the Pacific island of Guam well within striking distance.

Later, the Hwasong-14 demonstrated even greater potential with some studies suggesting it could travel as far as 10,000km if fired on a maximum trajectory.

This would have given Pyongyang its first truly intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), capable of reaching New York.

Eventually, the Hwasong-15 was tested, peaking at an estimated altitude of 4,500km - 10 times higher than the International Space Station.

If fired on a more conventional "flatter" trajectory, the missile could have a maximum range of some 13,000km, putting all of the continental US in range."

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:43:19 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:26:11 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:13:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

snip

Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

See, I would treat you as intelligent, if you didn't continue to post
stupid things and here you go again. The point, the very
clear and simple point, is that MAD only works when you're dealing with
RATIONAL, SANE, leaders. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I gave
you Saddam as an example. Did he have nuclear weapons? No, but KJU
does and he could be the next Saddam, a leader that does not behave
rationally.

Trader4 doesn't think that Saddam behaved rationally, because Trader4 has a false idea of what Saddam did.


No false ideas, I watched and followed the news and it's all
a matter of historical record.

But a record Trader4 is obviously incapable of understanding,

Saddam had a choice, either full compliance with the UN inspectors or the 300K coalition troops that were assembled and would invade, bringing assured death
and destruction to Iraq.

Saddam complied with UN resolution 1441

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

There was no invasion force on the border at the time. There was a certain amount of nit-picking by the inspectors about "full compliance", but Saddam did let the inspectors in, and they were able to make it pretty clear that he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

The subsequent invasion was justified by a whole of implausible rhetoric, which struck me was implausible at the time - an opinion I posted here at the time.

> Saddam chose the latter.

Rubbish.

> That was his final irrational act.

In your singularly ill-informed opinion.

> Previously he also refused to leave Kuwait, under the same conditions.

You are talking about the first Gulf War.

"In December 1990, Iraq made a proposal to withdraw from Kuwait provided that foreign troops left the region and that an agreement was reached regarding the Palestinian problem and the dismantlement of both Israel's and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

"The Gulf War began with an extensive aerial bombing campaign on 16 January 1991."

He was unrealistically optimistic about his troops capacity to hang onto Kuwait, but again, but scarcely irrational.

BTW, Australia was part of the coalition in both
wars, so I guess you were there to steal their oil too, like you claim
Bush was doing.

Australia was stuck with supporting it's allies - both the US and the UK.

Dick Cheney's special relationship with Haliburton didn't give Australia any prospect of getting of getting a cut of the loot, and not taking part would probably have made it a lot more difficult for us to sell stuff to the US.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 11:55:34 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:43:19 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 7:26:11 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:19:54 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:13:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

snip

Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

See, I would treat you as intelligent, if you didn't continue to post
stupid things and here you go again. The point, the very
clear and simple point, is that MAD only works when you're dealing with
RATIONAL, SANE, leaders. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I gave
you Saddam as an example. Did he have nuclear weapons? No, but KJU
does and he could be the next Saddam, a leader that does not behave
rationally.

Trader4 doesn't think that Saddam behaved rationally, because Trader4 has a false idea of what Saddam did.


No false ideas, I watched and followed the news and it's all
a matter of historical record.

But a record Trader4 is obviously incapable of understanding,

Saddam had a choice, either full compliance with the UN inspectors or the 300K coalition troops that were assembled and would invade, bringing assured death
and destruction to Iraq.

Saddam complied with UN resolution 1441

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441

There was no invasion force on the border at the time. There was a certain amount of nit-picking by the inspectors about "full compliance", but Saddam did let the inspectors in, and they were able to make it pretty clear that he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction.

That "nit-picking" was reported by Hans Blix in his final report to the
UN, with the troops ready to invade. He said Iraq was still not fully
complying, which is what the final UN resolution required.
Why is it that you libs always side with the most heinous despots?
Obviously your own country says your full of shit, they joined the
coalition.

The subsequent invasion was justified by a whole of implausible rhetoric, which struck me was implausible at the time - an opinion I posted here at the time.

Saddam chose the latter.

Rubbish.

That was his final irrational act.

In your singularly ill-informed opinion.

Previously he also refused to leave Kuwait, under the same conditions.

You are talking about the first Gulf War.

"In December 1990, Iraq made a proposal to withdraw from Kuwait provided that foreign troops left the region and that an agreement was reached regarding the Palestinian problem and the dismantlement of both Israel's and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

"The Gulf War began with an extensive aerial bombing campaign on 16 January 1991."

He was unrealistically optimistic about his troops capacity to hang onto Kuwait, but again, but scarcely irrational.

BTW, Australia was part of the coalition in both
wars, so I guess you were there to steal their oil too, like you claim
Bush was doing.

Australia was stuck with supporting it's allies - both the US and the UK.

Oh, poor widdle Australia, no balls of it's own, apparently just lead
around by the good old USA. I guess that's why you have this total
obsession with the USA, it's the big penis envy syndrome.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 11:21:06 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence..org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:2ddf2e80-0971-4ee4-acfc-5e9caa10252d@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51- bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

They do not have that many nukes


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea_and_weapons_of_mass_destr
uction


"North Korea has a military nuclear weapons program[6] and, as of
early 2019, is estimated to have an arsenal of approximately
20–30 nuclear weapons and sufficient fissile material for an
additional 30–60 nuclear weapons."

First you claim we know exactly what NK has, then you deny what we
do know and can estimate.





and they have NO boosters capable of
lofting them yet.

Wrong, always wrong.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41174689


"Missiles that can reach the US

Throughout 2017, North Korea tested several missiles demonstrating
the rapid advances of its military technology.

The Hwasong-12 was thought to be able to reach as far as 4,500km
(2,800 miles), putting US military bases on the Pacific island of
Guam well within striking distance.

Later, the Hwasong-14 demonstrated even greater potential with
some studies suggesting it could travel as far as 10,000km if
fired on a maximum trajectory.

This would have given Pyongyang its first truly intercontinental
ballistic missile (ICBM), capable of reaching New York.

Eventually, the Hwasong-15 was tested, peaking at an estimated
altitude of 4,500km - 10 times higher than the International Space
Station.

If fired on a more conventional "flatter" trajectory, the missile
could have a maximum range of some 13,000km, putting all of the
continental US in range."


Nice try, dumbfuck.

The very citation you give does not read the way YOU wrote it.
Nice try, punk.

It states O to 20 to 30.

I don't see zero, anywhere in there.


Defense Intelligence Agency

On August 8, 2017, the Washington Post reported recent analysis completed the previous month by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency which concluded that North Korea had successfully produced a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can fit in missiles and could have up to 60 nuclear warheads in its inventory.[155]
Siegfried S. Hecker

On August 7, 2017, Siegfried S. Hecker, former director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who has visited North Korea nuclear facilities many times on behalf of the U.S., estimated that North Korea's stockpile of plutonium and highly enriched uranium was probably sufficient for 20 to 25 nuclear weapons. He assessed that North Korea had developed a miniaturized warhead suitable for medium-range missiles, but would need further tests and development to produce a smaller and more robust warhead suitable for an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and re-entry into the atmosphere. He considered the warhead as the least developed part of North Korea's plans for an ICBM.[156][157]
Institute for Science and International Security

For 2013, the Institute for Science and International Security gave a mid-range estimate of 12 to 27 "nuclear weapon equivalents", including plutonium and uranium stockpiles. By 2016, North Korea was projected to have 14 to 48 nuclear weapon equivalents.[158] The estimate was dropped to 13 to 30 nuclear weapon equivalents in 2017, but was increased to as much as 60 equivalents later in August of the same year.[159] (For uranium weapons, each weapon is assumed to contain 20 kilograms of weapons-grade uranium.)[160]
FAS

As of 2012, the Federation of American Scientists estimated North Korea had fewer than 10 plutonium warheads.[161]
SIPRI

As of January 2013, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated North Korea had 6 to 8 warheads.[162]
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

As of January 8, 2018, Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris of the Federation of American Scientists published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that they "cautiously estimate that North Korea may have produced enough fissile material to build between 30 and 60 nuclear weapons, and that it might possibly have assembled 10 to 20.".[163]

I lean toward ZERO number being more correct.

Well, why should anyone doubt your qualification to give a number....

As far as the rockets go, just putting an NK moniker on old russian
booster tech is pretty lame and the US most certain does have a
handle on what they have. Trump's dismissal is proof that he does
sometimes listen to his military underlings. The dopey bastard just
does not know how to keep his retarded mouth shut.

Sure it's based on Russian technology, but Russia has had ICBMs
that were reasonably reliable and capable of reaching the US for
more than half a century. Old does not mean it does not work.
And they will only keep advancing. And that's just the ICBM component
they successfully tested new missiles with a range of hundreds of
miles this month. Ones that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead
and that could reach most SK cities and the US troops.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 10:13:23 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:03ecefae-3e24-4f51-
bcf4-1a28f3aa15e4@googlegroups.com:

And you;re the one that knows
nothing about our defenses, because if you did, you'd know that
much
of it is nothing but a series of prototypes, developed over the
years
and deployed hastily.

Actually YOU know nothing about it. North Korea has been utterly
techno-stupid for decades!

Yes, so stupid that they've developed working, tested nuclear bombs,
ICBMs and shorter range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
That's obviously cause for great concern. They successfully tested
many of those new short range missiles this month. Trump says that's
A-OK, no problemo.





What they do now they are getting

handheld in, and they are not steadily developing ANY prototypes, you
stupid fuck. Even their submarine is a russian design. They are
trying out smuggled in systems from Russia, their original helper
outer. They also have staff on hand to help them.

It doesn't matter exactly how they got there, the fact is that they
now have nuclear weapons and very likely the ability to deliver them,
eg those missiles with ranges of hundreds of miles that they have been
testing this month.

You must be blind to not see those mobile launch platform roots.
They have ZERO jets. Their MLRS is from 1947.

Did you ever even look at some of the war games videos that take
place at the DMZ?

Irrelevant of course.

We are vastly superior to them.

No shit Sherlock. That doesn't mean that they can't launch a missile
with a nuke to hit most targets in SK, including the US troops.
Or that they don't have ICBMS that can reach the US. We can have
4,000, they can have 10. As Clint Eastwood said, "how lucky do
you feel"? Like I tried to explain to Rick, MAD only works when the
other party is also rational and even then it may not work. Are you
going to tell us that you are sure KJU is rational?

5 orbital launch attempts just to try to put up a satellite using
'60s russian technnology. If they ever got it up there, do you
really think it is actually still up there?

Why don't you tell us, you claim to know so much.

We are talking about a nation that cannot see that failing to keep
your people fed is a national failure. That isn't about sanctions,
that is about stupid stubborn communist governance. Communism fails.
This is but one proof.

Irrelevant, of course. We now have a failed communist state with
nuclear weapons and ICBMs headed by a mercurial despot who has
presided over genocide. Russia's economy was a failure too, but
they sure were capable of producing nukes that threatened the US.
NK is now entering that league and unfortunately we're going to have
to live with it. There was good reason to believe that the Russians
were mostly rational. Are you sure about KJU?

 

[Rick C]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 3:19:54 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:13:26 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 10:47:14 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 11:19:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 1:54:48 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:20:51 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 11:02:11 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:36:38 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, August 26, 2019 at 5:59:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:a24c79cd-d1a2-4c2c-92ca-b9cf119deb78@googlegroups.com:

There's not a lot point in that. Stuff in low orbit is visible
from the ground, and launching stuff back to earth from there just
give everybody more time to shoot down the heavy bird and the
projectiles it might eventually fire.

Stopping a missile coming down from space is a bit harder than a
patriot missile repulsion system tracking a launch and doing it from
the ground.

I said earlier that the reason there is none in space is because
they would all be shot down.

Still, with even no weapons platforms in space, the first shots in
the next war will be shooting down the comm and spy satellites of the
enemy.

How will that help fight a war. The war you are talking about will be a relatively small number of nuclear weapons landing on key areas that devastate a country. They can be launched three ways, one of which is not very easy to prevent. Putin's nuclear rocket adds one more which may or may not be easy to shoot down.

If a country attacks the defensive sats, that alone with start the war and the attacker has better be ready to stop how many thousands of war heads?

The real defensive weapon is MAD. No one cares how you deliver it.

--


The remaining question is if MAD works with the likes of KJU. And even
if it works with him, it's only a matter of time until we come across
some bad actor that comes to power, where it doesn't matter. Saddam
for example, clearly wasn't rational. Even after the first Gulf War
where he got crushed badly, he still wouldn't behave and chose another
war that was certain to end badly for him and the country over just
cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. Especially nuts when he
didn't have any WMDs or WMD programs. Eventually some Saddam type
will have nukes. Is it KJU? Or some muslim nuts could take
over Pakistan and not give a damn. Looking at history, it's just a
matter of time, which is why Reagan's SDI type defense makes more sense
each passing day. It wouldn't be perfect, but could offer some protection
to limit the consequences.

If you oversimplify everything, you can't reach the correct conclusions. Saddam miscalculated. He thought he could play a shell game of making us think (along with anyone else who mattered) he actually had WMD and that would keep him safe. He didn't and we didn't care enough that it was protection for him.

The reality is this is a poor example for you to bring up since it was clear having WMD was not enough to stop us from destroying him and that he wasn't anywhere near having WMDs of any consequence to us.

ROFL. It;s the perfect example! It's a world leader behaving irrationally.
Saddam knew there were 300K coalition troops, that were going to invade if
he did not comply. He knew he was beaten badly before, totally humiliated
in a war that lasted only hours. Yet he chose destruction, to likely die
himself, instead of letting UN inspectors look for WMDs that he didn't have.

No, he didn't believe the US would do that. Yet he never shot down one of our satellites. So it doesn't really matter what he did or didn't think.

Are you just as stupid as Bill? The simple point was that MAD only works
when all parties are RATIONAL. It will fail when a leader that is irrational
comes along. I used Saddam as a good example of a leader that chose death
and destruction even though he could have easily complied, avoided it..
That was an example, get it? If you don't like that example, then insert
Hitler or Pol Pot. But no, like Bill, you instead turn sideways and start
harping about Saddam, the Gulf War, that Saddam never shot down a
satellite, etc, etc, etc.

Your personal comments don't help your argument at all. It would be nice if you refrained. OK?

MAD doesn't really impact someone who is not in the nuclear picture.

No shit Sherlock.



Then it is just a matter of AD, Assured Destruction. You can talk about any leader you want who tries to out think the US and failed. That doesn't have anything to do with anyone attacking our nuclear defenses.

See, I would treat you as intelligent, if you didn't continue to post
stupid things and here you go again. The point, the very
clear and simple point, is that MAD only works when you're dealing with
RATIONAL, SANE, leaders. It's not a hard concept to grasp. I gave
you Saddam as an example. Did he have nuclear weapons? No, but KJU
does and he could be the next Saddam, a leader that does not behave
rationally. If you follow history, it's very stupid to think that
an irrational leader with nuclear weapons will not eventually come to
power somewhere. There have been plenty of irrational leaders throughout
history, I'm amazed that anyone would argue that.






At this point I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You seem to want to discuss our personalities more than you want to have a rational discussion. Which do you prefer?

I've been trying to have a rational discussion, but it takes two to tango..






And I note you didn't answer the simple question. You stated that some hostile
country just targeting a satellite, would result in a full nuclear response.
I posed a simple example of China targeting a US satellite. Would you go
nuclear over that? Hello?

Yes, I did respond to your question.

I never saw it, I don't think you did, because you could have written
a sentence here and instead, you chose not to. A yes or no works.

Believe what you want. I think a lot of your argument shows you do a lot of that. I haven't written so many posts you can't find it. You know where you asked the question. You can search on those words and my reply will be in a message containing those.

In other words, there was no answer or you could just give it here.
A simple yes or no works.





You idea of a left field player suddenly developing the potential to get past our nuclear defenses and at the same time not caring about MAD and his personal well being is just prima facie absurd.

Say what? That's incredibly stupid. NK has demonstrated both nukes and
ICMBs! Japan intelligence just stated that they believe it's likely that
NK has miniaturized nukes. KJU is a pathological madman, who's killed
uncles, his own brother, using horrific means. He;s presiding over genocide,
a country of 25 mil that's starving. Hello?

Why do you enter conversations you know apparently nothing about. We have defensive capabilities for the crappy NK missiles. Did you actually read what I wrote???

You're the one that thinks we have defenses for the "crappy' NK missiles.
The truth is, we don't know exactly what capability they have, they
tested ICBMs that worked two years ago. And you;re the one that knows
nothing about our defenses, because if you did, you'd know that much
of it is nothing but a series of prototypes, developed over the years
and deployed hastily. That's what Obama sent to Alaska, for example.
And no one believes the system is even close to robust. We've had
a dozen or so tests and maybe a 50% success rate. Does LA getting
nuked, Chicago get's intercepted work for you?

Ok, you disagree that we can shoot down the handful of nukes NK might be able to shoot at us. Assuming you were right, which I don't acknowledge, even then MAD does not kick in because we may lose a city, but NK will no longer exist as a civilization.


You don't understand what MAD even is. The concept is that because of MAD,
an enemy will not attack the US, the US will be safe from nuclear attack.
That NK no longer exists, is irrelevant. And if you doubt that our
ability to intercept a missile launch from NK is sketchy at best,
just google.





Kim is not an idiot. He knows he will never actually shoot a nuke at any of our cities because of AD. You talk about him as a madman, but he is not a Saddam or a Gaddafi.

And why exactly not? How do you know how rational he is? He's certainly
has done some things very similar to those two and some things much worse,
eg using a chemical weapon in a foreign country to kill his own brother,
antiaircraft gunning his uncle, killing anyone that's any threat,
starving 25 mil people so he can build nukes, instead of having a modern
country with a real economy.




. Even those two knew what they were doing at the national level. They knew how to hold their power.

Saddam knew what he was doing? Well, I guess so, if you include irrationally
choosing death and destruction for his country over cooperating with the
UN weapons inspectors.
Again, the point is that Saddam behaved totally irrationally. Relying on
MAD as a defense strategy is incredibly stupid with a leader like that.
And it's only a matter of time before some similar leader with nukes arrives.
He may already have.




Well, Gaddafi did until near the end. They didn't do so well against the US. But they are in the AD part of the issue not at all different from NK.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. You just don't get the concept that MAD only works
if you are always dealing with rational actors and it will fail at some
point when some irrational leader winds up with nuclear weapons. KJU
might be that guy, which of course is why most of the world is so
concerned that he;s making them and ICBMs.





None of these countries have a chance of doing anything about our defenses.


None of which countries? I never said Iraq did. You dragged Libya into it,
of course they don't. But that wasn't the issue, wasn't the point. NK
is such a threat. They have tested ICBMS that worked, yes? They have
tested powerful nukes that worked, yes? Japanese intel recently reported
that they believe it's likely that NK has now advanced to the point that
they have nukes small enough to fit on ICBMs or other missiles. NK
continues to test shorter rang, advanced missiles, ones that are capable
of carrying nuclear weapons that could hit the 28000 US troops in SK.
That isn't Libya.

You keep talking about irrational leader. AD will prevent NK from ever attacking the US in a meaningful way, one that would provoke a major military response, one that would justify our attacking NK in spite of the shadow of China.

Same is true for NK short range missiles, the new ones they keep testing,
the ones Trump keeps greenlighting as no big deal. They could reach much
of SK, including the 28K troops there and it's not clear we could shoot
them down. Those systems are more robust, but still nowhere near 100%
reliable. If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

What does "good for you" mean? It ain't happening because of AD.

Again, you just don't understand that only works with a rational leader.
Did it work with Saddam? Hello? He didn't give a damn that his country
would be invaded, much of it destroyed.

Of course he cared. He wasn't irrational, he made mistakes, just like the US does. But we are large enough we don't get invaded.

What NK actually does is VERY measured. They may shoot some conventional weapons and seize a ship here and there. They aren't stupid enough to provoke a conflict that will destroy their country and totally topple Kim from power, a conventional or a nuclear conflict.

I see and how confident are you of that assessment? It wasn't too long
ago that NK attacked and sunk a SK warship, killing 50. It wasn't too
long ago that they shelled SK forces on Yeonpyeong Island, killing SK
troops. It wasn't too long ago, KJU used chemical weapons in an airport
in Indonesia to kill his brother, he killed his uncle. He's starving
25 mil people to death, so he can build nukes and ICBMs. That doesn't
sound so rational to me.

Yeah! Let Kim starve his own country. I'm sure that will work wonders for him.

We would have more robust systems, if Obama and now Trump had greatly
accelerated our development up to what it should be. And to defend against
those NK ICBMS, what we need is Reagan;s SDI. Had we followed through,
we would have a more robust defense, but you libs said he was nuts.
He sure doesn't look so nuts today with NK.

YOU LIBS???? I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you is a lib? Or I should more accurately say, anyone who points out your fallacies is a lib?

Do you deny that it was libs that were against SDI? Very simple, very factual.
Reagan and conservatives wanted it, the libs had their hair on fire.
And about now, with NK having ICBMS, it looks like Reagan was right,
a missile shield would be a very good idea. Incredibly, you seem to believe
we have one, when we really don't.

I like your reasoning. We aren't capable of making a missile defense system that works, but we should fund a missile defense system.

There was never any expectation SDI would work. The real reason for waving the SDI flag was to scare the shit out of the USSR which was part of why they fell apart.

That's partly true, engaging them in a race they couldn't afford or win
was part of Reagan's strategy. But SDI could work, it's incredibly that
anyone would sell US tech capability short. Similar could have been said
about everything from the atom bomb to stealth aircraft.

Aren't you the guy who says our current anti-missile defense is worthless? So if we can't figure out how to shoot down a handful of missiles from NK, how could we ever hope to get something as complex as SDI to work against thousands of nukes from Russia, et. al.?

They knew they couldn't keep up economically even though they tried, they then failed. Most players understand war weapons are actually economic weapons as long as they are good enough or plentiful enough or scary enough to never be used.

But sadly you don't recognize or won't admit that only works when the other
party is also RATIONAL.


We won that battle with the USSR, but now there are many other players, and like a recent video posted in this group if not this thread, that was a finite game. We are actually playing an infinite game and don't always realize that.


You can count the number of nuclear powers on the fingers of your hands.
That's a whole lot closer to zero than infinity.

Is it? Let's say the number is five.

5/0 = what?

inf/5 = what?

BTW, that's not what an "infinite game" means.

The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.


Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them get past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk from NK. South Korea might be.

We have 28,000 troops there stupid. And this from the guy that proposed
that just "targeting" a satellite would require a nuclear response?
What happens when KJU kills tens of thousands of US troops?

I never said that did I? I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You seem to do a lot of that. I may have said targeting a defensive satellite is an act of war. There are many acts of war that are not responded to with a nuclear response.

Did someone else sit at your computer and type this:


"You seem to be much worse off thinking it matters if those sats are shot down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead. "


And while I addressed exactly that in my first reply, 10 posts later,
you're only now addressing it, but denying you posted it?

Where in there did I say anything about a nuclear response to shooting down one defense sat? You are so frothing at the mouth that you read into words meaning that isn't there.

I don't know how rapidly out defenses can take their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.

--

That's the only thing you've said so far that's right, you don't know..
And the answer is there is no high confidence that we can intercept
them. Hell, NK could deliver a nuke with a sub to Busan, Incheon
or even LA. They already have subs capable of launching single missiles.
And you probably don't know that we have good intel showing they are
building a ballistic missile submarine right now. I suppose you
think we can just easily shoot down whatever they launch from that too...

The overall point here is that MAD only works with rational actors.
There have been many leaders in the past who were not rational and
KJU is an example of one that might similarly be irrational too. And NK
is now a nuclear power. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There is no reason to think Kim is not a rational actor. Even if he can do us harm, there is no reason to think AD won't be a sufficient deterrent to stop him from ever using a nuke against us.


You go right on thinking that, it's typical of naive lib thinking. I
suppose you think Charlie Manson could be trusted, won over, calmed down,
let's just send him a cake and hope for the best, he's rational....

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Kim will happily sacrifice his entire country and himself in order to... uh, ... mmm... gain something you haven't explained yet.

No, Kim won't provoke a nuke attack by the US. We just have to make it clear that we WILL destroy NK if they launch any nukes at us or our allies or attacks in any significant way. I think Kim gets that message.

BTW, I don't attribute your inability to think clearly to your political leanings. I know conservatives who are rational, thinking people. You just aren't one of them.

What he wants is to be at the power table and thinks having nukes will do that for him. If he wasn't at the elbow of China he would have been wiped from the map long ago. We can't attack NK without a response from China. But they aren't going to enter a war with the US if we respond to such an extreme aggression from NK. They won't like it and they will rattle sabers about our extent of war, but they don't want to have half a billion people wiped out either.

While Kim does a good job of appearing to be irrational, that is part of his act and everyone knows it. Three members of the same family have ruled NK for a long time now. None of them were stupid or irrational.

Yes, a swell idea. Let's let the fate of US cities rest on your analysis
that folks who invaded most of SK which resulted in 5 mil deaths,
seized a US ship, sunk SK warships,
shelled SK, kidnapped countless people, committed genocide for 60 years,
used chemical weapons to kill their own brother, put uncles in front of
antiaircraft guns, killed Warmbeir for stealing a poster and now have
nukes and ICBMs are rational.

Yes, none of that shows them being irrational. I'm glad we can agree on something... or not. Who cares. You won't accept rational arguments of any sort. You just keep clinging to the same wrong ideas that people like Kim are irrational and are happy to commit suicide for no reason.

On that note, I am signing off. There is clearly no point in discussing this further with you. I'm starting to think you are the hunter while I'm the bear.

--

Rick C.

++++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 3:06:04 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

You keep talking about irrational leader. AD will prevent NK from ever attacking the US in a meaningful way, one that would provoke a major military response, one that would justify our attacking NK in spite of the shadow of China.

You keep acting as if no leaders in similar positions have acted
irrationally. History has a long list of them, the best, most recent
example is Saddam, which is precisely why I chose him. With 300K
coalition troops assembled, ready to invade Iraq and take him out,
instead of simply complying with the UN and fully cooperating with
the UN weapons inspectors, he chose what you call AD, death and
destruction for Iraq. It ended with hundreds of thousands dead,
the destruction of his military and Saddam dead too. It's the very
epitome of irrational behavior, he apparently had no WMDs all
he had to do was cooperate with the inspectors to show it.

And that was the second time he made an irrational choice. The first
was similar, with coalition troops ready to kick his ass out of Kuwait,
he also chose death and destruction, though not on as large a scale
as the second time. And did he "rationally" learn from that? No.

Same is true for NK short range missiles, the new ones they keep testing,
the ones Trump keeps greenlighting as no big deal. They could reach much
of SK, including the 28K troops there and it's not clear we could shoot
them down. Those systems are more robust, but still nowhere near 100%
reliable. If they launch 6, 2 nukes getting through good for you?

What does "good for you" mean? It ain't happening because of AD.

Again, you just don't understand that only works with a rational leader..
Did it work with Saddam? Hello? He didn't give a damn that his country
would be invaded, much of it destroyed.

Of course he cared. He wasn't irrational, he made mistakes, just like the US does. But we are large enough we don't get invaded.

Oh BS. Saddam behaved completely irrationally, he chose DEATH and DESTRUCTION, when he could have just cooperated and let the UN
inspectors verify that he had no WMDs. It's quite amazing that you
continue to deny this.

What NK actually does is VERY measured. They may shoot some conventional weapons and seize a ship here and there. They aren't stupid enough to provoke a conflict that will destroy their country and totally topple Kim from power, a conventional or a nuclear conflict.

I see and how confident are you of that assessment? It wasn't too long
ago that NK attacked and sunk a SK warship, killing 50. It wasn't too
long ago that they shelled SK forces on Yeonpyeong Island, killing SK
troops. It wasn't too long ago, KJU used chemical weapons in an airport
in Indonesia to kill his brother, he killed his uncle. He's starving
25 mil people to death, so he can build nukes and ICBMs. That doesn't
sound so rational to me.

Yeah! Let Kim starve his own country. I'm sure that will work wonders for him.

That's what he and his predecessors have been doing for decades.
Instead of feeding people, he's building nukes, ICBMs and subs.
The people, millions have starve do death, he's committed crimes
against humanity. That shows you how he values human life, which
of course should be of major concern when evaluating whether MAD
will deter such an evil whacko, but no, it goes right over your head.

We would have more robust systems, if Obama and now Trump had greatly
accelerated our development up to what it should be. And to defend against
those NK ICBMS, what we need is Reagan;s SDI. Had we followed through,
we would have a more robust defense, but you libs said he was nuts.
He sure doesn't look so nuts today with NK.

YOU LIBS???? I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you is a lib? Or I should more accurately say, anyone who points out your fallacies is a lib?

Do you deny that it was libs that were against SDI? Very simple, very factual.
Reagan and conservatives wanted it, the libs had their hair on fire.
And about now, with NK having ICBMS, it looks like Reagan was right,
a missile shield would be a very good idea. Incredibly, you seem to believe
we have one, when we really don't.

I like your reasoning. We aren't capable of making a missile defense system that works, but we should fund a missile defense system.

That might be your flawed reasoning. I say we have a rudimentary,
half-assed system. One that isn't even of all the same, latest
generation gear. It's a cobbled together hodgepodge. And I said
if Obama and now Trump had done their job and put enough money into
it, we'd have much better by now. But heh, you say we don't even
need it, MAD will work fine with NK, so no worries.

There was never any expectation SDI would work. The real reason for waving the SDI flag was to scare the shit out of the USSR which was part of why they fell apart.

That's partly true, engaging them in a race they couldn't afford or win
was part of Reagan's strategy. But SDI could work, it's incredibly that
anyone would sell US tech capability short. Similar could have been said
about everything from the atom bomb to stealth aircraft.

Aren't you the guy who says our current anti-missile defense is worthless?

No, I never said that, now you're lying. I said it's far from robust,
that the ICBM intercepts had a high failure rate on tests. And bear in mind that with
those tests, we knew what was coming, when, etc. What would happen
with an unexpected launch could be a different thing. And as proof of
that I even asked you if NK launched 10 missiles, would you be OK
with intercepting 6? That sure doesn't sound worthless, unless you
think losing 10 cities is no different than losing 4. Do you?



>So if we can't figure out how to shoot down a handful of missiles from NK, how could we ever hope to get something as complex as SDI to work against thousands of nukes from Russia, et. al.?

Just like most things, with more research, more testing, it gets better.
It's worked with everything from airplanes to cell phones.

They knew they couldn't keep up economically even though they tried, they then failed. Most players understand war weapons are actually economic weapons as long as they are good enough or plentiful enough or scary enough to never be used.

But sadly you don't recognize or won't admit that only works when the other
party is also RATIONAL.


We won that battle with the USSR, but now there are many other players, and like a recent video posted in this group if not this thread, that was a finite game. We are actually playing an infinite game and don't always realize that.


You can count the number of nuclear powers on the fingers of your hands..
That's a whole lot closer to zero than infinity.

Is it? Let's say the number is five.

5/0 = what?

Who's dividing? You're quite amazing really. Now you want
to argue that 5 isn't closer to zero than it is to infinity? And then
you can't understand why I say you're stupid. Maybe Bill will join
in, he likes to start that kind of stupid BS too.

inf/5 = what?

BTW, that's not what an "infinite game" means.


The threat from the left field players is a dirty bomb having nothing to do with SDI or anti-missile weapons.


Sure, that threat exists too, but you're obviously in total denial with
NK.

Denial of what exactly? Being able to launch a few nukes and having them get past defensive weapons are two different things. We are not at risk from NK. South Korea might be.

We have 28,000 troops there stupid. And this from the guy that proposed
that just "targeting" a satellite would require a nuclear response?
What happens when KJU kills tens of thousands of US troops?

I never said that did I? I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You seem to do a lot of that. I may have said targeting a defensive satellite is an act of war. There are many acts of war that are not responded to with a nuclear response.

Did someone else sit at your computer and type this:


"You seem to be much worse off thinking it matters if those sats are shot down. As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead. "


And while I addressed exactly that in my first reply, 10 posts later,
you're only now addressing it, but denying you posted it?

Where in there did I say anything about a nuclear response to shooting down one defense sat? You are so frothing at the mouth that you read into words meaning that isn't there.

You clearly said it right here, stupid:

"As soon as the first one it targeted, not even shot, it would be a declaration of war and MAD kicks in. Game over, we're all dead."

Geez.

I don't know how rapidly out defenses can take their missiles out. Hopefully before they even reach the NK border.

--

That's the only thing you've said so far that's right, you don't know.
And the answer is there is no high confidence that we can intercept
them. Hell, NK could deliver a nuke with a sub to Busan, Incheon
or even LA. They already have subs capable of launching single missiles.
And you probably don't know that we have good intel showing they are
building a ballistic missile submarine right now. I suppose you
think we can just easily shoot down whatever they launch from that too...

The overall point here is that MAD only works with rational actors.
There have been many leaders in the past who were not rational and
KJU is an example of one that might similarly be irrational too. And NK
is now a nuclear power. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There is no reason to think Kim is not a rational actor. Even if he can do us harm, there is no reason to think AD won't be a sufficient deterrent to stop him from ever using a nuke against us.


You go right on thinking that, it's typical of naive lib thinking. I
suppose you think Charlie Manson could be trusted, won over, calmed down,
let's just send him a cake and hope for the best, he's rational....

I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Kim will happily sacrifice his entire country and himself in order to... uh, ... mmm... gain something you haven't explained yet.

What did Saddam do, stupid?

No, Kim won't provoke a nuke attack by the US. We just have to make it clear that we WILL destroy NK if they launch any nukes at us or our allies or attacks in any significant way. I think Kim gets that message.

Saddam didn't get the message. And it's not clear that other psychos,
eg Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin would have either.

BTW, I don't attribute your inability to think clearly to your political leanings. I know conservatives who are rational, thinking people. You just aren't one of them.

ROFL. You're the dope that can't understand that MAD only works when
there are rational parties on both sides. It's quite stunning that
anyone would argue such a thing, but here you are. And BTW, MAD is
far from perfect, there is no guarantee that it will work 100% of
the time even with rational parties on both sides. But no need to
go there, you can't grasp the basics.

What he wants is to be at the power table and thinks having nukes will do that for him. If he wasn't at the elbow of China he would have been wiped from the map long ago. We can't attack NK without a response from China. But they aren't going to enter a war with the US if we respond to such an extreme aggression from NK. They won't like it and they will rattle sabers about our extent of war, but they don't want to have half a billion people wiped out either.

While Kim does a good job of appearing to be irrational, that is part of his act and everyone knows it. Three members of the same family have ruled NK for a long time now. None of them were stupid or irrational.

Yes, a swell idea. Let's let the fate of US cities rest on your analysis
that folks who invaded most of SK which resulted in 5 mil deaths,
seized a US ship, sunk SK warships,
shelled SK, kidnapped countless people, committed genocide for 60 years,
used chemical weapons to kill their own brother, put uncles in front of
antiaircraft guns, killed Warmbeir for stealing a poster and now have
nukes and ICBMs are rational.

Yes, none of that shows them being irrational.

You go right on thinking that.



> I'm glad we can agree on something... or not.

I didn't agree, there is a lot there that was not rational, like starting
a war that killed 5 mil people or starving your people to death.



> Who cares. You won't accept rational arguments of any sort. You just keep clinging to the same wrong ideas that people like Kim are irrational and are happy to commit suicide for no reason.

Does the example of Saddam ring a bell, stupid?

On that note, I am signing off. There is clearly no point in discussing this further with you. I'm starting to think you are the hunter while I'm the bear.

You're probably right that there is no point in discussing this further,
you're incapable of comprehending the simple fact that MAD only works
with rational parties on both sides.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 3:38:04 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

If you don't believe me, how about Henry Kissinger?

“The classical notion of deterrence was that there was some consequences before which aggressors and evildoers would recoil. In a world of suicide bombers, that calculation doesn't operate in any comparable way,” said Kissinger."

Or former National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster?

“The classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea?” said McMaster in an appearance on “This Week” on ABC News. “A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction? A regime that imprisons and murders anyone who seems to oppose that regime, including members of his own family, using sarin nerve gase (sic) -- gas in a public airport?”


Clifford May, founder Defense of Democracies:

“During the Cold War we relied on mutually assured destruction (MAD) to keep American and Soviet nukes in their silos, wrote May. Is that doctrine adequate to constrain Kim Jong-un, a dictator whose grasp on rationality is difficult to gauge? What happens if Iran’s next supreme leader believes that to bring about the return of the 12th Imam, the Shia messiah, requires an apocalypse? Bernard Lewis, the esteemed scholar of Islam, famously said that for those who hold such beliefs — former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was among them — 'MAD is not a deterrent, but an inducement.'"




Wow, exactly what I said, MAD only works if both parties are rational.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 31, 2019 at 5:38:04 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 3:06:04 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

You keep talking about irrational leader. AD will prevent NK from ever attacking the US in a meaningful way, one that would provoke a major military response, one that would justify our attacking NK in spite of the shadow of China.

You keep acting as if no leaders in similar positions have acted
irrationally. History has a long list of them, the best, most recent
example is Saddam, which is precisely why I chose him.

Trader4 is happy to ignore the evidence that Saddam wasn't irrational, but rather suffered from bad judgement - partly his own, and partly Dubbya's bad judgement in wanting to invade Irak.

Trader4's opinion on the subject is ill-informed to the point of being utterly worthless.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:47a2b1e4-15c0-4615-
ad87-1ef4debacb69@googlegroups.com:

The very citation you give does not read the way YOU wrote it.
Nice try, punk.

It states O to 20 to 30.

I don't see zero, anywhere in there.

Just look at the reference, idiot. It is right there on the wiki
page. Your quotes even carried the reference numbers. Click on the
reference and find that the actual data states 0 to 20 - 30.

Meaning the only one they may ever have is the one they just
detonated, taking them back to zero.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:47af4cf5-ecf9-4a96-
91c1-5add524fa726@googlegroups.com:

That doesn't mean that they can't launch a missile
with a nuke to hit most targets in SK,

No, they can't dipshit.

We have the most advanced missile defense in the world right there.

The biggest defense, however, which you are stupid about is that if
they ever tried to do any such thing, they would be obliterated and
they know it. They would be on their knees in hours... literally.
If there were any of them left.

SK will tear them a new asshole the next time they try anything
stupid.

It is bad enough that we did not resolve it way back when instead
if this shit DMZ and y'all keep building up armies crap.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:47af4cf5-ecf9-4a96-
91c1-5add524fa726@googlegroups.com:

Irrelevant of course.

Yes, you retarded motherfucker, you are.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:47af4cf5-ecf9-4a96-
91c1-5add524fa726@googlegroups.com:

It doesn't matter exactly how they got there, the fact is that they
now have nuclear weapons and very likely the ability to deliver them,

Make up your mind you fucking retard. A few lines up they were
developing everything according to you.

Thruth is you are an absolute idiot. And yes, idiot, it matters how
they got there. And no, they do not have anything capable of carrying
a nuclear payload yet, much less controlling it.

Just like it matters how you got to 300#. Slop down some more mikey
D, dipshit. Die sooner.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:47af4cf5-ecf9-4a96-
91c1-5add524fa726@googlegroups.com:

Yes, so stupid that they've developed working, tested nuclear
bombs,

Developed... bullshit. They FINALLY succeeded in building an old
russian set of plans.

You are the fucking idiot. They do not even manufacture things...
their cars are from russia fed to them back in the '50s!

If they were these big robust "developers" you claim they are, then
where are their chip fab houses? You think they are running those
missiles with vacuum tubes? No. They are using russian control
hardware on russian missile and bomb builds. It doesn't matter what
retarded name they put on it.

You are about as stupid as it gets. Everything they have is
smuggled in. That includes the fucking cameras he is recording and
posting the shit videos with.

They do not have steel plants much less stainless steel alloys.
They GET IT ALL ELSEWHERE.

Your brain is an alloy of the shit that comes out of your upper and
lower asshole.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:fd838ff0-45e0-4426-
b75c-0e3a138e37fc@googlegroups.com:

Oh, poor widdle Australia, no balls of it's own, apparently just
lead
around by the good old USA. I guess that's why you have this total
obsession with the USA, it's the big penis envy syndrome.

Wow. So you really are an idiot about Australia as well.

No surprise there. You seem to have an obsession with claiming to
be superior to all those you deride.

It would be such a joy to deride up in your ass with about 5 feet
worth of a well whittled splintery NYPD broomstick handle.

Please post your name and address as a confirmation of your desire
to have that happen. That way you cannot piss and moan that it is a
threat. You posting your name and address is your RSVP for it.

Go update your lits, putz.