The risk of nuclear war under Trump
POSTED BY: captaincrunch
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2026 16:28
VIEWED: 18316
PAGE 1 of 2
https://newrepublic.com/article/146955/rising-risk-nuclear-war-trump
When it comes to foreign policy, especially on Russia, the Trump administration is a cacophony of discordant voices. While the president seeks friendly relations with President Vladimir Putin and mutes points of disagreement, prominent members of his administration are pushing for a radical re-orientation of America’s global strategy: a return to the Cold War framework in which Russia and China are treated as major threats to U.S. security.
In his introduction to a policy document called the Nuclear Policy Review, released on Friday, Secretary of Defense James Mattis warned that Russia is adopting “military strategies and capabilities that rely on nuclear escalation for their success.” He added, “These developments, coupled with Russia’s invasion of Crimea and nuclear threats against our allies, mark Moscow’s unabashed return to Great Power competition.”
The phrase “Great Power competition” echoes the administration’s recently released National Defense Strategy, which argues, “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.” In plain English, this means that America should focus on defending itself against Russia and China, rather than fighting interminable wars in the Middle East. As Thomas Wright, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution, noted in The Atlantic last week, this new policy reflects “a bipartisan consensus ... between mainstream Democratic and Republican foreign-policy experts that [President Barack Obama] had under-reacted to Russian and Chinese assertiveness.”
But if Mattis and the broader American foreign policy establishment see Russia and China as the main threats, Trump is more concerned with terrorism, North Korea, and illegal immigration (which he sees through a national-security prism).
“It has become abundantly clear that President Trump does not buy his own administration’s strategic shift toward great power competition,” Wright wrote. “Compare the new strategic doctrine to three of President Trump’s recent speeches—one that launched the National Security Strategy, his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, and yesterday’s State of the Union. In each, there was at most a single, obligatory, passing reference to rivals like Russia and China, with little elaboration.” Wright persuasively argues that America has “two competing national security doctrines—Trump’s and that of his national security team. They are now operating in parallel universes.”
The risk of these dual doctrines is not just incoherence. It’s that they reinforce each other in dangerous ways, making a major international conflict much more likely.
Trump’s America First policy alienates traditional allies like South Korea, Japan, and Germany, who don’t know if a U.S. president who openly disdains alliance systems can be trusted. Such countries now have an incentive to pursue foreign policy agendas outside America’s orbit. This emboldens regional powers like Russia and China, who see the Trump era as a chance to expand their influence in the world. The America First policy, in that sense, isn’t the opposite of a Great Powers competition policy, but creates the preconditions for such a world.
America First and Great Power competition find common ground on the terrifying issue of nuclear weapons. Hawks like Mattis are pushing for America to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons to intimidate Russia and China, a policy Trump has bought into on nationalist grounds. “A new nuclear policy issued by the Trump administration on Friday, which vows to counter a rush by the Russians to modernize their forces even while staying within the treaty limits, is touching off a new kind of nuclear arms race,” The New York Times reported on Monday. “The Pentagon envisions a new age in which nuclear weapons are back in a big way—its strategy bristles with plans for new low-yield nuclear weapons that advocates say are needed to match Russian advances and critics warn will be too tempt
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have noticed politicians can't think ahead to the enviable consequences of decisions.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
This silence might make short-term political sense, but heightens the risk that the Trump administration’s two-faced foreign policy will lead the U.S. into a great and disastrous war.
Nuking Japan was not suppose to lead to a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, but it did as an enviable consequence. Stalin knew that he would be next on the list to feel the mighty nuclear wrath of America and he responded. Look where that left the world in 2018. The justification for nuking Japan was to end the war, but the truth is that conventional firebombing would have worked equally as well.
www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/08/06/commentary/japan-surrender-wor
ld-war-ii/
Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, in his 2005 book “Racing the Enemy,” provides compelling evidence that the Pacific War ended due to the entry of the Soviets, not the atomic bombings. Having tasted defeat at the hands of the Soviets twice in the late 1930s in Manchurian border clashes, the generals knew that the new front meant further resistance was futile.
Sheldon Garon, a professor of history at Princeton University, takes issue with Hasegawa’s contention that the military was insouciant about Japanese suffering and ready to fight to the last civilian. Recently, Garon gave a talk in Tokyo about an ongoing book project focusing on how the war was lost for Germany and Japan.
He argues that the U.S. was surprised by Japan’s sudden surrender, noting that by Aug. 19, 1945, America would have had three more atomic bombs ready and had six more in production — it did not anticipate a swift end.
According to Garon, the Japanese military was deeply concerned by worsening conditions in Japan because they were undermining the war effort. Authorities, for example, planned the evacuation of a few hundred thousand school children to spare them the urban conflagrations, but were not prepared for the mass exodus of adults who bailed because they knew the military could not protect them. Roads out of Tokyo were clogged with these refugees: 8.5 million fled Japanese cities in the final five months of war, paralyzing transport networks.
This rural-escape survival strategy meant demoralized workers were abandoning factories, compounding existing shortages of war-related production.
According to Garon, these acts of sabotage also meant that an orderly society was no longer obeying orders, responding to accumulating signs of impending defeat. Alas, many of these unlucky refugees fled to smaller cities, and thus were subject to more bombings as America moved onto second-tier targets. The U.S. dropped leaflets warning of impending strikes, and then delivered, stoking fear and undermining faith in the government.
Officials were also demoralized by Germany’s surrender, and the horrific fight to the end that Adolf Hitler insisted on, subjecting his people and cities to a relentless pounding.
Garon observes that the Germans fought like samurai, sacrificing all even when they knew it was for a losing cause. While much is made of Japanese authorities training women and children to resist U.S. invaders with bamboo staves, Garon notes that none ever did so. In contrast, Germany took desperate measures, resorting to full mobilization and deploying these untrained conscripts to battlefields where many died or were injured.
Japan’s diplomats in Europe were shocked by the devastation of Germany and conveyed their concerns about Hitler’s “fighting to the finish” strategy. They advised against emulating the Germans, and thus implicitly counseled surrender for the national interest. But finding an exit with dignity proved elusive.
Garon attributes Japan’s delayed surrender to military intransigence and diplomatic incompetence, a dithering that subjected Japan to needless devastation.
Finally, it was the Soviet entry into the war and the atomic bombings that precipitated a hasty surrender. But it was overdue becaus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Better start Duck And Cover videos in schools again.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Pentagon pretends that the new nukes will just fill a gap under the deterrent fence so that “Russia understands that any use of nuclear weapons, however limited, is unacceptable,” but what the Pentagon is really after is a credible nuclear war-fighting capability. This is the old fantasy that the Pentagon can safely fight a ‘limited’ nuclear war in some distant part of the world without risking major damage to America.
It’s a fantasy that has been killed many times, but it never stays dead for long. It just seems wrong and unnatural to the military mind that you should have these hugely powerful and expensive weapons and never be allowed to use them in any circumstances — that they exist entirely and exclusively to deter the other side from using its own nuclear weapons.
In every military generation there are frustrated generals who spin theories about how they might safely fight a ‘limited’ nuclear war. The first time their ideas gained a temporary foothold in American strategic thinking was in the late 1950s, and they have resurfaced at least twice since then.
Here they come again.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Obama was heading in this direction already. His nuclear posture was to be in a position of a successful first strike, which is why he moved missiles right up to the Russian border. That's what caused the Russians to develop their dead-man devices... nuclear missiles that would be launched without the command of any living soldier.
All you could bitch about endlessly was RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! You didn't want ANY rapprochement between the USA and Russia; you assumed a posture of unrelenting hostility and were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west.
Now that you got what you wanted, you're suddenly fearful.
Sheesh.
You're all insane, did you know that? 
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And with all his strength, Trump will take us the rest of the way, to where Obama fell short.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already.
I was reading last week about John von Neumann, the expert on shockwave physics, designer of the implosion trigger for the Nagasaki atom bomb. When he was dying from brain cancer his hospital room was under heavy guard because of all the atom bomb, missile and computer secrets he knew. The generals would visit him to listen to his jokes and stories.
"Von Neumann's sense of invulnerability, or simply the desire to live, was struggling with unalterable facts. He seemed to have a great fear of death until the last... No achievements and no amount of influence could save him now, as they always had in the past. Johnny von Neumann, who knew how to live so fully, did not know how to die."
Maybe the generals should have mercifully taken von Neumann to the Nevada atom bomb test site and given him the hot death this genius had designed for others? Von Neumann goes kaBOOM!
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Von_Neumann.html
http://wavefunction.fieldofscience.com/2018/01/book-review-john-von-ne
umann-by-norman.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Now that you got what you wanted, you're suddenly fearful.
Yeah, (read this in a Valley Girl accent) we all like TOTALLY want to go to war with Russia. That would be *SWEET*.
NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER ...NO ONE WANTS A WAR, with Russia or anyone else...well, traditionally Rethugs like wars they can brag about, but we haven't had one in a while.
Ok, lemme fix it.
NO ONE *SANE* WANTS A WAR...
WE ALL WOULD REALLY REALLY REALLY LIKE RUSSIA TO MIND IT'S OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, but Russia ain't up for that. "Mother Russia" likes mind games.. and sabotage... because it's dick has frozen off and that's all it has left.
If you have other strategies to keep from being bullied by other nations other than sanctions (which clearly don't work) I'm sure gov't would be thrilled to hear it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, YOU might not want war, and I sure don't want war, but Hillary was all for it, and THUGR and GSTRING and SECOND just can't seem tp allow even simple "contact" with Russia because... well, RUSSIA!!! Oh and BTW- OBAMA did a pretty good job of starting wars and knocking over nations during his tenure, too.
NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER ... NO ONE WANTS A WAR, with Russia or anyone else...
Quote:Which is why I said that GSTRING and THUGR and SECOND are insane. I guess we agree on that!
NO ONE *SANE* WANTS A WAR...
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, you are talking about "nuclear" war, right? A lot more war than "conventional" war, right?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, YOU might not want war, and I sure don't want war, but Hillary was all for it, and THUGR and GSTRING and SECOND just can't seem tp allow even simple "contact" with Russia because... well, RUSSIA!!! Oh and BTW- OBAMA did a pretty good job of starting wars and knocking over nations during his tenure, too.Quote:Which is why I said that GSTRING and THUGR and SECOND are insane. I guess we agree on that!
NO ONE *SANE* WANTS A WAR...
You go to extremes with your notion that Democrats will nuke the world. Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory, not Democrats. “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” said Goldwater, the Republican Senator who wanted to nuke N Vietnam. You voted for Trump, the Republican who wants nukes small enough to use on N Korea.
https://niskanencenter.org/blog/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defens
e-of-liberty-is-no-vice/
Senator Barry Goldwater, running for the Republican Party nomination, gave an interview in which he discussed the use of low-yield atomic bombs in North Vietnam to defoliate forests and destroy bridges, roads, and railroad lines bringing supplies from communist China. During the storm of criticism that followed, Goldwater tried to back away from these drastic actions, claiming that he did not mean to advocate the use of atomic bombs but was “repeating a suggestion made by competent military people.” Goldwater sounds like Trump, but with more moderation. Trump discussed Fire and Fury like the world has never seen against N Korea. No surprise that Trump’s military wants a small-size nuclear weapon, perfect for North Korea, added to the Federal Budget.
www.history.com/this-day-in-history/goldwater-suggests-using-atomic-we
apons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already. His nuclear posture was to be in a position of a successful first strike, which is why he moved missiles right up to the Russian border. That's what caused the Russians to develop their dead-man devices... nuclear missiles that would be launched without the command of any living soldier.
All you could bitch about endlessly was RUSSIA! RUSSIA! RUSSIA! You didn't want ANY rapprochement between the USA and Russia; you assumed a posture of unrelenting hostility and were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west.
Now that you got what you wanted, you're suddenly fearful.
Sheesh.
You're all insane, did you know that?
The endless fantasy brain that lives inside SIGNYM's skull. Making stuff up 24 hours a day... Please cite where ANYONE said they, "were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west."
Go on, fetch! Validate your rambling accusations just once. Can't? You just made sh*t up so you can whine? Check.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym has a grudge against Hillary, as does Putin. A coincidence? Probably not.
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
The endless fantasy brain that lives inside SIGNYM's skull. Making stuff up 24 hours a day... Please cite where ANYONE said they, "were all A-OK with Obama setting up an aggressive nuclear cordon on their border and destabilizing nations to their west."
Go on, fetch! Validate your rambling accusations just once. Can't? You just made sh*t up so you can whine? Check.
www.pri.org/stories/2017-10-25/vladimir-putins-grudge-hillary-clinton
"Vladimir Putin's grudge with Hillary Clinton"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except when we're talking about Democratic neocons, which includes you, GSTRING, THUGR, OBAMA, and HILLARY.
You go to extremes with your notion that Democrats will nuke the world. Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory, not Democrats.- SECONDRATE
Let's start with YOU and your yammering cohort here. YOU could not resist splattering the board with anti-Trump and anti-Russia posts, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded. Was it not you, hyperventilating over every "contact" between Team Trump and RUSSIA!!! as if that was prima facie evidence of collusion or treason or "something"???
Child, if you don't want war, you have to negotiate. And if you don't negotiate, you will have war. And I shouldn't have to tell you this ... but apparently I do... that negotiating takes contacts ... many of them .... between Russia and the USA. War is just the logical end of YOUR OWN position with regards to Russia. This is where YOU want to be, or at least where you've advocated for over a year-and-a-half. So stop hyperventilating about RUSSIA!!! already, as if it was some shapeless monster-under-the-bed. I have been asking YOU for YEARS to define America's interests so that you could envision some shape to your paranoia, bring it to practical level and decide when our existential interests had been tripped. YOU have been unwilling or unable to actually define America's interests, and so now here you are: having been stampeded by Dems and their deep state handlers, YOU've tripped one of our existential interests.
Well, bully for you. I hope you got what you wanted.
SECONDLY, I didn't hear any objections to OBAMA's nuclear provocations.
Quote:https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/us/us-ramping-up-major-renewal-in-n
U.S. Ramping Up Major Renewal in Nuclear Arms [2014, under Obama]
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — A sprawling new plant here in a former soybean field makes the mechanical guts of America’s atomic warheads. Bigger than the Pentagon, full of futuristic gear and thousands of workers, the plant, dedicated last month, modernizes the aging weapons that the United States can fire from missiles, bombers and submarines.
It is part of a nationwide wave of atomic revitalization that includes plans for a new generation of weapon carriers. A recent federal study put the collective price tag, over the next three decades, at up to a trillion dollars.
uclear-arms.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=LedeSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2&assetType=nyt_now
Trumps funding position is widely seen (by nonpartisan arms control groups who pay attention to such things) as
Quote:
Trump Continues Obama Nuclear Funding
https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-07/news/trump-continues-obama-nuc
lear-funding
I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep.
Quote:
Russia Calls New U.S. Missile Defense System a ‘Direct Threat’
MAY 12, 2016
As American and allied officials celebrated the opening of a long-awaited missile defense system in Europe with a ribbon cutting and a band, the reaction in Russia on Thursday suggested the system had raised the risks of a nuclear war.
Russian officials reiterated their position that the American-built system imperiled Russia’s security. But the public discussion in Russia was darker, including online commentary of how a nuclear confrontation might play out in Europe, and the prospect that Romania, the system’s host, might be reduced to “smoking ruins.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/russia-nato-us-romania
-missile-defense.html
So, think about the problems- which are shared by both parties and all Americans ... instead of making foolish partisan accusations.
Any commen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, your whole idea that it is both political parties' fault is bullshit.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, think about the problems- which are shared by both parties and all Americans ... instead of making foolish partisan accusations.
Any comment of yours (or anyone else's) which includes reference to "Democrats" or "Republicans" .... as if those are meaningful characterizations ... is immediately void.
Let's see if you can make it through ONE WEEK without once referring to either of the two major parties. I doubt that you can!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
Signym, the existing nuclear program is not Obama’s. It has to be Congress’s nuclear program because the program started before Obama was President and continues a year and a month after he is gone. But it is not all of Congress’s nuclear program, it is the majority of Congress’s program. Actually, it is the Republicans’ program when you start counting who in Congress voted for what. The GOP can stop that nuclear program by not approving money for it. Has the GOP stopped it or decreased it a tiny bit? No, they increased the spending. The GOP is your party, Signym, not mine. Let me know how you and them will be handling the nuclear program. Will it be to blame the Democrats?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Except when we're talking about Democratic neocons, which includes you, GSTRING, THUGR, OBAMA, and HILLARY.
You go to extremes with your notion that Democrats will nuke the world. Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory, not Democrats.- SECONDRATE
Let's start with YOU and your yammering cohort here. YOU could not resist splattering the board with anti-Trump and anti-Russia posts, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded. Was it not you, hyperventilating over every "contact" between Team Trump and RUSSIA!!! as if that was prima facie evidence of collusion or treason or "something"???
Nope - that was the voices in your head feeding your hatred.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Child, if you don't want war, you have to negotiate. And if you don't negotiate, you will have war. And I shouldn't have to tell you this ... but apparently I do... that negotiating takes contacts ... many of them .... between Russia and the USA. War is just the logical end of YOUR OWN position with regards to Russia. This is where YOU want to be, or at least where you've advocated for over a year-and-a-half. So stop hyperventilating about RUSSIA!!! already, as if it was some shapeless monster-under-the-bed. I have been asking YOU for YEARS to define America's interests so that you could envision some shape to your paranoia, bring it to practical level and decide when our existential interests had been tripped. YOU have been unwilling or unable to actually define America's interests, and so now here you are: having been stampeded by Dems and their deep state handlers, YOU've tripped one of our existential interests.
Get help.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, bully for you. I hope you got what you wanted.
I'm confused - you voted for Trump and he won and you're asking if I got what I wanted? I think you should ask yourself that. You said Hillary was going to start WWIII and voted for Trump BECAUSE of that. And yet here we are, on the brink with a delusional president. Well, bully for you. I hope you got what you wanted.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECONDLY, I didn't hear any objections to OBAMA's nuclear provocations.
I've never heard you have any objections against pedophiles - should I make the same assumption?
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Trumps funding position is widely seen (by nonpartisan arms control groups who pay attention to such things) as Trump Continues Obama Nuclear Funding
Was that before last Friday's announcement of Trump's new US Nuke policy? Yeah, you need to find the updated version if they've made one yet - do try and stay current.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So, think about the problems- which are shared by both parties and all Americans ... instead of making foolish partisan accusations.
Trump is the president making these decisions with a Republican congress - do the math, Granny.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
but Hillary was all for it, OBAMA
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
to allow even simple "contact" with Russia
Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS.
They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT?????
They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.
I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY??
What the hell do we have to gain from that??
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If Disney can communicate to the Russians, the US State Dept. ought to.
Originally posted by Wishimay:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
to allow even simple "contact" with Russia
Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS.
They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT?????
They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.
I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY??
What the hell do we have to gain from that??
Russian at 2:57 into the video of Let It Go.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, first of all, GSTRING, here is prima facie evidence of what your cohort thinks like:
Quote:
Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS. They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda. WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT????? They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.
I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY??
What the hell do we have to gain from that?? - WISHY
I can also bring quotes from THUGR, SGG, SECOND, and JO demonstrating the collective level of ignorance brought to the board about us (our American interests) and Russia and how the two intersect. All of your collective screeching and hyperventilating gives me a headache.
*****
WISHY, and now .... I'm going to address YOUR statement directly, and not just as an example.
Quote:Well, first of all WISHY, if you want an example of white power and warmongering agenda, look no further than the United States. Here's a question: which nation do you think has killed more "brown people" in the last 30 years or so? The United States, or Russia? Because there is no greater violation of "human rights" than killing someone, and if I wanted to point a finger at the biggest violator of the most important human right, where do you suppose that finger would point?
Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS. They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda.- WISHY
When you answer, BE SPECIFIC. Do some research, bring facts and figures to the board as to just who killed how many.
Quote:TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON???
WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT?????
Quote:Okay, now, in terms of "who can be trusted", which nation do you suppose breaks the most important international laws most often?
They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.- WISHY
Here's a little history for you: Russia was pretty cooperative with the United States until recently, despite the fact that we broke the oft-discussed and frequently-documented agreement not to move NATO closer to their border; that our economic "shock treatment" plunged Russia into a nightmare collapse that caused a 10-year reduction in lifespan and took them 15 years to recover from, and that we have been rampaging thru the Middle East since about 2003.
In 2002, Russia voted with America on UN Resolution 1441 regarding Iraq.
in 2008, we signed a deal with Russia on peaceful uses of nuclear fuels.
In 2011 Russia ratified an agreement with Obama, opening an air corridor for US military supplies into Afghanistan [so that we could kill brown people. It was signed in 2009 but not ratified until 2011 under Medvedev].
In 2011, Russia voted with America to allow establishing a no-fly zone over Libya.
Apparently, though, it was NATO's decision to turn the Libyan no-fly zone into full-on destruction of Libya that soured Russia on cooperating with the United States, since the NATO had been taking over more of eastern Europe; that John McCain and other American politicians provoked Georgia into attacking S Ossetia in 2008; and that the USA had been more-or-less rampaging thru the Middle East and N Africa since 2003.
So when you say that Russia can't be trusted ... well, apparently neither can the USA.
Quote:WISHY, you sound like a helpless, hapless, powerless fluttery female.
I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY?? -WISHY
America is NOT helpless. Our military is larger than the next 10 militaries COMBINED, and most of THOSE are our allies! We are fully capable of defending our interests and negoti
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
All of your collective screeching and hyperventilating gives me a headache.
So leave.
BTW skipped the rest of your post because talk about screeching.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by captaincrunch:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
All of your collective screeching and hyperventilating gives me a headache.
So leave.
BTW skipped the rest of your post because talk about screeching.
Like
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm... so THUGR's head is up GSTRING's ass, and GSTRING's head is up THUGR's ass. It must be for the warmth. 
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Here's a question: which nation do you think has killed more "brown people"
TO PREVENT NUCLEAR ARMAGEDDON???
Okay, now, in terms of "who can be trusted", which nation do you suppose breaks the most important international laws most often?
Here's a little history for you: Russia was pretty cooperative with the United States until recently
So when you say that Russia can't be trusted ... well, apparently neither can the USA.
WISHY, you sound like a helpless, hapless, powerless fluttery female.
America is NOT helpless. Our military is larger than the next 10 militaries COMBINED, and most of THOSE are our allies! We are fully capable of defending our interests and negotiating from a position of strength.
it's our own dear beloved deep state.
BROWN PEOPLE??? What the hell are you on about?? I don't support half the crap we've done either, it doesn't mean Russia is less corrupt or less bent to take us over or manipulate our systems. WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS.
This is from TODAY.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/russia-successfully-hacked-into-voter-ro
lls-during-2016-election/?sr_share=facebook
WE are being dicked with by these asshats. And you think we should just let them do whatever they want to do to us because,... NUCLEAR WAR???? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??!!!
There is NO GODDAMN RISK of nuclear war with Russia right now, SO WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT EVER MATTER????
RUSSIA!! BREAKS EVERY LAW THEY DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, AND A FEW THEY DO.
They have no problem breaking every rule to get what THEY WANT...just like the Olympics. They broke doping so much they got banned!
Which doesn't even matter because no matter what Russia does, no matter what we do...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .WE.DON'T.WANT.TO.BE.RUSSIA. EVER. NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR NO.
Have YOU ever NEGOTIATED with a bully??? IT DOESN'T WORK. The only thing that shuts down a bully is to make them scared with a large show of force.
PEOPLE AREN'T REASONABLE, bullies especially! YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE REASONED WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Russia does NOT want to be reasoned with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know what it's like to be around someone who constantly thinks about the worst case scenario, but you are absolutely OBSESSED with a completely improbable worst case scenario.
You don't even make a microscopic SPECK of sense.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And so the Democratic party becomes the party of War.
Everything Wishy just said sounded like it came straight from GWB's mouth.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Even if you don't answer ANYTHING from the last post, I have to know..
WHAT made you begin to obsess over the idea of nuclear war with Russia anyway??
I don't think you are even old enough to personally remember the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Were your parents obsessed with it?? Did they beat you if you didn't constantly worry about Nuclear War?? You have serious brainwash level concern with this. Something is not right with you.
Are you from the future or something?? Come back to warn us?? If you are, you are TOTALLY going about this the wrong way. TOTALLY. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And so the Democratic party becomes the party of War.
Everything Wishy just said sounded like it came straight from GWB's mouth.
SHUT THE HELL UP, BOOZE FOR BRAINS.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
And so the Democratic party becomes the party of War.
Everything Wishy just said sounded like it came straight from GWB's mouth.
SHUT THE HELL UP, BOOZE FOR BRAINS.
I don't drink.
You should probably go back on your pills though, Princess.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SHOVE YOUR PILLS UP YOUR ASS.
I SAID I DON'T SUPPORT HALF THE SHIT THIS COUNTRY DOES, WHAT HALF YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE????
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
SHOVE YOUR PILLS UP YOUR ASS.
I SAID I DON'T SUPPORT HALF THE SHIT THIS COUNTRY DOES, WHAT HALF YOU THINK THAT MIGHT BE????
I'm not into anal play. That's your bag.
I'm assuming that the "half" that you don't support is whatever CNN tells you on any given day.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hey, I'm only responding to YOUR post about "white power". If you don't want to reference people's skin color, don't bring it up in the first place.
BROWN PEOPLE??? What the hell are you on about??- WISHY
Quote:True, that. We have enough. But personally, I don't think Russia is trying to "take over" the USA or "manipulate our systems"; that's hysteria talking. (read below)
I don't support half the crap we've done either, it doesn't mean Russia is less corrupt or less bent to take us over or manipulate our systems. WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS.- WISHY
Quote:See? If Russia successfully hacked into our voter rolls, and if they're really trying to "take over" and "manipulate our systems" .... why didn't they? I mean, they were right there ... they COULD have. So, what stopped them?
This is from TODAY.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/russia-successfully-hacked-into-voter-ro
lls-during-2016-election/?sr_share=facebook
Quote:Whoa! You're boiling over on the stove there, WISHY! First of all. WHO said that we should "let them do whatever they want to us"? Was that me???
WE are being dicked with by these asshats. And you think we should just let them do whatever they want to do to us because... NUCLEAR WAR???? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??!!! - WISHY
I don't think so!
I've been bitching about the "backdoors" that the NSA had MS build into their operating system since whenever, and about the very very lax cybersecurity that EVERYONE (Equifax/ credit card companies, hospitals, banks, government databases, utilities) seems content with.
Secondly, what HAVE they "done to us"? Do you see them invading our shores? Robbing our banks? Changing our votes? Turning off our infrastructure? So what are you so hot about? But hey, come up with a list of things that you think Russia has "done to us" that might explain your voluminous screeching and hyperventilating.
Quote:Ahem! How would you know? Since you seem to think that even reading about Russia will contaminate you somehow, you know nothing about Russian foreign policy statements, Russian military technology, and Russian nuclear posture. I doubt that you have a personal line to Putin; and you sure haven't put much thought into the topic, so your opinion is worthless.
There is NO GODDAMN RISK of nuclear war with Russia right now, SO WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT EVER MATTER????- WISHY
Quote:SO WHAT???!?!?!! Like I said, do you see them invading our shores? Robbing our banks? Changing our votes? Turning off our infrastructure?
RUSSIA!! BREAKS EVERY LAW THEY DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, AND A FEW THEY DO.- WISHY
No??
Then what's your gorram problem?
Quote:Oh big fucking deal. WE break every rule to get what we want, and that includes killing more than a million brown people, and of the two, I really think that our rule-breaking is more consequential. Has it ever occurred to you that any other nation, when facing a military as large as ours, with our history of invading and destroying nations at whim, might have legitimate security fears of their own?
They have no problem breaking every rule to get what THEY WANT...just like the Olympics. They broke doping so much they got banned!
Quote:MORE screeching and hyperventilating?
Which doesn't even matter because no matter what Russia does, no matter what we do... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .WE.DON'T.WANT.TO.BE.RUSSIA. EVER. NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR NO.
Who says that we should, or that Russia - or anyone except ourselves - could ever "turn us" into Russia? Wow, you've really got an emotional problem, WISHY. Taking a guess, and with your history (as you've posted here) you feel vulnerable and powerless, and when facing an adversary that seems big and determined, you react like a young helpless girl. But that'
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Barack Obama’s 2010 Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, for the first time ruled out a nuclear attack against non-nuclear weapon states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. Trump’s NPR goes in the opposite direction and suggests that the U.S. could employ nuclear weapons in “extreme circumstances” to defend the “vital interests” of the United States and its allies. The document states:
Quote:Got that? Trump wants to be able to retaliate against a non-nuclear and perhaps even non-military attack on U.S. infrastructure — say, a cyberattack on the power grid? — with a nuclear strike that could kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions. To call such a move disproportionate would be a severe understatement.
Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks. Significant non-nuclear strategic attacks include, but are not limited to, attacks on the U.S., allied, or partner civilian population or infrastructure, and attacks on U.S. or allied nuclear forces, their command and control, or warning and attack assessment capabilities.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/08/donald-trump-nuclear-war/
Second, the new NPR calls for the development of a new generation of so-called low-yield nuclear weapons. These smaller nukes, the document suggests, would be tactical, not strategic; deployed to the battlefield, rather than dropped on a city. The problem with this argument is that the atomic bombs used against Hiroshima (200,000 dead) and Nagasaki (70,000 dead) could also be considered low-yield nuclear weapons, in terms of their explosive capacity.
There is also the clear lowering of the threshold for nuclear weapons use: It becomes easier to justify the launch of a small nuclear weapon on the basis of a supposedly lower explosive force. Yet “a nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon,” as Ronald Reagan’s former Secretary of State George Shultz testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee the day before the release of Trump’s NPR. “One of the alarming things to me is this notion that we can have something called a small nuclear weapon … and that somehow that’s usable,” Shultz added. “Your mind goes to the idea that, yes, nuclear weapons become usable. And then we’re really in trouble, because a big nuclear exchange can wipe out the world.”
It would be a worrying development if any president of the United States announced, with little debate or discussion, a plan both to build more tactical nuclear weapons and use them in response to non-nuclear attacks; a nuclear strategy that makes the use of nukes more, not less, likely. But when that president is Donald J. Trump . . . Lest we forget, this is a president who, during his election campaign, displayed complete ignorance about the “nuclear triad”; called for an “unpredictable” nuclear weapons policy, while refusing to rule out using nukes against the Islamic State or even in Europe (because “it is a big place”); and asked a foreign policy adviser three times, during a single hourlong briefing, “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” This is a commander-in-chief, who since coming to office a year ago, has demanded a tenfold increase in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons; and casually threatened North Korea “with fire and fury like the world has never seen”.
Giving Trump new nukes AND new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, to bring up YOUR point, this is the Pentagon's view of things. Which Trump is probably eager to join.
Giving Trump new nukes AND new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.
Yes, this is a worrisome development. IF your national defense strategy/ nuclear posture is "do what we say or we'll nuke you", that's a sign of weakness, not strength. I think the reason why the Pentagon is aiming for "low" yield nuclear weapons is because that's the only thing they have to offer right now. The CIA (the Pentagon's rival) can wage "wars on the cheap" by whipping up divisions in nations, recruiting and paying proxies, and a program of secret drone strikes. The military is hobbled with a Cold War strategy and big aircraft carriers (which are extremely vulnerable to attacks by modern missiles) and "heavy" invasion capability, as well as extremely expensive planes that can't fly (which can be denied airspace by modern missiles).
To dig into what Mattis is saying more deeply, he said that the USA would no longer focus on terrorism. In some senses, the GWOT (global war on terror) than Bush started was the CIA's war; where they fed terrorists with one hand and killed them with the other. GWOT was a non-military war. Now, GWOT might be prosecuted militarily, as when terrorists claim and hold territory. OTOH, if the CIA is no longer funding and arming them (remember the power turnover in Saudi Arabia, from whence much money came?) and their drug operations are allowed to whither, maybe terrorist groups will just die on the vine anyway. So possibly w/drawing military attention from terrorists won't have any negative consequences.
OTOH, OUR problems with Russia and China don't really respond to military force either. Our biggest problem with China is related to balance of trade, and our reliance on the petrodollar. Self created. Our biggest problem with Russia is our policy of continued insertion into Russian "sphere of influence", with the background goal of obliterating Russia. Self created. The only way to solve these problems is with better trade, financial, and policy plans.
When Mattis says ... “If you threaten us, it will be your longest and worst day.” .... I can be fully onboard with that. The problem is, the deep state tends to create/ see threats that don't even exist, and they "see" them ALL OVER THE WORLD. So whether or not this policy is realistic or not greatly depends on how realistic the military is about where they can defend our interests, or whether or not the solutions are really non-military.
Possibly, Mattis just wants more $$$$ for his empire, and doesn't really plan on using any new/ strengthened capabilities.
Given all that, does it come as a relief to know that the Trump Administration just met with all three Russian security heads? I know YOU were hyperventilating about it; how do you feel about it now?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
As I mentioned, it is the topic of the thread, which I did not start.
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You keep making assumptions. Well, you happen to be wrong.
Again, I did not start this thread. But if you want to talk about obsessions: I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia. You invest it with far more power than it really has. .
This is just INSANE. Literally.
You are completely oblivious about everything Russia has done and wants to do. Intentionally. You rationalize and downplay everything that they do, when they should not be doing ANY OF IT. PERIOD.
They ARE attacking infrastructure, I see it in the news all the time. Guess you just conveniently miss that, huh?
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/29977/cyber-warfare-2/russia-hacke
d-us-critical-infrastructure.html
US infrastructure and government agencies are constantly under attack, a few weeks ago the White House confirmed to have suffered a cyber attack on its computer network which lasted for almost two weeks.
To have any recall of the Cuban Missile Crisis you would have to be in your 60's and you aren't. Unless you had your kid in your fifties. Right.
This thread was started BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTANT OBSESSIONS. You really believe that nuclear war could break out at any second with people we aren't in REGULAR WAR with. That is the very definition of paranoid delusion.
I'm done. You can't reason with someone who is intentionally blind and off their rocker.
I will not discuss nuclear war with you ever again, and I'd advise everyone else not to play into your delusion. It's not healthy.
I leave you with this.
I hope you get help for your "nuclear war paranoia disorder".
Holy Hell.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why do these weapons get built?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Possibly, Mattis just wants more $$$$ for his empire, and doesn't really plan on using any new/ strengthened capabilities.
www.revealnews.org/article/new-mexico-thrives-on-nuclear-bomb-despite-
us-pledge-to-reduce-arsenal/
A review of several thousands of pages of congressional testimony, federal budgets and audit reports, plus an analysis of lobbying and campaign contribution data, shows that the four defense contractors running the two New Mexico nuclear weapons labs, Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratory, enjoy a particularly symbiotic relationship with Congress.
That relationship begins with money.
Since 1998, these four contractors have contributed more than $20 million to congressional campaigns around the nation. Last year alone, they spent almost $18 million lobbying Washington to ensure that funding for nuclear weapons projects continues even as nuclear stockpiles shrink.
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said the outlay is a bargain considering what’s at stake for the contractors.
“It’s an insignificant cost of doing business relative to the potential income from these contracts,” she said.
Lawmaker-turned-nuclear consultant
Republican Heather Wilson left Congress in January 2009 after a decade as a New Mexico congresswoman. She had lost her bid to jump up to the Senate seat vacated by her mentor, Pete Domenici.
After losing, she set up a consulting business and, within days of leaving office, Wilson – an Air Force veteran – was consulting mainly for the two New Mexico weapons labs.
Over the next two years, Wilson was paid more than $400,000 by Lockheed’s Sandia Corp. and the consortium of contractors running the Los Alamos lab – to help them extend and expand federal contracts and get more business, according to the first of two scathing inspector general reports. Eventually, the contractors were forced to reimburse the government for the federal funds they used to pay Wilson for her advocacy work.
Asked about the significance of that outcome, the Lockheed communications office responded to Reveal via email: “With regards to the inspector general’s report, Sandia has cooperated with the Inspector General’s review and will continue to do so.” Wilson declined to comment.
Wilson’s support for the labs persisted after she left the consulting business in early 2012 and ran for the Senate again. When the Obama administration cut funding for a Los Alamos lab project, Wilson told the Albuquerque Journal: “Not only is this bad for our country and its national security, it’s bad for New Mexico and our economy.”
For New Mexico, the second-poorest state after Mississippi, nuclear weapons and military bases are undeniably a lifeblood. Out of the $27.5 billion in federal dollars poured into the state in 2013, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts study, about $5 billion went to Los Alamos, Sandia and the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the nuclear weapons waste facility east of Carlsbad, where accidents last year exposed dozens of workers to radiation.
Billions more were spent on the state’s four main military bases. The city of Alamogordo, next to Holloman Air Force Base and the Army’s White Sands Missile Range – home of the Trinity Site, where the first atomic bomb was tested in July 1945 – benefits from $450 million a year in military spending, according to the local chamber of commerce.
The labs and bases, and the defense contractors that run or contract with them, also are an integral part of New Mexico’s economic fabric. Los Alamos, Sandia and White Sands are three of the state’s top 10 employers, together providing about 24,000 jobs.
New Mexico politicians helping the labs has a long history in the state, said local political analyst Joe Monahan. It dates back to World War II and the development of the first nuclear bomb under Los Alamos Director J. Robert Oppenheimer.
“The economic impact is the driver of the politics,” Monahan said. . . .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was my response to your question as to why I'm posting about nuclear Armageddon in this thread.
Quote:
As I mentioned, it is the topic of the thread, which I did not start.
HOW WOULD YOU KNOW? You keep making assumptions. Well, you happen to be wrong.
Again, I did not start this thread. But if you want to talk about obsessions: I think you have an unhealthy obsession with Russia. You invest it with far more power than it really has - SIGNY
Quote:Look, I "get" that you're terrified of what Russia "might" be able to do. You're as mesmerized by that prospect as others were mesmerized by the prospect of Saddam's so-called WMD, and what he "might" do with them. And, as it turns out, he didn't have them and of course could do nothing with what he didn't have.
This is just INSANE. Literally.
You are completely oblivious about everything Russia has done and wants to do. Intentionally. You rationalize and downplay everything that they do, when they should not be doing ANY OF IT. PERIOD.- WISHY
Quote:You do? Have power grids gone dark? Have banks failed? Water still coming to your taps? Have hospital records been made unavailable? Is Google email still coming thru? Credit card still being processed? Internet connection and phone still OK? Can you still order thru Amazon?
They ARE attacking infrastructure, I see it in the news all the time. US infrastructure and government agencies are constantly under attack, a few weeks ago the White House confirmed to have suffered a cyber attack on its computer network which lasted for almost two weeks.
-WISHY
Quote:No, I'm fully aware of cyberattacks on our banks and infrastructure. In fact, I was sitting at my bank trying to open an account when it was undergoing a massive DDOS attack. I have looked at computer logs showing all of the many-times-a-minute "knocks on the door" of criminals trying to implant malware. My records at Equifax, the IRS, and elsewhere, have been compromised many times over.
Guess you just conveniently miss that, huh?-WISHY
But what does this have to do with Russia?
The really worrisome ones have nothing to do with Russia, and a lot to do with cyber criminals, based, among other places, in Ukraine:
Quote:
“In Fraud We Trust”: 36 Indicted In $530M Global Cybercrime Ring Based Out Of Ukraine
https://blackswanalert.com/2018/02/08/in-fraud-we-trust-36-indicted-in
-530m-global-cybercrime-ring-based-out-of-ukraine/
So, WISHY, let's assume that Russia could take down any of our critical systems in a couple of days. Why haven't they???
Quote:What the hell are you talking about? I AM in my sixties! And our child is almost half my age (physically) but far less than that (mentally). My god, you're an ass. And a stupid one at that. What do you think a catastrophic brain bleed DOES to a newborn? Do you think we worry about our child for NOTHING? My god, do you think that you're the ONLY one who has problems? I can't believe what a self-centered bitch you're being.
To have any recall of the Cuban Missile Crisis you would have to be in your 60's and you aren't. Unless you had your kid in your fifties. Right.
Quote:Why don't you ask the originator why they started the thread, instead of making another WRONG assumption and just shoveling all blame on me? I mean really, WISHY, you just work from one wrong assumption after another wrong assumption, don't you?
This thread was started BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTANT OBSESSIONS. You really believe that nuclear war could break out at any second with people we aren't in REGULAR WAR with. That is the very definition of paranoid delusion.- WISHY
Quote:Erm... I wasn't the one referencing a FICTIONAL MOVIE based on a TOY CHARACTER to make my point about the REAL WORLD, so I'd go a little easier
I'm done. You can't reason with someone who is intentionally blind and off their rocker.- WISHY
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I AM in my sixties! And our child is almost half my age (physically) but far less than that (mentally).
Maybe you should stop referring to her as a "child" then.
She is a handicapped ADULT. I'm sure no one here had a clue what her age was. But, since you call me a bitch just for not knowing her age...I'd have to say I completely see where she gets her messed up mental DNA from.
And the reason Russia hasn't done worse, is we have agencies that stop it before it gets WORSE. It frequently doesn't make the news until weeks after something has happened, and THEN they downplay it.......THIS is the kind of people they are. I can't begin to imagine why you would defend them if you are American (which we know you aren't)
"Just to recap, the Russians didn’t just supply performance-enhancing drugs to scores of athletes. We’ve seen that act before. This time it constructed an actual building in Sochi next to the laboratory that tested athlete samples. It then drilled a small hole in the shared wall. Each night after the lab closed, it had workers on either side pass clean samples in and dirty samples out.
A few predictable things happened. Russia won the most medals. No Russians tested positive for PEDs. The man who orchestrated it, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, who much later acknowledged the scheme, was awarded a prestigious honor by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Once the scam was uncovered, Rodchenkov fled to America fearing for his safety, which seems reasonable after two of his cohorts turned up dead. Just a coincidence, of course."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I called you a bitch because you made all kinds of wrong assumptions about me, and everything else, and just ran along with them in total and malicious ignorance. THAT'S why you're a bitch.
I AM in my sixties! And our child is almost half my age (physically) but far less than that (mentally).
Maybe you should stop referring to her as a "child" then.
She is a handicapped ADULT. I'm sure no one here had a clue what her age was. But, since you call me a bitch just for not knowing her age...I'd have to say I completely see where she gets her messed up mental DNA from.
Quote:There you go again, being the bitch that you are.
And the reason Russia hasn't done worse, is we have agencies that stop it before it gets WORSE. It frequently doesn't make the news until weeks after something has happened, and THEN they downplay it.......THIS is the kind of people they are. I can't begin to imagine why you would defend them if you are American (which we know you aren't)
WITCHY, if criminal enterprises can steal so much information and implant malware around the world, holding hundreds of thousands of computers for ransom, do you think a determined state actor could not do MORE???
I happen to be married to a computer expert, and he has told me that our cyber security is laughable. Many of our important installations and institutions - like the air traffic control station east of LA; our fleet of cruisers and littorals; banks and hospitals, credit card processing centers and business servers - still run on Microsoft. MICROSOFT! for god's sake. I was working with our IT department, and learned that they have not patched our server software since it was loaded .... many years ago. that was the same problem as at Equifax. Security-wise, they're as solid as swiss cheese.
Quote:WHO CARES??? Seriously! You've got to be one twisted sister to obsess about shit like that!
"Just to recap, the Russians didn’t just supply performance-enhancing drugs to scores of athletes. We’ve seen that act before. This time it constructed an actual building in Sochi next to the laboratory that tested athlete samples. It then drilled a small hole in the shared wall. Each night after the lab closed, it had workers on either side pass clean samples in and dirty samples out.- WITCHY
Let's assume that Russia can do everything horrible that you imagine that they can.
I think they probably can, too. (And BTW, so can we.)
But they haven't.
Why not? And trust me, it's not because our cybersecurity is so great!
****
WISHY, I'm sorry but you CLEARLY don't have a clue about cybersecurity or nuclear options and you're just as wrong about me. So why don't you throttle down?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
You've got to be one twisted sister to obsess about shit like that!
Let's assume that Russia can do everything horrible that you imagine that they can.
WISHY, I'm sorry but you CLEARLY don't have a clue about cybersecurity or nuclear options and you're just as wrong about me.
And you have to be a complete and total idio..
Oh, wait....Crazy
We already covered that.It's not the cyber security they are concerned about. If it has gotten to THAT POINT then the CIA and FBI and the other half dozen alphabet soup agencies haven't done their job. I read all the time about things that have been thwarted that don't make the general news, so despite your "genius" husband, there are things that you don't know about going on. He may know computers, but he isn't "in the know" if neither one of you thinks Russia is a threat.
If they AREN'T a threat, why obsess over nuclear war???
Uh huh. Right.
I'm heading to the store now, and won't be in most of tomorrow, so don't bother. I'm done with you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:From your lofty vantage point as the sick housewife of an Asperger's coal miner in Bummphuck, Indianna? Well, what ARE your sources, sweetie? Have a personal line to Bremmer, do you? It's not that I think you're lying or anything, but ... LINKS PLEASE.
I read all the time about things that have been thwarted that don't make the general news= WISHY
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okie dokie! No links from WISHY!
WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But what about the nukes? While you are hurling bombs at WishIMay, we have lost track of Trump.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.
It would be a worrying development if any president announced, with little debate or discussion, a plan to build more tactical nuclear weapons and use them in response to non-nuclear attacks; a nuclear strategy that makes the use of nukes more, not less, likely. But when that president is Donald J. Trump . . . Lest we forget, this is a president who, during his election campaign, displayed complete ignorance about the “nuclear triad”; called for an “unpredictable” nuclear weapons policy, while refusing to rule out using nukes against the Islamic State or even in Europe (because “it is a big place”); and asked a foreign policy adviser three times, during a single hourlong briefing, “Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?” This is a commander-in-chief, who since coming to office a year ago, has demanded a tenfold increase in the number of U.S. nuclear weapons; and casually threatened North Korea “with fire and fury like the world has never seen”.
Giving Trump new nukes and new ways to use them is like giving matches and gasoline to Curious George. It will not end well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump Aide Boasted He Was A Kremlin Adviser 3 Years Before Dossier
Donald Trump’s campaign aide Carter Page boasted he was a “Kremlin adviser” in 2013, years before a dossier about Trump’s Russian connections was prepared during the presidential campaign, Time magazine reported.
Page, a key figure in the Republican-authored memo released Friday that Trump allies claim shows FBI bias against the president, bragged about his Kremlin connections in an Aug. 13, 2013, letter to an academic publication about a manuscript he had submitted, according to Time.
“Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their presidency of the G-20 Summit next month,” Page wrote in the letter.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carter-page-kremlin-letter_us_5a7
7bc5de4b01ce33eb43d3a
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I was going to get back to that.
But what about the nukes?- SECOND
It would be comforting to think that the desire for "tactical" nukes was just a money-grab, because THAT can be satisfied just by throwing money at the MIC; which is a far less dangerous posture than thinking that you're acutally going to ... yanno ... use them.
So, is our military really going to threaten other nuclear powers with nuclear weapons?
I see that there is rivalry between the CIA/State and Pentagon. Obama especially relied on a CIA/State "war on the cheap" approach (via NGOs, internal splinter groups, AID/NED, proxies, drones, spec ops/ contractors, and satraps) because of the bad optics and potential losses of "boots on the ground" invasions, but that approach failed in Syria, Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, and (partially) Ukraine after decades of success.
Trump has reversed course on that: It's no secret that he's selected the military over the CIA/ State as his force. My hope is that military leadership has a more sober and realistic assessment on the limits of use of force. My fear is that the current military leadership so politicized that they will continue to forward the neocon goal of "full spectrum dominance". Full spectrum dominance, IMHO, is not only unethical and costly, it is extremely DANGEROUS to American security.
Clouding the interpretation of the situation is that Trump quite often doesn't mean what he says, and will often say things to force events in the opposite direction. For example: "You want hostility to Russia? YOU GOT IT!" Sometimes, nothing makes your butt pucker more than getting what you SAY you want, in spades.
So shortly before the US military attacked a Syrian Army affiliate east of the Euphrates, and Lavrov pulled the pin on a political grenade by formally accusing the United States of attempting to "partition" Syria, Russian intelligence officials were here in the USA meeting with other intelligence officials. What was the content of the meeting? We'll attack your guys east of the Euphrates, and we understand that you have to say a lot of bad things about it, but I gotta get these neocons off my back"?
The only definitive evidence as to what this all "means" .... bluster versus judo versus reality ... is WHERE THOSE WARHEADS ARE EVENTUALLY PLACED. Putting them on missiles right on the Russian border, within minutes of Moscow, is a supremely destabilizing action.
It's possible that, after having voted for Trump to reduce our footprint around the world, we're right back with the more "kinetic" approach in Syria that Hillary promised; possibly Trump has been out-maneuvered by neocons, who have packed both the secrecy-state and the MIC. OTOH, there may be negotiations going on in the background that we know nothing about. So for me, this is still a case of "watchful waiting" to see how things shake out.
Your thoughts?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, do you get cheated in life because you are waiting for proof, the kind used in court rooms, before you will take action? We are in the middle of a $80 billion dollar per year scam and you are acting as if you need more evidence. The Pentagon’s boost for new nukes shows what Congress does when it cares. The budget deal provides a $160 billion boost to military spending over two years on top of a $549 billion annual baseline. I am not in a position to say whether spending $629 billion this year and $709 billion next year and, maybe, $789 billion the year after on the military rather than “only” $549 billion is going to solve any major social problems in American life, though I will admit I am skeptical by instinct. But I’m struck by the logic used by key congressional leaders to justify the $80 billion-per-year increase. Roughly speaking, they are saying this is what military leaders say the military needs to meet its strategic goals of buying more nukes.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
. . . possibly Trump has been out-maneuvered by neocons, who have packed both the secrecy-state and the MIC. OTOH, there may be negotiations going on in the background that we know nothing about. So for me, this is still a case of "watchful waiting" to see how things shake out.
Your thoughts?
Paul Ryan @SpeakerRyan
With today’s vote, we’re finally going to get the military the budget they need to fulfill Secretary Mattis’ national defense strategy. That is by far the biggest achievement in this bill. http://spkrryan.us/2EasIXR 10:10 AM - Feb 8, 2018
Everything is driven by the Pentagon. The Pentagon says it needs $80 billion more this year, and the old Budget Control Act bargain was that increases in defense spending should be matched by increases in non-defense spending. Republicans never liked that bargain, and they run the show in Washington so they are now demanding that the non-defense boost be smaller than the defense boost. I am familiar with fast talking Texans trying to cheat, which is dangerous for them to do around me. I stop them by grabbing them, squeezing hard, and breathing in their face. (Halitosis as a negotiating tool.) Somebody, not me, should do that to Trump, his Defense Secretary, and Paul Ryan.
The huge swindle continues, all wrapped in the American flag and honoring the troops for sacrificing their lives for the country (a soldier died, so give Trump $80 billion for nukes to honor that soldier, whatever his name was; it's a patriotic thing to buy nukes; with his last breath the soldier said, "The troops need low-yield atom bombs so that they won't die like I did."):
President Trump delivers huge win for military - February 9, 2018
https://web.archive.org/web/20180209173729/www.whitehouse.gov/1600dail
y/
President Donald J. Trump signed a two-year, bipartisan budget bill this morning that ends Congress’ brief overnight shutdown of the federal government.
“Just signed Bill. Our Military will now be stronger than ever before,” President Trump tweeted this morning. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more. First time this has happened in a long time.”
The President then laid out what must be accomplished in 2018. “Costs on non-military lines will never come down if we do not elect more Republicans in the 2018 Election, and beyond,” he tweeted. “This Bill is a BIG VICTORY for our Military, but much waste in order to get Dem votes.”
Read more: Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and Defense Secretary James Mattis explain the budget deal.
www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary
-sarah-sanders-secretary-defense-james-mattis-02072018
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okie dokie! No links from WISHY!
WISHY, I was TRYING to be nice when I was answering you, but you thought that you could be an unrelenting asshole? Next time you want to uncork the nasty, just be aware that others can right back atcha. I don't know if you thought you were "defending" yourself, but YOU crossed the line into being the bully. You might want to think about that.
Yeah, you were being so nice, you only used "bitch" every other line.
You and 6ix and Niki have been picking on my kid and my husband/not saying anything when the others did... for a while now. Turnabout feels nice.
And I know you are dense, but I posted I wouldn't be home most of the day today or last night...so yeah.
Why should I do YOUR JOB researching what I'm saying, it takes all of five minutes to type in "Russian attacks on the US" or any variant thereof???
Here's from TWO days ago...
Russian cyberspies have tricked employees at US defence companies into exposing their emails.
The security companies targeted were working on sensitive defence contracts, including weaponised drones, missiles and stealth fighter jets.
It is unclear what has been stolen but both large and small companies including Boeing Co, Airbus Group, Lockheed Martin Corp, Raytheon Co and General Atomics, were targetted.
The hackers are associated with the cyberespionage group known as Fancy Bears.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-attack-cuba-officials-649546
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-denies-simulate-attack-on-u-s-navy
-destroyer-uss-donald-cook/
But Evelyn Farkas, a former Russian policy expert for the Pentagon, told CBS News the fly-bys were undeniably "dangerous behavior."
"They're playing with fire here," she said. "I'm sure that U.S. ships and other non-Russian ships have been just as close in the past. And even if they haven't, again, they're in international waters; there's nothing provocative about what we're doing. Unlike the Russians, we actually telegraph very transparently what we're doing."
A pair of Russian attack jets flew 20 passes on the ship Monday, coming as close as 1,000 yards at an altitude of 100 feet, ignoring radio calls from the Cook and forcing the ship to cancel flight operations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-never-stopped-its-cyber
attacks-on-the-united-states/2017/12/25/83076f2e-e676-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.ef0f1ed1a841
There is a perception among the media and general public that Russia ended its social-media operations following last year’s election and that we need worry only about future elections. But that perception is wrong. Russia’s information operations in the United States continued after the election and they continue to this day.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers
-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b168b4a7e3ff
A code associated with the Russian hacking operation dubbed Grizzly Steppe by the Obama administration has been detected within the system of a Vermont utility, according to U.S. officials.
While the Russians did not actively use the code to disrupt operations, according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a security matter, the discovery underscores the vulnerabilities of the nation’s electrical grid. And it raises fears in the U.S. government that Russian government hackers are actively trying to penetrate the grid to carry out potential attacks.
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2017/09/06/russian-hackers-suspec
ted-targeting-us-utilities-nuclear-plants
Symantec said the new wave of attacks is being carried out by a group called Dragonfly 2.0 -- believed to be sophisticated Russian hackers -- which targeted dozens of energy companies in the spring and summer o
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.statista.com/statistics/217577/outlays-for-defense-and-for
ecast-in-the-us/
Graph shows US military outlays rising steeply between 2002 and 2011, where it peaked. GWB was president 2001 through 2008. Between 2001-2003 control of congress was split, 2003-2006 it was under control of republicans, 2007-2008 control was split again. Obama was president 2009 through 2016. Congress was under democratic control 2009 through 2010, with split control 2011 through 2014.
Military spending dropped continuously 2012 through 2015 and leveled off through 2017. Obama was president 2009 through 2016. Congress was under democratic control 2009 through 2010, split control 2011 through 2014, and under republican control 2015-2016.
I'm not seeing that either the president OR congress has control over military spending, and neither party seems more or less capable of blowing large chunks of money on our bloated military.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No US president, of EITHER party, has EVER disavowed the 'first-strike' option.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already. His nuclear posture was to be in a position of a successful first strike ...
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Obama was heading in this direction already.
Quote:But Hillary would have been equally bad, if not worse. All you needed to do to know that was read the party platform
Originally posted by second:
And with all his strength, Trump will take us the rest of the way ...
Oh.
That's right.
You couldn't be bothered.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You were for Hillary? Then yes, you did.
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Yeah, (read this in a Valley Girl accent) we all like TOTALLY want to go to war with Russia. That would be *SWEET*.
Quote:Followed by the ever-clueless Wishi troll-fest.
NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Followed by the ever-clueless SECOND.
Quote:American Troops "Roll Into Poland" In Largest Deployment Since The Cold War 2017
Originally posted by second:
Bringing out the nukes and shaking them in Russia's face is Republican territory
US Tanks, Troops Arrive In Estonia As Part Of NATO Anti-Russia Build Up 2017
NATO General Threatens "Consequences" For Turkey Buying Russian Air Defense System 2017
And who was president at that time?
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AAAAAAAAAAannnnnnnd. SECOND continues on with personal attacks because ... well, SECOND can't help itself.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Signym has a grudge against Hillary, as does Putin. A coincidence? Probably not.
www.pri.org/stories/2017-10-25/vladimir-putins-grudge-hillary-clinton
"Vladimir Putin's grudge with Hillary Clinton"
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Signym, the existing nuclear program is nothing I'll say anything intelligent about, because I like to post stuff for which I have ZERO evidence, and for which a simple google search would make me look ... wrong.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you realize what a hillbilly you sound like? It's obvious you have zero knowledge or understanding of the dozens of democratically elected government around the world the US has overthrown, or the dozens more brutal dictators the US has allied with ... BECAUSE - only dictators can guarantee business results.
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Because RUSSIA IS what Russia IS.
They don't mind screwing over other countries in order to advance their homophobic, white power, freedom of speech killing, warmongering agenda.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT CONTACT WITH THAT?????
They prove every day why they can't be trusted to even have NORMAL relations with them.
I swear.. it's like you are constantly advocating that the U.S. has to stay in an abusive relationship with Russia...because WHY??
What the hell do we have to gain from that??
WHY WOULD YOU BE GOOD WITH THAT?????
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, it's for the, deep, deep, DEEP thoughts they find there.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hmmm... so THUGR's head is up GSTRING's ass, and GSTRING's head is up THUGR's ass. It must be for the warmth.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So? Are we THAT fragile?
Originally posted by Wishimay:
BROWN PEOPLE??? What the hell are you on about?? I don't support half the crap we've done either, it doesn't mean Russia is less ... bent to take us over or manipulate our systems.
Quote:Yes, we do. And if we could stop spending trillions of dollars on self-destabilizing military pissing contests, maybe we'd have some money to fix them.
WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS.
Quote:Because you have no sense of perspective ... you think it's TERRIBLE that somebody CLAIMED Russia hacked voter rolls. First of all - this is the second time around (or more) for those claims (that I know of), which were vigorously disproven by a number of states, including California. Besides that, SO WHAT? Don't we have a democracy? Isn't this information SUPPOSED to be available? And, yanno, in this day and age of mass hacking of hundreds of millions of people's accounts at one time - don't you think the state agencies have backed up their data?
This is from TODAY.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/07/russia-successfully-hacked-into-voter-ro
lls-during-2016-election/?sr_share=facebook
WE are being dicked with by these asshats. And you think we should just let them do whatever they want to do to us because...NUCLEAR WAR???? WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING??!!!
Quote:Then you can disagree with Lieutenant General Richard D. Clarke US nuclear commander - but I digress ... after all, what does he know?
There is NO GODDAMN RISK of nuclear war with Russia right now,
Quote:I guess yelling in caps proves you know more.
SO WHAT THE FUCK DOES IT EVER MATTER????
Quote:Now, this is an area I am fluent in. So, to be brick simple - with very few exceptions, and those for a substance of questionable sports value which had up to that point been legal - Russian athletes did not test positive for banned substances. All of the 'evidence' was based on the hearsay of one man who had a vested interest in gaining the favor of US authorities.
RUSSIA!! BREAKS EVERY LAW THEY DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, AND A FEW THEY DO. They have no problem breaking every rule to get what THEY WANT...just like the Olympics. They broke doping so much they got banned !
Quote:Do you really, REALLY think Russia is, somehow, going to take over the country? How the hell did you get so scrambled that that's even a thought?
Which doesn't even matter because no matter what Russia does, no matter what we do...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .WE.DON'T.WANT.TO.BE.RUSSIA. EVER. NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR NO.
Have YOU ever NEGOTIATED with a bully??? IT DOESN'T WORK. The only thing that shuts down a bully is to make them scared with a large show of force.
PEOPLE AREN'T REASONABLE, bullies especially! YOU CANNOT REASON WITH THOSE WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE REASONED WITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Russia does NOT want to be reasoned with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:Obsessing over worst-case scenarios - like you just did, you mean? Yanno, the whole idea that we're, somehow, magically, going to become Russia.
I know what it's like to be around someone who constantly thinks about the worst case scenario, but you are absolutely OBSESSED with a completely improbable worst case scenario.
You don't even make a microscopic SPECK of sense.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You DO realize that story was from 2014. Has the US fallen off the edge of the world yet? And, why not?
Originally posted by Wishimay:
They ARE attacking infrastructure, I see it in the news all the time. Guess you just conveniently miss that, huh?
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/29977/cyber-warfare-2/russia-hacke
d-us-critical-infrastructure.html
Quote:You've heard of Meltdown and Spectre, right? Two of the biggest security problems of all time, bar none. And who's responsible for them? Intel. AMD. And other chip makers. Not a Russian in sight.
US infrastructure and government agencies are constantly under attack, a few weeks ago the White House confirmed to have suffered a cyber attack on its computer network which lasted for almost two weeks.
Quote:HOOKAY! Do not make fortune-telling your business!
To have any recall of the Cuban Missile Crisis you would have to be in your 60's and you aren't. Unless you had your kid in your fifties. Right.
Quote:OR mind-reading, either!
This thread was started BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTANT OBSESSIONS.
Quote:OR reading the news!
You really believe that nuclear war could break out at any second with people we aren't in REGULAR WAR with. That is the very definition of paranoid delusion.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Who happens to be her offspring - her child.
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Maybe you should stop referring to her as a "child" then.
She is a handicapped ADULT.
Quote:
I'm sure I have no clue ..I'd have to say I completely see where I get my messed up mental DNA from.
And the reason Russia hasn't done worse, is we have agencies that somehow can stop a cyberattack after it's been launched! So it doesn't get .. like ... worser!
And I can't begin to imagine why I can't stop trolling!
Hey look! I can post pictures instead of actual facts and logic, because facts and logic are just hard. I mean like, they're really haaaaard!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why were sensitive computers running unsecure personal accounts? That's just dumb.
Originally posted by Wishimay:
Russian cyberspies have tricked employees at US defence companies into exposing their emails. "Hackers predominantly targeted personal Gmail (by phishing), with a few corporate accounts mixed in."
Quote:Speculation about sonic attacks that no one has figured out yet.
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-attack-cuba-officials-649546
Quote:From 2016 - "they carried no weapons under the wings" tells you everything you need to know. The rest is just pointless hyperventilation.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-denies-simulate-attack-on-u-s-navy
-destroyer-uss-donald-cook/
Quote:OMG - "Russia continues to aggressively employ the most significant aspect of its 2016 tool kit: the use of social media"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/russia-never-stopped-its-cyber
attacks-on-the-united-states/2017/12/25/83076f2e-e676-11e7-a65d-1ac0fd7f097e_story.html?utm_term=.ef0f1ed1a841
Quote:This one has been completely debunked. There is not the least shred of resemblance to reality in this so-called news report.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-hackers
-penetrated-us-electricity-grid-through-a-utility-in-vermont/2016/12/30/8fc90cc4-ceec-11e6-b8a2-8c2a61b0436f_story.html?utm_term=.b168b4a7e3ff
Quote:Russians were 'suspected', it was unclear how many were affected, and there was no indication control systems were breached. I hate to say it, but it sounds like a lot of nothing.
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2017/09/06/russian-hackers-suspec
ted-targeting-us-utilities-nuclear-plants
Yanno, we supposedly made use of Dutch hacking of Russian cyberop. And for sure the US hacks us - we the people - with its backdoors and cable eavesdropping. It was the US/ Israel that created Stuxnet to cripple Iranian centrifuges, that got out into the wild. And I'm sure it wasn't the last. And one of the largest hacks in history was the US spook agencies prevailing on Yahoo to hack its own users - every single email to or from every single account. And now of course we have Spectre and Meltdown, deep security flaws built into chips found everywhere.
You know if they have the tools, then so do we. And if they use them, then so do we. And if they aren't benign, neither are we. And while I can't say if their government directs its tools at its citizens, I know that our government targets us.
I find your information questionable, and your inability to grasp the proportions of the larger picture perplexing. If they are the bogey-man you're so afraid of, so are we.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why might Trump take the “quick and easy way” by preemptively nuking North Korea?
www.vox.com/world/2018/2/7/16974772/north-korea-war-trump-kim-nuclear-
weapon
He might because a South Korean military white paper from 2016, for instance, said the US would need to deploy 690,000 ground troops to South Korea if war broke out. Truly, it is slow and difficult to get that many troops in place. On the other hand, it doesn’t take 690,000 troops to drop a nuke. Indeed, it's quick and easy. Bruce Bennett, a senior researcher at the RAND Corporation who has spent decades studying North Korea generally and the Kim family specifically, believes those numbers are on the high side, but he thinks the US would need to send at least 200,000 troops into North Korea. By way of comparison, that would be significantly more troops than the US had in either Iraq or Afghanistan at the peaks of those two long wars. The 2016 assessment says the Pentagon would also need to send 2,000 warplanes and other aircraft to South Korea. The US hasn’t had that much airpower deployed to a single conflict since Vietnam.
Maybe next week Kim will test-fire a missile that flies too close to Guam or Hawaii. Or maybe a US ship will accidentally drift into North Korean waters and Kim’s navy will open fire. Trump might decide enough is enough. He might not have the patience to wait for 200,000 troops to arrive in Korea from the US.
Again, why might Trump take the easy way and preemptively nuke N Korea? He might because the experts stressed that North Korea could devastate Seoul in South Korea without even needing to use weapons of mass destruction. The North Korean military has an enormous number of rocket launchers and artillery pieces within range of Seoul. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates that Kim could hammer the South Korean capital with an astonishing 10,000 rockets per minute — and that such a barrage could kill more than 300,000 South Koreans in the opening days of the conflict. That’s all without N Korea using a single nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon.
Even more frightening, most of the people I spoke to said they believed Kim would use nuclear weapons against South Korea in the initial stages of the fighting — not just as a desperate last resort. All the more reason for Trump to nuke North Korea first.
In a chilling conversation, James Stavridis said there was at least a 10 percent chance of a nuclear war between the US and North Korea, and a 20 to 30 percent chance of a conventional conflict that could kill a million people or more. Retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis had a 37-year military career included a stint running NATO.
I’ve spent the past month posing questions to more than a dozen former Pentagon officials, CIA analysts, US military officers, and think tank experts, as well as to a retired South Korean general who spent his entire professional life preparing to fight the North. They’ve all said variants of the same thing: There is a genuine risk of a war on the Korean Peninsula that would involve the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Several estimated that millions — plural — would die.
More at www.vox.com/world/2018/2/7/16974772/north-korea-war-trump-kim-nuclear-
weapon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One of the things about WICHY's posts in this thread IS THAT I THOUGHT HER CAPS LOCK BUTTON MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN RANDomly stuck. ThAT'S the only reason for this great outpouring of screeching and hypervENTILATION WHICH SEEMED TO BE COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE Topic at-hand. I thought it was kinda funny. I laughed a little eveRY TIME SHE. RESORTED. TO. CAPS.ON.A.TOTALLY.IRRATIONAL.STATEMENT.
But I think I understand her fear: She's so afraid of being victimized (again) that if she perceives certain situations to be potentially abusive, she goes off. The problem with that is that not only are her reactions skewed, so are her perceptions. She sees a problem when none exists, or she conflates a situation with her previous victimization.
So let's assume that in addition to being in pain, WISHY is suffering from PTSD and give her a little more space than usual. Since she's a former victim (she says) there is a REASON for her acting like a jerk. I know it's tough to do: She attacks viciously, but I don't think she's being that way just because she embodies the dark tetrad.
WISHY, this is for you. Pay close attention to the part about what drives our perceptions, and what makes up "objectivity". (2:00-3:58)
And for the rest of us ... 2:00 -12:50
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And for the rest of us ... 2:00 -12:50
That was painful.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And there is Toto (kiki), a week late to the conversation, barking at my ankles..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I thought it was kinda funny. I laughed a little
I'm sure you did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I thought it was kinda funny. I laughed a little
I'm sure you did.
I hate to disagree wish but this is a much better dipection of sig
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:MORE AT http://theduran.com/american-hysteria-over-russia-will-lead-to-nuclear
American hysteria over Russia will lead to nuclear war, according to report
Russian television broadcast a dire sounding piece on February 5th that probably was rather disquieting to most Russians, and also a source of significant dismay to their hopes for a rapprochement in relations following the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States. The news agency “Vesti” explained that the US is preparing itself for nuclear war with Russia.
The US Department of Defense published its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. This consists of at least two documents that are public domain that detail the assessment the DoD made about nuclear threats from around the world. The language about Russia is curious, for like Russia, the US repeatedly maintains that there is no desire for anything but good relations.
However, this is unfortunately either a blind claim or a willfully blind claim for the sake of propaganda. Based on the insanity of the US government’s reaction or posture about Russia overall, with the military fears, the sanctions and the most recent incidents of the release of the “Kremlin list” of government heads and successful businessmen and women, and the close flyby of a Russian fighter jet to an American surveillance aircraft, the ever-present “RussiaGate” investigations; and the lack of visible insanity on the Russians’ side, it seems likely that the American version of what is causing the ‘need’ to resolidify ‘defenses’ is lacking in factual evidence and cannot be taken as conclusive or trustworthy.
-war/
Now, as usual, I don't take what the Russian media says at face value any more than I take American media at face value. This COULD be for public consumption in the runup to Russian elections.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You were for Hillary? Then yes, you did.
I've said a dozen times I wasn't for Hillary OR Trump, not that you have the ability to retain info anymore... but yeah...after this year, I'm pretty sure ANYONE would have more grace, credibility, or honor than Herr Trumpski.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wouldn't go pointing out how graceless others are, if I were you.
after this year, I'm pretty sure ANYONE would have more grace, credibility, or honor than Herr Trumpski.- WITCHY
Quote:No, I haven't. Once again, you see an attack where none exists.
You and 6ix and Niki have been picking on my kid and my husband
Quote:And may I say ... you started it with "NO, YOU DUMB GOATHERDER" ?
Yeah, you were being so nice, you only used "bitch" every other line. -WISHY
Seriously, I posted many many replies which were on-topic and with a minimum of name-calling, and all YOU could do was post ....
Quote:(This is when I decided you were being a bitch, but I didn't call you one for many posts) and
I don't think you are even old enough to personally remember the Cuban Missile Crisis. Were your parents obsessed with it?? Did they beat you if you didn't constantly worry about Nuclear War?? You have serious brainwash level concern with this. Something is not right with you.
Quote:and
BOOZE FOR BRAINS.
Quote:when I didn't even start this thread, and ...
This thread was started BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSTANT OBSESSIONS.
Quote:
if you are American (which we know you aren't)
So stop with the personal attacks and maybe people won't react to you like you're a bully.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is it okay with you to point out how graceful Americans are about A-bombs?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I wouldn't go pointing out how graceless others are, if I were you.
How many eventual Nobel Prize winners worked at Los Alamos on the original A-bomb? Many. It was a sweet technical problem they were solving in basic physics.
What did the US Army’s Air Force Generals do with those Nobel Prize Winners' A-bombs? Make bigger firebombs. That was just a continuation of what the Generals had already been doing for years to cities in Japan and Germany. Cities full of women and children.
Was the American voter concerned about firebombing cities while it was happening? Not really. Millions of civilians died from American firebombing. Where were the American protesters? There weren’t any, maybe out of fear of what pro-war supporters would do to protesters.
After the war was over, the only moral qualms I’ve ever heard from an American is the one about themselves being firebombed. Other people getting firebombed? Not a problem for the average American voter. If it was a problem, the voters would be raising hell with their elected Representatives to Congress, like the voters do about taxes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND, your problem is that you use the "kitchen sink" style of argument, as in "everything but the kitchen sink", and you can't seem to decide whether the change of NPR/ increase in military/ nuclear spending is
a) A moral outrage, caused by "Americans" lack of concern for anyone but themselves
b) A strategic nightmare, with the capability of destroying most human life on earth, including America itself, or
c) A cynical money-grab by the military industrial complex, who have no plans to actually use the weapons that they profited from so greatly
The last option kind of negates the first two, so decide which argument you think is the most correct and go with that one.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:All those fine American physicists with their Nobel Prizes in Physics who worked on the A-bomb don’t compare well with Andrei Sakharov, Nobel Peace prize winner, who had a key role in building Russian nukes. He actually made loud noises, continuously, opposing nukes and was punished for his opposition.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, your problem is that you use the "kitchen sink" style of argument, as in "everything but the kitchen sink", and you can't seem to decide whether the change of NPR/ increase in military/ nuclear spending is
a) A moral outrage, caused by "Americans" lack of concern for anyone but themselves
b) A strategic nightmare, with the capability of destroying most human life on earth, including America itself, or
c) A cynical money-grab by the military industrial complex, who have no plans to actually use the weapons that they profited from so greatly
The last option kind of negates the first two, so decide which argument you think is the most correct and go with that one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Sakharov
Unlike Sakharov, the Prize winning American physicists kept very quiet over the years and the typical American was even quieter, apparently afraid to call a hundred million of their pro-war, pro-nuke fellow Americans a bunch of murdering sons of bitches.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So SECOND, what you've done is provide great evidence that the Nobel Prize is corrupted (which I already knew. After all, both Kissinger and Obama got the Peace Prize), and that American scientists are moral cowards.
What is your solution?
That scientists boycott nuclear research?
I guess I don't understand your point.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe my previous remark needs a little expansion. Millions of Americans have gone to war, worked in the "defense" industry, supported ever increasing Pentagon budgets, supported some astonishingly stupid wars, or supported nuking Japan, without ever personally burning a child to death with a nuke. They're all very fine people; you only need ask them what they think of themselves. The US has precisely the nuclear policy I would expect when it is full of people like that. Trump can feel pretty free to nuke whoever he pleases. It is the rest of the world, not Americans, that might give him reason to pause and consider the consequences. The rest of the world might try to kill Trump with a nuke if he does drop nukes.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
So SECOND, what you've done is provide great evidence that the Nobel Prize is corrupted (which I already knew. After all, both Kissinger and Obama got the Peace Prize), and that American scientists are moral cowards.
What is your solution?
That scientists boycott nuclear research?
I guess I don't understand your point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh OK, let me think on it.
Maybe my previous remark needs a little expansion.
-------------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In the meantime, I'm looking this over:
Executive Summary of the NPR
Quote:MORE AT https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUM
While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved
in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran has agreed to constraints on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.
MARY.PDF
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is salesmanship. The Pentagon is selling the idea that the US needs to buy nukes. I think it will convince most Americans, since they were sold the idea, and continue to believe, that nuking Japanese children was necessary in the past, so why not buy nukes for the future?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the meantime, I'm looking this over:
Executive Summary of the NPRQuote:MORE AT https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUM
While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved
in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran has agreed to constraints on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.
MARY.PDF
The grandson, Paul Tibbets IV, of the pilot and, later, general who nuked Japan was promoted to brigadier general in 2014, and became Deputy Director for Nuclear Operations at the Global Operations Directorate of the United States Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. As such, he was responsible for America's strategic nuclear forces. On 5 June 2015, he assumed command of the 509th Bomb Wing. The American business of nuking the world passes down the generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It is salesmanship. The Pentagon is selling the idea that the US needs to buy nukes. I think it will convince most Americans, since they were sold the idea, and continue to believe, that nuking Japanese children was necessary in the past, so why not buy nukes for the future?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the meantime, I'm looking this over:
Executive Summary of the NPRQuote:MORE AT https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUM
While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved
in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran has agreed to constraints on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.
MARY.PDF
The grandson, Paul Tibbets IV, of the pilot and, later, general who nuked Japan was promoted to brigadier general in 2014, and became Deputy Director for Nuclear Operations at the Global Operations Directorate of the United States Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. As such, he was responsible for America's strategic nuclear forces. On 5 June 2015, he assumed command of the 509th Bomb Wing. The American business of nuking the world passes down the generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets]
Sorry second but for now I'm on board. I'm still hopeful for a better future though.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:With you on board, I'm on board, too, so long as Trump is strapped to the dropped nuke like Maj. 'King' Kong (Slim Pickens) in Dr. Strangelove. If Trump has the same commitment to nuking North Korea as Maj. King Kong had to nuking Russia, it must be a great idea, the best idea. I'm giddy for using tactical nukes wherever, whenever, with Trump leading the way to victory. Make America Great Again. www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Sorry second but for now I'm on board. I'm still hopeful for a better future though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:With you on board, I'm on board, too, so long as Trump is strapped to the dropped nuke like Maj. 'King' Kong (Slim Pickens) in Dr. Strangelove. If Trump has the same commitment to nuking North Korea as Maj. King Kong had to nuking Russia, it must be a great idea, the best idea. I'm giddy for using tactical nukes wherever, whenever, with Trump leading the way to victory. Make America Great Again. www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Sorry second but for now I'm on board. I'm still hopeful for a better future though.
Agreed. Good post second, too funny.
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Agreed. Good post second, too funny.
Ya knocked one outta the park there, Second
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep.
What, lol. These are interceptor missiles - designed to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defence_system
-------------------------------------------------------
"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep.
What, lol. These are interceptor missiles - designed to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_missile_defence_system
-------------------------------------------------------
"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521
Hey KPO
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey T
EDIT: Lol, ok, that looks super seductive. I'll reserve the winky emoji for 1kiki from now on.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I didn't hear any of YOUR objections to placing a "missile defense" in Romania, Poland, and the Czech Republic, which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep. - SIGNY
What, lol. These are interceptor missiles - designed to shoot nuclear missiles out of the sky KRAPO
Yes, I know. That is why I called them a "missile defense" system, so YOU ...
Or at least learn to read with comprehension.
Now, I didn't want to explain the whole problem because it's complicated, and I figured it would be too complicated for you all (and as it turns out, I was right), but all nuclear agreements between the USA and Russia involve maintaining a "balance of power". This not only means maintaining a balance of power in OFFENSIVE weapons, but also maintaining a balance of power in DEFENSIVE weapons, because when one side increases their defensive capability it decreases the role of deterrence (mutual assured destruction) in launching an first strike.
With me so far?
The role of nuclear missiles on Russia's borders is to intercept a COUNTERstrike. In other words, the American military was counting on launching a first strike, and then negating the Russian nuclear response by intercepting missiles on the way UP.
This was well and thoroughly discussed when the missiles were placed in Europe, and if any of you had been paying the slightest attention (which I know you weren't) you'd know this already. But go look it up, if you don't believe me.
Anyway, what Russia did to maintain its deterrence was to develop a "dead man's trigger" ... nuclear weapons place in automated submarines which have been positioned off the coasts of the USA and designed to make the coasts uninhabitable for generations to come. And being automated -and with no life support functions - these submarines can remain silent and under water for decades and decades, undetectable. Somewhere in the run-up to this NPR, our military has acceded to the fact that these submarines exist and have already been deployed. I mentioned them already but I didn't fully explain their significance. Well, now you know so you can't claim ignorance (as if anyone would want to. Well, maybe you do, since that seems to be your stock-in-trade; I don't know.)
But the USA isn't the only one pushing the nuclear envelope, as the Russians have developed the "Iskander" missile system, which is a very small, highly portable, and very accurate missile/ missile launch system of intermediate range, which can be tipped with many different kinds of warheads. Unfortunately, instead of negotiating these away, the Pentagon has gotten tired of the whole nuclear chess game and has tipped over the board and gone for a full-on arms race.
That's the state of the nuclear situation today as I understand it. As I said, it's complicated. There are a lot of moving parts, with both offensive and defensive systems; and short-, medium-, and long-range weapons in play; and I was hoping to read the NPR keeping in mind that the Iskander missile system is viewed by the USA military as an abrogation of the INF treaty.
As I said, it's complicated, and there is no simple way to parse the truth. So do your research, and come back with a considered opinion.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry Sig, I can't work out if you have accepted that you were wrong yet, or if you are just kicking up dust to hide that you lied.
So,
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
which puts nuclear missiles right on Russia's doorstep. - SIGNY
This statement is 100% false. The missiles in the ABM system are NOT nuclear. You are writing things that are 100% false.
Quote:
Now, I didn't want to explain the whole problem because it's complicated, and I figured it would be too complicated for you all
Either you were ignorant, or you lied. I read this as admitting that you lied. Giving a simple lie was easier or more expedient for you than making your case in a truthful, more-complicated fashion. Not good enough. If your worldview is strong, Siggy, you shouldn't have to lie to advance it.
I'm very disappointed in you.
(Lol, j/k, I'm used to it.)
-------------------------------------------------------
"Objective truths are established by evidence. Personal truths by faith. Political truths by incessant repetition."
Russia's and Assad's War Crimes in Syria - http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60278
Syrian regime collusion with ISIS - http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60521
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
In the meantime, I'm looking this over:Quote:MORE AT https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUM
Executive Summary of the NPR
While the United States has continued to reduce the number and salience of nuclear weapons, others, including Russia and China, have moved
in the opposite direction. They have added new types of nuclear capabilities to their arsenals, increased the salience of nuclear forces in their strategies and plans, and engaged in increasingly aggressive behavior, including in outer space and cyber space. North Korea continues its illicit pursuit of nuclear weapons and missile capabilities in direct violation of United Nations (U.N.) Security Council resolutions. Iran has agreed to constraints on its nuclear program in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Nevertheless, it retains the technological capability and much of the capacity necessary to develop a nuclear weapon within one year of a decision to do so.
MARY.PDF
It is salesmanship. The Pentagon is selling the idea that the US needs to buy nukes. I think it will convince most Americans, since they were sold the idea, and continue to believe, that nuking Japanese children was necessary in the past, so why not buy nukes for the future?
The grandson, Paul Tibbets IV, of the pilot and, later, general who nuked Japan was promoted to brigadier general in 2014, and became Deputy Director for Nuclear Operations at the Global Operations Directorate of the United States Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. As such, he was responsible for America's strategic nuclear forces. On 5 June 2015, he assumed command of the 509th Bomb Wing. The American business of nuking the world passes down the generations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets
- SECOND
SECOND, back to your problem of the "kitchen sink" style of argument. You really need to stop using an assault rifle and spraying everything around you, and FOCUS.
You have said, at various times, that source of our problematic USA military/ foreign policy is
a) The American People, because they're too lazy, stupid, and complacent to look into the ugliness of what's done in their name
b) The Pentagon, because it has its own bureaucratic instinct for survival, dancing as it does as the partner in the MIC which sucks in a huge amount of our budget
c) Scientists, who did the amoral research as wage- and hubris-driven brainiacs
d) The Nobel Prize Committee.
e) Trump, just because.
Did I miss anything/anybody?
Working upwards thru the list
e) Trump is just the latest pimple on the ass of our foreign/ military policy. Or, maybe he's smarter than all of us, and is running a complicated game. Time will tell. But in any case, our military/ foreign policy has sucked for DECADES ... since at least the 1960s ... you can't lay all of this on Trump.
d) Irrelevant
c) Ditto
b) The Pentagon, which has it's own lizard-brain instinct for growth, and is one part of the deep state
a) The American People.
Starting at the bottom of the second list:
a) If all of the decisions are by the deep state and their bought-and-paid-for politicians, who are looking forward to lucrative positions in the various MIC boards, does it really matter what the American people think??? I mean- yeah, maybe Americans ARE lazy and stupid ... after all, look at THUGR! He's willing to give up his independence to ANY of deep state! ... but so what? If America is an oligarchy - and evidence DOES point in that direction - then mostly Americans don't get what they want anyway, so isn't it irrelevant?
Later. I have a lot of things to do today.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym. How about the alternate explanation that most Americans find burning children with A-bombs is A-OK? Two decades after Hiroshima, 70% told a Harris poll that we did the right thing, while 17% were sorry, and in 1982 Harris found those numbers at 63% and 26% respectively. By 1998, a History Channel/Roper poll found 47% said dropping the bombs was the right thing to do, 26% wrong, and 22% somewhere in between. This gives Trump tremendous latitude to do as he pleases. If he wants more nukes, the people are with him. Pentagon is always for more. Say the words "national defense" and Congress will vote yes. They always do.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-using-nuclear-weapons/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Sorry Sig, I can't work out if you have accepted that you were wrong yet, or if you are just kicking up dust to hide that you lied.
This statement is 100% false. The missiles in the ABM system are NOT nuclear. You are writing things that are 100% false. Either you were ignorant, or you lied. I read this as admitting that you lied.
That's a toughie, the ole, "did she lie or was she just wrong and can't admit" thing. Even with all the data we have on it it's still tough! She ignored you asking her to clarify and then posted the trusty dump and run, "Later. I have a lot of things to do today," so it's definitely one or the other... but lying? Or just "whoops, I f*cked up and someone caught me!"
Yanno, I'm going to go with lying also. The history of making sh*t up and hoping no one will call her on it is so frequent it's likely a reflex at this point, like a spasm or a twitch.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
KRAPO: In my earlier posts I called the eastern-European based system a "defensive system" and I ALSO mentioned the Russian development of a "dead man" response, both of which are consistent with the concept of an ABM system. The reason why I put quotes around "defensive" isn't because they aren't anti-missile, but because our original excuse was a defense against IRAN - not Russia. Well, now that Iran signed a nuclear deal, the question is ... what are the missiles still doing there?
You see? I SAID it was complicated. I just really didn't want to have to do all that typing. But like I said, you can look it up if you want. DO YOUR RESEARCH, as you posted!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Signym. How about the alternate explanation that most Americans find burning children with A-bombs is A-OK? Two decades after Hiroshima, 70% told a Harris poll that we did the right thing, while 17% were sorry, and in 1982 Harris found those numbers at 63% and 26% respectively. By 1998, a History Channel/Roper poll found 47% said dropping the bombs was the right thing to do, 26% wrong, and 22% somewhere in between. This gives Trump tremendous latitude to do as he pleases. If he wants more nukes, the people are with him. Pentagon is always for more. Say the words "national defense" and Congress will vote yes. They always do.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/public-opinion-using-nuclear-weapons/
That's how Americans react to a lot of things. Right after the official explanation of Kennedy's assassination came out, most people believe it. Decades later, they don't.
Right before our invasion of Iraq (Panama, Libya, Grenada) most people believed the excuses; decades later, they don't.
What causes this reaction? Is it possible that the media runs a blitz on the population, and that public opinion bends to the propaganda campaign and only slowly asserts itself after the pressure is off?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
America is an oligarchy
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Signym. If Americans do NOT know today how nukes burn children to death, can that be blamed on the MSM, as you are trying to do? Is the media really misleading Americans into believing nukes do NOT kill women, as Signym is insinuating? Or will the majority of Americans never know? I think the majority of Americans don't want to know because knowing would mean not nuking whoever the President feels deserving. The U.S. obliterated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the following month, after the bombs’ power had been demonstrated, 4% of respondents in a NORC survey said they would not have used them at all, 26% only on uninhabited areas, and 44% on one city at a time. Twenty-three percent said they would have wiped out all Japan’s cities. 44% + 23% equals a majority, Signym. I'm thinking a majority of Americans in 1945 wanted all the Japs, including women and children, dead dead dead and a victory wasn't enough to cool the overheated Americans. Even until today, victory on the battlefield isn't enough. A majority of Americans also want women and children dead dead dead. This is a very helpful attitude for a Pentagon and Congress who both want nukes for their President.
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
That's how Americans react to a lot of things. Right after the official explanation of Kennedy's assassination came out, most people believe it. Decades later, they don't.
Right before our invasion of Iraq (Panama, Libya, Grenada) most people believed the excuses; decades later, they don't.
What causes this reaction? Is it possible that the media runs a blitz on the population, and that public opinion bends to the propaganda campaign and only slowly asserts itself after the pressure is off?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Is the media really misleading Americans into believing nukes do NOT kill women, as Signym is insinuating?"
I think Americans are taking comfort in the words "limited" and "tactical", both of which are featured heavily and meant to convey the idea that nuclear weapons are really just another kind of explosive, and have nothing to do with MAD, which is never mentioned at all.
And Americans are being kept ignorant of the nuclear-armed subs at our coasts, and the 'deadman' nuclear installation in the Urals, so as to hide the very real threat that our military's actions might bite us, personally, in the butt.
And that IS a campaign, which has been going on at some level since our aggression against Afghanistan.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump: We're creating brand new nuclear force
During a meeting on the US infrastructure plan, President Trump touted the advancement of the US military. Nice video of Trump bragging about nuking people and creating jobs: www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/12/trump-military-infrastructure-p
lanning-sot.cnn
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The campaign to use nuclear weapons in conventional warfare didn't begin with Trump, and it won't end with him.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You obviously did not look at the Trump video from today. No President has ever been as casual, dismissive, insouciant, and unconcerned about nuking people. The only restraint on him is his own people reminding him that once he drops his first nuke, he will be nuked in turn. It is not the American public holding Trump back, it is the other governments with nukes.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The campaign to use nuclear weapons in conventional warfare didn't begin with Trump, and it won't end with him.
www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/12/trump-military-infrastructure-p
lanning-sot.cnn
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Then the military's propaganda campaign - to make the US first-use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict acceptable to the public - which began in 2001 - did its job.
ETA: the US government has been propagandizing us about nuclear weapons ever since duck-and-cover, also called smoke-and-mirrors. We got your back, they assured us. We have a PLAN! Then we were told the new plan was MAD. MAD would keep us safe. For the last decade we've been told that as long as nukes were merely 'limited' for 'strategic' use, using them would be OK.
There is a long, long history of the US government propagandizing its subjects - oh, I should have said citizens - not just about nukes, but for general military purposes.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And you can see all this from your Russian cheap seats?
T
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Then the military's propaganda campaign - to make the US first-use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict acceptable to the public - which began in 2001 - did its job.
ETA: the US government has been propagandizing us about nuclear weapons ever since duck-and-cover, also called smoke-and-mirrors. We got your back, they assured us. We have a PLAN! Then we were told the new plan was MAD. MAD would keep us safe. For the last decade we've been told that as long as nukes were merely 'limited' for 'strategic' use, using them would be OK.
There is a long, long history of the US government propagandizing its subjects - oh, I should have said citizens - not just about nukes, but for general military purposes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, ignore the topic, because you got nothing.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You were not paying attention, 1kiki. Since at least WWII, the majority of the American public would easily accept Washington DC killing everyone (old men, women, children) connected to any kind of enemy. Those Americans were born that way; they didn't need any propaganda from Washington DC. But they did need propagandizing to get them to volunteer to do the killing themselves. ("Uncle Sam needs YOU!" "Be all you can be in the Army!") They don't want to die for the country. They want other people to die.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Then the military's propaganda campaign - to make the US first-use of nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict acceptable to the public - which began in 2001 - did its job.
ETA: the US government has been propagandizing us about nuclear weapons ever since duck-and-cover, also called smoke-and-mirrors. We got your back, they assured us. We have a PLAN! Then we were told the new plan was MAD. MAD would keep us safe. For the last decade we've been told that as long as nukes were merely 'limited' for 'strategic' use, using them would be OK.
There is a long, long history of the US government propagandizing its subjects - oh, I should have said citizens - not just about nukes, but for general military purposes.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The propaganda exits, in large amounts, I might add. I can show it, and you know it's true.
The government wouldn't bother if it didn't think it was necessary - to give us subjects the required push in attitude.
HAS IT NOT OCCURRED TO YOU BY NOW THAT IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LOGICAL FALLACIES AND TROLLING YOUR SO-CALLED ARGUMENTS ARE LIES?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you really think Americans have to be propagandized to have sex? They have to be propagandized to get married. Do you really think American have to be propagandized to cheer for war? They have to be propagandized to pay for war and volunteer to fight. If the propagandizing is not done well, the politician won't get reelected, but you'll get the war, anyway. The best propaganda for a politician is to win the war. That will cover a multitude of sins about false justifications for starting the war.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The propaganda exits, in large amounts, I might add. I can show it, and you know it's true.
The government wouldn't bother if it didn't think it was necessary - to give us subjects the required push in attitude.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME