# Should President Trump Be Prepared, To Use Neutron Bombs, On North Korea And Iran?



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Should America be ready to use atomic weapons, against NK & Iran? And, if they are used, would you support the President?

I think that we should be ready to use them, and then to rain it down, if needed. PS: I was trying to make a poll, and something happened.


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

The choice of atomic weapons doesn't meet the need, they are and should be the weapon of last resort.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

NKAWTG said:


> The choice of atomic weapons doesn't meet the need, they are and should be the weapon of last resort.


I beg to differ, it is the epitome of danger, and atomic weapons are the only remedial ways of doing what is needed. The weapons are buried too deep for any conventional means. The NK and Iran seem to have a death wish, and they will use atomic bombs, when they get them. It is just a matter of time and convenience for them.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Whatever works is fine with us. The General on Fox said we have about six mins to knock out all the artillery batteries trained on Seoul or a bunch of folks are fixing to die. Neutron Bombs should work good when the infantry comes pouring in. Hope we have some since an idiot named Jimmy Carter made us remove them from the arsenal. Israel may need to loan us some. They have a bunch.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Not only no, but HELL no. No one on this planet will be the same once nukes start going off. Even on the other side of the planet.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

bigwheel said:


> Whatever works is fine with us. The General on Fox said we have about six mins to knock out all the artillery batteries trained on Seoul or a bunch of folks are fixing to die. Neutron Bombs should work good when the infantry comes pouring in. Hope we have some since an idiot named Jimmy Carter made us remove them from the arsenal. Israel may need to loan us some. They have a bunch.


We have neutron weapons and we have other kinds too, and they will blow the pukes to Kingdom Come. It is simply having the courage and will power to do it; and with President Trump in office, he will know the proper time to do it.
The Demo-Commies would rain down Hell on him, but I think that he would use them. And yes, Jimmy Carter was an idiot, and it is strange to think that he was a Naval Academy graduate. It is counter intuitive.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Chipper said:


> Not only no, but HELL no. No one on this planet will be the same once nukes start going off. Even on the other side of the planet.


OK, but you are only kidding yourself, NK & Iran will have them soon enough, and they don't care what happens to you. And they will use them on us.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

during WW2 the US had a few supply ships that were always staged at the various island landing - loaded down with gas warfare armaments that were readily available for deploy - if Japan decided to go that direction - General MacArthur had agreed to authority to immediately deploy .... 

the US needs that very same readiness - if North Korea goes extreme with nuke weapons - or - attacks the US with ANY terrorist type action ... they need to pay the maximum price ... nothing wrong with South Korea becoming an island nation ....


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

One of my dear old partners was stationed over in S. Korea in the 80's with the Army. He said the master game plan at that time was to consider themselves a sacrifcial delaying force to try and hold up the vast hordes for 3 days or until the nukes could be properly allocated. The upcoming war has been in the planning stages for a long time. Sure old Mad Dog can figure out the proper approach.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Any President should be ready willing and able to use them on any threat that calls for them.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

Doesn't really matter if you, me or the dog down the street supports POTUS using nukes ... it'll be, what it'll be. I certainly hope it never comes to that but nothing surprises me anymore. God help us.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

It's an option I believe we all pray is not necessary. Used only in absolute dire circumstances. Another option would be to use bunker buster technology nuclear times. Put 2 or 3 or 4 dowm the same hole as nessary to take out the facilities. May necessitate further resolve. 

If China can not or will not help. Your options are limited as an economic embargo will mean little or nothing to people already starving. This will eventually have to be resolved. Besides when sanctions work some idiot removes them and pays billions in tribute. Like Obama and Iran.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Before most of you go off half cocked, whacky, and actiing like a bunch of Democrats, . . . better find out what the question was.

"Should we use the neutron bomb?"

Then find out what a neutron bomb actually is: Neutron bomb | Define Neutron bomb at Dictionary.com

1. a nuclear bomb designed to release radiation consisting mainly of neutrons, *thus causing extensive loss of life but relatively little damage to buildings and property and only brief radioactive contamination.*

In the use of the neutron bomb, . . . the dogs, cats, flies, worms, cockroaches, communists, socialists, mugwumps, and visiting NBA stars will be the only ones affected. They are the ones having flesh, bones, blood, and life.

The automobiles, trucks, planes, buildings, railroads, ships, etc., . . . not having a viable life, . . . will be spared, . . . as the neutrons only whack living organisms.

Would this be a viable weapon against Iran, . . . against NK, . . . against ISIS?

Personally, I think so, . . . and I'll simplify the argument: all is fair in love and war. If NK or Iran or ISIS gets too big for their britches and need to be brought down a peg or two, . . . and this is the only viable weapon, . . . then, well, Mad Dog, . . . pour it on em.

We played warm hugs and sweet tea with NK once, . . . North Vietnam, . . . the taliban, . . . Iraq, . . . and it NEVER worked, . . . not once, . . . not at all, . . .

Time to just jump in with both big boots on, . . . kick the heck out of em, . . . stand back and ask, . . . anyone else??? Then perhaps we can go on with a reasonable world, . . . at least for a little while longer.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

_Neutron_ bombs? Neutron bombs are particular special weapons designed to be used on the battlefield against armor divisions. Not only does it fry the crews, but will also kill replacement crews as the tanks remain "hot."

Nuclear weapons in general, did you mean? I don't want to see any nuclear weapons used, as one detonation can lead to all sides using a whole lot of them. We don't need that crazy train leaving the station!


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

dwight55 said:


> We played warm hugs and sweet tea with NK once, . . . North Vietnam, . . . the taliban, . . . Iraq, . . . and it NEVER worked, . . . not once, . . . not at all, . . .


It worked very, very well with the Japanese.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> It worked very, very well with the Japanese.


 Yes it did we dropped earths version of hell on them. Then ask if they wanted to work things out. They agreed and we have gotten along pretty well every sense. We laid out the conditions and held them to it.
That was also the last time we did things the right way.
Bill Clinton gave NK every thing they needed to move ahead with thier weapons program. He gave them oil, food and cash with no conditions. At least none anyone would bother to check up on. Now we are left to deal with it.
I have two sons one CAV the other Infantry fair bet it NK needs an ass kicking they will be involved in some way. Not something I want to see but if it must be they will do what needs to be done.
Bet your ass, if we do get into with NK others will take advantage of it and work against us on other fronts.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Then just wait for NK to attack Pearl Harbor.


----------



## deserth3 (Oct 11, 2015)

Except for it's nuclear armament. North Korea is no real threat.
1. South Korea has an excellent military.
2. The biggest problem during the Korean war was China stepping in. China's economy is too enmeshed with the US economy for them to risk a shooting war with the U.S.
3. The South can easily take care of the North with minimal U.S. involvement.
4. North does not have the transport inventory to move their troops. Most of them will have to walk if they attack the South. Ending in turkey shoot. Here is where minimal U.S. involvement occurs and think about road to Baghdad in first Gulf war.
So I don't see little fat boy being a problem.

Iran is a different story. The Muslim ideology has taken over. 

But I don't think current politics would allow used of anything nuclear. So it's hard to say if definitely support it's use.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

The reason China stepped in was reasonable. We don't have a General McArthur now, and if we stopped at the only reasonable place to hold the line, we could hold it forever with one large division. Stay off the Yalu and the Chinese won't care.

Using nukes on North Korea suffers from the same fantasy of victory that bombing a three dollar North Vietnamese bicycle with a fifteen million dollar Phantom suffered.

And they lost. History and education are good, as is fact based common sense.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> The reason China stepped in was reasonable. We don't have a General McArthur now, and if we stopped at the only reasonable place to hold the line, we could hold it forever with one large division. Stay off the Yalu and the Chinese won't care.
> 
> Using nukes on North Korea suffers from the same fantasy of victory that bombing a three dollar North Vietnamese bicycle with a fifteen million dollar Phantom suffered.
> 
> And they lost. History and education are good, as is fact based common sense.


Who lost? History is your strong suit, you are suggesting?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

deserth3 said:


> Except for it's nuclear armament. North Korea is no real threat.
> 1. South Korea has an excellent military.
> 2. The biggest problem during the Korean war was China stepping in. China's economy is too enmeshed with the US economy for them to risk a shooting war with the U.S.
> 3. The South can easily take care of the North with minimal U.S. involvement.
> ...


Many buddies who were stationed in Korea believe they are there more to stop the South Koreans from settling the score.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> Who lost? History is your strong suit, you are suggesting?


The United States (flying the fifteen million dollar Phantom) lost to the NVA and their three dollar bicycles, in part because that strategic formula doesn't work.

The case is the same in North Korea. It's almost identical. There is no target there that warrants a multi-million dollar bomb delivered by a high tech delivery system. You'll just kill a handful of three dollar bicycles. They can afford a lot more bicycles than we can kill with nukes. Public opinion would limit our nuclear strikes, as would risk of a wider war. Korea was the first limited war, and the limits of limited war that were designed there still apply.


----------



## deserth3 (Oct 11, 2015)

Denton said:


> Many buddies who were stationed in Korea believe they are there more to stop the South Koreans from settling the score.


Barring US and China involvement. It's be a short war.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

After looking it up, the cost of Phantom II at the end of their production run fell to 2.4 million dollars. I'll stand by my point about cost, however. Fighting single dollar bills with million dollar bills is simply a recipe for defeat, no matter what the number of bills involved on each side is.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> The United States (flying the fifteen million dollar Phantom) lost to the NVA and their three dollar bicycles,.


Let me just set the record straight, there you dufus goofball: you are dumber than a coal bucket full of cow crap. Stupid is too good a word to use on your poor decrepit thinking faculties.

We DID NOT lose anything to 3 dollar bicycles, . . . when the last US soldier / sailor / airman left RVN, . . . the war was won, . . . all that needed to be done was the South to hold on to what 58,000 of our young folks died for.

You need to get your head out of Hillary's rear end, . . . find out that there really is a functional world out here, . . . and that the socialist propaganda machine you have a season pass for is so wrong that it beggars description.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> The United States (flying the fifteen million dollar Phantom) lost to the NVA and their three dollar bicycles, part because that strategic formula doesn't work.
> 
> The case is the same in North Korea. It's almost identical. There is no target there that warrants a multi-million dollar bomb delivered by a high tech delivery system. You'll just kill a handful of three dollar bicycles. They can afford a lot more bicycles than we can kill with nukes. Public opinion would limit our nuclear strikes, as would risk of a wider war. Korea was the first limited war, and the limits of limited war that were designed there still apply.


The U.S. didn't "lose" the war. Not in country. As a matter of fact, the Tet Offensive, was to be the last effort by the North, and it failed. The generals of the North were about to throw in the towel when Walter Cronkite reported the war was over for the South and its U.S. ally.

Your attempt to make it sound as if soldiers and guerrilla fighters beat the U.S. is incorrect.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

deserth3 said:


> Barring US and China involvement. It's be a short war.


I actually agree with this. The North Koreans have a million men under arms on active duty. That's for peace time. They have Russian artillery that has a longer range and more accuracy than our 155s.

Without the U.S., South Korea would be overrun and the Blue House would be burning in 72 hours. Less, if they choose winter this time. (It's been argued that they made a strategic mistake choosing summer in 1950.)


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> The U.S. didn't "lose" the war. Not in country. As a matter of fact, the Tet Offensive, was to be the last effort by the North, and it failed. The generals of the North were about to throw in the towel when Walter Cronkite reported the war was over for the South and its U.S. ally.
> 
> Your attempt to make it sound as if soldiers and guerrilla fighters beat the U.S. is incorrect.


The purpose of war is not either tactical or operational victory. The purpose of war is political victory.

There is no Saigon anymore, because when it was overrun and invaded, the victors changed the name.


----------



## deserth3 (Oct 11, 2015)

Jammer Six said:


> I actually agree with this. The North Koreans have a million men under arms on active duty. That's for peace time. They have Russian artillery that has a longer range and more accuracy than our 155s.
> 
> Without the U.S., South Korea would be overrun and the Blue House would be burning in 72 hours. Less, if they choose winter this time. (It's been argued that they made a strategic mistake choosing summer in 1950.)


I still think the South would win. The South Korean army learned it's lesson. As for attacking in the winter. Most of the North army would be in foot. Easy targets. 
Their artillery may cause allot of initial damage. But the Air Force would make short work if them.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> The purpose of war is not either tactical or operational victory. The purpose of war is political victory.
> 
> There is no Saigon anymore, because when it was overrun and invaded, the victors changed the name.


Now, you try to redirect because you allowed your fingers to outpace your knowledge and comprehension.

Why was Saigon overrun? Was it because of any military victory? Was it because the bicyclists were better than forces? Nope.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Were you in Vietnam?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Were you in Vietnam?


Nope. My drill sergeants, first squad leaders and up, my father, etc., all were.

Does that matter? Or, are you simply trying to figure out a way to get out of a pile of crap you built for yourself?


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

No, it doesn't matter. But most of the time, when someone argues that Vietnam wasn't lost, I'm talking to someone who was there, and thinks I'm dissing them, personally.

My points stand as I wrote them. I won't argue with you because you're a moderator.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> No, it doesn't matter. But most of the time, when someone argues that Vietnam wasn't lost, I'm talking to someone who was there, and thinks I'm dissing them, personally.
> 
> My points stand as I wrote them. I won't argue with you because you're a moderator.


Your points are refuted by not just what the many, many vets who were on ground in the air, there, but a lot of material that has been written about that waste of lives.

You asserted bicyclists beat our military. Period. You are as wrong as can be. Of course, facts don't deter people who think they are smarter than all that.

So, why did we leave?

Did you know that war was conducted under the auspices of the U.N?


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Actually, I asserted that fighting bicycles with a jet was a losing strategy. The idea that bicyclists "beat" our military is what you read, not what I wrote. I also asserted that the United States lost to North Vietnam. Again, that is quite different from whatever it was that you read. If you continue to read what I write and infer what you're listening for, there's not much point to this discussion without an ulterior motive.

The United States lost the Vietnam war politically and strategically. That is very different from the things you're apparently listening for. It is very different from being beaten on the ground. One of those poor strategic decisions was sending out Phantoms that chased down men hauling two mortar rounds on bicycles. The assertion that bicyclists beat our military is yours. I asserted that it was, is and always will be a losing strategy. If you don't see those differences, my comments stand as I wrote them, and we don't have anything to discuss.

You understand that arguing with a moderator on the internet is a good way to get banned, right? And that you're arguing from behind that shield?

Do you realize you're arguing from behind that shield?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> Actually, I asserted that fighting bicycles with a jet was a losing strategy. The idea that bicyclists "beat" our military is what you read, not what I wrote. I also asserted that the United States lost to North Vietnam. Again, that is quite different from whatever it was that you read. If you continue to read what I write and infer what you're listening for, there's not much point to this discussion without an ulterior motive.
> 
> The United States lost the Vietnam war politically and strategically. That is very different from the things you're apparently listening for. It is very different from being beaten on the ground. One of those poor strategic decisions was sending out Phantoms that chased down men hauling two mortar rounds on bicycles. The assertion that bicyclists beat our military is yours. I asserted that it was, is and always will be a losing strategy. If you don't see those differences, my comments stand as I wrote them, and we don't have anything to discuss.
> 
> ...


If you feel I misread what you wrote, maybe you should look back at your writing and see how more than just me read it the way I did.

Again, your assertion that the U.S. "lost" to North Vietnam is incorrect. What was actually happening goes much deeper than winning and losing a war, and the decisions were made by the same entities that are steering today's events.

As far as arguing with a mod getting you banned, that doesn't happen on any boards with which I am familiar.

Do you realize a mod position is not a shield when the moderator is entering discussions as a member? Do you realize that? Here, we do.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

I'm not a moderator. And I've never known Denton to use his status as a moderator to protect himself. You don't argue with a mod over rules and decisions. You can argue the hell out of a topic. Sounds like you're looking for an excuse to back out of the fray that you kicked up.
Now, that being said I comprehend what you are trying to say. It is economically unsound to deploy million dollar jets and munitions against vastly inferior technology. 
It costs more to wage the war than profits reaped. Theoretically. 
Political strategy and battlefield strategy are two different schools. The two may have to work simultaneously, but should never be entwined. The results are seen in the battlefields of the last 5 decades. In my opinion.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> Do you realize a mod position is not a shield when the moderator is entering discussions as a member? Do you realize that? Here, we do.


No, I've never been on a board where that was the case. It would be great if that's true here. I almost never stay in a discussion once a mod gets involved.

What entities are you talking about that are steering today's events?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> No, I've never been on a board where that was the case. It would be great if that's true here. I almost never stay in a discussion once a mod gets involved.
> 
> What entities are you talking about that are steering today's events?


Those who Harry S. Truman said were so powerful that others only spoke about them in whispers.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> Any President should be ready willing and able to use them on any threat that calls for them.


we all can count our blessings that Do Nothing Obammy didn't blunder us into such a situation - he wouldn't have pushed the button under ANY circumstances .... hope Russia never figures out the eazy path they had to conquering the US and the rest of the world ....


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Fun fact. The Soviets couldn't compete with our MIRVs, because they didn't have the ability to manufacture ball bearings the were perfect enough. Never fear; Henry Kissinger made sure they received the ability to keep up.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

Denton said:


> Those who Harry S. Truman said were so powerful that others only spoke about them in whispers.


I don't know who that is.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> I don't know who that is.


Take some time to learn the background of the creation of the League of Nations and who was behind it, and then fast forward to the same with the United Nations.


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

Smitty901 said:


> Any President should be ready willing and able to use them on any threat that calls for them.


Ready to use them? Yes.
Willing to use them? No.

There is a world of difference between the two statements.
What some here are advocating is first strike, and from first had experience I know we had a first strike policy at one time.
But once that genie is unleashed it will be nearly impossible to put it back.
Some don't understand the absolute horror a nuclear weapon can bring and its lasting effects.
Fukushima pales in comparison to the lasting effects of just one nuke.

As for Neutron Bombs, there was lots of talk in the 80's about them, but I'm doubting we have any today.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Neutron weapons were designed to kill Soviet tank crews during a mass invasion of western europe. Conditions have radically changed. Precision weapons make neutron bombs unnecessary. 

Besides, there are very few, if any, neutron weapons in the ready stockpile of the US. 

Not to mention use of nuclear weapons would make the US a pariah among the nations of the world.

And it is the avowed policy of the US to NOT use nuclear weapons first.


----------



## Jammer Six (Jun 2, 2017)

What are you claiming, that the Vietnam war was steered by the U.N.? Short circuit my learning curve, tell me who you think I should be looking for.

There is a large segment of our population who thinks that the U.N. is a legitimate source of moral authority, specifically because it isn't any one nation.

P.S. sideKahr, one of the problems facing us now is that with President Trump in charge, no one believes the United States has any policy of any kind. Instead, we have President Trump's tantrums and knee-jerk reactions.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> What are you claiming, that the Vietnam war was steered by the U.N.? Short circuit my learning curve, tell me who you think I should be looking for.
> 
> There is a large segment of our population who thinks that the U.N. is a legitimate source of moral authority, specifically because it isn't any one nation.
> 
> P.S. sideKahr, one of the problems facing us now is that with President Trump in charge, no one believes the United States has any policy of any kind. Instead, we have President Trump's tantrums and knee-jerk reactions.


The U.N.? The U.N. i just a tool.

I can't short circuit your learning curve. I can't encapsulate many years of reading and digging and digging and reading. You have to do it for yourself. That's the only way to digest and understand it. If you do that, chances are you won't be where you are, now. I started out as what would have been called a "NeoCon," but I am now a Constitutionalist.


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Jammer Six said:


> P.S. sideKahr, one of the problems facing us now is that with President Trump in charge, no one believes the United States has any policy of any kind. Instead, we have President Trump's tantrums and knee-jerk reactions.


Despite what some would have you believe, President Trump does not wield dictatorial power. Unless under direct attack, he commands the military forces of the US subject to the advice and consent of Congress.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The US and the world from the Korean war on was unwilling to finish a war. It preferred a political solution . The problem is you must first have a military solution before you have a political one. 
I am sure most won't except it but the US Soldier did their best. To many limits placed on an Army that are placed for political reason prevent a war form coming top a end. You need to finish it as was done with Germany and Japan. Cruel, ugly you bet but truth. If we are not willing to end it then we should not send one soldier in. Are you will to bet that NK will not use a nuke. I am not, this world is full of crazy people in power. Most of the Muslim world would have no problem using a nuke. Only thing stopping them, there are some pointed at them and we are better shots than they are. 
No I will not use the PC term police action. A lot of good men died, it was a WAR.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Smitty901 said:


> The US and the world from the Korean war on was unwilling to finish a war. It preferred a political solution . The problem is you must first have a military solution before you have a political one.
> I am sure most won't except it but the US Soldier did their best. To many limits placed on an Army that are placed for political reason prevent a war form coming top a end. You need to finish it as was done with Germany and Japan. Cruel, ugly you bet but truth. If we are not willing to end it then we should not send one soldier in. Are you will to bet that NK will not use a nuke. I am not, this world is full of crazy people in power. Most of the Muslim world would have no problem using a nuke. Only thing stopping them, there are some pointed at them and we are better shots than they are.
> No I will not use the PC term police action. A lot of good men died, it was a WAR.


Both Korea and Vietnam were upgraded to war. You are correct.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> What are you claiming, that the Vietnam war was steered by the U.N.? Short circuit my learning curve, tell me who you think I should be looking for.
> 
> There is a large segment of our population who thinks that the U.N. is a legitimate source of moral authority, specifically because it isn't any one nation.
> 
> P.S. sideKahr, one of the problems facing us now is that with President Trump in charge, no one believes the United States has any policy of any kind. Instead, we have President Trump's tantrums and knee-jerk reactions.


 You have been sold a worthless pile of BS. There is nothing morale about the UN. Trumps is far more stable than the clown Obama was. Trump is smart enough to keep them thinking he would do it. And he has already shown that a line is a line cross it and you will suffer. You deal from a position of power or except defeat.


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Smitty901 said:


> You have been sold a worthless pile of BS. There is nothing morale about the UN. Trumps is far more stable than the clown Obama was. Trump is smart enough to keep them thinking he would do it. And he has already shown that a line is a line cross it and you will suffer. You deal from a position of power or except defeat.


if there would have been a major civil war type crisis during Obammy's reign of terror that - he'd rung up the UN toot sweet - US citizens would have found out first hand the ins & outs of how the UN operates ...

the planes carrying Packi and Ugandan troops would be looting the airport terminals before the planes stopped rolling ....


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

Jammer Six said:


> What are you claiming, that the Vietnam war was steered by the U.N.? Short circuit my learning curve, tell me who you think I should be looking for.
> 
> There is a large segment of our population who thinks that the U.N. is a legitimate source of moral authority, specifically because it isn't any one nation.
> 
> P.S. sideKahr, one of the problems facing us now is that with President Trump in charge, no one believes the United States has any policy of any kind. Instead, we have President Trump's tantrums and knee-jerk reactions.


anyone ever inform you there's more media outlets than CNN - name just ONE "tantrums and knee-jerk reactions" that Trump has committed in the last 6 months - and if think making Twitter replies to the corrupt fake news are in your category .... former presidents like Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt and even Old Abe would have come down off the podium and throttled that little bastard Acosta half to death ....

Prez Trump is a hard charging - take no prisoners - take charge MAN - and not some San Fran bathhouse twinkie ...

if you think Trump has "tantrums" - just wait until more backstage Obammy coverage starts to creep out - going to make his & Holders Fast & Furious black ops look like sunday school ....


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

Jammer Six said:


> No, I've never been on a board where that was the case. It would be great if that's true here. I almost never stay in a discussion once a mod gets involved.
> 
> What entities are you talking about that are steering today's events?


 you almost never stay in a discussion when a moderator arrives??? Do you realize how pathetic that is? Do you realize it? I mean come on, are you SO insecure in your beliefs that the thought of more than one person disagreeing with you causes your bowels to loosen? Good god.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

Jammer Six said:


> No, it doesn't matter. But most of the time, when someone argues that Vietnam wasn't lost, I'm talking to someone who was there, and thinks I'm dissing them, personally.
> 
> My points stand as I wrote them. I won't argue with you because you're a moderator.


Go ahead, Jerk 6, . . .

1. I'm not a moderator

2. Yes, . . . boots on the ground in RVN, . . . 3 trips

3. Yes, . . . we won the hearts of the people there, . . . they wanted us to stay, . . . the John Kerry's, Walter Kronkite's, Richard Nixon's, and Jimmy Carter's of this world at that time held sway in the political arena, . . . where it was "go with the flow or not be re-elected".

I left a ton of good friendships I made there, and in fact, might not have bothered leaving had the "climate" been a bit different.

But you won't know anything about this, . . . because all you know is what the likes of the liberal / know nothing / do nothing / cares about nothing left and their socialist / communist propaganda machine have printed and spoon fed to you and your ilk.

Proper thing for you to do would be just go find some part of the dark web that agrees with your ignorance and incompetence, . . . cut your ties and losses here, . . . and be gone. We won't miss you one moment.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

bigwheel said:


> One of my dear old partners was stationed over in S. Korea in the 80's with the Army. He said the master game plan at that time was to consider themselves a sacrificial delaying force to try and hold up the vast hordes for 3 days or until the nukes could be properly allocated. The upcoming war has been in the planning stages for a long time. Sure old Mad Dog can figure out the proper approach.


I had a friend from SK when I was in the Army, they are excellent people, and there is big Christian community there. She was a Christian, married to a white man, and I helped them dig a hole for a pool. They served me a dinner with a mild kempshi, and it was good; circa 1981. The SK are a people worth saving, even if it means using atomic bombs on NK.

When I was stationed in Germany, all of us knew; that the Warsaw Pact would over-run us, there were too many of them. I was in FA, and the game plan was, to shoot and scoot, and survive as well as we could. It was publicly stated in briefings, that all of us; probably would be dead in a week. We got drunk a lot, because we knew it was probably true.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

NKAWTG said:


> Ready to use them? Yes.
> Willing to use them? No.
> 
> There is a world of difference between the two statements.
> ...


Yes, you comprehended me, I am advocating a first strike, and with all weapons at our disposal: whether neutron, atomic , hydrogen, etc.
We do indeed have the weapons. When I was in Field Artillery, I had to guard a site, where atomic artillery shells were stored. 
That was what America had given FA, to kill the Warsaw Pact hordes with.
The Air Force, had the big bad stuff, theater nukes; and the Army & Marines, had tactical nukes, which are small.

PS: America has a policy of No First Use, and also one called Respond In Kind, but none of it is hard and fast. It is not a law, it is our choice.

PSS: If an American President, of the past, thought that Russia was about to launch: Let's say, 1959... under Eisenhower, we would have fired first. I am certain that Kennedy would have shot first, if he thought that Russia was going to fire.


----------



## Knotacare (Sep 21, 2016)

I remember superiors drilling into our heads that we were not allowed to bomb or fly over certain areas of NV & Cambodia. So we were not fighting a war we could ever win...it was all about powerful people making big money & McNamara was a prick. We would sneak an attack in sometimes, but if you got caught you wold get your ass chewed off. I flew off a carrier for 2 cruises & 3 campaigns from 67-70. History repeats itself


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

Yes nukes should be an option for the administration and our military if appropriate. Our problem lies more with the damage that the Obama Admin did to our nuke arsenal while he was in office. We have fewer nuke weapon choices now. We used to have a range of nuke options from tactical to ICBM. Now we are way too top heavy with little under.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MisterMills357 said:


> I had a friend from SK when I was in the Army, they are excellent people, and there is big Christian community there. She was a Christian, married to a white man, and I helped them dig a hole for a pool. They served me a dinner with a mild kempshi, and it was good; circa 1981. The SK are a people worth saving, even if it means using atomic bombs on NK.
> 
> When I was stationed in Germany, all of us knew; that the Warsaw Pact would over-run us, there were too many of them. I was in FA, and the game plan was, to shoot and scoot, and survive as well as we could. It was publicly stated in briefings, that all of us; probably would be dead in a week. We got drunk a lot, because we knew it was probably true.


F/A? Eight Inchers, by chance?


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

Knotacare said:


> I remember superiors drilling into our heads that we were not allowed to bomb or fly over certain areas of NV & Cambodia. So we were not fighting a war we could ever win...it was all about powerful people making big money & McNamara was a prick. We would sneak an attack in sometimes, but if you got caught you wold get your ass chewed off. I flew off a carrier for 2 cruises & 3 campaigns from 67-70. History repeats itself


Which carrier?
I have a BIG THANKS to the migcap guys flying off the Enterprise back in 72. We got chased by a couple migs in the Gulf near Haiphong, F-4's from the Big E came to the rescue.


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> F/A? Eight Inchers, by chance?


I was stationed in Butzbach FRG, and the whole kasern was FA, M109, 155mm SP. When we rolled down the streets, the Krauts would stand in awe of the machines going by. They loved those things and all of the other stuff rolling by, they loved machines. I love the Germans in a lot of ways, because I love big machines the same way they do.

Eight inch guns was being replaced at the time by 175mm, and very few of the big boys were left in service. But everyone knew that the 175 did not carry the same punch.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MisterMills357 said:


> I was stationed in Butzbach FRG, and the whole kasern was FA, M109, 155mm SP. When we rolled down the streets, the Krauts would stand in awe of the machines going by. They loved those things and all of the other stuff rolling by, they loved machines. I love the Germans in a lot of ways, because I love big machines the same way they do.
> 
> Eight inch guns was being replaced at the time by 175mm, and very few of the big boys were left in service. But everyone knew that the 175 did not carry the same punch.


I worked in concert with the 8" fellows and their hardware. What they would launch when the crap hit the fan would've made a very HOT mess of the Soviet advancement, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, a lot of us would not have made it, but all we needed to do is slow them down until the help arrived from across the pond. I think we could have done it.


----------



## Knotacare (Sep 21, 2016)

Uss Kearsarge CVS33, It was a submarine hunter squadron. We were also the first carrier group to be in the Sea of Japan when the NK captured the Pueblo. We were practicing loadfing Nuclear bombs on S2's..it go pretty hairy real quick, but we had another spineless President back then so here we are in a bigger mess. I flew in S2's . Mostly we looked for gun runners, flew the N & S Vietnam coast line. Also spotted for Marines & Army when they asked for Navy big guns. Spotted one time for the USS Missouri the Battleship ( I think that was it...it was a long time ago) anyway they proceeded to destroy an island off the coast of Vietnam...It is no longer there. You could hear that thing fire 10K feet in the air...it moved sideways. We also flew some missions in Vietnam usually in the rivers looking for gun runners. Used to put about 8" of navy manuals under the seat so I wouldn't get a bullet up my butt...also worried about those pesky sea snakes in the Tonkin Gulf.


----------



## RedLion (Sep 23, 2015)

MisterMills357 said:


> I was stationed in Butzbach FRG, and the whole kasern was FA, M109, 155mm SP. When we rolled down the streets, the Krauts would stand in awe of the machines going by. They loved those things and all of the other stuff rolling by, they loved machines. I love the Germans in a lot of ways, because I love big machines the same way they do.
> 
> Eight inch guns was being replaced at the time by 175mm, and very few of the big boys were left in service. But everyone knew that the 175 did not carry the same punch.


I presume that I served in Germany after you as Butzbach was only a reception and PLDC location. If we are talking about the town of Butzbach. The rock. Kirchgoens had all and armor, etc....


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

RedLion said:


> I presume that I served in Germany after you as Butzbach was only a reception and PLDC location. If we are talking about the town of Butzbach. The rock. Kirchgoens had all and armor, etc....


We must be talking about the same place: and when I was there it was all Field Artillery; with some support, like MP & mechanics. I looked on Google Earth, and I can't even find the wall that was around it, I can't find a single landmark. 
I think that it was turned over to FRG, and the townspeople have made the land into an open space, or a plaza. I don't even know if anything is left at Geissen, of the US Army. There has been a serious draw down, since the Gulf War, and it is stunning to see so much, go by the wayside .


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> I worked in concert with the 8" fellows and their hardware. What they would launch when the crap hit the fan would've made a very HOT mess of the Soviet advancement, if you know what I mean.
> 
> Yeah, a lot of us would not have made it, but all we needed to do is slow them down until the help arrived from across the pond. I think we could have done it.


Sir,
I can assure you that we would have slowed them down: and looking back on it, we would have destroyed major Warsaw Pact units, right on the battlefield. It would not have been a one sided fight--- instead, it would have been 2 heavyweights duking it out. It would have hit the fan.:stick:


----------

