(09-30-2017, 06:44 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2017, 12:04 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]... always deflecting.
They're an ally; we're obligated to protect them if it hits the fan.
What? If someone hits my kid, yes I'm obligated to protect them. If someone hits a friend of mine, I'm not obligated to do squat!
You know we have treaties with Japan which say that we have to defend them if they're attacked, right?
(09-30-2017, 11:56 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2017, 06:44 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]What? If someone hits my kid, yes I'm obligated to protect them. If someone hits a friend of mine, I'm not obligated to do squat!
You know we have treaties with Japan which say that we have to defend them if they're attacked, right?
Those treaties and similar ones that we have with other countries need to be renegotiated. We have to ask other countries to help us, when we go to war. On the flip side, if someone else gets attacked, everyone expects us to come to their defense. I never bought into the idea that the United States has to be the protector to the rest of the free world. The only reason we have a treaty with Japan is that we felt guilty for nuking them. I look at it this way, they sneak attacked us. They got what they deserved. Why do we even have a treaty with a country that "Pearl Harbored" us? I may sound a little bitter, but my grandpa was nearly killed by the Japanese in that war and I heard many, many stories before he died, about the evil things he witnessed them do.
(10-01-2017, 12:58 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2017, 11:56 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You know we have treaties with Japan which say that we have to defend them if they're attacked, right?
Those treaties and similar ones that we have with other countries need to be renegotiated. We have to ask other countries to help us, when we go to war. On the flip side, if someone else gets attacked, everyone expects us to come to their defense. I never bought into the idea that the United States has to be the protector to the rest of the free world. The only reason we have a treaty with Japan is that we felt guilty for nuking them. I look at it this way, they sneak attacked us. They got what they deserved. Why do we even have a treaty with a country that "Pearl Harbored" us? I may sound a little bitter, but my grandpa was nearly killed by the Japanese in that war and I heard many, many stories before he died, about the evil things he witnessed them do.
You need to study some history.
(10-01-2017, 09:45 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (10-01-2017, 12:58 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Those treaties and similar ones that we have with other countries need to be renegotiated. We have to ask other countries to help us, when we go to war. On the flip side, if someone else gets attacked, everyone expects us to come to their defense. I never bought into the idea that the United States has to be the protector to the rest of the free world. The only reason we have a treaty with Japan is that we felt guilty for nuking them. I look at it this way, they sneak attacked us. They got what they deserved. Why do we even have a treaty with a country that "Pearl Harbored" us? I may sound a little bitter, but my grandpa was nearly killed by the Japanese in that war and I heard many, many stories before he died, about the evil things he witnessed them do.
You need to study some history.
History needs to be renegotiated.
Man, some of ya'll need some book learnin'! LOL
(10-01-2017, 12:58 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-30-2017, 11:56 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You know we have treaties with Japan which say that we have to defend them if they're attacked, right?
Those treaties and similar ones that we have with other countries need to be renegotiated. We have to ask other countries to help us, when we go to war. On the flip side, if someone else gets attacked, everyone expects us to come to their defense. I never bought into the idea that the United States has to be the protector to the rest of the free world. The only reason we have a treaty with Japan is that we felt guilty for nuking them. I look at it this way, they sneak attacked us. They got what they deserved. Why do we even have a treaty with a country that "Pearl Harbored" us? I may sound a little bitter, but my grandpa was nearly killed by the Japanese in that war and I heard many, many stories before he died, about the evil things he witnessed them do.
OK, I disagree, but that wasn’t what you said. You said we didn’t have to but we’re obligated to do it.
If they want to shoot down one of our planes, the sooner the better.
Right now, I see no solution to this problem other than war, and the longer we wait, the harder it will be. If we wait long enough, they will have every city in the United States targeted with an ICBM. Right now, all we have is a bunch of threats going back and forth, and that is not going to produce any kind of desirable result.
A war right now will be extremely bloody and costly, but a war later will be much worse. So, for the sake of all our futures, they need to take a shot at us as soon as possible. That's the harsh reality.
I know I sound like General Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, "For the sake of our future, get the rest of SAC in there right now..." But I'm serious.
I also think it's time for the president to go on TV and explain to the American people that we are facing a very difficult choice.
(09-30-2017, 11:36 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2017, 07:54 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Would you care if Mexico was shooting rockets over Orlando?
Orlando is part of the U.S., Japan is not. Major difference.
You might want to educate yourself on how treaties work. Since World War II, we have signed multiple treaties with Japan providing the US with the ability to have military bases in Japan, and in return, we would provide them with defense in case of an attack. Basically, if Japan is attacked, it's pretty much the same as Orlando being attacked as far as our commitments are concerned.
As far as the NorKs threatening to shoot down our military planes, it's highly unlikely that they'd be daring enough to do so as this would be a direct attack that would demand a military response. Sabre rattling and lobbing missiles into the ocean is one thing. Firing on US military is very much another. Even China, which has been pulled into compliance with clamping down on NK because of the Trump administration, has made it clear that if NK fires the first shot in any conflict, they're on their own. Trump has been very strong in the rhetoric he has used directed at NK, and while I think his instincts on this are right, and that a more diplomatic tone has done nothing to resolve the issues with this lunatic, I also see that the US is working behind the scenes to try a diplomatic approach. The difference with Trump is that I don't think he has any intention of taking a military option off the table. The primary concern is South Korea and how to best protect them should things escalate further. No doubt, that's where most of the focus militarily is being directed for any kind of planning.
NK leadership should take time to think carefully before giving the go sign to open fire on any US asset or ally. It won't end well for them.
Here's a BIG problem with going to war with North Korea.
There are some reports that, due to our heavy use of precision guided missiles against ISIS, and Congress' inability to pass a budget, of we went to war with NK, we could run out of smart bombs in about a week. That would be disastrous to our pilots who would then have to fly low enough to deliver dumb bombs on target.
Defense contractors cannot ramp up for production of greater numbers of precision guided ordnance without some certainty that they will be purchased, and without Congress passing a budget, they have no such certainty.
I confess I was unaware of this when I advocated for an early as possible war with NK.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/war-...li=BBnb7Kz
Now, all you Trump supporters, read the linked article and just filter out the parts that might be construed as critical of your guy. You can do it. The article is informative.
(10-04-2017, 05:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a BIG problem with going to war with North Korea.
There are some reports that, due to our heavy use of precision guided missiles against ISIS, and Congress' inability to pass a budget, of we went to war with NK, we could run out of smart bombs in about a week. That would be disastrous to our pilots who would then have to fly low enough to deliver dumb bombs on target.
Defense contractors cannot ramp up for production of greater numbers of precision guided ordnance without some certainty that they will be purchased, and without Congress passing a budget, they have no such certainty.
I confess I was unaware of this when I advocated for an early as possible war with NK.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/war-...li=BBnb7Kz
Now, all you Trump supporters, read the linked article and just filter out the parts that might be construed as critical of your guy. You can do it. The article is informative.
Umm, so according to these sources we're currently using them up at an accelerated pace in hot zones but we aren't currently producing any more because they don't know if they'll be bought? I don't think the Source understands the economic concept of demand, nor does he understand that government spending doesn't depend on a budget deal.
(10-04-2017, 08:01 AM)Rflsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2017, 05:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Here's a BIG problem with going to war with North Korea.
There are some reports that, due to our heavy use of precision guided missiles against ISIS, and Congress' inability to pass a budget, of we went to war with NK, we could run out of smart bombs in about a week. That would be disastrous to our pilots who would then have to fly low enough to deliver dumb bombs on target.
Defense contractors cannot ramp up for production of greater numbers of precision guided ordnance without some certainty that they will be purchased, and without Congress passing a budget, they have no such certainty.
I confess I was unaware of this when I advocated for an early as possible war with NK.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/war-...li=BBnb7Kz
Now, all you Trump supporters, read the linked article and just filter out the parts that might be construed as critical of your guy. You can do it. The article is informative.
Umm, so according to these sources we're currently using them up at an accelerated pace in hot zones but we aren't currently producing any more because they don't know if they'll be bought? I don't think the Source understands the economic concept of demand, nor does he understand that government spending doesn't depend on a budget deal.
So why don't we currently have enough smart weapons to fight a war with North Korea? Or are you saying that we do have enough?
(10-04-2017, 08:32 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-04-2017, 08:01 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Umm, so according to these sources we're currently using them up at an accelerated pace in hot zones but we aren't currently producing any more because they don't know if they'll be bought? I don't think the Source understands the economic concept of demand, nor does he understand that government spending doesn't depend on a budget deal.
So why don't we currently have enough smart weapons to fight a war with North Korea? Or are you saying that we do have enough?
I'm saying that the Source underestimates the productive capacity of the manufacturers if he thinks it will take a year for them to increase production on a weapon we are currently using and then cites the reason as "budget uncertainty." They aren't going to stop making weapons for fear that the government isn't going to buy them, they only slow production on the fear that they won't
USE them (and there's clearly little danger of that).
Not likely. We have global stock piles, stateside and global manufacturers, as well as allied stockpiles. None of this includes the thousands upon thousands of dumb bomb kits in warehouses. Keep in mind manufacturers don’t just operate on behalf of the U.S., but for global customers as well. Many of these companies have expanded operations. In a time of war they will work at max capacity.
Just one example....http://www.defenseone.com/business/2016/03/lockheed-expands-munitions-factories-isis-future/126725/
![[Image: well-there-it-is-the-stupidest-thing-ive...ll-day.jpg]](https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/250x250/63550129/well-there-it-is-the-stupidest-thing-ive-read-all-day.jpg)