Politics Hawaii Ballistic Missile Inbound Warning (NOT TRUE)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
HCP said:
Amazing that we can go to war with Iran over WMDs that never existed and NOT go to war with NK when we know they DO!
Click to expand...

Progress! Perhaps we can find a better way.
 
HCP said:
Amazing that we can go to war with Iran over WMDs that never existed and NOT go to war with NK when we know they DO!
Click to expand...
For some reason my laptop autocorrected that. I typed Iraq...... maybe she knows something we don't?
 
rv8ezunw2w901.jpg
 
BrianFromWA said:
Biological weaponry is generally off the table for nation-states b/c of the Geneva Protocol. Aside from that, it's hard to weaponize other than in a "terrorist"-type scenario (London and Tokyo subways, for instance). Missile delivery is pretty hard for bio (and even some chem) agents.

B/c it's against the Geneva Protocol, b/c we have reciprocity with nuclear weapons for any chem or bio or nuclear attack, and b/c we'd be fully justified, I don't expect that anyone should be surprised when someone is annihilated if bio agents are used against us.
Click to expand...
Thats fine for NK which although we call kim jong-un crazy he is more likely a sane actor. but what about religious zealots who get their hands on bio/chem agents? Isn't it perhaps better to not be at the top of their kill list from day one?

By the way, I'm partially arguing with you because I think this way but partially its just trying to grow. It's a very complex topic and I have conflicting beliefs.
 
HCP said:
Amazing that we can go to war with Iran over WMDs that never existed and NOT go to war with NK when we know they DO!
Click to expand...

They were likely developing them. Had we not intervened, they would have been as armed as North Korea.

We are where we are with North Korea because we just always kicked the can down the road (along with Clinton giving them the Nuclear technology)
 
Further said:
Thats fine for NK which although we call kim jong-un crazy he is more likely a sane actor. but what about religious zealots who get their hands on bio/chem agents? Isn't it perhaps better to not be at the top of their kill list from day one?

By the way, I'm partially arguing with you because I think this way but partially its just trying to grow. It's a very complex topic and I have conflicting beliefs.
Click to expand...
I'm by no means saying this is easy. You introspection and questions are welcome, which is why I'm trying to not give flip answers over them.

We, as America, are on top of the kill list and will be until we cease to care. We have the most money (kinda), the biggest military, the most cultural gravity and the ability to back up just about whatever we want. We're the 1927 Yankees, the '77 Canadiens, the Celtics of the 60's all rolled into one. We may drop a game/battle/limited war here and there, but our national existence has never been in question. In the deepest, darkest days of Vietnam America was still rolling. Getting overrun at 10-1 odds at the Chosin reservoir? America still moved on. Guys getting hit by IEDs in Kabul? Doesn't affect your life. And that's how (at least the folks I'm generally around) we want it. Now, many times we use our power for good. Sometimes we haven't. That's more a factor of poor leadership that systematic hate or racism.

KJU may be a sane actor, but he's not one that we can predict (other than that he will likely act insane.) He killed his step-brother to consolidate power. He saw on video that a general wasn't crying enough at his father's funeral, so he chained him to a post and used mortars to obliterate him. The family was sent to a "labor camp". He routinely flaunts his disdain for the UN and has committed acts of war upon S. Korea.

"Religious zealots" have had their hands on chem and bio gear since at least the 80's in Iran. The Tokyo Sarin attacks in 1995 (before much of the "Islamic Terrorism Revolution" in the West) were perpetuated by scientists and engineers. ISIS is much more likely to use something dumb but deadly, like Chlorine gas attacks or something.
 
OK, so a couple followups. What about the financial strain our defense spending puts on the US? Do you see that lowering in the future as tech allows us to require fewer soldiers in harms way?

Do you think the US will constantly be fighting off small and mid sized attacks like USS Cole or 911, or do you think my fear of larger scale attacks either through conventional or unconventional warfare will become increasingly more likely? And, is there anything the US can do to deescalate these international threats long term or are there just too many Jong-Un's out there?
 
HCP said:
I'd like your post, but I'm so absolutely disgusted by that term, I just can't.
Click to expand...
I was using it ironically, if that makes it better. I too find the constant utterance of the aforementioned phrase quite detestable.
 
HCP said:
I'd like your post, but I'm so absolutely disgusted by that term, I just can't.
Click to expand...
It very likely has spread fake news. Alexa reported that Jesus was a fictional character because someone edited a Wikipedia page. Or something like that.

Anyway it could happen.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
It very likely has spread fake news. Alexa reported that Jesus was a fictional character because someone edited a Wikipedia page. Or something like that.

Anyway it could happen.
Click to expand...
You are correct. There actually is a lot of "fake news" coming from every angle: every political party, every biased news source. But people are now deciding to use the term for anything they don't immediately agree with. It has gotten way out of hand and has lost most its intrinsic meaning.

I can offer examples of this phenomenon, if you really need it.
 
Kim Jung Un's lackeys could instigate false warnings and win in another way...psychological torture.
 
SlyPokerDog said:
So who is helping NK with their missile program? Seems too many recent developments to have done it without outside help.
Click to expand...
Mmmmm. I smell China. It's easy to transport vital parts and skinny little scientists across a land border. AAtXuYh.jpg < NK prior to communist help. 1.png < NK Controls as they are now.
 
Further said:
OK, so a couple followups. What about the financial strain our defense spending puts on the US? Do you see that lowering in the future as tech allows us to require fewer soldiers in harms way?
Click to expand...
Very likely not. There aren't a ton of example throughout history where "Future Tech" is cheaper (monetarily) than the incumbent. (Including here). Our policies may change, but at the moment (and with at least the last 2 presidents) our government is adamant that the trigger-puller at the end of the operational chain is a person. No attacking robot dogs, no "clone wars" robot shooters, drones need to be "piloted", etc. That may change, but until it does, you need shooters (infantry, pilots, artillerymen, etc). And when you need shooters you need mission support for them (communicators, mechanics, armorers, ordnancemen, submariners, fuel operators, intel analysts, etc). And when you have shooters and their mission support you need logistical support (gas, food, cooks, tents, supply) for them. And as you deploy them further from the US/the base, the more complex (read: $) that logistical support is. To say nothing of developing technology to stay ahead of our near-peer competitors so we don't take knives into a gunfight.

Personally, I don't see that the DoD budget causes a financial strain. I think that when you do send that immense military machine off to war and don't raise taxes or cut other programs to pay for it, that it's a problem. Maybe if it would've cost every tax return in America $500 a year to pay for the Overseas Contingency Ops budget (separate from the DoD "keep the lights on" budget), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would've either run out of popular support ("bring the troops home and stop taxing my ass!") or it would've been funded without being a "strain" on the budget (which turned into pure debt, causing interest payments to go up, causing...)

Do you think the US will constantly be fighting off small and mid sized attacks like USS Cole or 911, or do you think my fear of larger scale attacks either through conventional or unconventional warfare will become increasingly more likely? And, is there anything the US can do to deescalate these international threats long term or are there just too many Jong-Un's out there?
Click to expand...
Prognostication is generally horrible, but in my particular worldview people are generally bad unless reined in by some societal, religious or political pressure. Lord Acton's notion that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely" is one I believe in as well. I think the US has, at multiple times in its history, tried to "de-escalate" things. Generally, those times happen to fall when there is a modern liberal (vice 'classically liberal') President who believes a) in the goodness of humans and b) that peace can reign because we want it to. From Wilson to FDR to Truman to JFK to LBJ (who is different from the others on this list b/c he's a hawk) to Obama, the last century is peppered with Presidents who were notionally doves who thought they could, through force of their intellect and idealism, make the world better. Each ended up either having to go to war in a bad spot (untrained troops going up against veterans in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam) or losing the strategic initiative (if there ever was one: Iraq, Afg and the Cold War around the Bay of Pigs). I'm not saying D's suck and R's are better...I'm saying that if your worldview is idealistic, it's not realistic and history shows that that's how lots of people get killed.
The single name most inextricably bound up with the Treaty of Versailles (ending WWI), and consequently its failure, is Thomas Woodrow Wilson. The dream of a world of happy peoples, each assembled into an entity of its own nationality and living in its own historical geographic location, were now seen to have been imbecilic wishes which could not and would not come true. - R. Watt, The Kings Depart,
Click to expand...
 
we in hawaii take the threat of being a military and political target in the twitter diplomacy brinksmanship the current administration of our country and NK engage in, seriously. we are a legitimate target in a north korea first strike scenario so to do otherwise would be negligent on the part of our state and local leaders and civil defense. all federal and state government employees were sent home and told to go be with your families. it doesn't get more real than that.
 
theprunetang said:
You are correct. There actually is a lot of "fake news" coming from every angle: every political party, every biased news source. But people are now deciding to use the term for anything they don't immediately agree with. It has gotten way out of hand and has lost most its intrinsic meaning.

I can offer examples of this phenomenon, if you really need it.
Click to expand...
I'm watching a completely biased news source on tv right now. Meet the Press.

At least this show is described as opinion. That's fine. They still don't even pretend to be fair. The media is now 100 percent judgemental. Fox judges everything as a Republican would see it and every other equally as powerful mainstream source defends the left. That's all it is.

Right now Chuck Todd is almost giddy talking about Democrats taking back the house and the blue wave that is coming.

Earlier on the show before Meet The Press the guy talked about Trump giving out fake news awards and made sure to add "using white house time and money and resources"

They literally can't describe one thing he does or says with editorializing.
 
BrianFromWA said:
drones need to be "piloted"
Click to expand...

>>> True. But the pilot does not need to ride. This is why I think replacing 5b dollar Aircraft Carriers with 15b dollars ones is a huge mistake.
Small remotely controlled drones, not burdened with pilots onboard don't need the huge Carriers to accomplish the tasks. Destroyer squadrons can deliver a strike equivalent to what a carrier task force of 40 years ago could do. Damn I like building up the Navy, more ship man! No more of this shit, no assets available! But we need ships for the future, not the past while not losing sight of the lessons learned from History. Ships designed for roles in probably future missions.


BrianFromWA said:
people are generally bad unless reined in by some societal, religious or political pressure.
Click to expand...

>>> I totally agree. I took the time to study and try to answer the question, Why do men need religion? Your position is the same that I came to, with religion being the preferred reining force. Having politics do this task is polarizing and erosive to the system. As it is going, we may end up with nothing at all at holding the reins.


BrianFromWA said:
I'm saying that if your worldview is idealistic, it's not realistic and history shows that that's how lots of people get killed.
Click to expand...

>>> Spot on.
The idealistic view must always be present to keep the balance but never tip the scale. We toggle too often and may not recover when people get killed.

Good stuff Brian.
 
Last edited:
Donald Trump was elected President. Population effect=solar-probe-plus.jpg WTF!
 
BrianFromWA said:
Like I said earlier, only because we've allowed them to be. If the twitter had come out saying "huge deadly blizzard headed for Honolulu" they would've laughed and gone back to sleep. There's almost no way a) NK has a missile that has the range to hit Hawaii, b) NK has the ability to properly mate said missile capability with a nuclear warhead, and c) be anything close to accurate enough to hit in island 30 miles in diameter from 5000 miles away...but since NK's abilities have been hyped, nothing has been done about it and our country and its military leadership has been denigrated, your friends had a rough morning.
Click to expand...

Wait... really? NK does not have a missile with range to hit Hawaii? That's very much not what has been reported widely. Since I know you aren't telling us classified information, could you provide some backup for this?

barfo
 
barfo said:
Wait... really? NK does not have a missile with range to hit Hawaii? That's very much not what has been reported widely. Since I know you aren't telling us classified information, could you provide some backup for this?

barfo
Click to expand...
This is from February's test...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...be-launched-from-submarine-officials-say.html

From July's Hwasong-14 test, and November's Hwasong-15 test, if everything went perfectly they may be able to have long-range missiles, but they broke up on reentry. That's why I talk about "range to hit Hawaii" being an "almost no way" right now. I would've been more correct to say "they don't have a missile that has been shown to have the range to hit Hawaii that hasn't malfunctioned or otherwise broken up in flight." That's not to say that they'll stay dumb forever, and why I am more on the "eradicate their illegal and UN-sanctioned-against capability, whatever it is, before they get lucky" boat.
 
BrianFromWA said:
No. I think that his plans, if they come to fruition, would do wonders. Having 350 ships instead of 270 would be mammoth and would alleviate some of the root causes of the fuckups you talk about (optempo too high for skilled and trained sailors, leadership worried about saying "no" to civilians, etc.) by sheer sharing of responsibility.
Click to expand...

The thing that bothers me about this is, what responsibility? I don't see the Navy fighting a hot war right now. If you can't be trusted to sail 270 ships around in (relative) peacetime without crashing into things, maybe the solution, if the crews need more rest, is just to park some of those boats for awhile?

barfo
 
BrianFromWA said:
This is from February's test...
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/0...be-launched-from-submarine-officials-say.html

From July's Hwasong-14 test, and November's Hwasong-15 test, if everything went perfectly they may be able to have long-range missiles, but they broke up on reentry. That's why I talk about "range to hit Hawaii" being an "almost no way" right now. I would've been more correct to say "they don't have a missile that has been shown to have the range to hit Hawaii that hasn't malfunctioned or otherwise broken up in flight." That's not to say that they'll stay dumb forever, and why I am more on the "eradicate their illegal and UN-sanctioned-against capability, whatever it is, before they get lucky" boat.
Click to expand...

Got it, thanks.

Is keeping the missile together on reentry a hard problem? I'm not a rocket man (little or otherwise) but it seems to me that's a problem that was solved many decades ago, and I assume NK knows how it was solved. But maybe it's harder to accomplish in practice than I imagine?

barfo
 
barfo said:
The thing that bothers me about this is, what responsibility? I don't see the Navy fighting a hot war right now. If you can't be trusted to sail 270 ships around in (relative) peacetime without crashing into things, maybe the solution, if the crews need more rest, is just to park some of those boats for awhile?

barfo
Click to expand...
You're not wrong...the difference, though, is that a ship of war at sea is running basically at "wartime" watchstanding, even when doing a "peaceful" transit. (I know there's 'battle stations' and such, but optempo is still high). In fact, in "wartime" you can focus on the non-BS. When you see "The President has ordered Carrier X to Region Y to show the flag", that crew is obligated to run at wartime watchstanding, ready or not. And many times, the crew isn't ready.

I think that your idea of "parking the boats for awhile" isn't a bad one...it's what some leaders have internally been discussing. But when higher leaders say "send 4 ships to NK waters---while sending ships to Djibouti, while having ships in the Persian Gulf, while fighting piracy in Aden, while doing exercises with the Brits and Aussies, while in shipyards and overhauls, in addition to 'normal' operations", admirals have been loathe to say "can't do that, sir...that crew just got back from a deployment, got a bunch of noobs onboard and isn't proficient in their duties as a crew (as graded by standard inspections)." They say "Hey, Captain Q, get your ass to sea." And Captain Q doesn't say "Sorry, boss...my crew is tired and junior and unqualified" he says "Yes, sir." And proceeds to kill 17 sailors colliding with a big-ass ship.
 
BrianFromWA said:
You're not wrong...the difference, though, is that a ship of war at sea is running basically at "wartime" watchstanding, even when doing a "peaceful" transit. (I know there's 'battle stations' and such, but optempo is still high). In fact, in "wartime" you can focus on the non-BS. When you see "The President has ordered Carrier X to Region Y to show the flag", that crew is obligated to run at wartime watchstanding, ready or not. And many times, the crew isn't ready.

I think that your idea of "parking the boats for awhile" isn't a bad one...it's what some leaders have internally been discussing. But when higher leaders say "send 4 ships to NK waters---while sending ships to Djibouti, while having ships in the Persian Gulf, while fighting piracy in Aden, while doing exercises with the Brits and Aussies, while in shipyards and overhauls, in addition to 'normal' operations", admirals have been loathe to say "can't do that, sir...that crew just got back from a deployment, got a bunch of noobs onboard and isn't proficient in their duties as a crew (as graded by standard inspections)." They say "Hey, Captain Q, get your ass to sea." And Captain Q doesn't say "Sorry, boss...my crew is tired and junior and unqualified" he says "Yes, sir." And proceeds to kill 17 sailors colliding with a big-ass ship.
Click to expand...

That's depressing. But thanks for sharing.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top