0
0

[–] TSE [S] ago 

And by the way, I did not endorse the first-strike scenario coming from the US. What I am saying is that if China does the first-strike they can't possibly hit all of our ICBMs, so the second-strike coming from the US will utterly fry China.

0
1

[–] Runspotrun 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

  1. Endorse it or not, it is the only possible alternative if the objective is to stop China dead in its tracks. However, the drastic nature of the act will ensure it is never acted upon
  2. China, as I have stated, already will NOT act alone. They will be joined, as they are at this very moment in history, by Russia, Iran and NK, among other satellite nations (Cuba, Nicaragua, Mexico) with ONE SINGLE objective in mind: destroy the "evil United States" since we are the only nation standing in their way.
  3. China has advanced tech and Russia knows as many of our secrets as POTUS. They have infiltrated every aspect of the US government, thanks to Clinton, Obama and other greedy politicians. Russia knows the location of every nuke we possess and will strike these sites first.
  4. What happens to China? I do not know. I presume our subs will strike and take out numerous high-density population centers. But they could care less. 50 million less mouths to feed is a Chinese made to order fortune cookie wrapped in a bow. Same with Iran, but their motives are slightly different. If they all die, they believe they will enter paradise with the pleasure of countless virgins, rather than the hell to which they will be sent.

0
0

[–] TSE [S] ago 

Your analysis fails for the following reason.

In your scenario:

the man who owns one .22 revolver and exactly 1 bullet goes to his next door neighbors house--who happens to own a franchise of gun stores--and blows his head off at point blank range. The neighbor is dead.

In my scenario:

the man who owns one .22 revolver and exactly 1 bullet goes to his next door neighbors house--who happens to own a franchise of gun stores--and is met by the whole family each pointing a AR15 holding 100 rounds at him. The man backs off.

0
1

[–] Runspotrun 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

We are on the SAME side, and I agree with you from a strategic point of view entirely, as the response you portray is ideal.

The point I was making however was simply that the raw number of weapons, in and of itself, is an insufficient indicator of killing power.

Russia + China + Iran + NK have sufficient power, when employing a 'special teams' scenario such as 9/11 but on a larger scale to shake the very foundation of the US

Do I want this? No

My point is merely that, as originally stated, POTUS is a gift from God, one that is temporary and not yet final in terms of the victory over evil

Evil will have its hour, however brief it may be relative to eternity