monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

You just can't help but react with belligerence snood.

Read what I wrote and challenge your reading comprehension. You will find that I never suggested you or blatham said anything about Jesus.

I've no doubt what-so-ever that there are some pretty bloodthirsty Christians who consider themselves devout. It's the same with all other religions.

What I've never seen is a Christian (of any stripe) talk about a bloodthirsty Jesus.

You and snood can criticize the hypocrisy of certain Christians with taking it so far over the line.

I objected, pretty clearly, to your suggesting any Christians might boast of a bloodthirsty "Shock & Awe" Christ.

Hey, if you let some of them, they'll explain to you how shock and awe is Christlike.

You made the suggestion to begin with so now back it up rather than creating a true straw man to fight.

Or just forget it, because I doubt you will admit you are wrong with this latest post.

A thoughtful comment.

Anyone who delights in war with no personal risk is a truly vile miscreant.

Anyone who delights in war with complete personal risk is an interesting character.

That being said, combat seems to be in our nature. Prehistoric warriors as well as those who followed them from Sparta, Persia, Crusader Europe, The Ottoman Empire, Japan, and WWI and WWII Europe all came back with horrendous wounds and telling the same horrible tales. Artists have repeatedly tried to tell the world how horrible war is, and yet war remains. The men you met have a wise tale to tell but it will not be heeded.

There is no novel or movie possibly conceived that will rid the world of it's penchant for war. If WWI couldn't do it none can.

We are a warring primate species.

So, the notion of ending war, for the foreseeable future, is ridiculous. The notion of controlling situations that lead to war is not.

It's a wall tougher than graphene, Snood.

It's a wall tougher than graphene, Snood.

Holy crap...It took you 8 years to make NCO???

giujohn wrote:

Holy crap...It took you 8 years to make NCO???

Don't forget the Army's specialist ratings. I knew a Spec 7, which corresponds to a sergeant 1st class in pay grade. He was not an NCO, and at E5, neither was I.

President Donald Trump on Thursday praised the decision to drop a massive bunker-busting bomb in Afghanistan as an example of the “total authorization” he has given his military commanders.

But such boasts only deepen defense experts' concerns that Trump is ceding the military too much influence over the United States' actions abroad — creating the danger of an unbalanced policy that gives short shrift to interests like diplomacy.

If China doesn't join the US in exerting pressure on NK, it probably will be, but that seems to have changed and so I have new hope.

I volunteered into the USAF because I knew I didn't have to do the killing. I was assigned to work with nukes, and spent one year in Morocco. That experience changed my whole life, because I learned about world travel, and have since traveled to over 80 countries.
I kept in touch with one airman who I met in Morocco. We send each other christmas cards every year. He used to live in Kansas City, but now lives in Terrell, TX. Saw him a couple of times since returning to the states, but that was many years ago.
I think the military establishes a lot of life long friendships.
My older brother served in Korea during that war in the Army. My younger brother was a doctor in the Army, and served most of his time on the east coast at Newport News. He was considering re-upping, because he said he could make bird colonel, but I told him to get out and start his own practice. That's what he did with a partner, and they had two offices. One in Lodi, and the other in Stockton. I think he did much better in civilian life. He even served in the state legislature for two terms.

giujohn wrote:

oralloy wrote:

giujohn wrote:

Respectfully disagree. Cruise missiles can take out anti-aircraft while simultaneously launching moab's... That's just one scenario.

Cruise missiles can only destroy known locations. Not useful against mobile radar/SAM sites. Not useful against fixed sites that we don't know about

MOABs are simply not powerful enough to instantly kill an entire country before they have any chance to react. If North Korea manages to destroy Tokyo (or Chicago) while we are still in the process of destroying them, we'll have failed.

Again respectfully disagree. While triple A SAM sites may be surely mobile the are usually guarding sites that are not.

If you can't take out the mobile SAM sites, no cargo plane is going to get close enough to drop a MOAB.

giujohn wrote:

We already have the sites we would want plotted now.

The problem is though, there just aren't enough conventional weapon targets (and ability to hit them rapidly enough) to match the devastation of hundreds of nukes striking everywhere at once.

Launching a conventional attack against North Korea is just going to give them more of an opportunity to launch their nukes before they are destroyed. And probably shoot a fair number of artillery shells into Seoul too.

giujohn wrote:

If, again a very big if, they launched against the US it would not be Chicago. San Francisco...Yeah possibly, but then I wouldn't be sorry to see it go, ya know?

Right now they can't reach mainland US. But if we give them time, they will eventually be able to. I'd hate to lose San Francisco. It's a beautiful city.

giujohn wrote:

But much more likely would be a US military base in the ROK.

They can reach Tokyo and Guam with their current nukes.