Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)
-   Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)
-   -   H-Bomb (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=92736)

JohnR 09-03-2017 10:44 AM

H-Bomb
 
5.8-6.2 mag quake at NORK nuke site. Building ins China and Russia shaking.

Worst case scenario:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...-in-emp-strike

spence 09-03-2017 11:27 AM

What are you worried about they can't hit Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR 09-03-2017 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1127501)
What are you worried about they can't hit Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Well, if they could put that on their HS14 they could hit Boston, and NY (and NWC NPT).

Norks have been successful with a lot of their tests lately.

Out on the edge of possible - hence the worst case scenario -is the EMP.

nightfighter 09-03-2017 02:33 PM

Even more disturbing is seeing how far he has gone without either Russia or China taking a stand. Unless one of them is in bed with him.... One would think that Putin values his vast bank account more than any trust or alliance with Kim. And I am a little surprised that China's US educated president hasn't minimized Kim's risk to his country's growth position in the world economy. Both of those leaders have much more to lose than Kim does if he lights off a live one.....

scottw 09-04-2017 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1127501)
What are you worried about they can't hit Boston.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

how are things in Canada?

DZ 09-05-2017 07:44 AM

Who says you have to launch it from NK? Possibilities are endless for NK to farm it out to other bad actors. Hell, it could be possible to place it on a Merchant ship bound for a US port. Something that big doesn't even need to be detonated close - just downwind toward the US. A terrorists dream. This guy needs to be taken out.

Nebe 09-05-2017 07:47 AM

Trump doesn't have the balls to actually get militarily involved here. He will talk this up and push things to the brink but it's all talk. It reminds me of Obamas red line in the sand regarding Syria
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe 09-05-2017 07:48 AM

And if he did get us involved, we will be looking at WWIII.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DZ 09-05-2017 08:00 AM

Looks like we will be potentially cutting off all trade with any country that supports NK - China. Will isolating China work since they have financed most of our debt?

spence 09-05-2017 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1127571)
Looks like we will be potentially cutting off all trade with any country that supports NK - China. Will isolating China work since they have financed most of our debt?

It would shutdown the global economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR 09-05-2017 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1127568)
Who says you have to launch it from NK? Possibilities are endless for NK to farm it out to other bad actors. Hell, it could be possible to place it on a Merchant ship bound for a US port. Something that big doesn't even need to be detonated close - just downwind toward the US. A terrorists dream. This guy needs to be taken out.

They are known for sharing much of their nuke tech with Iran. Gee, almost wonder who could be financing this. In an unrelated note, glad Obama stopped Iran's nuke problem and didn't give them any money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1127569)
Trump doesn't have the balls to actually get militarily involved here. He will talk this up and push things to the brink but it's all talk. It reminds me of Obamas red line in the sand regarding Syria
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I am not sure about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1127577)
It would shutdown the global economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. And the fraying ends of global peace with it maybe.

Nebe 09-05-2017 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1127580)
They are known for sharing much of their nuke tech with Iran. Gee, almost wonder who could be financing this. In an unrelated note, glad Obama stopped Iran's nuke problem and didn't give them any money.



I am not sure about this.



Yes. And the fraying ends of global peace with it maybe.

And with the fraying of global peace.... you have...... wait forrrrrrr it...........wait forrrrrrrrrrr it...........


WW3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

JohnR 09-05-2017 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebe (Post 1127586)
And with the fraying of global peace.... you have...... wait forrrrrrr it...........wait forrrrrrrrrrr it...........


WW3
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


10 million North / South Koreans dead would be horrible, beyond horrible - but not existential.

China / Russia, that is existential.

Got Stripers 09-05-2017 02:43 PM

You would think China would have a vested interest in reining in this nut job, but it's scary to see Kim just continue to escalate the testing and rhetoric.

wdmso 09-05-2017 04:03 PM

the North has the Bomb it keeps them safe its not offensive nor are ours

Trump and his UN ambassador have boxed themselves in a corner.. with all the tough talk their base loves ... I am not sure the base fully understands this isn't some Isis guy they watched get smoked thru a Thermal camera

A shooting war will cost many American Lives ..


And China has a treaty with the North generally promoted peaceful cooperation in the areas of culture, economics, technology and other social benefits between the two nations.[4] Specifically, Article 2 of the treaty declares the two nations undertake all necessary measures to oppose any country or coalition of countries that might attack either nation.[5]

The most recent renewal will remain in effect until 2021.

wdmso 09-05-2017 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1127568)
Who says you have to launch it from NK? Possibilities are endless for NK to farm it out to other bad actors. Hell, it could be possible to place it on a Merchant ship bound for a US port. Something that big doesn't even need to be detonated close - just downwind toward the US. A terrorists dream. This guy needs to be taken out.


Thats pure fear mongering there is no intel about a 1st strike weapon ,, your SCENARIO applies more to Pakistan

wdmso 09-05-2017 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Got Stripers (Post 1127608)
You would think China would have a vested interest in reining in this nut job, but it's scary to see Kim just continue to escalate the testing and rhetoric.


He's following Trumps Lead,, Kim is being a non Traditional Leader and has no issues playing this game of Chicken with the US

Sea Dangles 09-05-2017 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1127618)
He's following Trumps Lead,, Kim is being a non Traditional Leader and has no issues playing this game of Chicken with the US

Because he was really a traditional leader before Trump was president?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

buckman 09-05-2017 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1127618)
He's following Trumps Lead,, Kim is being a non Traditional Leader and has no issues playing this game of Chicken with the US

Maybe your idea of a traditional leader and I don't think Trump is playing games . Your boy played games
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso 09-05-2017 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1127622)
Maybe your idea of a traditional leader and I don't think Trump is playing games . Your boy played games
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Your correct Trump has no idea how the games played ... and that in its self is a problem. .. well it's your boys ball now! not many choices does he punt or go long or attack north korea plz tell us what should he do ?

nightfighter 09-06-2017 08:23 AM

And now we have had the possibility of an EMP attack put into the conversation by..... North Korea. They don't need to be able to "hit" Boston, or NY, or DC. Just lob it up there, 250 miles above, say, middle continental US, right around space station altitude and detonate.... Nothing you can look at from where you are reading this will operate if it needs electric power.....

Got Coleman stove?

JohnR 09-06-2017 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nightfighter (Post 1127642)
And now we have had the possibility of an EMP attack put into the conversation by..... North Korea. They don't need to be able to "hit" Boston, or NY, or DC. Just lob it up there, 250 miles above, say, middle continental US, right around space station altitude and detonate.... Nothing you can look at from where you are reading this will operate if it needs electric power.....

Got Coleman stove?


EMP is arguably my greatest concern and I have seen smart people on the nuke discuss both state it is over-hyped and not much of a threat to everyone willdiestarfishprime .

What I do know is that a federal group I am member of has been actively looking at it for some time.

Fishpart 09-06-2017 11:14 AM

We could simply return to the way we handled Kim for the previous 8 years. Send him some Uranium and Physics books and tell him to go play in his room... How'd that work out for us?

spence 09-06-2017 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishpart (Post 1127650)
We could simply return to the way we handled Kim for the previous 8 years. Send him some Uranium and Physics books and tell him to go play in his room... How'd that work out for us?

Unless you wanted to invade and have Seoul leveled by howitzers I'm not sure what you expected Obama to do.

It will be interesting to see how China's position evolves on this. There's concern growing that the mountain they've been detonating all these bombs under could collapse and start spreading radiation into China...this wouldn't be good.

scottw 09-06-2017 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1127652)

Unless you wanted to invade and have Seoul leveled by howitzers I'm not sure what you expected Obama to do.

.

well...he did lower the ocean levels and kill Bin Laden...also handled the Russians, Syrians and Iranians "brilliantly"....so NK should have been a lay up....maybe a cup o' tea with the dictator or something :)

Jim in CT 09-06-2017 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1127618)
He's following Trumps Lead,, Kim is being a non Traditional Leader and has no issues playing this game of Chicken with the US

"He's following Trumps Lead"

So Kim wasn't playing games until Trump got elected?

"Kim is being a non Traditional Leader"

Non-traditional? That's how you describe him? Geez, don't be so hard on the guy.

Jim in CT 09-06-2017 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1127652)
Unless you wanted to invade and have Seoul leveled by howitzers I'm not sure what you expected Obama to do.

It will be interesting to see how China's position evolves on this. There's concern growing that the mountain they've been detonating all these bombs under could collapse and start spreading radiation into China...this wouldn't be good.

"I'm not sure what you expected Obama to do. "

I "expected" Obama to do exactly what he did, i.e., zip. I "hoped" he would do what the world knows needs to be done, which is to get China to reign that maniac in.

Jim in CT 09-06-2017 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1127653)
well...he did lower the ocean levels and kill Bin Laden...also handled the Russians, Syrians and Iranians "brilliantly"....so NK should have been a lay up....maybe a cup o' tea with the dictator or something :)

Brilliant. I am curious to see what response you get from the Obama apologists...

scottw 09-06-2017 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1127664)
Brilliant. I am curious to see what response you get from the Obama apologists...

I heard he was on Facebook attacking Trump...which is pretty funny if you think about it....maybe Obama will fly to Florida, hold up his arms and divert the hurricane :bl:

PaulS 09-06-2017 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1127664)
Brilliant. I am curious to see what response you get from the Obama apologists...

As opposed to the Trump apologists who claim NK is Obama's fault but give Trump credit from day 1 for the economy? Maybe Trump should have worked on NK earlier and it would have all been solved?

Hypocrites?

Jim in CT 09-06-2017 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1127670)
As opposed to the Trump apologists who claim NK is Obama's fault but give Trump credit from day 1 for the economy? Maybe Trump should have worked on NK earlier and it would have all been solved?

Hypocrites?

How many trump apologists are here? Any?

NK was a problem before obama got elected - who on this planet, has claimed otherwise? In 8 years, you tell me Paul, what did obama do to improve things? I believe, that obama believed, that he could make the world better just by making people see how hip he is. That reference Scott keeps making from obamas inaugural, where obama said something like " let today be the day we remember as the day when oceans stopped rising and the planet began to heal." I mean, that's as narcissistic and egomaniacal as anything trump has ever said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wdmso 09-06-2017 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1127663)
"I'm not sure what you expected Obama to do. "

I "expected" Obama to do exactly what he did, i.e., zip. I "hoped" he would do what the world knows needs to be done, which is to get China to reign that maniac in.


This is the issue you see North Korea as solely an American issue same with the Iran Deal but again those are not the Facts

the US has not acted unilaterally they acted with the WORLD in both of theses issues

But the rights Base are clueless and think thats whats happen under Obama he acted unilaterally and now kim has the bomb in 8 years
the truth is they were making the bomb well before Obama but again Plz dont let facts get in the way

1st test October 9, 2006, then may 2009 then feb 2013 Jan 2016 September 2016 ,September 2017

PaulS 09-06-2017 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1127673)
How many trump apologists are here? Any?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Anyone who tried to defend him for saying that people who marched with the nazis where "fine" people or who have tried telling us what he meant vs what he actually said for starters. How about people who say he's being sarcastic when there's no indication he was being sarcastic? I could add a lot more.

First time in history we've had a president defending Nazis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT 09-06-2017 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wdmso (Post 1127674)
This is the issue you see North Korea as solely an American issue same with the Iran Deal but again those are not the Facts

the US has not acted unilaterally they acted with the WORLD in both of theses issues

But the rights Base are clueless and think thats whats happen under Obama he acted unilaterally and now kim has the bomb in 8 years
the truth is they were making the bomb well before Obama but again Plz dont let facts get in the way

1st test October 9, 2006, then may 2009 then feb 2013 Jan 2016 September 2016 ,September 2017

I don't see this as a us only issue at all. Once again, you are responding to something that no one has said. Obama was supposed to be the guy, unlike bush, who could get other countries to help us, by being nicer to them. Did the world line up to help obama with NK?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT 09-06-2017 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1127675)

First time in history we've had a president defending Nazis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see.

So when Trump says "I condemn violence and bigotry on all sides", what you hear, is "I like Nazis".

Yes, he could have been very specific about calling them out separately from Antifa. He's a rotten speaker. And he may well have been wrong in his assumption that there were "fine" people mixed in.

If you look at everything he said, he clearly condemned the bigots, but was allowing for the possibility that there were non-bigots in the group. He may have been 100% wrong in that assessment. But to conclude that he was "defending Nazis", is completely irrational.

I can make a LONG list of character flaws that Trump has, and some are very ugly. Nazi sympathizer, isn't on the list, at least, not based on his comments from Charlottesville.

nightfighter 09-06-2017 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1127675)
First time in history we've had a president defending Nazis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would have to do some deep digging, but I am 75% sure there were some words spoken on their behalf by FDR, pre Pearl Harbor, said in an effort to keep the US neutral and out of the war in Europe. Again, pre WW2. Just saying and has no bearing on current discussion.

scottw 09-06-2017 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1127670)

As opposed to the Trump apologists who claim NK is Obama's fault but give Trump credit from day 1 for the economy?

Hypocrites?

name one...:btu:

PaulS 09-07-2017 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1127682)
I see.

So when Trump says "I condemn violence and bigotry on all sides", what you hear, is "I like Nazis".No, what I hear is what he said - read it. He was trying to put Nazis on equal footing with people who were marching against NAZIs.

Yes, he could have been very specific about calling them out separately from Antifa. He's a rotten speaker. And he may well have been wrong in his assumption that there were "fine" people mixed in.Go back and read what he said - everytime he called out a Nazi, he had to add something about antifa as if it killed him to call out a nazi.

If you look at everything he said, he clearly condemned the bigots, but was allowing for the possibility that there were non-bigots in the group.I would say if you think you are not a bigot and the person next to you is yelling something about Jews and is a self professed Nazi and you don't leave - you then are a bigot. He may have been 100% wrong in that assessment. But to conclude that he was "defending Nazis", is completely irrational. He was defending nazis' bc some in the crowd word MAGA hats - ie "they like me, therefore they are me and me can't be all bad so they can't be bad".

I can make a LONG list of character flaws that Trump has, and some are very ugly. Nazi sympathizer, isn't on the list, at least, not based on his comments from Charlottesville.

I read that Bannon pushed Pres Trump not to criticize the Alt right too strongly for fear of alienating Trump's core supports. What Bannon failed to recogonize is that the majority of Trump's supporters criticized the Alt right who participated in those marches and where horrified by Trump not criticizing the Nazis more. The thing I can't figure out is he likes "winners" so why isn't he calling for the removal of the statutes of a bunch of traitorous losers?

But back to the apologists - So aren't you being an apologist? Can't the same be said for anyone who posts on either side of a discussion in most threads?

Jim in CT 09-07-2017 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 1127701)
I read that Bannon pushed Pres Trump not to criticize the Alt right too strongly for fear of alienating Trump's core supports. What Bannon failed to recogonize is that the majority of Trump's supporters criticized the Alt right who participated in those marches and where horrified by Trump not criticizing the Nazis more. The thing I can't figure out is he likes "winners" so why isn't he calling for the removal of the statutes of a bunch of traitorous losers?

But back to the apologists - So aren't you being an apologist? Can't the same be said for anyone who posts on either side of a discussion in most threads?

"He was trying to put Nazis on equal footing with people who were marching against NAZIs."

Please post exactly what he said, that you interpreted as him equating Nazis, with those who oppose Nazis. He may have equated the violent jerks on both sides (Antifa is nothing more than a terrorist group), that's hardly the same thing as what you accused him of.

"everytime he called out a Nazi, he had to add something about antifa as if it killed him to call out a nazi."

So he called out both Nazis and Antifa. And that's what ticks you off. Yes, he could have said "Nazis have killed more people than Antifa ever will". But that's nowhere near "defending Nazis", which is what you accused him of.

"I would say if you think you are not a bigot and the person next to you is yelling something about Jews and is a self professed Nazi and you don't leave - you then are a bigot"

That's not a bad point. But interesting that you chose not to apply that logic to Obama, who had Al Sharpton in the Oval Office almost 100 times, and I don't recall you offering a syllable of criticism for that. How about we establish some rules, and we apply them equally to all presidents, regardless of party?

"He was defending nazis' bc some in the crowd word MAGA hats - ie "they like me, therefore they are me and me can't be all bad so they can't be bad".

He has condemned all kinds of bigotry, dozens of times, on camera. But let's ignore all that, because it doesn't fit The Narrative. The Narrative is having a hard time lately.

"aren't you being an apologist?"

No, I am being a rational adult who holds him accountable for the things he actually says and does. Just because I don't heap fabricated criticism at Trump, doesn't mean I am an apologist. I am highly, highly critical of the man. But I do it honestly, and that's the difference between us.

PaulS 09-07-2017 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim in CT (Post 1127707)
"He was trying to put Nazis on equal footing with people who were marching against NAZIs."

Please post exactly what he said, that you interpreted as him equating Nazis, with those who oppose Nazis. He may have equated the violent jerks on both sides (Antifa is nothing more than a terrorist group), that's hardly the same thing as what you accused him of.TRUMP: I will tell you something. I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people watched it. And you had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now.

[cross talk]

You had a group on the other side that came charging in without a permit and they were very, very violent.

REPORTER: Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?

TRUMP: All of those people — Excuse me — I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue, Robert E. Lee.




REPORTER: Mr. President, are you putting what you are calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

TRUMP: I am not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious and horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side, you can call them the left. You have just called them the left, that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

REPORTER: You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides?

TRUMP: Well I do think there’s blame. Yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it. And you don’t have doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.





REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —

TRUMP: Excuse me. They didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis. And you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.

You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me — I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.




"everytime he called out a Nazi, he had to add something about antifa as if it killed him to call out a nazi."

So he called out both Nazis and Antifa. And that's what ticks you off. I'm not ticked off at all. I think it is hilarious to watch the apologists try to explain his actions. Yes, he could have said "Nazis have killed more people than Antifa ever will". But that's nowhere near "defending Nazis", which is what you accused him of.

"I would say if you think you are not a bigot and the person next to you is yelling something about Jews and is a self professed Nazi and you don't leave - you then are a bigot"

That's not a bad point. But interesting that you chose not to apply that logic to Obama, who had Al Sharpton in the Oval Office almost 100 times, and I don't recall you offering a syllable of criticism for that. I never defended him nor did I critize him. Am I supposed to respond to every one of your numerous posts? I did defend him on your constant complaining about Rev. Wright. How about we establish some rules, and we apply them equally to all presidents, regardless of party? Fine with me - so does that mean all those posts about Obama's vacations, mom pants, the amount of exec. orders, etc. will get deleted or are you going to go back and change your comment on them?

"He was defending nazis' bc some in the crowd word MAGA hats - ie "they like me, therefore they are me and me can't be all bad so they can't be bad".

He has condemned all kinds of bigotry, dozens of times, on camera. But let's ignore all that, because it doesn't fit The Narrative. The Narrative is having a hard time lately.The "narrative" is he only does it when he gets called out. Something along the lines of "fine, I denounce" after his lying and saying he doesn't know anything about David Duke even though there is tape w/Trump talking about Duke previously. Took proding for him to make a comment on Charlottesville and then he said he had to gather the facts - as if that has ever stopped him from tweeting before knowing any facts:laugha: The Neo Nazis where thrilled w/Trump's comments after Charlottesville

"aren't you being an apologist?"

No, I am being a rational adult who holds him accountable for the things he actually says and does. Just because I don't heap fabricated criticism at Trumpexpecting your Pres. not to lie is fabricated criticism (or bitter hatred)?, doesn't mean I am an apologist. I am highly, highly critical of the man.really only his crassness and lying - I'll give you that. But I do it honestly, and that's the difference between us.

That is your view- I think you are an apologist (I'll guess I'll start using that here) and a hypocrite. Should we pull up a post where you said only the nut who shot Giffords was guilty and not anyone on the right and then recently said the nut who shot Scalise was a result of the left's actions? I called DS on that one and let you off easy even though you had repeatedly argued basically the same thing as him in the same threads. How about your complaining about Obama blaming Bush for leaving him a bad economy and your complaining that he shouldn't talk about the prior Pres? You seems to not have a problem w/Pres. Trump's constant complaining of not only the former Pres. but of the defeated candidate. Pure hypocrisy.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com