paxamericana Posted April 2 Report Posted April 2 It’s looking highly likely now. Marine expeditionary forces are deployed to theater awaiting go hour. Quote
John Stone Posted April 2 Report Posted April 2 6 minutes ago, paxamericana said: It’s looking highly likely now. Marine expeditionary forces are deployed to theater awaiting go hour. If they go ashore - god bless the troops - lions led by political donkeys! 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted April 2 Report Posted April 2 Sounds like they will be hunting for some yellow cake. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
paxamericana Posted April 2 Author Report Posted April 2 1 hour ago, John Stone said: If they go ashore - god bless the troops - lions led by political donkeys! I pray the lord protect our troop and that they do their duty to the best of their abilities, make America proud, instill fear in her enemies. Quote
John Stone Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 22 hours ago, paxamericana said: I pray the lord protect our troop Amen! ......... I can do without the propaganda BS - no offense! Quote
John Stone Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 23 hours ago, gatomontes99 said: Sounds like they will be hunting for some yellow cake. ................ likely raid along the coast ...... Kharg (?)........... no doubt they could take it but holding it (resupply?) might be tough. Quote
paxamericana Posted April 3 Author Report Posted April 3 24 minutes ago, John Stone said: I can do without the propaganda BS - no offense! Not propaganda, every country is going to study how well America does or doesn’t do something. The better we destroy our enemies the more leverage there are for negotiation and deterrence. Quote
John Stone Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 (edited) 34 minutes ago, paxamericana said: Not propaganda, every country is going to study how well America does or doesn’t do something. The better we destroy our enemies the more leverage there are for negotiation and deterrence. I'd argue that ground troops don't fight for God ........ or even for country ...... that's civilian fodder. (propaganda). Oh indeed, they (China, NK, Russia) are no doubt studying 'goings on' .........in particularly political leadership. So, the question is, to date does the political leadership instil confidence and confidence that if necessary? Essential? Is it capable of leading strategically / and tactically to enable the military to punch, 'up' successfully.......... "up" being China, NK, Russia. Or is the leadership ridiculed internationally amongst allies. No doubt the 'they' are emboldened. ya think?? Ask yourself how many allies does the U.S. have globally ............... hundreds? Ask yourself how many allies does Russia have ..................... low single digits Ask yourself how many allies does China have ................... low single digits ...................... Trump is putting into question the global alliance structure that has been a benefit to the U.S. (world) for so long.......... and by extension, the World To suggest Europe could not defend itself against Russia is absolutely ludicrous......OMG (gasp) Today, ain't the Cold War scenario ................. Ukraine has demonstrated that. The UK and France are fully independently nuclear capable in Europe. That said, It is estimated the US has several hundred warheads in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey. NATO Is likely more to do with commerce than it does with defense - where do the allies buy their weapons? Edited April 3 by John Stone Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 51 minutes ago, John Stone said: The UK and France are fully independently nuclear capable in Europe. The UK and France do not have enough nuclear assets on alert to cover hardened nuclear defense suppression and targeting of military, industrial, and population base of all potential adversaries. The U.S. "nuclear umbrella" is still needed to defend Europe, Japan, South Korea, and North America. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
gatomontes99 Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 1 hour ago, John Stone said: ................ likely raid along the coast ...... Kharg (?)........... no doubt they could take it but holding it (resupply?) might be tough. They might. However, the primary mission here is the prevention of nuclear arms. We are going to recover that uranium. If we can't, we will destroy it. Recovery is best because then we can know we got it all. If we do take the island, then we are either setting up to go get the uranium or the uranium will be part of the cease fire. Quote Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it?
John Stone Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said: They might. However, the primary mission here is the prevention of nuclear arms. We are going to recover that uranium. If we can't, we will destroy it. Recovery is best because then we can know we got it all. If we do take the island, then we are either setting up to go get the uranium or the uranium will be part of the cease fire. agreed - the primary mission was(?) verified, nuke fuel recovery, Where is it? Shift targets - open the Strait. Quote
John Stone Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said: The UK and France do not have enough nuclear assets on alert to cover hardened nuclear defense suppression and targeting of military, industrial, and population base of all potential adversaries. The U.S. "nuclear umbrella" is still needed to defend Europe, Japan, South Korea, and North America. Nukes are not about defense - they are about deterrent. Today, Europe can defend itself - easily - NATO trained them. Japan, SK? Taiwan? ............ agreed. Quote
paxamericana Posted April 3 Author Report Posted April 3 (edited) 45 minutes ago, John Stone said: Nukes are not about defense - they are about deterrent. Today, Europe can defend itself - easily - NATO trained them. Japan, SK? Taiwan? ............ agreed. No, drones and robotics render nukes obsolete. Edited April 3 by paxamericana Quote
robosmith Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 1 hour ago, paxamericana said: No, drones and robotics render nukes obsolete. You're hilarious. "drones and robotics" are not going to deter nukes. NOONE is giving up their nukes. Quote
BeaverFever Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 On 4/2/2026 at 8:19 AM, gatomontes99 said: Sounds like they will be hunting for some yellow cake. Well we know Saddam didn’t have it the last time Republicans tried to use that as an excuse to wage an unnecessary war of choice. How many soldiers have to die for Republicans’ endless lust for blood and oil? Quote
John Stone Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 2 hours ago, paxamericana said: No, drones and robotics render nukes obsolete. Drones and Robotics will the the platforms for tac-nukes. ICBM reigns supreme as a deterrent............ soon they will be in orbit. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted April 3 Report Posted April 3 6 hours ago, John Stone said: Nukes are not about defense - they are about deterrent. Today, Europe can defend itself - easily - NATO trained them. Japan, SK? Taiwan? ............ agreed. Europe cannot defend itself easily, because it lacks certain military and intelligence gathering capabilities unique to the U.S. Tactical nuclear weapons for NATO are American, as are the delivery systems. The UK rents American SLBMs (Trident 2). Nuclear weapons are not only defensive. Don't ask me how I know that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
John Stone Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 (edited) 15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said: Europe cannot defend itself easily, because it lacks certain military and intelligence gathering capabilities unique to the U.S. Tactical nuclear weapons for NATO are American, as are the delivery systems. The UK rents American SLBMs (Trident 2). Nuclear weapons are not only defensive. Don't ask me how I know that. I think ur confusing the Russia of today with the Warsaw Pact of yesteryear. The U.K. and France possess, control, and are independent of the U.S. re: strategic nukes. ............. they have 3rd strike capability ........... as does Israel. Agreed, tac-nukes were part of the NATO's strategy of deterrence against a Warsaw Pact attack on NATO. It has been said that without their use, it would likely be impossible to restrain the Warsaw Pact. Tac-nukes are a battlefield weapon - their use tho raises the spectre of escalation, strategic nukes? Strategic nukes, arguably, are designed never to be used - ...... an Aegis. A prime example would be NK .......... it's the reason Iran developed a nuclear program. MAD is another example of deterrence wrt Strategic nukes. A defensive weapon would be something akin to the Patriot, THAAD. ............ intercept? In a nuclear exchange with Strategic nukes it has been said there would be nothing left but bouncing rubble. Europe has satellite surveillance capability. I'm forced to add that Kanada, alone, would be defenseless against any attack, challenge to sovereignty without allies - that said, Kanada is geo-strategic, which might be important. Edited April 4 by John Stone Quote
John Stone Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 (edited) 19 hours ago, robosmith said: You're hilarious. "drones and robotics" are not going to deter nukes. NOONE is giving up their nukes. ............. no they're going to deliver the nukes. Edited April 4 by John Stone Quote
paxamericana Posted April 4 Author Report Posted April 4 (edited) 20 hours ago, BeaverFever said: Well we know Saddam didn’t have it the last time Republicans tried to use that as an excuse to wage an unnecessary war of choice. How many soldiers have to die for Republicans’ endless lust for blood and oil? That’s not correct. Sadam moved his WMD to Syria. Where do you think the Syrian got their sarin gas from. It’s an Iraqi stockpile. Stop propagating old misinformation. I expect better from you Beaver. Edited April 4 by paxamericana Quote
WestCanMan Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 I guess that by now they know which islands the attacks are coming from. There are quite a few islands in that strait. Kharg island is a likely target. I guess they might need to get boots on the ground near some of those underground facilities to make sure that they are destroyed. Whatever it is, I hope this next phase is successful. Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
WestCanMan Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 (edited) 1 hour ago, paxamericana said: That’s not correct. Sadam moved his WMD to Syria. Where do you think the Syrian got their sarin gas from. It’s an Iraqi stockpile. Stop propagating old misinformation. I expect better from you Beaver. I don't think it's that hard to hide WMD's in an entire country. It's not like you need an olympic swimming pool of nerve gas for it to be effective. a small droplet is more than enough to kill a person. Edited April 4 by WestCanMan Quote If the Cultist Narrative Network/Cultist Broadcasting Corporation gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. "I don't hate American's, I pointed out the literacy rate to Uncle Sam." - LinkSoul "It's just a parable about rocks and trees talking to muslims to help them kill Jews who are trying to hide. It's open to interpretation." - robobigot
BeaverFever Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 6 hours ago, John Stone said: The U.K. and France possess, control, and are independent of the U.S. re: strategic nukes I am not so sure the UK’s nukes are truly independent of USA. Both the missiles and the submarines they are launched from are dependent upon US technology and ongoing support. The Brits foolishly pursued “deep integration” with the US decades ago and now their strategic military and intelligence capabilities are basically fully dependent upon the US. Quote
BeaverFever Posted April 4 Report Posted April 4 (edited) 5 hours ago, paxamericana said: That’s not correct. Sadam moved his WMD to Syria. Where do you think the Syrian got their sarin gas from. It’s an Iraqi stockpile. Stop propagating old misinformation. I expect better from you Beaver. That is fake news. Syria has produced its own chemical weapons domestically for decades, which is not difficult for governments to do if their country has basic industrial capabilities Stip propagating misinformation. Edited April 4 by BeaverFever 1 1 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.