# War



## SockHead (Apr 6, 2017)

yoooo what do yall think bout this ****? ww3?

_The United States has launched 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Syrian government targets in retaliation for what the Trump administration charges was a Syrian government chemical weapons attack that killed scores of civilians, a US official says.

The targets hit from US ships in the Mediterranean Sea included the air base in the central city of Homs from which the Syrian aircraft staged Tuesday's chemical weapons attack, the US official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Trump said the strike on Syria was in the "vital national security interest" of the United States._

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/us-missiles-syria-170407013424492.html

im just here smokin, chillin in my corner of the world. sucks people are going to die on boths sides of whatever this is going to be


----------



## Bowie (Apr 6, 2017)

I am completely against war in all circumstances.


----------



## Soigne (Apr 6, 2017)

time to do something ti make me ineligible to be drafted


----------



## Weiland (Apr 6, 2017)

If Kira was still alive, war would be a thing of the past ...

jk.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 6, 2017)

well if he does end up dragging us into ww3, at least I have the privilege of saying I called it way before he was even elected


----------



## N e s s (Apr 6, 2017)

Do we honestly need to force a conflict with other countries? We don't need WW3 to happen. Right now I'm in the dark about most of this mistle thing Trump did so I have to read more about it.


----------



## DarkDesertFox (Apr 6, 2017)

Can we just settle fights with like Checkers?


----------



## radical6 (Apr 6, 2017)

Russia took a chunk of Ukraine, there is no WW3 coming between Russia and America.

Trump warned Russians ahead of time that they were bombing Syria.

Most likely Trump is going to pressure Putin into telling Assad to either step down or piss off.

Trump's opinion on Assad changed entirely once he had learned of the chemical attack. Trump didn't want this either, but whatever here we are.

Do I want Assad or an American backed monarch in power? **** no. But the middle east cannot be saved by western intervention, only they can change themselves.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 6, 2017)

We need to get trump out of power before he causes ww3.

- - - Post Merge - - -



kallie said:


> Russia took a chunk of Ukraine, there is no WW3 coming between Russia and America.
> 
> Trump warned Russians ahead of time that they were bombing Syria.
> 
> ...



Yeah exactly. That is why we need to stop getting into their business. It only makes things worse for everyone. Like great cause America can't seem to mind its business for once, now we risk being a part of a pointless war. Just great.


----------



## amanda1983 (Apr 7, 2017)

What I think about this cluster**** isn't fit to print. That said, this is not - yet - the start of WW3. If any current politician could trigger it, it is certainly Trump. But so far he has not done so.

In all of human history, with the uncountable number of wars that have occurred, we have had precisely 2 wars that involved so many countries - and bodies - that they can rightly be called *World* Wars. I very much hope to never see a WW3 in my lifetime. Or anyone else's.

War is bad. Always. But world war - even *before* nuclear weapon proliferation - is most literally armageddon. Society as people knew it ends.

There's nothing to be happy about with this situation. But I am glad to see such robust reporting of events taking place worldwide.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...erm=220733&subid=16545072&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 7, 2017)

this is just a measured response and message to assad that using chemical weapons, especially on your own citizens, will not be tolerated. to be honest, while the final decision was trump's, this action was most likely presented to him by mcmasters and mattis.


----------



## Mu~ (Apr 7, 2017)

Bowie said:


> I am completely against war in all circumstances.


This. I really hope my country doesn't get involved, we already have a enough %$&@ going on here, we don't need even more.


----------



## carp (Apr 7, 2017)

i doubt it will lead to ww3, but a war between syria and america would be a good patriotism stunt for trump.


----------



## Dogemon (Apr 7, 2017)

KarlaKGB said:


> this is just a measured response and message to assad that using chemical weapons, especially on your own citizens, will not be tolerated. to be honest, while the final decision was trump's, this action was most likely presented to him by mcmasters and mattis.



It's not our job to send a message and Trump specifically promised that we would mind our OWN country's business and put ourselves first and not bother with issues in other countries. Here we are, and his approval rating is %34.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 7, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> It's not our job to send a message and Trump specifically promised that we would mind our OWN country's business and put ourselves first and not bother with issues in other countries. Here we are, and his approval rating is %34.



it's good for everyone, america and its allies included, to send a message that use of chemical weapons will be met with force. deterrence against chemical weapons is an issue with global security implications. when obama threatened assad with the red line, and then did nothing when the red line was crossed, it set a precedent that you can get away with use of NBC weapons


----------



## uwuzumakii (Apr 7, 2017)

What President Trump did was completely idiotic. What's happening in Syria is none of the United State's business, but for some reason or another, President Trump decided, "Hey, let's launch 50 missiles at something that didn't involve us at all!" We weren't provoked, attacked, or slandered, so there was absolutely no need for it. I wonder how ANYONE could think that the solution to the death of many innocent people is to kill even more innocent people. President Trump should just mind his own business and quit involving himself where he isn't needed.


----------



## KaydeeKrunk (Apr 7, 2017)

War!
UH!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing.
Say it again!

War is so pointless. It literally does no good at all. It's all money driven from the get go and killing each other over money is the stupidest thing ever.


----------



## Soda Fox (Apr 7, 2017)

I'm not happy about this but Im happy Russia was warned and there were few casualties. I hope this doesnt escalate too much further.


----------



## Millysaurusrexjr (Apr 7, 2017)

War is not completely pointless.. if a country is using chemical warfare that violates the Geneva Protocol, absolutely something should be done about it.  Ideally, something should be done if a country is making slaves of their people, brainwashing them and treating them like dirt cough cough North Korea cough cough. You shouldn't always just sit back and do nothing.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Apr 7, 2017)

As much as you guys don't like Trump, I can explain what's really to blame for what's going on. It is the United Nations that started it all. Yes, I know the US created the UN over 70 years ago, but they did not live up to their intentions. Instead, they done more harm than help.

1. Thanks to the UN involvement, it has created a new enemy to the United States that can be a threat to the world.
2. We wasted a war on a country that wants independence, but only to help a country that colonized that area that wanted their colony back.
3. It got America poking their noses into others' countries businesses when they could do it themselves. I don't care if it's for world peace.
4. Thanks to the veto power, we couldn't get along with the UN, thus failing to take care of major issues.
5. We allowed other nations to have influence over us, caring about what we do.

For that third reason, I understand we don't want a world war 3, but we shouldn't get involved in others' businesses. Let them do their stuff, even if the issue gets worse than the Spanish Inquisition of the 15th century. When they start attacking us, that's when we should really care.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 7, 2017)

Millysaurusrexjr said:


> War is not completely pointless.. if a country is using chemical warfare that violates the Geneva Protocol, absolutely something should be done about it.  Ideally, something should be done if a country is making slaves of their people, brainwashing them and treating them like dirt cough cough North Korea cough cough. You shouldn't always just sit back and do nothing.



people with one breath will decry war in all forms, and with the next, bemoan how little we are doing to help those poor syrians


----------



## Stalfos (Apr 7, 2017)

War is always wrong. But sometimes doing nothing is even worse.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 7, 2017)

people are overreacting to this, claiming it's the start if ww3. this is all just TLAM theatre. trump gets to divert attention from trouble at home, improve his ratings. putin gets to justify increasing his military presence in syria (he's already helping to bolster syrian air defence). win win for both.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 7, 2017)

Soda Fox said:


> I'm not happy about this but Im happy Russia was warned and there were few casualties. I hope this doesnt escalate too much further.



yes, I am glad that syria was able to get all personnel and equipment out before the attacks hit

costing us money for a garbage decision that also accomplished absolutely nothing worthwhile in the slightest

brav-****ing-o Trump, you immature retched idiotic sub-human literal evil scum of a president


----------



## Dogemon (Apr 7, 2017)

I've always wanted to see an impeachment in my lifetime. People thinking this move was smart clearly don't know that the majority of Trump's supporters wanted the United States to be isolated as much as possible and going against their wishes means he is hitting record-setting rates of disapproval among even the Republican population. The move was done without the consent of Congress to begin with, if he keeps up this negligence, the people will take it upon themselves to impeach them. Over 73% of the U.S. does not want to be involved with fighting in Syria and pushing us into another war, this isn't the way for him to gain any brownie points with anyone lol.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 7, 2017)

Dogemon said:


> I've always wanted to see an impeachment in my lifetime. People thinking this move was smart clearly don't know that the majority of Trump's supporters wanted the United States to be isolated as much as possible and going against their wishes means he is hitting record-setting rates of disapproval among even the Republican population. The move was done without the consent of Congress to begin with, if he keeps up this negligence, the people will take it upon themselves to impeach them. Over 73% of the U.S. does not want to be involved with fighting in Syria and pushing us into another war, this isn't the way for him to gain any brownie points with anyone lol.



Seriously, what will it take to get hjm impeached? It should of been done months ago if you ask me.


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 7, 2017)

having it so the senate isn't contested by members of his own platform would be a start


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Apr 7, 2017)

Corrie said:


> Seriously, what will it take to get hjm impeached? It should of been done months ago if you ask me.



You can't get impeached for starting a war with another country. You can only get impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Like if you betray America while holding office, you can get impeached for that. If you were offering bribes or accepting bribes while in office, you can get impeached for that. Trump didn't do any of that yet, and the two presidents that got impeached never declared war on another country.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 7, 2017)

Oh god, so now we have Putin sending out a ship in retaliation. Great job stupid ****ing trump. Now look what you've done. He's definitely started a war and I'm terrified beyond belief. 

Apparently Kim is also threatening a war between North Korea and the US too now. 

This is so screwed. I'm really scared. I dont want to be part od a war. What makes this worse is that it's due to trump.


----------



## visibleghost (Apr 7, 2017)

i dont get why the response to violence always has to be more violence.  more fights and bombs and stuff makes the situation for civilians even worse. i dont know a lot about war strategies but i just feel like it makes it all worse. i get that when someone attacks you or your allies you need to defend yourself or your allies but is it rly necessary to do more stuff


----------



## tumut (Apr 7, 2017)

Holy **** just let Assad seize power again not like the rebels ever had a chance


----------



## revika (Apr 7, 2017)

I mean, I get that his reasoning is striking against the people who were terrorizing the country (not us, but within Syria) buuut he refuses refugees.... from Syria..... 

It looks like a war is still a distant possibility, but it's a possibility nonetheless. Personally I'd avoid big cities here on out. They managed to get people within our own country to do their acts for them.


----------



## moonford (Apr 7, 2017)

Haha well done The USA...You really did it this time.
If you start WW3, every country that has some sort of tie with the US will be damaged and we won't have the kinda okay relationship we have now will we?


----------



## watercolorwish (Apr 7, 2017)

oh man sometimes i think about war and how pointless it is. were all the same why are we even divided too...


----------



## tumut (Apr 7, 2017)

Doubtful WW3 would actually come out of this since Trump is cozy with Russia. But considering the factors and nations involved, It would be Russia, China, Hezbollah, and Iran vs. Most of the Western World and Saudi Arabia+Turkey. In order for a war to break out there would need to be a conflict with the US and Russia, and even that isn't guaranteed to drag other countires int othe mess. Except that if the Western front backed the rebels they would also empowering terrorist groups and like other interventions in the past would probably lead to another ****storm. So it's doubtful WW3 is gonna happen.

Basically we should keep our asses out of it, if we could learn anything from the past its that you don't **** with the Middle East because nothing good comes out of it.


----------



## moonford (Apr 7, 2017)

Dixx said:


> Doubtful WW3 would actually come out of this since Trump is cozy with Russia. But considering the factors and nations involved, It would be Russia, China, Hezbollah, and Iran vs. Most of the Western World and Saudi Arabia+Turkey. In order for a war to break out there would need to at war with Russia. Except that if the Western front backed the rebels they would also empowering terrorist groups and like other interventions in the past would probably lead to another ****storm. So it's doubtful WW3 is gonna happen.
> 
> Basically we should keep our asses out of it, if we could learn anything from the past its that you don't **** with the Middle East because nothing good comes out of it.



Anything can happen and we will need to be prepared, especially when this crazy orange is running around starting crap.


----------



## tumut (Apr 7, 2017)

Whiteflamingo said:


> Anything can happen and we will need to be prepared, especially when this crazy orange is running around starting crap.


Yeah he's stupid but unless he attacks Russia or Iran (which he won't) no large-scale multi-international conflict is going to happen. Iran or Syria would have to attack us, and since trade partnership with China is yuge that means there's no way we'd be attacked by them, and Hezbollah is a militant group so they're not even a nation.


----------



## Jacob (Apr 7, 2017)

I think there's a whole different group of American generals, soldiers, etc. that know a lot more about this whole bombing situation than what buzzfeed is telling us. Most of our lives and educations don't particularly revolve around the knowledge of war and peace tactics, so a lot of the posts in this thread are irrational

Likewise, I think we are prepared for a WW3 in the slim chance it happens


----------



## Soda Fox (Apr 7, 2017)

Stalfos said:


> War is always wrong. But sometimes doing nothing is even worse.



If I could like this more than once I would.

While I disagree with the action, I think Trump made a good effort to alert other nations involved and keep casualties to a minimum. You can't please everyone, but I think he was careful in the choice he made.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 7, 2017)

Corrie said:


> Oh god, so now we have Putin sending out a ship in retaliation. Great job stupid ****ing trump. Now look what you've done. He's definitely started a war and I'm terrified beyond belief.


you are clueless



Jacob said:


> I think there's a whole different group of American generals, soldiers, etc. that know a lot more about this whole bombing situation than what buzzfeed is telling us. Most of our lives and educations don't particularly revolve around the knowledge of war and peace tactics, so a lot of the posts in this thread are irrational



McMaster (national security adviser) and Mattis (defence secretary) are both well respected, experienced and competent men. they are the adults of the current administration. you just have to look at the near-unanimous decision of the Senate to vote them in to see the bipartisan support they have


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Apr 7, 2017)

What I'm more scared of than World War 3 is another American Civil War, which is where we're heading closer to if the polarization continues to get worse. We're already a nation divided, and I don't want it to continue going this far.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 7, 2017)

Dixx said:


> Doubtful WW3 would actually come out of this since Trump is cozy with Russia. But considering the factors and nations involved, It would be Russia, China, Hezbollah, and Iran vs. Most of the Western World and Saudi Arabia+Turkey. In order for a war to break out there would need to be a conflict with the US and Russia, and even that isn't guaranteed to drag other countires int othe mess. Except that if the Western front backed the rebels they would also empowering terrorist groups and like other interventions in the past would probably lead to another ****storm. So it's doubtful WW3 is gonna happen.
> 
> Basically we should keep our asses out of it, if we could learn anything from the past its that you don't **** with the Middle East because nothing good comes out of it.



Didn't this attack on Syria "almost ruin" the relationship between Russia and the USA? Since Russia is so close with Assad?


----------



## lostineverfreeforest (Apr 7, 2017)

I'm surprised Trump actually did something. IMO Assad was testing his response and Trump didn't want to appear weak. I doubt he'll try using chemical weapons again. Just didn't expect him to do a 180 on his stance so quickly.



Corrie said:


> Oh god, so now we have Putin sending out a ship in retaliation.



It's likely they were already planning to send a ship.



Corrie said:


> Apparently Kim is also threatening a war between North Korea and the US too now.



This is nothing new, North Korea always shouts at its neighbors and the US. They've been doing this for literally decades.



Corrie said:


> Didn't this attack on Syria "almost ruin" the relationship between Russia and the USA? Since Russia is so close with Assad?



There isn't any sort of relationship to ruin.


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 7, 2017)

the alt right are crying now because trump ran on the promise of being non-interventionalist. it's as if they finally woke up and realised trump has no principles and all of his words are hollow


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 7, 2017)

the nazis can cry me an entire ocean for all I care


----------



## ZetaFunction (Apr 7, 2017)

smh im just sitting here reading thru and y'all seem to care more about getting trump out of office than the fact that china and the us are probably closer to each other now.

an hour after the president of china met with trump in florida and then left, the strikes happened.  Coincidence?? i think not.  especially since china doesn't care anymore about the fact that trump sent the missiles.  _THIS_ is what scares me.  Foreign relations with america almost always go south, but the fact that the us is getting along with china and the timing is whats scaring me more than "Trump's WW3"


----------



## Mink777 (Apr 7, 2017)

There will be two wars. One is the one everyone is talking about, and the other is the one that will take place in this very thread within a few more posts.


----------



## lostineverfreeforest (Apr 7, 2017)

Every US ally approves of the strike to the surprise of no one

Russia's statement: "Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian President Vladimir Putin, described the US air strikes on the Shayrat airbase as "an act of aggression against a sovereign state delivered in violation of international law under a far-fetched pretext".


Spoiler


----------



## amanda1983 (Apr 7, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> As much as you guys don't like Trump, I can explain what's really to blame for what's going on. It is the United Nations that started it all. Yes, I know the US created the UN over 70 years ago, but they did not live up to their intentions. Instead, they done more harm than help.
> 
> 1. Thanks to the UN involvement, it has created a new enemy to the United States that can be a threat to the world.
> 2. We wasted a war on a country that wants independence, but only to help a country that colonized that area that wanted their colony back.
> ...



Could you clarify which enemy you mean in point 1 please? And which war are you referring to in point 2? 



Lucanosa said:


> smh im just sitting here reading thru and y'all seem to care more about getting trump out of office than the fact that china and the us are probably closer to each other now.
> 
> *an hour after the president of china met with trump in florida and then left, the strikes happened.  Coincidence?? i think not.*  especially since china doesn't care anymore about the fact that trump sent the missiles.  _THIS_ is what scares me.  Foreign relations with america almost always go south, but the fact that the us is getting along with china and the timing is whats scaring me more than "Trump's WW3"



Putting together a military action of that scale is simply impossible in hour or less. I would be stunned to hear that it was put together in less than a day. I am willing to accept that Trump would push through a military response, he's shown no lack of interest in ignoring due process. But this particular action was a) clearly planned in advance (as per the article I linked on the first page of the thread), b) coordinated enough within the US government for multiple messages warning Russia in advance to take place (see the article), and c) fairly mundane as far as modern military responses go, which indicates that Trump was presented woth this course of action to accept or reject, not that *he* dictated to the military.

Was there political consideration given to the timing and implications with China? Of course. I haven't seen anything to suggest that this was a prime motivating factor, however, and it seems like a bit of an odd concern under the circumstances.


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Apr 7, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Could you clarify which enemy you mean in point 1 please? And which war are you referring to in point 2?



Why not? I can clarify on both of them, and give examples of 3 to 5.

The enemy I mentioned in #1 was North Korea. During the Korean War, the UN ended the war with a harsh armistice rather than a peace treaty. If we left Korea alone, this wouldn't happen. Don't conquer the world, defend yourselves when you're under attack.

The war I mentioned in #2 was the Vietnam War. What I learned is that Vietnam wanted to be independent. But France, after losing it to Japan before World War II, wanted their country back when the war ended. Instead of staying out of the war or helping out Vietnam, America decided to side with France. Not only we started a war against a country seeking independence, but we had no victory over it. Plus, they deserved independence.

For the other three, an example of what I said under #3 was our involvement in the Middle East. We seem to care too much about what they do. Let them fight their own fight. How would you feel if I went into everyones' business on this site when an altercation is going on when I had nothing to do with it? If you don't like me doing it, this is exactly what the United States is doing. In fact, we were being pulled into World War I because of this.

An example of #4 would have to be the Darfur incident. China refuses to deal with the genocide in Darfur because they get most of their oil from Sudan. China is one of the five countries with veto power, and if one refuses, nobody should get involved. This is why the US started to take care of foreign issues through a unilateral stance rather than working as a team.

An example of #5 was the Russian involvement in the 2016 election. So while we care too much about what other nations do when it's not our business, we seem to allow other countries care about our internal conflict.


----------



## pinkcotton (Apr 7, 2017)

Violence is never the answer.


----------



## Cailey (Apr 7, 2017)

when I read the post title all I could think about was the fallout 4 opening and my head kept saying "war. it never changes." lol


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 8, 2017)

visibleghost said:


> i dont get why the response to violence always has to be more violence.  more fights and bombs and stuff makes the situation for civilians even worse. i dont know a lot about war strategies but i just feel like it makes it all worse. i get that when someone attacks you or your allies you need to defend yourself or your allies but is it rly necessary to do more stuff



It actually can't get much worse for civilians in Syria than what is already happening with Assad dropping chemical weapons on them. Armed conflict usually isn't good, but in this case I'd bet there are a lot of people in Syria who are in serious danger who really want some outside help, because the people there can't fight back against Assad dropping nerve gas on them. So it's a serious moral question whether we just sit back and let Assad keep killing innocents including children, or whether we step in and try to disable Assad. I don't think it would have been right to stand by and let the Holocaust happen because it was "none of our business" and what is happening in Syria is approaching a similar level of a moral crisis.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 8, 2017)

If ww3 happens, where would the fights take place?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Apr 8, 2017)

Corrie said:


> If ww3 happens, where would the fights take place?



Mostly the Middle East. It would not just be in Syria, but everywhere. It could also take place in the Korean peninsula.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 8, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> Mostly the Middle East. It would not just be in Syria, but everywhere. It could also take place in the Korean peninsula.



So it most likely wouldn't take place in the west?


----------



## amanda1983 (Apr 8, 2017)

Corrie said:


> If ww3 happens, where would the fights take place?



If WW3 happens then it won't be a war as either WW1 or WW2 were - the world has changed so much since then. The initial fighting would be confined to the relevant geographical location for as long as outside forces can manage, but the nature of war - particularly in this modern age with conflict in so much of the world - means the fighting would spread out from there sooner or later.

Best case scenario for either a Russian or Chinese conflict with the US (no, very recent history does not rule these out as being serious possibilities) : 


> While many leaders on both sides think any clash might be geographically contained to the straights of Taiwan or the edge of the Baltic, these technological and tactical shifts mean such a conflict is more likely to reach into each side’s homelands in new ways. Just as the Internet reshaped our notions of borders, so too would a war waged partly online.


- http://time.com/3934583/world-war-3/

But really, it's not (just) the actual fighting to worry about : 



> “The system is set up so that only the president has the authority to order a nuclear war. Nobody has the right to countermand that decision,” William J. Perry, the 19th Secretary of State who served under former President Bill Clinton, from 1994 to 1997, told Radiolab.
> 
> “He might choose to call the Secretary of Defence or the Secretary of State, or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to get his advisors’ counsel,” Perry added. “But even if he does that, he may or may not accept that counsel.”





> Yet given President Donald Trump’s recent and alarming nuclear rhetoric, a $US1 trillion program to modernise US nukes, and Trump’s April 6 retaliatory strike against Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria — a close ally with Russia, which is a nuclear superpower — it’s a concept that remains as timely as ever to re-explore.
> 
> *At stake is a global nuclear exchange that could annihilate hundreds of millions of lives and sour Earth’s atmosphere, water, and ground for generations.*


https://www.businessinsider.com.au/president-nuke-option-requires-no-permission-2017-4?r=US&IR=T

- - - Post Merge - - -



Corrie said:


> So it most likely wouldn't take place in the west?



Unfortunately that is not the case. Even if the main conflict occurs elsewhere, there would be continued attempts to bring the conflict to the west, particularly to the US. It would not be an actual war otherwise.

Furthermore, the rate and scale of terror attacks (from all sources) would almost certainly increase. Terror thrives in chaos, and nothing is so chaotic as the threat of war.

I want to end on a more positive note but.. I'm at a bit of a loss for an upside at the moment.


----------



## tumut (Apr 8, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> Mostly the Middle East. It would not just be in Syria, but everywhere. It could also take place in the Korean peninsula.


War in Korea lmao what

honestly is North Korea even a threat

- - - Post Merge - - -

they have no nukes, a limited food supply, and its doubtful they would get any direct military support whatever backing they would get would just be monetary and theres only three countries that would possibly do that (Cuba, China, and Russia)


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 8, 2017)

are you aware of sasakure.UK's doomsday series?

that's about the level I expect, if it ever happens


----------



## KarlaKGB (Apr 8, 2017)

Dixx said:


> War in Korea lmao what
> 
> honestly is North Korea even a threat
> 
> ...



yes north korea is a threat to south korea. they ARE actually nuclear capable, what they're struggling with now is putting their nuclear warheads onto a missile and successfully sending that missile further and further. it's true that the norks have have no food, that's because they spend about a quarter of their GDP on military. while they would never win a war on the korean peninsula, they would do devastating damage to south korea with their dying breaths.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 8, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> If WW3 happens then it won't be a war as either WW1 or WW2 were - the world has changed so much since then. The initial fighting would be confined to the relevant geographical location for as long as outside forces can manage, but the nature of war - particularly in this modern age with conflict in so much of the world - means the fighting would spread out from there sooner or later.
> 
> Best case scenario for either a Russian or Chinese conflict with the US (no, very recent history does not rule these out as being serious possibilities) :
> 
> ...



With the fact that the world has evolved so much since the first world wars, wouldn't you think that there would be no point to a nuclear war? Wouldn't it just basically destroy everything and nobody would win? Why can't these leaders see that?


----------



## Alolan_Apples (Apr 8, 2017)

I wonder what would John F Kennedy say about our relations with Russia right now.


----------



## moonford (Apr 8, 2017)

Apple2012 said:


> I wonder what would John F Kennedy say about our relations with Russia right now.



"Oh dear god, why?"


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 8, 2017)

Corrie said:


> Why can't these leaders see that?



people are insignificant to them is why


----------



## Corrie (Apr 8, 2017)

LambdaDelta said:


> people are insignificant to them is why



That pisses me off so much. It's so unfair that the public is being put at risk for death and the leaders just sit back and twiddle their thumbs, even though they are the ones who started the stupid war in the first place. Unfair.


----------



## Red Cat (Apr 8, 2017)

Corrie said:


> That pisses me off so much. It's so unfair that the public is being put at risk for death and the leaders just sit back and twiddle their thumbs, even though they are the ones who started the stupid war in the first place. Unfair.



In most cases, the public is culpable for choosing those leaders. Also, those leaders are usually just men in business suits who are incapable of actually doing anything themselves, so they need a lot of help to wage war and those people who are "just taking orders" are also responsible for their own actions. The reason these kinds of situations happen is because most of the public in a lot of countries lack courage and/or the ability to think for themselves and do not want to accept responsibility for their own choices.


----------



## amanda1983 (Apr 8, 2017)

Corrie said:


> With the fact that the world has evolved so much since the first world wars, wouldn't you think that there would be no point to a nuclear war? Wouldn't it just basically destroy everything and nobody would win? Why can't these leaders see that?



Yes, yes, and "human nature" are my answers. It seems we're at a point when some key people in authority around the world lack some essential common sense and comprehension skills.

Nuclear proliferation = bad, for everyone. Nuclear war = very bad, for everyone. Being seen to be picking fights internationally in a world with multiple volatile, nuclear-capable countries that follow different rules to you = so monumentally bad - for everyone - that the mere suggestion is abhorrent.

Yet here we are.

In the future, I recommend we all, in our various countries, try and elect people who a) demonstrate appropriate understanding of both domestic and global laws, b) demonstrate appropriate understanding of WHY those laws are in place (whether they agree with them or not, it's important to understand something you want to change *before* you start making changes...), c) yeah I think I've made my point by now.

Finally : no democracy should let the power to launch a nuclear attack reside in one person with absolutely NO official way to counter that order. That is the kind of power dictators have.


----------



## Corrie (Apr 8, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> Yes, yes, and "human nature" are my answers. It seems we're at a point when some key people in authority around the world lack some essential common sense and comprehension skills.
> 
> Nuclear proliferation = bad, for everyone. Nuclear war = very bad, for everyone. Being seen to be picking fights internationally in a world with multiple volatile, nuclear-capable countries that follow different rules to you = so monumentally bad - for everyone - that the mere suggestion is abhorrent.
> 
> ...



For whatever reason, it seems like trump is doing whatever he wants without anyone else's opinions. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that way cause really, whoever assumed just randomly shooting missiles to another country randomly is a good idea is so foolish that I doubt congress agreed to it. I mean, it's possible they did but I have no clue. It seems that trump is just doing whatever he wants while in power and we all just have to sit back and watch and be a part of it. I mean, I think Hillary would have started a war with Syria anyway, so they say, so we probably would have been in the same situation anyway. It's just sad that we get idiots to choose from to lead our country. It sucks we don't get people with their head on straight and who knows/has experience in politics.

Edit: Ill go as far to say that it seems like trump is becoming a dictator if he isn't one already. It seems that no laws can stop his foolishly harmful actions and that is definitely wrong.


----------



## amanda1983 (Apr 8, 2017)

Corrie said:


> For whatever reason, it seems like trump is doing whatever he wants without anyone else's opinions. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that way cause really, whoever assumed just randomly shooting missiles to another country randomly is a good idea is so foolish that I doubt congress agreed to it. I mean, it's possible they did but I have no clue. It seems that trump is just doing whatever he wants while in power and we all just have to sit back and watch and be a part of it. I mean, I think Hillary would have started a war with Syria anyway, so they say, so we probably would have been in the same situation anyway. It's just sad that we get idiots to choose from to lead our country. It sucks we don't get people with their head on straight and who knows/has experience in politics.
> 
> Edit: Ill go as far to say that it seems like trump is becoming a dictator if he isn't one already. It seems that no laws can stop his foolishly harmful actions and that is definitely wrong.



The strike itself, to my knowledge (and I'm no military expert, nor am I a geopolitical one) was reasonably sound as a tactic in and of itself - the point being political impact rather than an attempt to instigate or escalate conflict. The problems I have with *this* strike and it's circumstances are
- there is no recognisable plan for what to do *next*. An international missile strike is the equivalent of jumping up and down and shouting "hey! Look at me! I want to talk! I have things to say! Listen to me!" - it's an attention-getter. Which is not a bad thing - so long as noone is injured in the process - but it does require that one actually has something reasonable to do with the attention once it is gained. It is glaringly apparent that has either not been thought through, or - most likely - that Trump is disregarding the strategy advice from his military and political experts in this case.

- by acting in this way in this conflict, there is no going back. Since there is also no apparent strategy for going forward, that leaves us in a tricky mess.

- Trump ran on a strong platform of US isolationism. No more "helping" other countries before the US. No more money spent to help the world's poor instead of those in America. No more getting drawn into international conflicts at the cost of US money, effort, and lives. None of those things are compatible with his action in this instance.

- he may have acted illegally according to US and international law :



> In fairness, a President's authority to fire some cruise missiles into another country without checking with Congress has become a hazy area of Constitutional law in modern times. It's true that under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to declare war, tax and spend for defense, and provide for our armed forces.
> On the executive side, however, the Constitution simultaneously names the President as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States," who must, to the best of his ability "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."





> While a "humanitarian" reason for attacks certainly seems like a laudable moral objective, this might not be a valid reason to attack under domestic law. Internationally, the UN Charter appears to explicitly prohibit all foreign military intervention without Security Council authorization, unless taken in self-defense. The President has an easy way around these legal constraints, however.
> He can just do whatever he wants.
> If he insists that he has the authority, then Congress will either back him up, or at least not argue with him. The courts will probably stay out of it, too.
> *How can he order air strikes in apparent defiance of the Constitution, federal and international law? Simple: the other guys did it.*
> ...



http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/legality-of-trump-syria-missile-strikes-cevallos/


----------



## LambdaDelta (Apr 8, 2017)

amanda1983 said:


> In the future, I recommend we all, in our various countries, try and elect people who a) demonstrate appropriate understanding of both domestic and global laws, b) demonstrate appropriate understanding of WHY those laws are in place (whether they agree with them or not, it's important to understand something you want to change *before* you start making changes...), c) yeah I think I've made my point by now.



c is to stop electing ****ing warmongers

which basically sums up the near-entirety both major party platforms of America



amanda1983 said:


> Finally : no democracy should let the power to launch a nuclear attack reside in one person with absolutely NO official way to counter that order. That is the kind of power dictators have.



no amount of people in the world should have that power, period



Corrie said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that way cause really, whoever assumed just randomly shooting missiles to another country randomly is a good idea is so foolish that I doubt congress agreed to it.



pretty certain none of this went through the defense department or congress or anything

but hey, he told russia. so syria was able to get an advance warning

and of course, he'll still continue to reject refugees from there



Corrie said:


> Edit: Ill go as far to say that it seems like trump is becoming a dictator if he isn't one already. It seems that no laws can stop his foolishly harmful actions and that is definitely wrong.



at the very least his platform is perfectly content to go along with him


----------



## nerdatheart9490 (Apr 8, 2017)

We're flucked. They're flucked. Everyone is flucked.


----------

