First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Should U.S stop North Korea's nuke? Wow, I can't even fathom the thought not to stop it
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/13/17
Should U.S stop North Korea's nuke? Wow, I can't even fathom the thought not to stop it... Towards any country.

Heres the twitter link: https://twitter.com/AP/status/895834358015283200

38256 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/12/17
I don't see how the headline of the article insinuates anything 'leftist.'
If anything, it gives the impression that the article will be focusing on what global diplomatic impact stopping a missile heading towards Guam would do. It's not promoting or pushing us away from wanting to stop any missiles heading towards another country.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/13/17

RpiesSPIES wrote:

I don't see how the headline of the article insinuates anything 'leftist.'
If anything, it gives the impression that the article will be focusing on what global diplomatic impact stopping a missile heading towards Guam would do. It's not promoting or pushing us away from wanting to stop any missiles heading towards another country.


Are you really criticizing my word choice instead of the actual crux of the issue?

Gives the impression? We are definitely not reading the same thing. AP clearly laid out the pros and cons if they, U.S., "should" stop the nuke going to Guam.

Not the utter bullshit you are spitting out.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/12/17
I think reading the article would have been more beneficial than linking a tweet.
Of course, finding the article wasn't a challenge, either.

Eric Talmadge does point out a few clear pros and cons of the situation, of which seem quite sensible.
Both North Korea and the United States military are desperate for intelligence when it comes to their capabilities of missile launching.
Interrupting the missiles, en route to Guam, could resort into a larger-scale (global) issue depending on the location where the missiles were to be intercepted.
Another concern that was outlined in the article was just how accurate the interceptor ballistics are and what the consequences would be if they failed (regarding morale, casualties, and damage).

I would argue that it would be better off if we left it to the Japanese to intercept these missiles over their own seas.
They have both SM-3 Block IIA interceptor and PAC-3 interceptor missiles that we've given them (in fact, they're the sole country that's currently testing Raytheon's Phase 3 SM-3s).

The biggest concern is that the United States Military is putting too much trust into our THAAD system.
It's never been tested in a "live" environment and its success to failure ratio is a bit concerning.
Out of 11 demonstrations/validation tests, 3 of which did not even attempt to hit a test target, 6 were hard failures (could not hit a test target - to the point that the government reduced its funding of the project), and 2 were successful.
Relying on this technology would be foolhardy, at best.
If our THAAD system were to fail with an interception then it would be a disaster on multiple fronts.
North Korea's ego would become emblazoned and vindicated (especially from their government), the trust in the military would be on the decline, and it would cause a significant amount of casualties if the interception missiles struck somewhere off-target.

I find it more absurd to look at this in a black or white scenario.
War is never without a loss (other than the "Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War" between the Isles of Scilly and the Netherlands/Holland, mind you).
There are times where one has to determine exactly how many people will die while trying to save others, or if the risk to reward is worth it.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/12/17
Also, there isn't much point in criticizing your choice of words.
I'm certain that you knew it was going to be click bait; as one would try to troll liberals into becoming argumentive.
Your original post was filled with ambiguous traps, from conflicting terminology (the usage of "leftist media") to confusing feelings with rationality.
It's okay, though. Just don't knee-jerk your responses to the traps you laid out for posters.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/12/17

Cydoemus wrote:

I think reading the article would have been more beneficial than linking a tweet.
Of course, finding the article wasn't a challenge, either.

Eric Talmadge does point out a few clear pros and cons of the situation, of which seem quite sensible.
Both North Korea and the United States military are desperate for intelligence when it comes to their capabilities of missile launching.
Interrupting the missiles, en route to Guam, could resort into a larger-scale (global) issue depending on the location where the missiles were to be intercepted.
Another concern that was outlined in the article was just how accurate the interceptor ballistics are and what the consequences would be if they failed (regarding morale, casualties, and damage).

I would argue that it would be better off if we left it to the Japanese to intercept these missiles over their own seas.
They have both SM-3 Block IIA interceptor and PAC-3 interceptor missiles that we've given them (in fact, they're the sole country that's currently testing Raytheon's Phase 3 SM-3s).

The biggest concern is that the United States Military is putting too much trust into our THAAD system.
It's never been tested in a "live" environment and its success to failure ratio is a bit concerning.
Out of 11 demonstrations/validation tests, 3 of which did not even attempt to hit a test target, 6 were hard failures (could not hit a test target - to the point that the government reduced its funding of the project), and 2 were successful.
Relying on this technology would be foolhardy, at best.
If our THAAD system were to fail with an interception then it would be a disaster on multiple fronts.
North Korea's ego would become emblazoned and vindicated (especially from their government), the trust in the military would be on the decline, and it would cause a significant amount of casualties if the interception missiles struck somewhere off-target.

I find it more absurd to look at this in a black or white scenario.
War is never without a loss (other than the "Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War" between the Isles of Scilly and the Netherlands/Holland, mind you).
There are times where one has to determine exactly how many people will die while trying to save others, or if the risk to reward is worth it.


Okay, that's still immoral to sacrifice someone for the greater good. I don't agree with utilitarianism.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

I think reading the article would have been more beneficial than linking a tweet.
Of course, finding the article wasn't a challenge, either.

Eric Talmadge does point out a few clear pros and cons of the situation, of which seem quite sensible.
Both North Korea and the United States military are desperate for intelligence when it comes to their capabilities of missile launching.
Interrupting the missiles, en route to Guam, could resort into a larger-scale (global) issue depending on the location where the missiles were to be intercepted.
Another concern that was outlined in the article was just how accurate the interceptor ballistics are and what the consequences would be if they failed (regarding morale, casualties, and damage).

I would argue that it would be better off if we left it to the Japanese to intercept these missiles over their own seas.
They have both SM-3 Block IIA interceptor and PAC-3 interceptor missiles that we've given them (in fact, they're the sole country that's currently testing Raytheon's Phase 3 SM-3s).

The biggest concern is that the United States Military is putting too much trust into our THAAD system.
It's never been tested in a "live" environment and its success to failure ratio is a bit concerning.
Out of 11 demonstrations/validation tests, 3 of which did not even attempt to hit a test target, 6 were hard failures (could not hit a test target - to the point that the government reduced its funding of the project), and 2 were successful.
Relying on this technology would be foolhardy, at best.
If our THAAD system were to fail with an interception then it would be a disaster on multiple fronts.
North Korea's ego would become emblazoned and vindicated (especially from their government), the trust in the military would be on the decline, and it would cause a significant amount of casualties if the interception missiles struck somewhere off-target.

I find it more absurd to look at this in a black or white scenario.
War is never without a loss (other than the "Three Hundred and Thirty-Five Years' War" between the Isles of Scilly and the Netherlands/Holland, mind you).
There are times where one has to determine exactly how many people will die while trying to save others, or if the risk to reward is worth it.


Okay, that's still immoral to sacrifice someone for the greater good. I don't agree with utilitarianism.


That's fair, as it's your opinion on the matter.
But what if you end up sacrificing twice as many people while trying to save the few, to prove a point?
I agree that looking at it strictly as "should we even bother stopping a missile headed to Guam" is a bit one-sided and a narrow-minded view, at that.
Though, is that what the article you've indirectly linked stated?
They simply listed out the pros and cons of intercepting a missile headed to Guam. They're valid points, even if you disagree them based on morality.

There can be consequences of intercepting a missile by relying on a system that has a significant failure rate even during demonstration tests, without any real-life experiences to fall back on.
I'm sure you can agree to that, no?
It's a numbers game. If you know something has a high failure rate, would you place that one thing at the top of your list to ensure your survival?
Much like driving a car you know the brakes have an 18.18% chance of successfully stopping the vehicle while it's in motion.

The SM-3 and PAC-3 interceptors can be used before they even get close to Guam.
The unfortunate thing is that these aren't without risks as well.
Fortunately, the PAC-3 system has passed three out of three demonstration tests.
The difference is that Lockheed Martin has taken over the PAC-3 project, while Raytheon is still in charge of the SM-3 project.
Raytheon has had failures in the past and the former Patriot/PAC-3 system was a lackluster, for the most part.

My point is that you shouldn't automatically become disgusted at the thought of someone outlining potential pros and cons of a situation.
Yes, you may disagree with the underlying tone of sacrificing the few for the many. I get that, I really do.
The problem here is that when it comes to war there are more factors involved than just "Yes or No".
There's the grey area that nobody wants to look at, as it may mean that innocent people may lose their life for a senseless war (or act, or attack, etc) regardless of which option you take.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:

Also, there isn't much point in criticizing your choice of words.
I'm certain that you knew it was going to be click bait; as one would try to troll liberals into becoming argumentive.
Your original post was filled with ambiguous traps, from conflicting terminology (the usage of "leftist media") to confusing feelings with rationality.
It's okay, though. Just don't knee-jerk your responses to the traps you laid out for posters.


Now the mods changed the title you jerk...
36012 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:

Okay, that's still immoral to sacrifice someone for the greater good. I don't agree with utilitarianism.

Sacrifice who, precisely? The N. Korea missile test they're talking about would be aimed at the waters off Guam's coast. Per the article:

If U.S. territory is threatened, countermeasures are a no-brainer. But if the missiles aren’t expected to hit the island — the stated goal is to have them hit waters well offshore — should it? Could it?

The article is questioning whether we should intercept (and potentially give the N. Korean's intel on our defensive capabilities) if we know the missiles aren't going to actually hit anything.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:
Now the mods changed the title you jerk...


Yoooooooo, I didn't report it.
I only commented on the obviousness of the trap you laid out.
Did I happen to...

Trigger your trap card?!

20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:



The biggest concern is that the United States Military is putting too much trust into our THAAD system.


Unless you have top-secret clearance.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. has countermeasures besides THAAD. And I'm not talking about missile system. We are going off the construct of what we think the military has. You and I are working with our limited knowledge of their strategic plan. This is at best, bounded rationality.

Remember, North Korea has been making threats for YEARS. Generals often create 5-10 year strategic plans against real foreign threats.

I remember taking military history in college. And the U.S. military created a war plan if Germany took over Europe. And if Japan takes over the Pacific. This was about 5 years before Hitler and Japan started their imperialistic endeavors.
17165 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17
I am normally one to say we shouldn't intervene in other countries affairs. But this time, I think we need to do something about this problem while we still have a chance.
One Punch Mod
117931 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Boston-ish
Offline
Posted 8/11/17 , edited 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:

Are you really criticizing my word choice instead of the actual crux of the issue?


Let's see. You started a topic which, based on the original title, purports to be about the "leftist" media. Are you really complaining that someone points out that while it sounds like you want to have a discussion about that, it doesn't seem like the content of your post supports that?

What is the crux of the issue? What is the issue? Is the issue the situation the U.S., and the world , faces because of North Korea's recent activities and statements about their missiles and nukes? Is the issue how media is leftist? Is the issue how some media is leftist and what fault you find with the way that media chooses to present content?

If it's either of the latter, which is what your original title implied, then just tossing out just one thing as an example, and doing what amounts to shaking your head and saying "I just don't get it" doesn't do much to start that discussion.

Therefore, I've changed the title to reflect the content related to the situation with North Korea. If you want to start a discussion about the media, then please start a new thread and build a better foundation for that -- just presenting one piece of media as an example of "the media" or "the leftist media" is grossly insufficient. You should provide a few examples and share with us what you think those show and why that concerns or befuddles you.
20206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

Cydoemus wrote:


riverjustice wrote:
Now the mods changed the title you jerk...


Yoooooooo, I didn't report it.
I only commented on the obviousness of the trap you laid out.
Did I happen to...

Trigger your trap card?!



LMAO okay seto kaiba.
1309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/11/17

riverjustice wrote:


Cydoemus wrote:

The biggest concern is that the United States Military is putting too much trust into our THAAD system.


Unless you have top-secret clearance.

I'm pretty sure the U.S. has countermeasures besides THAAD. And I'm not talking about missile system. We are going off the construct of what we think the military has. You and I are working with our limited knowledge of their strategic plan. This is at best, bounded rationality.


Agreed.
At this time, though, I'd like to loop back to the original trap/comment about how this is a leftist perception of the situation (this being the article).
Given the idea (or potentially a fact) that the reporter is working with a similarly limited knowledge of what the military has up its sleeve, would you argue that his opinions are totally baseless?
As you said, it's bounded rationality (at best).
The reporter never stated that his comments/opinions were die-hard facts (despite, in the public domain, many statements he made were - we just do not have all of the pieces of the data due to access to information).

Eric Talmadge, for the record, is one of the few reporters that have spent a significant amount of time in North Korea.
It appears he was basically attempting to illustrate his opinion that was formed between what he knew of North Korea (and its overall perspective on things that he could gather) and the public information he currently has regarding the United States and its military.
Other than your conflicting opinion of his undertone (which, as another user mentioned, wasn't exactly implied either way), does this sound like he was entirely irrational in his approach to the pros and cons of the subject?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.