Performance Boats Forum banner
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
865 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I got this update and thought it was eerie with all the North Korean missle launch actions and rhetoric, i guess throw one up and then let the N. Koreans know we are not messing around



VANDENBERG SCHEDULES MINUTEMAN III LAUNCH
Vandenberg AFB News Release
2009 June 24

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - An unarmed Minuteman III
intercontinental ballistic missile configured with a joint test
assembly is scheduled to launch from North Vandenberg Monday between
3:01 a.m. to 9:01 a.m.

The launch is an operational test to determine the weapon system's
reliability and accuracy.

The missile's three unarmed re-entry vehicles are expected to travel
approximately 4,190 miles, hitting a pre-determined target near the
Kwajalein Atoll.

The 576th Flight Test Squadron, which will direct the missile launch,
installed tracking, telemetry and command destruct systems on the
missile to collect data and meet safety requirements. Maintenance and
operations task force personnel from the 91at Missile Wing, Minot AFB,
ND are conducting operational tasks leading up to launch.

Col. David J. Buck, the 30th Space Wing commander, is the launch
decision authority for this mission. Lt. Col. Lesa K. Toler, the 576th
FLTS commander, is the mission director. A crew visiting from Minot
AFB will launch the missile under the direction of the 576th FLTS.

This launch, the first of three in 2009, comes at a time of change
within the missile world, as the Air Force moves closer to combining
its nuclear missile and bomber assets into a fledgling Global Strike
Command.

"The move to Global Strike Command means that we can re-build the way
we do business from scratch," said Colonel Toler. "This is a great
opportunity for us to write our future. We are already the best at
what we do, but now we are currently looking at our processes to see
how we can do our job faster and more efficiently."

The entire ICBM community, including the Department of Defense and the
Department of Energy, will use the data collected from this mission
for continuing force development evaluation.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,649 Posts
Hypothetical Situation and you are the one making the decision.

Scenario:

The world doesn't "think" but also doesn't "know for sure" if North Korea has a launchable nuclear warhead.

North Korea launches a long range missile. Tracking indicates it will hit in the vicinity of Southern California over land. We do not have the capability of shooting it down statistically beyond a 7 in 10 chance of hitting.


You are the Commander in Chief.

1. Do you wait to determine if it was nuclear before acting knowing if you successfully shoot it down you may never know if it was armed or not?

2. You are able to shoot it down and it cannot be determined if it was armed or not. What is you next course of action if any?

3. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has no warhead of any kind. It makes a hole in the ground on a hill above Whittier. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

4. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has a conventional warhead which detonates and causes limited damage and some loss of life. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

5. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has a nuclear warhead which detonates and causes massive damage and loss of life in the millions. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

6. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits the middle of the desert and has a nuclear warhead which detonates and causes damage and minimal loss of life. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

7. If your choice is to strike back at North Korea in any or all above scenarios is your choice nuclear or conventional?


I'd be interested in your answers as the person with the decision making power to each of 1 to 7. These scenarios are not all that far fetched the way things are heading.

Please leave Obama politics out of it. I just want "what you would do" as answers.
 

·
What the Hell is That?
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
Hypothetical Situation and you are the one making the decision.

Scenario:

The world doesn't "think" but also doesn't "know for sure" if North Korea has a launchable nuclear warhead.

North Korea launches a long range missile. Tracking indicates it will hit in the vicinity of Southern California over land. We do not have the capability of shooting it down statistically beyond a 7 in 10 chance of hitting.


You are the Commander in Chief.

1. My intelligence should be way ahead of them as soon as it touched Korean airspace i would want to know what it is. If that can not be determined you think the worst and have it destroyed.

2. Shoot it down you are not here to play games you are here to protect the people.

3. You attack. Im in the mind set that you do not **** with the united states and shoot warning shots. It hit US soil and we must retaliate

4. first look for a political way out. You proved you can not stop it or maybe it was just a lucky shot. i don't think i would be willing to risk the life of America on luck

5. you approach the UN for help. If we really can not shoot it down we do indeed need help. But we Retaliate none the less. If other country's see you run and ask for help they will think you are weak. Basically it would be a nuclear war

6. Again you approach the UN saying look at what they attempted, hit or miss this is still an act of war. get sides to back you. and try everything you can to come to a peaceful ending.

7. all depending on what they hit with. the Rules of Engagement are do not fire till fired upon. If they use nukes, we use nukes. Thats what the world has come to sorry to say. When fired upon you job is not to question what they fired or what there intetions were. You are there to protect the way of life and american freedom.


I'd be interested in your answers as the person with the decision making power to each of 1 to 7. These scenarios are not all that far fetched the way things are heading.

Please leave Obama politics out of it. I just want "what you would do" as answers.
My answers in bold. Sorry for the Grammer, but this one got me going.
 

·
What the Hell is That?
Joined
·
1,633 Posts
Also if i miss rockets headed for the united states i would seriously reevaluate
where the money is going to for national defense.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
if a bomb went off near the port of LA our nation would fancialy cripled. if the bomb went off closer to holywood....a lot less stupid sh%& on tv! seriously we'd have to hit back a hit hard.not a long costly war. no rebuilding and boo hoo. we find out where little kim is and turn him and his cronies into glass.if we're not going to that extreme,well we'd have to stall for time to move troops into place for one massive air strike. maybe we could do it such a way as to remove their nuke capability.then all we have to do is worry about their alies ganging up on us.what a fubar situation.good answers(if there are any) are above my pay grade.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
434 Posts
We need to protect our nation and it's borders (airspace) from any threat. We must take North Korea seriously. eliminate the threat(conventionally) all of the nuclear and missle locations in North Korea. He Spoke we must react.
 

·
Living in a cage of fear
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
Shoot it down, then tell China they have 24 Hrs. to remove NK leader or we will.
 

·
mo balls than $cents$
Joined
·
11,734 Posts
Shoot it down, then tell China they have 24 Hrs. to remove NK leader or we will.
x2:)devil china is too heavily vested in the u.s. now to go to war against us, korea ain't shit compared to our debt:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,509 Posts
x2:)devil china is too heavily vested in the u.s. now to go to war against us, korea ain't shit compared to our debt:D


Ding-Ding-Ding---we have a winner!!!!!!!! China won't do shit.

If NK launches a missile at the US we should launch a missile back at them, it should be just large enough to cause massive damage to a major city in NK but not so big as to cause major fallout outside the borders of NK.

This would serve a dual purpose in letting other nuclear capable second world countries know that even if they develop or have nukes we will use our nukes and blow the shit out of them and of course it ends the NK problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,205 Posts
Unless you want to become a shadow permanently cast on a sidewalk now might be a good time to get out of California.
 

·
IAFF local 1067
Joined
·
492 Posts
Regardless we should try to shoot it down. If we are unsuccessful and it hits anywhere in the USA. we retaliate. If it hits and it was not a nuclear warhead then we retaliate overwhelmingly with conventional weoponry. If it hits and it is nuclear we vaporize North Korea.
 

·
It is what it is
Joined
·
2,650 Posts
If they attack us and actually shoot a missle that hits our soil, and it was my choice as to what action to take. I would choose conventional weapons to retaliate. I would target anything military or goverment. I would declare war, and bomb them relentlessly until South Korea can move in and take over the entire country. I would back South Korea in the take over with limited American troups but full air support.


I really don't see us ever using nuclear weapons again. We have the ability to strategically target anything on the planet now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,252 Posts
I have some strange feeling there are a group of SEALS or snipers hovering near or around Kim. I have another feeling they itchy trigger fingers too. One can on hope huh?
 

·
mo balls than $cents$
Joined
·
11,734 Posts
I have some strange feeling there are a group of SEALS or snipers hovering near or around Kim. I have another feeling they itchy trigger fingers too. One can on hope huh?
its against american policy to assinate him:|err i agree though, it'd be nice to see vid of his head popping off his neck:)st:D
 

·
Screamin SeaMonkees
Joined
·
1,663 Posts
Without all the justification...

Upon determining that the launch was successfull and capable of reaching our sovereign boundries I would target and eliminate all military targets within NK, using conventional weapons. I would then encourage SK to move in and provide aid to the people of NK and bring them into the 20th Century.
Now, what to do with China?
Ask them, publicly, to help with the aid to the people NK, putting them "on the spot" for a yes or no answer.

Just sayin'.
 

·
Living in a cage of fear
Joined
·
16,464 Posts
Ding-Ding-Ding---we have a winner!!!!!!!! China won't do shit.

If NK launches a missile at the US we should launch a missile back at them, it should be just large enough to cause massive damage to a major city in NK but not so big as to cause major fallout outside the borders of NK.

This would serve a dual purpose in letting other nuclear capable second world countries know that even if they develop or have nukes we will use our nukes and blow the shit out of them and of course it ends the NK problem.

I think you may be misinterpreting what he is saying. (or maybe I am!:D)
China WILL stop it, we are worth a lot more to them then their unruly lap dog.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
its against american policy to assinate him:|err i agree though, it'd be nice to see vid of his head popping off his neck:)st:D
From what I understand the Executive Order 12333 states that you cannot assassinate a foreign head of state BUT you can bomb the buildings where they are suspected to be.

"One of the clauses of this executive order reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies sponsoring or carrying out an assassination. As early as 1998 this proscription against assassination was reinterpreted, and relaxed, for targets who are classified by the United States as connected to terrorism."
CIA Weighs 'Targeted Killing' Missions

Administration Believes Restraints Do Not Bar Singling Out Individual Terrorists

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 28, 2001; Page A01


Armed with new authority from President Bush for a global campaign against al Qaeda, the Central Intelligence Agency is contemplating clandestine missions expressly aimed at killing specified individuals for the first time since the assassination scandals and consequent legal restraints of the 1970s.
Drawing on two classified legal memoranda, one written for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and one since the attacks of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has concluded that executive orders banning assassination do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action. The CIA is reluctant to accept a broad grant of authority to hunt and kill U.S. enemies at its discretion, knowledgeable sources said. But the agency is willing and believes itself able to take the lives of terrorists designated by the president.
Clinton authorized covert lethal force against al Qaeda beginning in 1998, and The Washington Post reported last Sunday that Bush has signed a more encompassing intelligence "finding" that calls for attacks on newly identified weaknesses in Osama bin Laden's communications, security apparatus and infrastructure.
Bush's directive broadens the class of potential targets beyond bin Laden and his immediate circle of operational planners, and also beyond the present boundaries of the fight in Afghanistan, officials said.But it also holds the potential to target violence more narrowly than its precedents of the past 25 years because previous findings did not permit explicit planning for the death of an individual.
Bush and his national security Cabinet have been plain about their intention to find and kill bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader the administration blames for the Sept. 11 attacks.
The public face of that campaign is a conventional war in Afghanistan using uniformed troops. Yet inside the CIA and elsewhere in government, according to sources, much of the debate turns on the scope of a targeted killing campaign. How wide should the government draw the circle around bin Laden? And in which countries -- among the 40 or so where al Qaeda is believed to operate -- may such efforts be attempted?
Though there are differences on those matters, some officials observed that the agency is surprisingly undivided in its willingness to undertake the mission.
"There's nothing involved in this operation that isn't being debated by somebody somewhere, but our responsibilities are pretty clear to those who have the top secret code-word clearance and the need to know," said a senior intelligence official.
Botched assassinations in the 1960s and 1970s, and their airing in congressional hearings in 1974, left deep scars on the CIA. Executive orders signed by three presidents since, beginning Feb. 18, 1976, were interpreted until recently as forbidding clandestine acts of targeted killing.
It is significant that the directive Bush signed last month took the form of a presidential finding. As defined in the Hughes-Ryan amendment of 1974 and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, a finding concerns only the use of appropriated funds for covert action by intelligence agencies. The military chain of command uses separate legal instruments called operations orders, numbered sequentially and prefixed by year.
As officials debate the new finding, the new consensus position, according to a participant in the discussions, is that "we should use all the weapons at our disposal." He likened targeted killings to "clipping toenails" because al Qaeda is capable of growing a new cohort of leaders. "It won't solve the whole problem, but it's part of the solution."
The CIA's Directorate of Operations, which runs the clandestine service, is mindful of a traumatizing past in which assassination attempts in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East were blamed on rogue agents when they failed. The agency is determined to leave no room this time for "plausible denial" of responsibility on the part of the president and the agency's top management. That does not mean that operations will be publicly proclaimed, one source said, but that the paper trail inside government must begin undeniably with "the political leadership."
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, remembered commonly as the Church committee, reported on Nov. 20, 1975, that plots against five foreign leaders under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon were deliberately organized in terms "so ambiguous that it is difficult to be certain at what levels assassination activity was known and authorized."
"The important thing is that the accountability chain is clear," said John C. Gannon, who retired in June as deputy director of central intelligence, the agency's second-ranking position, in comments that mirrored those of colleagues who declined to be named. "I would want the president's guidance to be as clear as it could be, including the names of individuals. You've got to have the political levels behind you so the intelligence officers are not left hanging."
With explicit authority, he said, "I think the case officers are capable [of targeted killing] and would follow instructions, and would, I think, have the capability of succeeding."
National security officials noted that the White House and at least three executive departments already maintain lists in which terrorists are singled out by name. Executive Order 12947, signed by Clinton on Jan. 23, 1995, introduced a legal category of "specially designated terrorists." The list is maintained and amended by the secretary of state and by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Most recently the FBI named 22 men on Oct. 10 as its "most wanted terrorists," of whom 13 are linked to al Qaeda.
One view, apparently a minority position but one expressed in private recently by two senior managers in the Directorate of Operations, is that the clandestine service should target not only commanders but also financiers of al Qaeda. "You have to go after the Gucci guys, the guys who write the checks," said one person reflecting that view. It is easier to find financiers, he said, and killing them would have dramatic impact because they are not commonly prepared to die for their cause.
"You can make the case that getting the funding people would have a tremendously chilling effect" on al Qaeda's capacity to raise and move money, acknowledged Frederick P. Hitz, who was inspector general of the CIA from 1990 to 1998 and is not generally in favor of targeted killing.
Rep. Robert L. Barr Jr. (R-Ga.), who introduced a "Terrorist Elimination Act" eight months before the Sept. 11 attacks, said fundraisers are legitimate targets for death. "Under traditional terms of war, those who assist belligerents are belligerents," he said.
A more common view among those willing to discuss the matter was that any list of terrorists marked for death will likely be short.
"Some of these guys are potential recruitment targets to be debriefed," one case officer noted. Many others are in countries in which local circumstances make the political risks of covert homicide very high. The case officer said that opinions will certainly be "more split in the directorate the farther you get away from bin Laden."
If Bush has drawn up such a list, it is among the most closely held secrets of government. It could not be learned whether names have been proposed to him by the clandestine service, or whether he has signed orders that would amount to individual death warrants.
Spokesmen for the White House and the CIA declined to comment for this article. But the administration has laid down a public record that offers further evidence of the agency's new authority.
On Sept. 17, after Bush remarked that bin Laden is "wanted dead or alive," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Executive Order 12333, signed Dec. 4, 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, remains in effect. Like its counterparts under Presidents Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter, Executive Orders 11905 and 12306, the directive forbids assassination but does not define the term. Fleischer declined four times to interpret the text. "I'm going to just repeat my words and others will figure out the exact implications of them, but it does not inhibit the nation's ability to act in self-defense," he said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, speaking Oct. 15, went slightly further.
"It is certainly within the president's power to direct that, in our self-defense, we take this battle to the terrorists and that means to the leadership and command and control capabilities of terrorist networks," he said.
Whether such operations are within the agency's competence, or consistent with a culture that its employees describe as deeply risk averse, is another question.
Hitz, who supervised wide-ranging internal reviews of the lapses of the clandestine service, said he doubts the agency is prepared for orders to kill.
"After fifty-plus years, the CIA is an organization of bureaucrats," Hitz said. "This is not what intelligence officers do. They're not trained for it. And the intermediary stuff is what went to hell in times past. If you go out and hire a bunch of brass knuckles types . . . it strikes me that throws in the hopper all the things we learned about this bit of business in the Church committee investigations."
The Church committee, for example, exposed eight distinct plots against Cuban leader Fidel Castro's life from 1960 to 1965, some of them comically inept. One effort, strongly resonant in the context of recent events, contaminated a box of Castro's favorite cigars with botulinum toxin in February 1961. Another laid plans to place an exploding seashell at Castro's customary skin-diving venue; still another infected a wet suit with poison fungus and proposed that U.S. negotiator James B. Donovan present it to the Cuban leader as a gift.
Today the Directorate of Operations retains a "special activities" branch, but case officers who retired recently said it has had neither status nor funding in recent years. "The paramilitary part of the directorate has atrophied," one case officer said.
Senior officials said the president's finding directs new forms of cooperation between the CIA and uniformed military commando units. Some knowledgeable sources said it is also possible that the instruments of targeted killings will be foreign agents, the CIA's term for nonemployees who act on its behalf. That is controversial, because it involves risks of betrayal and conflicting agendas on the part of the agents, but it is also seen in parts of the agency as advantageous.
"As a force multiplier," one source said, "we can use Jordanians and Sudanese and Egyptians that are willing to do this for us."
The legal basis for Bush's order is perhaps its least controversial aspect, at least among government lawyers who have studied the question.
Since the late Clinton administration, executive branch lawyers have held that the president's inherent authority to use lethal force -- under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution -- permits an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense.
In 1998, an interagency group led by then-Assistant Attorney General Randy Moss produced a highly classified memo of law on assassination. The group concluded that recent presidents -- from Reagan in Libya to Bush in Iraq -- had been needlessly cautious in ordering broad attacks against enemy headquarters if their real objective was to kill an individual leader. Because executive orders are entirely at the discretion of the president, they wrote, a president may issue contrary directives at will and need not make public that he has done so.
Under customary international law and Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, according to those familiar with the memo, taking the life of a terrorist to preempt an imminent or continuing threat of attack is analogous to self-defense against conventional attack.
That interpretationwon out over a proposal by Walter Dellinger, Moss's predecessor, who wanted to amend Executive Order 12333. Dellinger proposed to forbid assassination "without the prior written express authorization of the president." Presidential "findings" on lethal force, he said, were too often drafted overbroadly simply "to avoid calling what we're doing 'assassination.' "
The Bush administration's update of that analysis is strengthened by the Joint Resolution of Congress of Sept. 14, which gave the president authority to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against "persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
The prospect of extrajudicial killings by the U.S. government is a departure from one of the touchstone intelligence restraints of the post-Vietnam era. It inspires strong qualms among some of those who have thought about it professionally.
"In my heart I am often for assassination, but in my head not," said Anthony Lake, Clinton's first national security adviser, reaching back toan Italian Renaissance family notorious for murder and fratricide for an analogy. "Until you can show me the firewall between those whose deaths you're positive would save a large number of lives, and those about whom you're not positive, then I think you're on a slippery slope to becoming the Borgias."
Staff researchers Mary Lou White and Margaret Smith contributed to this report.
 

·
I got nothing
Joined
·
2,037 Posts
Hypothetical Situation and you are the one making the decision.

Scenario:

The world doesn't "think" but also doesn't "know for sure" if North Korea has a launchable nuclear warhead.

North Korea launches a long range missile. Tracking indicates it will hit in the vicinity of Southern California over land. We do not have the capability of shooting it down statistically beyond a 7 in 10 chance of hitting.


You are the Commander in Chief.

1. Do you wait to determine if it was nuclear before acting knowing if you successfully shoot it down you may never know if it was armed or not? Yes, I try and shoot it down

2. You are able to shoot it down and it cannot be determined if it was armed or not. What is you next course of action if any? Tell that short little motherphucker that he just committed an act of war and and that he his people should prepare to be bombed back to the stone age.

3. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has no warhead of any kind. It makes a hole in the ground on a hill above Whittier. What do you do with regard to North Korea? Tell that short little motherphucker that he just committed an act of war and and that he his people should prepare to be bombed back to the stone age.

4. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has a conventional warhead which detonates and causes limited damage and some loss of life. What do you do with regard to North Korea? Tell that short little motherphucker that he just committed an act of war and and that he his people should prepare to be bombed back to the stone age.

5. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has a nuclear warhead which detonates and causes massive damage and loss of life in the millions. What do you do with regard to North Korea? Tell that short little motherphucker that he just committed an act of war and and that he his people should prepare to be bombed back to the stone age.

6. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits the middle of the desert and has a nuclear warhead which detonates and causes damage and minimal loss of life. What do you do with regard to North Korea? Tell that short little motherphucker that he just committed an act of war and and that he his people should prepare to be bombed back to the stone age.

7. If your choice is to strike back at North Korea in any or all above scenarios is your choice nuclear or conventional? Probably conventional. The problem with going nuclear is the fallout in the surrounding countries that did NOT attack us. Some of those countries are our allies so it would be a difficult choice. However, if they did hit us with a nuke it would take some serious restraint to not use our nukes as well.


I'd be interested in your answers as the person with the decision making power to each of 1 to 7. These scenarios are not all that far fetched the way things are heading.

Please leave Obama politics out of it. I just want "what you would do" as answers.
My responses in bold above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,573 Posts
very simple.

You need three nuclear ballistic missle submarines (designed to launch with little or no warning to the intended target). Each is capable of wiping out a decent size country on their own.

Park one submarine each next to Russia, China and North Korea.

Then you send a message to the North Korean midget that if he launches anything (regardless of what it contains) that has a trajectory towards the U.S. that his country will immediately be obliterated BEFORE his long duck dong missile even reaches the U.S.

Tell China and Russia if they intervene they are next.......

As Reagan use to say, peace through strength......:D

But as was already mentioned this is all hypothetical. China will stop NK from doing anything cuz China doesn't want to lose the walmart account!

This is the damn problem with this new world order. Back in the day both the USSR and US knew what it meant to have "mutually assurred destruction". THAT was the deterrant and everyone understood it. Hence NO nuclear holocaust despite all the nukes on both sides. These new clowns trying to get nuclear weapons don't seem to understand this principle and my hope is that we don't have to teach someone a lesson.

Hypothetical Situation and you are the one making the decision.

Scenario:

The world doesn't "think" but also doesn't "know for sure" if North Korea has a launchable nuclear warhead.

North Korea launches a long range missile. Tracking indicates it will hit in the vicinity of Southern California over land. We do not have the capability of shooting it down statistically beyond a 7 in 10 chance of hitting.


You are the Commander in Chief.

1. Do you wait to determine if it was nuclear before acting knowing if you successfully shoot it down you may never know if it was armed or not?

2. You are able to shoot it down and it cannot be determined if it was armed or not. What is you next course of action if any?

3. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has no warhead of any kind. It makes a hole in the ground on a hill above Whittier. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

4. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has a conventional warhead which detonates and causes limited damage and some loss of life. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

5. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits LA and has a nuclear warhead which detonates and causes massive damage and loss of life in the millions. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

6. You are not able to shoot it down. It hits the middle of the desert and has a nuclear warhead which detonates and causes damage and minimal loss of life. What do you do with regard to North Korea?

7. If your choice is to strike back at North Korea in any or all above scenarios is your choice nuclear or conventional?


I'd be interested in your answers as the person with the decision making power to each of 1 to 7. These scenarios are not all that far fetched the way things are heading.

Please leave Obama politics out of it. I just want "what you would do" as answers.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top