darkSpyro

Slow the **** down, guys! I haven't even lost my virginity yet. I don't have time to blow up

Quote: TheToyNerd

Slow the **** down, guys! I haven't even lost my virginity yet. I don't have time to blow up

same tbh

Quote: Seiki

Quote: TheToyNerd

Slow the **** down, guys! I haven't even lost my virginity yet. I don't have time to blow up

same tbh

same tbh

WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO FEEL

i mean screw isis, but i'm really anxious waiting to see what happens from here

Slow the **** down, guys! I haven't even lost my virginity yet. I don't have time to blow up

Good, it's absolutely a positive thing. How else would you intend to effect your enemy if not putting pressure on them?
No civilian casualties were reported and the tunnels used by the terrorists were destroyed. The Afghanistan government considered the attack a success, and even the governor of the area that the bomb hit thought it was awesome. He said it was the biggest explosion he'd ever seen.

I really don't understand why people are scared. Destroying ISIS bases will seriously hamper their ability to operate and move around locally, and that's exactly what they were going for with this attack.

Good, it's absolutely a positive thing. How else would you intend to effect your enemy if not putting pressure on them?
No civilian casualties were reported and the tunnels used by the terrorists were destroyed. The Afghanistan government considered the attack a success, and even the governor of the area that the bomb hit thought it was awesome. He said it was the biggest explosion he'd ever seen.

I really don't understand why people are scared. Destroying ISIS bases will seriously hamper their ability to operate and move around locally, and that's exactly what they were going for with this attack.

Quote: Bumblebunnii

Quote: Samius

Good, it's absolutely a positive thing. How else would you intend to effect your enemy if not putting pressure on them?
No civilian casualties were reported and the tunnels used by the terrorists were destroyed. The Afghanistan government considered the attack a success, and even the governor of the area that the bomb hit thought it was awesome. He said it was the biggest explosion he'd ever seen.

I really don't understand why people are scared. Destroying ISIS bases will seriously hamper their ability to operate and move around locally, and that's exactly what they were going for with this attack.

In my opinion the real concern should be with Trump attacking Syria again, because of Russia's reaction to it. The Afghanistan attack was a big move for our military and it's really going to help push ISIS back a lot. I don't understand the negative reaction either

I think the missile strike on the Syrian airbase was more of a publicity stunt (or a show of power) on Trump's part. It was a very costly attack that had little to no effect, and the whole thing was likely planned ahead instead of it being a real retaliatory strike. I get the feeling that it was more about sending a message to other countries that the US is ready to use force against sovereign nations if necessary.

As for Russia, I don't really think that they could afford starting anything bigger than a show of bravado. They're completely surrounded by both American and American-allied military bases.
Also, Russia has what I would call a "strongman-mentality". They won't listen to anything you say unless you have the necessary force (and the willingness to use that force) to back it up. I can't see why Putin would ever pick a fight willingly if Trump is both willing and able to fight back harder.

I wasn't saying the Syria attack was unwarranted or that it wasn't beneficial, but there's no reason to dismiss Russian's threats so quickly.
I mean Russia has already suspended the agreement that they had made with the US about sharing air operations information, and they said that they are ready to "respond with force". The next 4 or 8 years will be something but not enough to make everything go to waster´.

Whether or not you want to involve yourself in discussion about it is whatever, but you should still care because these things very much affect everyone. People like Trump and everyone else in the government are the people who run things, no matter how much say so you believe the people have, the power is in the hands of our very corrupt government. It goes way past Trump.

Quote: Project_Unnamed

Quote: Bumblebunnii

I wasn't saying the Syria attack was unwarranted or that it wasn't beneficial, but there's no reason to dismiss Russian's threats so quickly.
I mean Russia has already suspended the agreement that they had made with the US about sharing air operations information, and they said that they are ready to "respond with force". The next 4 or 8 years will be something but not enough to make everything go to waster´.

Whether or not you want to involve yourself in discussion about it is whatever, but you should still care because these things very much affect everyone. People like Trump and everyone else in the government are the people who run things, no matter how much say so you believe the people have, the power is in the hands of our very corrupt government. It goes way past Trump.

They affect people who are insecure and un-enlightened enough to care about such small picture. Eventually Russian people want to just build their own lives in a similiar fashion that western hemisphere person wants. Education, job and regular life seems to be the popular fashion and it will be for very long time. I just hate how governments use their people to force in their opinions and not representing the ideals of voting systems. Democracy is an illusion that is only kept alive by the naive but voiceful minority.

But still I have to say that Samius's military points are correct.

I sort of agree with you there. Democracy works fine, at least it has thus far, but there still exists the question: "When people receive power, who receives it?"

But yeah, we're sort of getting off-topic here, so let's save that one for another day and topic.

Quote: Bumblebunnii

I wasn't saying the Syria attack was unwarranted or that it wasn't beneficial, but there's no reason to dismiss Russian's threats so quickly.
I mean Russia has already suspended the agreement that they had made with the US about sharing air operations information, and they said that they are ready to "respond with force". The next 4 or 8 years will be something but not enough to make everything go to waster´.

Whether or not you want to involve yourself in discussion about it is whatever, but you should still care because these things very much affect everyone. People like Trump and everyone else in the government are the people who run things, no matter how much say so you believe the people have, the power is in the hands of our very corrupt government. It goes way past Trump.

They affect people who are insecure and un-enlightened enough to care about such small picture. Eventually Russian people want to just build their own lives in a similiar fashion that western hemisphere person wants. Education, job and regular life seems to be the popular fashion and it will be for very long time. I just hate how governments use their people to force in their opinions and not representing the ideals of voting systems. Democracy is an illusion that is only kept alive by the naive but voiceful minority.

But still I have to say that Samius's military points are correct.

I really don't understand why people are scared. Destroying ISIS bases will seriously hamper their ability to operate and move around locally, and that's exactly what they were going for with this attack.

In my opinion the real concern should be with Trump attacking Syria again, because of Russia's reaction to it. The Afghanistan attack was a big move for our military and it's really going to help push ISIS back a lot. I don't understand the negative reaction either

I think the missile strike on the Syrian airbase was more of a publicity stunt (or a show of power) on Trump's part. It was a very costly attack that had little to no effect, and the whole thing was likely planned ahead instead of it being a real retaliatory strike. I get the feeling that it was more about sending a message to other countries that the US is ready to use force against sovereign nations if necessary.

Good, it's absolutely a positive thing. How else would you intend to effect your enemy if not putting pressure on them?
No civilian casualties were reported and the tunnels used by the terrorists were destroyed. The Afghanistan government considered the attack a success, and even the governor of the area that the bomb hit thought it was awesome. He said it was the biggest explosion he'd ever seen.

I really don't understand why people are scared. Destroying ISIS bases will seriously hamper their ability to operate and move around locally, and that's exactly what they were going for with this attack.

Quote: CAV

^What I'm curious of your (and Samius if he wishes to give it) opinion about is what happens if foreign relations between the US and other nations were to drop off substantially and then combat happens. We've already seen possible signs of this happening with damaged relations with Mexico and Australia, and it mystifies me as to what could happen.

We so often think about WWIII as a conflict where the US is teamed up with NATO. But what happens in the scenario where the US is the enemy against NATO and other nations?

I don't think that's a very realistic outcome to begin with, but let's speculate.

Out of active NATO personnel, about 38.2% are US troops. When reserves are included that number goes down to 30.2%, but it's still such a significant percentage that it's safe to say that without the US NATO isn't nearly as powerful.
Also, it's as clear as day that if the US were to face an existential threat at any time, their solution to the problem would involve nuclear weapons. This would already serve as a very powerful deterrent towards any would-be attackers.
Furthermore, US soil would be notoriously difficult for any nation to invade because of the simple fact that so many of it's citizens are armed. This is a positive side-effect of the Second Amendment, and one of the reasons I agree with the idea of arming a population. And not only that, but for hostile troops to gain a foothold they would have to either cross over the Atlantic or the Pacific, over which the US would likely be able to hold largely undeniable air superiority.

With all that said, it's hard to put everything possible that could happen into chronological order. Despite what people might believe because of movies, video games, etc. war never starts "quickly".
There is a relatively long period of arming and political hot air before any kind of combat actually takes place. In this the US also has the upper hand, not only because nuclear weapons can be used effectively to make pre-emptive strikes (morally dubious, but in war anything goes), but also because you're already ready to do war overseas. You've been doing it for decades, after all.

All in all, I'd say you're pretty safe. With your missile defense grid, your massive active military (plus nukes), and your geographical situation there's not a whole lot that could truly threaten the United States. Internal threats like civil war are one thing, but you're probably not going to have a civil war much for the same reason other countries will never team up against you in the manner you described, out of necessity.
The US is a superpower. Were it to suddenly "fall" (let's just make a simplistic assumption and say it ceases to exist), the balance of power would shift dramatically in many regions around the world, most notably the East. Russia and China would both scramble to get grabby with land and resources, and their regime would not be as kind towards the west as it is today. The situation would certainly devolve into an another World War later on, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

That's my take on it anyway. I didn't delve too much into details, as I can only really speculate on what might happen based on the current situation. Needless to say, there is very little reason to believe that a conflict like this would actually take place.

what if the bomb was made of potatoes

I don't think that's a very realistic outcome to begin with, but let's speculate.

Out of active NATO personnel, about 38.2% are US troops. When reserves are included that number goes down to 30.2%, but it's still such a significant percentage that it's safe to say that without the US NATO isn't nearly as powerful.
Also, it's as clear as day that if the US were to face an existential threat at any time, their solution to the problem would involve nuclear weapons. This would already serve as a very powerful deterrent towards any would-be attackers.
Furthermore, US soil would be notoriously difficult for any nation to invade because of the simple fact that so many of it's citizens are armed. This is a positive side-effect of the Second Amendment, and one of the reasons I agree with the idea of arming a population. And not only that, but for hostile troops to gain a foothold they would have to either cross over the Atlantic or the Pacific, over which the US would likely be able to hold largely undeniable air superiority.

With all that said, it's hard to put everything possible that could happen into chronological order. Despite what people might believe because of movies, video games, etc. war never starts "quickly".
There is a relatively long period of arming and political hot air before any kind of combat actually takes place. In this the US also has the upper hand, not only because nuclear weapons can be used effectively to make pre-emptive strikes (morally dubious, but in war anything goes), but also because you're already ready to do war overseas. You've been doing it for decades, after all.

All in all, I'd say you're pretty safe. With your missile defense grid, your massive active military (plus nukes), and your geographical situation there's not a whole lot that could truly threaten the United States. Internal threats like civil war are one thing, but you're probably not going to have a civil war much for the same reason other countries will never team up against you in the manner you described, out of necessity.
The US is a superpower. Were it to suddenly "fall" (let's just make a simplistic assumption and say it ceases to exist), the balance of power would shift dramatically in many regions around the world, most notably the East. Russia and China would both scramble to get grabby with land and resources, and their regime would not be as kind towards the west as it is today. The situation would certainly devolve into an another World War later on, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

That's my take on it anyway. I didn't delve too much into details, as I can only really speculate on what might happen based on the current situation. Needless to say, there is very little reason to believe that a conflict like this would actually take place.

Quote: 84skylanderdude

what if the bomb was made of potatoes

then mashed potatoes would rain down on the country getting bombed and world hunger would end

Quote: Samius

I don't think that's a very realistic outcome to begin with, but let's speculate.

Out of active NATO personnel, about 38.2% are US troops. When reserves are included that number goes down to 30.2%, but it's still such a significant percentage that it's safe to say that without the US NATO isn't nearly as powerful.
Also, it's as clear as day that if the US were to face an existential threat at any time, their solution to the problem would involve nuclear weapons. This would already serve as a very powerful deterrent towards any would-be attackers.
Furthermore, US soil would be notoriously difficult for any nation to invade because of the simple fact that so many of it's citizens are armed. This is a positive side-effect of the Second Amendment, and one of the reasons I agree with the idea of arming a population. And not only that, but for hostile troops to gain a foothold they would have to either cross over the Atlantic or the Pacific, over which the US would likely be able to hold largely undeniable air superiority.

With all that said, it's hard to put everything possible that could happen into chronological order. Despite what people might believe because of movies, video games, etc. war never starts "quickly".
There is a relatively long period of arming and political hot air before any kind of combat actually takes place. In this the US also has the upper hand, not only because nuclear weapons can be used effectively to make pre-emptive strikes (morally dubious, but in war anything goes), but also because you're already ready to do war overseas. You've been doing it for decades, after all.

All in all, I'd say you're pretty safe. With your missile defense grid, your massive active military (plus nukes), and your geographical situation there's not a whole lot that could truly threaten the United States. Internal threats like civil war are one thing, but you're probably not going to have a civil war much for the same reason other countries will never team up against you in the manner you described, out of necessity.
The US is a superpower. Were it to suddenly "fall" (let's just make a simplistic assumption and say it ceases to exist), the balance of power would shift dramatically in many regions around the world, most notably the East. Russia and China would both scramble to get grabby with land and resources, and their regime would not be as kind towards the west as it is today. The situation would certainly devolve into an another World War later on, and that wouldn't be good for anyone.

That's my take on it anyway. I didn't delve too much into details, as I can only really speculate on what might happen based on the current situation. Needless to say, there is very little reason to believe that a conflict like this would actually take place.

I get that this is probably supposed to sound like a reassuring and positive message but it honestly really comes off painting the picture that the US is too big to fail and can run around as rampant bullies doing whatever they want without consequence.

While this may mean I'm personally safe now this both means there's no real reason for the nation to change its ways. Suddenly it feels less like the current administration's antics will bring about a wave of anger, change, and consequence directly to the US, and instead just a "eh let's ride it out for four years".

I know it wasn't the message intended and I could be wrong about it, but it does give the feeling that Trump can damage as many relations as he feels like because "what're they gonna do about it?"

EDIT: This glutton of military might also comes at the expense of education, scientific developments, and environmental protection, all things set to take significant hits in this administration in the name of increased military funding (and the wall).

There's no way Trump would ever get impeached