Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Nah, that's the opposite of accelerationism. You want the Republican administration to be unable to do things, not more able to do them. You're....uh..."decelerationist."

Accelerationism is like "put the Goldman Sachs board of directors in the White House and stop having elections".

Oh, yeah, it's bullshit for me and that to be called that. Just saying that not everyone seems to adhere to the same definiton. One of *those* words.

[misko27]

I'm not really sure whether "guy who has an agenda" is better or worse than President Stares-into-the-sun

This is the best nickname.

[Dunamisdeos]

I think Pence at least is less likely to prove that war never changes, as it were. He's more of a standard elderly + religious combo "I hate any change whatsoever to society" and less "goddamned psychopath".

Also, our missiles are less likely to miss. Also, China has straight up come out and said that if NK launches a missile at someone they are on their own. I don't have access to search for/provide a link to that one.

::EDIT::
@the post this one: Agreed, I don't think Trump is actually a mass-death kind of guy.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm not really sure whether "guy who has an agenda" is better or worse than President Stares-into-the-sun

This is the best nickname.

Which one?

And as I said, the chances of a launch for even an ambiguous scenario are near-nil. I don't think even Trump is that kind of guy anyway, but the 25th would be invoked, no question.

[smjjames]

Also, our missiles are less likely to miss. Also, China has straight up come out and said that if NK launches a missile at someone they are on their own. I don't have access to search for/provide a link to that one.

I think that was in response to the incredibly specific threat that NK gave about Guam. Basically, "If you do that, you're on your own.".

[Frumple]

Pretty sure it's P. SITS. Guy who has an agenda isn't even remotely snappy.

[Dunamisdeos]

Also, our missiles are less likely to miss. Also, China has straight up come out and said that if NK launches a missile at someone they are on their own. I don't have access to search for/provide a link to that one.

I think that was in response to the incredibly specific threat that NK gave about Guam. Basically, "If you do that, you're on your own.".

I would think that it applies to any of the first-world nations they happen to fire a missile at. Or specifically, anything that might draw China into military action based on an aggressive action taken by NK.

I am assuming, of course. Isn't their promise of aid to NK generally defensive/peacetime in nature?

EDIT: I'm referring to the POTUS as PSITS (Pee-sits) now. Thank you.

[Random_Dragon]

Also, China has straight up come out and said that if NK launches a missile at someone they are on their own. I don't have access to search for/provide a link to that one.

We'll see, question is whether is is close enough for government work in that regard.

Wait, does the phrase even apply if it IS government work? :V

[smjjames]

In this particular case, it looks like they were trying to thread the needle and go for between Hokkaido and mainland Japan? Like trying to send a longer range one which wasn't in a southward direction (which might spook Trump) but go over as little land as possible. If that was the intention.

[misko27]

China has a really good soft-power schtick going on, the whole "defending an aggressive power trying to nuke the world" goes against that. If there's no way to spin it their way North Korea is on its own.

On an unrelated note: is conventionally invading a power that has nuked you considered a counter-attack?(assuming a first strike scenario) In theory invading another country (as opposed to just holding the line at the border) is always aggressive, but if its nuclear the logic would go that a conventional invasion is the lesser, defensive option.

[smjjames]

China has a really good soft-power schtick going on, the whole "defending an aggressive power trying to nuke the world" goes against that. If there's no way to spin it their way North Korea is on its own.

On an unrelated note: is conventionally invading a power that has nuked you considered a counter-attack?(assuming a first strike scenario) In theory invading another country (as opposed to just holding the line at the border) is always aggressive, but if its nuclear the logic would go that a conventional invasion is the lesser, defensive option.

An invasion is an invasion. Unless they do some sort of special forces decapitation strike, which would likely be a suicide mission with a billion ways of going wrong.

Though obviously, if NK were to strike first, they'd be on their own, I think that's the message China was trying to give.

[Dunamisdeos]

Counter strike seems generally defined as any retaliatory military action, so I guess you could invade in retaliation and call it a counter strike.

Like, we invaded Germany in WWII. It looks like in terms of war an "aggressive" is understood as "the action or an act of attacking without provocation".

[Frumple]

Uh, yeah, that would be a counter-attack, unless for some incredibly strange reason both the means of launch and production are inside the attacked country's borders. You don't even have to go nuclear for that, conventional warhead ICBMs would count well enough.

The point of defense is to stop an attack; if the attack is coming from inside another nation's borders invasion (or some kind of surgical strike, either via counter volley, bombing, or whatever) becomes a defensive action. Defensive action inside a border is only really considered restricted to those borders if doing so is sufficient to break the military capability of the aggressor force(s). Might be some weirdness so far as a post invasion occupation would go, but that'd be about it.

[ChairmanPoo]

Counter strike seems generally defined as any retaliatory military action, so I guess you could invade in retaliation and call it a counter strike.

Like, we invaded Germany in WWII. It looks like in terms of war an "aggressive" is understood as "the action or an act of attacking without provocation".

IIRC didnt Germany declare war on the US? that was pretty  much a major factor

[martinuzz]

Don't believe they did. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, US declared war on Japan, which automatically included war with it's ally Germany as well.