why don´t you shut your silly mouth?

if YOU know it better than YOU come up with the RIGHT INFORMATION, you clown !

but i am sure you did not even understand what i am talking about you brain bonsai

i did not talk about the bombs DETONATED - i talked about the bombs EXISTING.

The Zar Bomb detonated 1961 !!!!!! had 50-60 megatonns and was 4000 times stronger than the hiroshima

1961 !!!!!!!!!!!!

we have 2017 - did you realize that ?

were do you take this absolute denial of reality from?

we all know how the previous conflicts ended and still you claim the exact opposite

Your really are not well informed. The bombs existing are measured in megatons. In the US the average warhead is 1 megaton with multiple warheads on our ICBM's. We also have in our arsenal kiloton nukes. But anymore insults out of you and I am finished with you. I do not like talking with the ignorant in the first place.

I will repeat that NK is a pimple on our military ass and always have been. If you claim other wise you are simply ignorant of facts. How much military experience do you have BTW and what rank were you if you care to say?

ok commande idiot - what did i say exacltly what is wrong?

how many of this (and MUCH bigger) nuclear bombs are existing in the world?

do you have a calculator and count it together ???? can you handle that?

the world have a nuclear potential of multiple gigatonns and calculated by the so called overkill strategy (if you know what that means - if not google it) it is THEORETICLY enough to kill 100 BILLION people.

but we are only 8 BILLION !!!!!!!!
but have the power to kill 100 billion!

did that reach now to the walnut in your head what you call brain?

Because your english is so poor it is a bit difficult to decipher what you are intending to say, but I think now what you are saying is; that the existing megatonnage of the nukes in the world amounts to gigatons of explosive power. Is that correct or not?

Tell the 37,000 dead us soldiers who were not able to get the pimple in one piece.

i don´t know how many US sodiers still must die and how many hundred trillions of dollars have to explode somewhere in the world til you guys learn that war is not a family-weekend on a ponyfarm and that it doesn´t make the world any better.

90% of the world´s existing conflicts are foundet with US soldiers blood and us-taxpayers money - for WHAT ????

The alternative is to wait until North Korea has a viable nuclear warhead mounted on a ballistic missile and uses it.

there is no doubt about that - and there is already too much time past to resolve this issue.

but even when it is hard you should try to see the things also a moment from their position.
NK is the most hated country in the world (but trump works on it to change that) and they are outlawed since the korean war and LONG before they even had nukes.

you can also not change this asian mentality to belive in a leader (i mean, look around you how many americans are like that). the mistakes were done right after the war.
who knows where this country would be today if the world would not try to destroy them economicly.

look the chinese example - it is not so long ago that chinese could not travel and had the same desaster - today china is not anymore what it have been 20 years ago. and yes they have nukes but nobody is scared about that.

if you look at the whole story it was not only NK who isolated itself - it was the whole world what isolated them just because they wanted to do it their way.

nobody have to bring them freedom because they died for the unfreedom they wanted. so let them do and use them for what they are possibly good.

the problem in all this countries is this american made enemy story about communists - WHY ? if they want to live that way let them do. but if you make them think that every single individual in such a country is hated on the whole planet it will make them move together.

THAT is what is wrong since WW2. That one country wants to rule all others and wants to be the bright example for freedom and peace.
how weak must be a country that panic fears to be overrun by communism when it claims to be perfect ? that is unlogic !!!!

And I will repeat that the first "police action" in Korea was not won, Vietnam was not won, Afghanistan obviously is not won and Iraq isn't either. Despite massive military dominance.

And you cannot change history by claiming the opposite on GFY.

(also NK has a massive conventional army - any conventional war would end exactly the same way the first did)

And no idea what my military service would change in world history of warfare but since I posted it here before: I spent exactly 6 weeks at the army and then my papers went through and i switched to civil service and wiped old peoples asses. A far more rewarding job than learning how to kill people.

But i can safely say that those 6 weeks at the army were the worst six weeks of my life.

Your perceptions are yours and there would be little point to me trying to change your misconceptions as I am satisfied that would not be possible. Suffice it to say I know what the goals. military and political, were in each of those conflicts thus I do not suffer from misconceptions about the end result of each. Militarily we won in Korea as well as politically. In Vietnam we won militarily but not politically. Iraq and Afghanistan are still on going conflicts.

I will never claim to know everything but how Korea was a military and political success and how Vietnam was won militarily is something I really would love to learn.

cause looking at the end results i can see nothing of that

South Korea was invaded by North Korea. Our military goal as well as political goal was to push them back to the 38th Parallel which is where the country was split into at the end of WWII, by agreement between the Soviet Union and the US. Our military removed them from South Korea and General MacArthur, exceeding his authority, drove past the 38th all the way to the Chinese border, which brought the Chinese into the conflict. General MacArthur was relieved of his command and our military was ordered to return back to the 38th Parallel and to hold there, which they did in both instances thus our military goal as well as political goal was met.

In Vietnam our military goal and political goal was to hold South Vietnam from being overrun by the North. The military held the South until it was ordered to withdraw from Vietnam in '73 which it did, thus it was a military success, but the South was lost by the Vietnamese military in '75 thus the political goal was not met.

Even then the South Vietnamese military would probably have prevailed as President Nixon had promised that if the battle began to go South he would bomb Hanoi into submission, which is what he did to bring the north to the peace table in the first place. Eleven days of 24/7 bombing by our B-52's, hitting targets that were forbidden before, is what brought the North to the peace table in '73 allowing all US forces to withdraw. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on ones point of view, the Congress would not allow funding to the President to keep his promise and proceed to bomb Hanoi again thus the South Vietnamese Army could not hold against the invasion of the NVA who were supplied by and supported by the Russians, as well as some Russian military.

How does North Korea make its money? - CNN.com

100% embargo. China, Russia and the USA have to agree on this for it to work. Starve the privileged population and eventually the army will revolt and take power. Without the 'party' as leadership they would negotiate.

As long a the Kim Dynasty retains power this will only continue and get worse.

Report for reconditioning Bary.

Steve don't glorify Richard Nixon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat..._Money#Results

Nixon's "Peace with Honor" position during the Paris peace talks cost 1,000's of American soldiers lives. Nixon's relentless bombing of the North did not accomplish jack-shit. I was 18 back then and remember that bullshit well.

The mining of Haiphong harbor made the difference and That should have been done years earlier -- or we should have just left the South Vietnamese to fight their own war of unification.

The situation in Korea is different -- the North Vietnamese had no interest in developing a nuclear weapon and using it.

The Tubby Tyrant has made that his goal and signed his own death sentence.

relic -- fuck you .

I was far older than 18 and I too remember it well and in no way am I glorifying Nixon. I was not a fan of his. It is a fact that the 11 days of 24/7 bombing of Hanoi and his order to mine and bomb the harbor simultaneously also allowing many other targets that were forbidden for the entirety of the conflict up until that point, to be hit, is what brought the North to the negotiating table.

His so called "peace with honor" was a separate issue and was the "Vietnamization" of the conflict. The entirety of the conflict was mishandled by civilians from President Eisenhower, who was the first to commit troops to Vietnam in 1958 or '59, to JFK, to Johnson, to Nixon. Civilian micromanagement usually fucks up and prolongs military engagements. President Bush Sr., in my opinion, was the best Commander in Chief in modern times. For the most part he allowed the Generals free rein when he decided to engage them.

Trump Lied? Yep, he's on course to be a good politician.

fuck you again -- worthless POS

Is that the best you can do mental midget ...

:1orglaugh Bary

Relicoup is a lonely troll, he is obsessed with spreading hate here with his fake nics he should be banned permanently this time GFED would be proud.