2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ann Coulter is on Newsnight. Real charmer, warning about immigrants bringing child and gang rape to the US. Don't worry though, her book, Adios America, is 'well-researched and foot-noted'.
 
I'm watching CNN now and it looks like it's starting.
Can't wait to see what these lunatics have to say.
 
Red Dreams said:
Rand Paul was right. getting rid of Saddam caused ISIS to come about.
Click to expand...

He says a lot of stuff that would play better in other western countries, just not in the United States' Republican debate. Like that thing he just said about the no fly zone; Christie is being cheered for advocating the beginning of WW3, Paul's attempt to avoid war with Russia is met with near silence
 
Ted Cruz definitely has a way of sounding reasonable while saying the same things as the other guys.
 
Trump and Cruz look winners so far. Rubio the big loser. Jeb! may go even lower if that is possible.

Fiorina is getting more and more shrill. Like the housewife wanting to be heard above the din.

oh..I liked Paul's direct attack on WWIII Christie's bridge.
 
I'd consider a chemical or biological threat to be of greater concern in the decades to come, be it initiated by terrorists or nature (aside from the more gradual progression of climate change).

Does the US really need three nuclear capable weapons platforms?
 
Donald Trump: 'We must penetrate the internet'

"Isis is using the internet better than we are using the internet, and it was our idea," he said.

"I do not want them to use our internet to take our young, impressionable people."

Mr Trump seemed to believe that his suggestions of using technology to shut down Isil accounts and infiltrate their communications is something new.

"We should be using the most brilliant minds to penetrate the internet," he said.

"I would certainly be open to closing the internet in areas where we are at war with somebody."

Mr Trump said that counter terror agents should be "infiltrating Isil's internet."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...et.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Click to expand...



Because we're not doing that already.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
I'd consider a chemical or biological threat to be of greater concern in the decades to come, be it initiated by terrorists or nature (aside from the more gradual progression of climate change).

Does the US really need three nuclear capable weapons platforms?
Click to expand...

Yes. The nuclear triad is essential to maintaining second strike capability of the US and deterrence against Russia. The three have different benefits and weaknesses. ICBMs are extremely hard to take down once launched, SLBMs are very difficult to track and ensure second strike capability, and air-based nuclear weapons are the most flexible. If you need to blow up one target, there's no reason to launch an ICBM/SLBM with a bunch of MIRVs, particularly if the target isn't Russia. Launching an ICBM would almost certainly kick off WWIII. You can just drop it from a B2 or fire it from a smaller jet.

At least until we get Star Wars working. ;)
 
The ICBM would appear to be the more vulnerable form of delivery when the need for renewal arises, or other branches of the military (having suffered cuts) question its necessity and scale.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.