The Coming Wars?

Poli-meaning many
Tics-blood sucking insects

Yep... that about sums up the Government...

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby vendic » Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:06 pm

Rommie wrote:I would frankly be shocked, in the current political climate, if there isn't a serious assassination attempt against Trump. The only thing that makes me think I might be wrong is that there never was one against Obama.


Typically in US history the more liberal Presidents are the ones that got assassination attempts. Reagan was one of the ones that was more conservative. I cant off hand recall others.

Personally I think this has a lot to do with simple probability. Conservatives tend to be the ones that have the guns. I think nut jobs willing to assassinate someone don't respect political boundaries so it comes down to numbers. There's more conservatives with guns than there are liberals.

I appreciate that a liberal can also go get a gun and that there are similar numbers of both, but that's a lot more complex if one wasn't brought up around guns. There's a serious learning curve for a start. Shooting someone off hand isn't as easy as it's made to be in media and movies. Getting an actual kill shot is even harder. Then there is concealment of the firearm, or making a weapon so it's not easily recognised etc.

Still, there is the chance considering how many people he has completely upset and when someone is willing to die for a cause it's a hell of a lot easier to accomplish.

I do agree though that given how much hate Obama had and he was liberal, I was actually surprised and relived that there was no attempt let alone a success at assassination.
For similar reasons I hope there isn't against Trump. That could be a complete disaster. Particularly if the assassin was Muslim, LBGT, Gay, Mexican etc. Probably one of the things that make me agree with Tarragon that this particular Presidency they might just use a false flag attempt because some of the people there are fucking nuts to get what they want with little regard to the cost.
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby SciFiFisher » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:19 am

We have a strange history in this country about assassinating our presidents. As long as you don't agree with the grassy knoll theory we seem to be a country that uses lone wolves to assassinate presidents. :P
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Fri Feb 03, 2017 8:54 am

It probably depends on what you consider an assassin or an attempt. Some people are politically motivated, while others are mentally ill and might use politics as an excuse. Some get close and get a shot off and are clear attempts, while others are stopped far away or are questioned after expressing a desire without ever doing much.

* Lincoln was a Republican.
* James Garfield was a Republican, shot by someone who was mentally ill.
* William McKinley was a Republican.
* John F. Kennedy was the only Democrat assassinated.

Attempts against Republicans
* William Taft's had his would-be assassin caught feet away and disarmed.
* Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican when he wasn't in his own Progressive Party, was shot, but his pocket contents slowed the bullet and it was lodged between his ribs but didn't kill him.
* Herbert Hoover almost had his train bombed in Argentina.
* Richard Nixon was a target by man who couldn't get through security, but who later successfully shot and maimed Governor Wallace of Alabama. Another would be assassin wanted to crash a hijacked plane into the White House, but was stuck on the ground where he killed a couple pilots.
* Gerald Ford had two attempts within 17 days. One was a Charles Manson follower, but didn't know to chamber a round in her gun, the other's aim was ruined when someone in the crowd grabbed their arm to stop them.
* Ronald Reagan, as we all remember, was shot and sounded by a mentally ill person, but survived.
* George H. W. Bush was the target of an Iraqi car bomb plot, which was foiled.
* George W. Bush had a hand grenade thrown at him in Tbilisi, Georgia and some dude shot at the white house.

Attempts against Democrats
* Franklin D. Roosevelt was shot at in Chicago, but they were never sure if he was the target or if it was a mob hit against Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak. There were alleged wartime plots.
* Harry Truman was attacked by two Puerto Rican Activists at the Blair House, while the White House was being renovated. He also received letter bombs from Zionists, as did other world leaders.
* Jimmy Carter was the target of a mentally ill person with a starter pistol and blank rounds. Not sure that counts.
* Bill Clinton was the target of several plots. One guy plotted to shoot him while jogging, another crashed a small plane into the White House, another shot at the White House, and Osama Bin Laden plotted to blow up a bridge but they rerouted after intercepting a message.
* Barack Obama, had multiple threats, with several people jumping the fence and a plot by some Army privates who were serious enough to kill 2 people who were a threat to their OpSec.

It looks like Republicans are targets more often. This makes sense to me. Leftists are often loner types of radicals. Leftists tend to live in cities, where they are alone in the crowd and depend on impersonal systems that are more often targeted by GOP and capitalists.

Rightists tend to be communitarian, which means they are caught beforehand or talked down by friends and family and never make the news or eye of law enforcement. Rightists are often rural and that insulates them. It gives them a siege mentality, but that's a defensive stand in case the gubmit comes for them, and gives them a sense of security that can dissuade them from acting.

I think a lot of the hollerin the Right did was explicitly to try to create a hysteria against Obama because analysis of his policies shows he wasn't a threat to most of what they claim to hold dear. Thus, few rightists had grievances, real or imagined, worth the effort. Leftists, by contrast, often have more to lose from their perspective, which makes them more likely to act. For people who believe in Global Warming, the fate of the world and the future of humanity is literally at stake.

With Trump, it could be either side, a military coup, or foreign actors. If Trump is smart, he'll ram his stuff through, claim victory, and resign, allowing Pence to ascend to the Targetcy.
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby vendic » Fri Feb 03, 2017 10:14 am

Tarragon wrote:* Lincoln was a Republican.
* James Garfield was a Republican, shot by someone who was mentally ill.
* William McKinley was a Republican.
* John F. Kennedy was the only Democrat assassinated.


There was a reason I wrote more liberal presidents as opposed to Republican and Democrat. The parties have shifted over the years. Even in the 60's the Republicans had in many ways more liberal views than the Democrats.
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Cyborg Girl » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:52 pm

I suspect there will not be. From what I've been reading, the military rank-and-file love him.
User avatar
Cyborg Girl
Boy Genius
 
Posts: 2138
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 2:54 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Rommie » Fri Feb 03, 2017 5:58 pm

Gullible Jones wrote:I suspect there will not be. From what I've been reading, the military rank-and-file love him.


Like any other group that encompasses millions of people, I'd advise that sweeping judgements are not super helpful. The military tends to be more conservative, sure, but that still means there's easily a few thousand military members at least who hate his guts and wouldn't relish following some orders.
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:34 pm

vendic wrote:
Tarragon wrote:* Lincoln was a Republican.
* James Garfield was a Republican, shot by someone who was mentally ill.
* William McKinley was a Republican.
* John F. Kennedy was the only Democrat assassinated.


There was a reason I wrote more liberal presidents as opposed to Republican and Democrat. The parties have shifted over the years. Even in the 60's the Republicans had in many ways more liberal views than the Democrats.

Which is a fair point, but politics is not that binary, and some things haven't changes. The issue motivating the attacker and their mental state may or may not be a liberal or conservative issue, or even domestic.
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Fri Feb 03, 2017 7:37 pm

Gullible Jones wrote:I suspect there will not be. From what I've been reading, the military rank-and-file love him.

But how far can privates get in a plot? Military coups tend to start with officers at the mid to high levels. How do they feel about Trump may be more important.
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby SciFiFisher » Sat Feb 04, 2017 3:46 am

Tarragon wrote:
Gullible Jones wrote:I suspect there will not be. From what I've been reading, the military rank-and-file love him.

But how far can privates get in a plot? Military coups tend to start with officers at the mid to high levels. How do they feel about Trump may be more important.


And the smart ones who could pull off a coup are certainly not doing anything to get noticed. :P
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Swift » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:04 pm

Every time I see this thread title I read it as "The Corning Wars?"

I assume that is a series of epic conflicts among Corning, Pittsburgh Plate Glass, and Saint-Gobain for control of the globe's flat glass market.

OK, I'll just go back into my hole now....
Never, ever forget: we did this. This is what we can do.

In wilderness is the preservation of the world. - Henry David Thoreau

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:40 am
Location: At my keyboard

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:30 pm

Swift wrote:Every time I see this thread title I read it as "The Corning Wars?"

I assume that is a series of epic conflicts among Corning, Pittsburgh Plate Glass, and Saint-Gobain for control of the globe's flat glass market.

OK, I'll just go back into my hole now....

Corelle uber alles?
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Swift » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:10 am

Tarragon wrote:
Swift wrote:Every time I see this thread title I read it as "The Corning Wars?"

I assume that is a series of epic conflicts among Corning, Pittsburgh Plate Glass, and Saint-Gobain for control of the globe's flat glass market.

OK, I'll just go back into my hole now....

Corelle uber alles?

:lol:
Never, ever forget: we did this. This is what we can do.

In wilderness is the preservation of the world. - Henry David Thoreau

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead
User avatar
Swift
 
Posts: 2353
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 2:40 am
Location: At my keyboard

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby SciFiFisher » Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:43 am

roll:
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Sat Mar 18, 2017 6:02 am

So, what are the bookies putting on a war with North Korea?

The election in South Korea is May 9th, so I'm guessing there'll be a shooting war by then. That's less than 8 weeks away. I don't know if Trump will start it or if he has people smart enough to get Kim Jong-un to throw the first punch. It's not like the north hasn't fired missiles or torpedoes at South Korean boats or shelled one of their islands.

How quickly do you think it will go nuclear? I'd give it a week, maybe two. The question is how many might they have smuggled into the US?

How fast can you build a fallout shelter?
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Rommie » Mon Mar 20, 2017 12:13 pm

Seriously? You think we are ten weeks away from nuclear holocaust? I see nothing much going on in the current North Korean crisis we haven't seen a million billion times already. It's pretty inevitable that they're going to test the limits with a new administration, particularly one as insane as this one.
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby vendic » Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:06 pm

Lets build a wall in South Korea!!!! lol
Thanks for all the fish.
vendic
PIA
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 2:57 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby geonuc » Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:04 am

Rommie wrote:Seriously? You think we are ten weeks away from nuclear holocaust? I see nothing much going on in the current North Korean crisis we haven't seen a million billion times already. It's pretty inevitable that they're going to test the limits with a new administration, particularly one as insane as this one.


You're right that NK has been doing this crap for a long while but I should note that they recently seem to have perfected missile technology well enough to deploy ballistic nuclear missiles. That changes things more than a little bit.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Rommie » Tue Mar 21, 2017 12:21 pm

geonuc wrote:
Rommie wrote:Seriously? You think we are ten weeks away from nuclear holocaust? I see nothing much going on in the current North Korean crisis we haven't seen a million billion times already. It's pretty inevitable that they're going to test the limits with a new administration, particularly one as insane as this one.


You're right that NK has been doing this crap for a long while but I should note that they recently seem to have perfected missile technology well enough to deploy ballistic nuclear missiles. That changes things more than a little bit.


True, but I still don't think that automatically means we are ten weeks from nuclear war. I'm pretty sure even Kim Jong Un knows that the second he attacks someone outside his borders it's curtains for him. And I doubt any of North Korea's neighbors relishes the millions of malnourished, under-educated refugees pouring in. So while the stakes are certainly higher, this ain't Cuban Missile Crisis levels just yet, you know?

I will say though, it is a forever fascinating piece of geopolitical quirks that North Korea still exists. I feel like diplomats and politicians in that area have likely just been praying for it to dissolve for decades now as it "should," but know we have no idea when or if it will.
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.
User avatar
Rommie
 
Posts: 3993
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 10:04 am

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby geonuc » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:55 pm

Yeah, I'm not buying into a nuclear war anytime soon either. But it is getting more dangerous on the Korean peninsula.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Thumper » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:59 pm

Maybe we should send Hawkeye back to the peace talks...
Look for the Helpers. You will always find people who are helping.
-Mr. Rogers' Mom
User avatar
Thumper
Ichi-Ban Tomodachi
 
Posts: 4227
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 5:20 pm
Location: OH - IO

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby SciFiFisher » Tue Mar 21, 2017 10:43 pm

I think that no one "seriously" wants a nuclear war. I do think anyone who executes people with anti-aircraft cannon cannot be counted on to avoid a shooting war. I think China has a lot of good reasons to consider assisting NK in annexing SK if they thought they could manage to do that without too much fuss from the rest of the world. Miscalculating how the U.S. and the world would respond is how we wound up with two Koreas in the first place.

Given our current administration and the added uncertainty on the world stage I think that we are closer to a nuclear exchange than we have been in quite some time. Are we "10 weeks away from nuclear war"? I don't know. I don't believe we are. But, no pne expected WWI. Or WWII. These things are easy to predict in hindsight. The precipitating event(s) that could trigger it just haven't happened yet. NK having a nuclear warhead and a ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S. or Europe certainly makes them more dangerous. Dangerous and unpredictable is not a good combination.

Global uncertainty and the trend towards nationalism, protectionism, and populism is not a good combination. It certainly makes for very interesting times we live in.
"To create more positive results in your life, replace 'if only' with 'next time'." — Author Unknown
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the lesson afterward." — Vernon Law
User avatar
SciFiFisher
Redneck Geek
 
Posts: 4865
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 5:01 pm
Location: Sacramento CA

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:40 am

Rommie wrote:Seriously? You think we are ten weeks away from nuclear holocaust? I see nothing much going on in the current North Korean crisis we haven't seen a million billion times already. It's pretty inevitable that they're going to test the limits with a new administration, particularly one as insane as this one.


Depends on what you mean by nuclear holocaust. I think there's a higher probability of war. And I think there could be one or a handful of nuclear weapons used in that war. But I don't expect it to go global like everyone worried about during the Cold War. But if they have smuggled nukes into the US or if they have the capability to put something on a missile, then there's a risk of a radiological emergency in North America, requiring shelter-in-place or evacuations. If advisors think it will only stop at a couple, it might cause them to use them. What I'm wondering is, considering the state of affairs in the US, would military officers go nuclear if ordered?
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:55 am

Just thinking out loud here...

Right now there are 3 paranoid nationalist leaders on the brink of war, who have nuclear weapons and who are under pressure to cover their butts over pending revelations that would embarrass them, get them forced out of office, or jailed, executed or get them and their friends and families assassinated. I know, saying "the brink of war," sounds melodramatic, but with troops on the border for 50 years and bombers that can launch from Omaha, refuel in the air, and drop bombs in less than a day, starting a war is more a matter of whim. (Executing a war, on the other hand, will be much tougher - because logistics.)

Kim may think that the impeachment of the South Korean president makes them weak. He might welcome a more democratic and peaceful president in the South, but that's no guarantee, especially if he thinks other countries might hack that election like some claim happened in the US. He may see the wargames with the US as a prelude to invasion by a new president (Trump) who wants a war to distract attention from scandal and has appeared to violate many other laws and long-standing conventions. With Rex Tillerson threatening preemptive war, Kim might think an attack is imminent. This makes his calculus look like a "use it or lose it proposition." In that case, the best strategy would be to attack without warning before the US and South are positioned for their preemptive strike and try to achieve a strategic victory as soon as possible using any and all means available (e.g. nuclear, chemical, biological), so that any later attempt at peace is a fait accompli. Kim may not assume that the other countries will go nuclear, because he knows a nuclear attack will throw the world into panic like Fukushima did, which will create pressure against the US using nuclear weapons in retaliation, especially since it wasn't their own soil that was hit. Kim may think the loss of the South Korean economy will crash the world economy, making the other countries want to deal with their own problems instead of fighting him. North Korea has a lot of deep bunkers in mountainous terrain, so he might have been told and might believe that the US would have to use nuclear weapons to attack his strongholds, which means he's operating under the assumption that the preemptive war against strategic weapons threatened by Rex Tillerson will necessarily be a nuclear first strike.

As for Putin, he's already invaded Crimea and Ukraine, so we know he's willing to go to war. The scandals in the US might create blowback for him. He might think a war between the US and North Korea would benefit Russia since it might destabilize both China and NATO. It might force Japan to re-militarize, which would threaten China, to Russia's advantage. Putin might also calculate that a major war would push up prices for fossil fuels, helping him. If the US is at war with North Korea, that might allow Russia to have it's way elsewhere in the world while the US is busy somewhere else. Other countries might do the same thing, causing regional troubles, which will raise the prices of fuel and increase purchases for Russian military equipment.

China might allow North Korea to attack because they may not have the ability to stop them, but they might have something to gain. An invasion of South Korea will remove them as an economic rival. This show of force might be seen as a proxy war and may cause the other countries in the South China Sea region to give up their claims to the disputed islands. When the Dali Lama speaks out against the war, as he inevitably will, they will claim he's impotent and use that as a stronger reason to support their choice for spiritual leader in Tibet. China might want to use the war to jump-start their slowing economy to provide materiel to Kim - though whether they send it to him or use it as a bargaining chip with the US, or use it themselves for other operations is hard to predict.

As for Trump... Well, maybe someone told him Kim's a pussy, so he wants to grab him. But seriously, Trump's already lamented that no one has the guts to use nukes. His supporters would almost certainly support him using nukes, especially if Kim appears to threaten to use them against America in real or fake news. Under emergency war orders, he could call for martial law and use that to go after the press, protesters and his political enemies, claiming that anyone resisting his orders wants Kim to sneak suitcase nukes into cities to kill good Americans. Islamic radicals with truck bombs may seem scary, but nuclear-armed sneaker bombers killing and dying for their god-king in a bizarre, foreign, communist cult would scare his supporters out of their minds. It would be the perfect boogeyman.

With the scandals getting worse daily, the half-life on his term in office appears to be getting shorter. This might accelerate any plans he and Putin had, and escalate any war in Korea to the nuclear dimension rapidly. Trump and Putin will have to act fast if they are to act at all. If Kim perceives this, his best option is to start a nuclear war as soon as possible. But Trump and Putin are probably OK with that, since it behooves them to not be the aggressors here. This will probably piss off Kim because he had probably been planning on invading during the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang for the extra publicity and international hostages/human-shields.

Or perhaps the Malaysians will be so pissed that Kim used chemical weapons in their country for an assassination, that they'll sneak in and assassinate him, and thereby prevent a nuclear war.
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby geonuc » Wed Mar 22, 2017 12:16 pm

Tarragon wrote:I know, saying "the brink of war," sounds melodramatic, but with troops on the border for 50 years and bombers that can launch from Omaha, refuel in the air, and drop bombs in less than a day, starting a war is more a matter of whim.


You just argued against war being a 'matter of whim'. Besides, nuclear submarines can initiate an attack much quicker and have been able to for many decades as well.

As for Putin, he's already invaded Crimea and Ukraine, so we know he's willing to go to war.


No, I'd argue that Putin knew that the West was powerless to stop his annexations without going to war, and he knew we would not.

China might allow North Korea to attack


China is already winning the war they want to wage, so why would they want a horrifically destabilizing nuclear war to take place on their doorstep? The Chinese leadership is not stupid.

Or perhaps the Malaysians will be so pissed that Kim used chemical weapons in their country for an assassination ...


The characterization of using poison to kill one person as using 'chemical weapons' is hyperbole. Yes, I know poison is a chemical and it was used as a weapon, but the term means something entirely different in this context. NK did not do a Saddam Hussein in Malaysia.
User avatar
geonuc
Resident Rock Hound
 
Posts: 3429
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 11:16 am
Location: Not the Mojave

Re: The Coming Wars?

Postby Tarragon » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:02 pm

geonuc wrote:You just argued against war being a 'matter of whim'. Besides, nuclear submarines can initiate an attack much quicker and have been able to for many decades as well.

No, I'd argue that Putin knew that the West was powerless to stop his annexations without going to war, and he knew we would not.

China is already winning the war they want to wage, so why would they want a horrifically destabilizing nuclear war to take place on their doorstep? The Chinese leadership is not stupid.

The characterization of using poison to kill one person as using 'chemical weapons' is hyperbole. Yes, I know poison is a chemical and it was used as a weapon, but the term means something entirely different in this context. NK did not do a Saddam Hussein in Malaysia.


That post was a series of thoughts, some of them competing scenarios, to indicate how the actors might be weighing their perceptions and options. The bombers from the US would be for conventional attacks. Although I suspect that if the US did want to launch a nuclear first strike against North Korea it might well be via stealth bombers because a surprise sub-launch might be misinterpreted by Russia and/or China. Also, if they want to bust bunkers, they'll want to use weapons in lay-down or penetrating mode, which ballistic missiles can't do, so far as I'm aware (I'm not sure about ALCMs, but I suspect not).

I'm not saying that Russia or China want to go to war, but they might see a war between the US and North Korea as raising the bar for action to stop any relatively lower-intensity conflicts they might launch in the same timeframe. Of course, they might perceive that the geopolitical fallout from such a war would damage international organizations that have historically constrained their options.

Calling the VX attack a "chemical weapon" attack may be hyperbole, but not mine. (link)
"The ministry strongly condemns the use of such a chemical weapon by anyone, anywhere and under any circumstances," the country's foreign ministry said in a statement issued Friday. "Its use at a public place could have endangered the general public."

The statement added that Malaysia has been working with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its investigation of the killing.
User avatar
Tarragon
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Poli-Tics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests

cron