Trump just threatened Kim with nukes, indirectly at least.
>We're sending an armada, very powerful. We have submarines, very powerful, far more powerful than the aircraft carrier.
>submarines far more powerful than the aircraft carrier.
Aircraft carriers don't carry nukes as a policy.
The submarines do fucking idiot
yeah, that was the point i was making
Being this illiterate.
Well he'd better chill the fuck out, then, hadn't he?
escalate this to full scale nuclear war and just fucking end it all
thats my flag your posting with
That aircraft carrier is nuclear capable you fucking idiot.
This is why I was laughing about that one shitty destroyer russian sent after our ships that bombed syria. We've got submarines surrounding all our ships, that ruski destroyer would get completely fucked up.
maybe nuclear in the sense that it has a nuclear power plant. But don't the other ships around it specialize in weapons?
We're not going into Syria:
nypost.com
We are going to glass North Korea.
All hail the God Emperor!
I wish every world leader would be forced to use weed once a day.
It's exactly not what you said, ESL.
You realize there's always a carrier group in this part of the world and that they barely sent it back after its maintenance in the US
tonight
...
you
He means that the strike planes that live their can carry nuclear weapons, though I don't think they sore them aboard anymore. They'd probably have to fly them in or something.
That said, I don't think that even if you were to load all the strike planes on board w/nukes would it pack the punch of one of our ballistic missile submarines.
Its not even a destroyer its a shitty missile boat they call a frigate. Basically a Russkie LCS
You must enjoy yoga, because that is quite the stretch.
It's a big night
shhhhhhh...they're just working up a good head of hysteria
no no, mattis even spoke about this spefic carrier group.
>cancelled a scheduled training exercise outside of australia
>ordered to north korea
Nuking North Korea pre emptively is a moral imperative. The regime puts millions of people through hell daily. Ending it is more humane. Not to mention the fat fuck might nuke us first.
fpwp
IMPEACH
M
P
E
A
C
H
what would they need nuclear weapons for on an aircraft carrier? Nuclear tipped cruise missiles are launched from the VLS cells of destroyers, not from planes anymore. torpedos and missiles from subs. Is there even any nuclear capable weapon system that can only be fired from (carrier based) planes? I can't think of any.
Not going to happen, too good to be true.
It was sent to shoot down any more missiles launched by the US not attack them. Also was a frigate.
Day of the cloud, day of the cloud, day of the cloud!
>Aircraft carriers don't carry nukes as a policy.
You're a fucking idiot.
Trump did this on the request of Ivanka.
Just like the Syria tomahawk bombings.
Probably this.
And just think, if we can convince libtards to impeach Trump, just to be stuck with based Pence.
Nuclear war with North Korea would result in North Korea getting annihilated, and US, Japan, South Korea maybe losing a couple cities total.
>Aircraft carriers don't carry nukes as a policy.
Yes they do.
A statement like this makes sense. Ideally NK will be scared into reality that this is not like the past and now the U.S. means business. Fatboy just has to give up his nuclear ambitions or face a military fight he cannot win.
I love seeing smug liberals replies like this. Liberals really are retarded.
>implying Nork missiles would even make it out of the silos
Toot-toot
Source? That looks like it has a story behind it
I'd trust poo in loos with nukes over this guy.
North Korea has submarines too...waddup.
We haven't used a Nuke in combat since 1945, I think it's time to use one right on Pyonyang, only one, I wonder if anyone dares to do anything about it?
>he doesn't know the history of ATKRON ONE ONE FIVE
R.I.P
Hopefully WW3 starts and we all die in a fiery inferno so i dont have to get a job next week
hot
...
i doubt best korea is really as delusional as it often looks. Their rethoric may look insane, but it worked fine for them. They get billions in food aid to get them to shut off every year and while their military isn't threatening to the US or japan it is built for one purpose: fucking south korea up hard should shit ever hit the fan. As long as they're not dangerous to justify leaving south korea as a smoking pile of rubble the US will tolerate them. The same will happen this time. There simply is no clean solution for this conflict that leaves the south in relative decent state, apart from glassing them. But thats politicall unjustifiable until they pull some serious shit, like using ABC weaponry.
Bring on the nukes! Nuke the Norks. dumbass rice farmers won't know what hit them lol. Born into shitty life, live shitty life, they probably welcome the death the nuke would bring.
...
You can't get nuked if you nuke them first
>niggerpointingathisnonexistantbrain.jpg
American education
The one that was just sent was not scheduled.
Everybody needs to stop acting that a second korean war will be anything more than a gulf war 2.0 tier conflict.
Comparing the US military to the NK military is like comparing the international space station with a toaster.
I do a skid
Richard steals some tires
and James gets kicked in the face
>is like comparing the international space station with a toaster.
So both have been sabotaged by chinks?
Is you live in California it's time to GTFO. Dear Leader is going to nuke the San Andreas Fault line and trigger a magnitude 8+ earthquake. Theoretically this could release the energy equivalent of 2000 nuclear bombs within a highly populated area of the United States.
>The bear will leave it's cave forever...
no matter how technologically superior you are, this is nothing like the gulf war. This time you got more than a million hungry peasants with rifles, and many more as reservists willing to die. In addition to that shit tons of artillery and whatnot pointed at south korea.
It'll be like the voortrekkers versus the zulu, no matter how many you shoot, some get through
and nothing of value will be lost. oroville was a disappointment so now aqua takes half of california to her into the sea
...
I agree with a lot of that but I wouldn't say having a hermit nation with nukes is a long term clean solution either.
You really are fucking clueless.
checked and kek'd
NK's capability to strike Seoul with artillery can be neutralized quickly. and as you said there are millions of starving peasants, they'll be converted as soon as the US and SK puts food on their bellies.
>hurr..amerikka might lose
>german wet dream
Pls I was a fool
The age of liberals is coming to an end.
>1 post by this ID
guys he's khm after posting this shit
khs*
jesus christ man
good tired of that fucked up country and their bullshit, nuke them to hell
this. people are always talking about the North Korean artillery pointing south, but not about the South Korean artillery pointing North. Aimed at the artillery.
What a plonker.
Breaking News:
NK army defeated with bigmac and fries
It's ok Seoul.
>we like you
change the kiddo to sweetie
Relax user, nothing will happen
have some milk and cookies
youtube.com
they already have nukes. As long as they can't manage to miniaturize them and build more than a handful and as long as their IRBMs/ICBMs stay crude pieces of shit that can be spotted days before they reach launch condition that's not to much of a problem. At the moment it might even be an advantage for the US since it gives them reason for the THAAD deployment in south korea.
yeah, tell me what you want to do against a million norks rushing across the border while they use thousands of artillery pieces to level soul. they'll overwhelm all defences by sheer numbers
>This time you got more than a million hungry peasants with rifles and many more as reservists
Iraq's military in 1991 was in far better shape than the norks military is today.
Iraq had just under 700,000 troops, most of whom were battle hardened after fighting against the iranians for a decade, everybody expected it to be a slog and to have massive casualties on both sides. The Iraqi army was also pretty decently equipped, with some relatively potent armoured forces.
The North Koreans may initially be able to put up a fight, but the moment they start getting annihilated from the air and have nothing to counter the US and SK air dominance, their ground forces will collapse quicker than you think.
I HATE YOU!!
captcha: safely amerika
>aircraft carriers don't carry nukes as a policy
Says who? They don't confirm or deny if they have nukes on board.
It'd be no gulf war. These aren't arabs who can't fight. For proofs of arab's inability to fight look at every war against israel.
>impeaching funny meme worthy neocon for boring, less fun, even bigger neocon
You aren't even american, fucking hang yourself disgraceful shill
>Why would they need nuclear weapons on an aircraft carrier?
Nuclear Triad.
A nuclear triad refers to the nuclear weapons delivery of a strategic nuclear arsenal which consists of three components: land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), strategic bombers, and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
i didn't say that america might loose, that's totally out of the question. What i'm saying is that the damage this conflict would deal to south korea would be so enormous that it's not worth it unless its absolutely unavoidable. The US wouldn't loose much in this conflict apart from a shitload of money for all the ordnance they'd drop on the zipperheads.
depends on what they mobilize at the border
>a million norks rushing across the border
Not if we drop peanut butter and porn DVDs first.
They will drop their rusty guns and become "free" in two seconds.
NK is setup to defend an invasion, they can't rush across the DMZ they would blow up on their own mines
lol
...
That's what you think, in actuality he is going to ram the nuclear powered aircraft carrier into the coast of NK and then explode the engine
Who the fuck is this and where did he get the dialogue from?
He might have said that to get the noggin joggin but we don't need subs to reach them in reality. The distance to NK is about half of our capability without using a single vessel or plane
After saddams troops invaded kuweit they were in defensive positions. They did you a great favor by building indefensible fortifications in the desert and then proceeded to get bombed to absolute shit for weeks. Now, the same would happen to the norks, and i agree that it would probably be possible to break their back just as quick. The difference is that they are on the offensive here. There is little you can do against them fucking up the south before they collapse. And that seems to be their entire doctrine. They know they can't survive in a conventional war, so they go for a MAD like scenario, replacing nukes with hungry peasant riflemen rushing across the border.
i think nuclear free fall bombs are obsolete since a few decades and i see little reason to launch nuclear armed cruise missiles from bombers instead of VLS cells considering the range they got nowadays.
the south koreans find like two tunnels or so each year, i'm sure they missed a few
trump interview airing tomorrow morning on fox
the person in the tweet works for fox.
quoted here too:
reuters.com
The problem with counter battery is that you have to first wait for the other side to fire at you in order to track it. Seoul is going to get fucked up in any major war, it's just a question of how much.
Lot of those North Korean artillery pieces will be taken out quickly, probably a lot before they're ever fired. There's a good portion of them that probably simply don't work anymore. But some will get through
maybe. I don't know how easy it is to turn people that have been indoctrinated since birth
Aircraft carriers don't actually do that much ground attacking. They are for achieving air/sea superiority and some light ground attacks, especially at things like radar installations and SAM batteries. They might do small attack runs to support ground troops in an emergency.
Most bombing and ground attack missions will take place from land based runways.