China To Deploy Nuclear Missile Submarines In Pacific

Surprised they haven't done this years ago.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world...ns-with-us/ar-BBtv51l?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UP97DHP

What I can't understand is how everyone (especially the Russians and Chinese) swear that U.S. antimissile defenses won't work yet whenever they are deployed they crap their pants insisting it is a threat.

Personally, if I were president the U.S. would be building and deploying 250 ABMs every year. A lot faster than the Chinese and Russians can build missiles.

So you want an arms race?

Luckily, you won't ever be president.

No. Ideally I want only the United States, Britain, France, and Israel to have nuclear weapons (a small number).

Something you have no say in at all.

And a country that might elect Donald Trump president would elect almost anybody.

Trump is leagues ahead of you. He may be a detestable buffoon politically, but he also has had a very successful career. That means he knows how to work with other people in a work and business environment, instead of getting fired or let go over and over. When you make your first million dollars then I'll listen to the Trump comparison.

I'd be prepared to bet every penny and every possession I have on you never becoming president. I'd bet my mother's life on it.

Even by your own admission you generate a lot of dislike in others. The idea that you'll suddenly manage to get 80m+ Americans voting you into office would be laughable if it wasn't so sad that you're still clearly holding on to the delusion that it could happen.

So did Nixon. So did LBJ.

Both won landslide victories on tickets far more moderate than anything you will offer up as policies.

Nixon was a successful lawyer and career politician. LBJ was a career politician and decorated war hero. What would Presidential candidate Kitchens be? A guy forced out of multiple jobs and, as a matter of public record, investigated by how own employers on more than one occasions for not doing his job properly. Yeah, I can see the public really rallying behind a guy with that history. If a voter sees you've struggled to hold down a job for more than a few years consistently, for the duration of your career, do you really think it won't impact their assessment of whether or not you'd be competent in the White House?

You will never be president. Sorry.

You really think the past is prologue El Chup?

You're smarter than that.

And where did you get the idea that LBJ was a war hero?

Ahhh, another veiled insult from the man who never insults.

Of course a person's history is relevant to holding one of the most powerful jobs in the world.

From the fact that he served in the Pacific theatre in WWII....or have you never noticed that he always wore his silver star on his lapel?

He flew on one combat mission as an observer "armed" with a camera. There is considerable disagreement as to whether his airplane actually came under enemy fire.

His medals were due almost entirely to his political connections (as was his assignment in the first place).

How is "You're smarter than that" a "veiled insult".

Once again do you really think the past is prologue?

Do you still think you'll be President, Dayton? What odds do you think you've got?

Extremely unlikely. But I still think I've got a serious shot at the state legislature.

I see Dayton has added "the past is prologue" to his toolbox of phrases which he'll proceed to overuse.

By any reasonable standard.

When are you going to run? And how will you get on the ticket?

No you don't, not at all.

Dayton would lose by a landslide even if this guy was his opposition.

Trump was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, has filed bankruptcy more often than Dayton has lost a job, and would be wealthier today if he had just put his dad's money in an S&P 500 index fund. It's a close call, but aside from an accident of birth, I'm not sure we can rightly say which one is more succesful.

Depends where I'm living in a few years.

I figure that you hope to get on a party ticket (presumably GOP) and that that will mean you'll get votes by default.
But you do realise that political parties don't just let anyone run? Anyone who makes stupid statements and does stupid things as frequently as you do will quickly be excluded to avoid embarrassment.

I doubt the Koch brothers (bankrollers of the Arkansas GOP) spend much time reading what is posted on the internet.

Besides, at least at wordforge, people here are known for altering what I've posted. So who can say who really said what in the past?

I'd say he actually does have a shot at a state legislature. Dead people have won seats on state legislatures.

...and we are talking about Arkansas.

OK, back to the topic at hand. What would an additional 250 ABM's every year do for US defence that it can't do right now?

8 years at 250 ABMs a year would give us 2,000 more ABMs for a total of about 2,050 deployed.

The Russian ICBM warhead force amounts to about 1,000 available warheads from what I've read. That means a 2,000 ABM force would have a high probability of intercepting the bulk of an all out Russian attack even if they got off a clean launch with every missile working perfectly. Which of course is unlikely.

Actually I would prefer 4,000 ABMs (500 a year) but I don't think that is within production and construction capabilities in the U.S. currently.

In short, with enough ABMs we can tell the Chinese and Russians to bugger off.

The Koch brothers don't vet individual candidates, but you can bet that someone does. And a google search will be the first thing they do.

A Google search will reveal nothing after Dayton pays a visit to their CEO.

This being a military type thread, I thought I'd add that four F-15s just overflew the building I work in. One of them was really low.

The Russians can build more nukes than us. They have proved that.

Yabut Dayton is talking about us building more ABMs, not nukes.

As far as our nuclear deterrence forces go, it would probably be better if we upgraded the computers to being able to at least use 3.5 inch floppy disks before building more nukes anyway..

What makes you think that? During the Cold War the Soviets never had more warheads than the United States.

What is the point? The Russians have more nuclear warheads.