USS Carl Vinson Heading To North Korea

There were also a number of studies published by military experts in the Sixties which said that the war was unwinnable. When confronted with those reports, McNamara uttered those now infamous words, "I have access to information that you don't." McNamara knew about those reports, knew what was in them, and still didn't try to stop the war. So, he either chose to not believe them, then, or he later lied about knowing that the war was unwinnable. Either way, the evidence that the war was unwinnable was out there, yet the people in power chose to ignore it.

Additionally, Saddam had to have known in '03 that there was no way he could survive an invasion by the US, yet he didn't resign from power and turn himself over to the US government, but chose to let his country be ripped apart by the US.

You can find studies to support any position you want.

As you have repeatedly and impressively proven.

I've seen reports that Saddam Hussein did not believe the U.S. would actually invade or at least not invade with the full intent of deposing him.

IIRC he received a message from one of his two murderous sons just after the U.S. invaded saying

"I think the Americans are serious this time".

Too late by then of course.

Or, to put it another way: Just because someone presents evidence that a war is unwinnable, doesn't mean people are going to believe it.

Nope. It was not too late. He could have gotten on TV and said that he surrenders at any point in time after the invasion started. But he didn't. Even after his army surrendered, he didn't come forward and turn himself in, but chose to hide in a hole in the ground.

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/chi...erciless-response-to-us/#.WPEkqNrw_TM.twitter

But Sadaam's sons turned "lemons into lemonade" by robbing/looting all the banks as the country imploded! It's nice to see young people displaying some ambition.

Fat Kim sends the world a dick pic.

More pics at the link.

The insanity to which I am referring is the one where humans can casually talk about the loss of a million human lives, and the fact that we have lost that many, and more, to war in the past.

NORTH KOREA HAS LAUNCHED A MISSILE.

Wait. It blew up.

Never mind.

You joke, but the US almost launched its missiles due to things like a bear, a flock of birds, and a software glitch.

ummm it's not a joke.....

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-39612095

Ooo, that's not good. Some of the NK missile "failures" haven't been that at all. They've merely been range tests, with claims that the rocket was supposed to send something farther than what was actually claimed.

One thing I'm wondering is "why do we need a carrier group" there? Don't we have enough ground strips?

A carrier is a moving target unlike ground strips.

A carrier can also get further north than the ground bases. That's less fuel and time needed to get to a target and more fuel for being on a target area.

Plus I don't think there are any American nukes in South Korea but I'd bet dollars to donuts there is at least a couple sitting inside the Vinson. Just in case.

There's always at least one sub shadowing a carrier group, so even if the Vinson isn't carrying one, the sub that's attached to her most certainly is.

CBGs are escorted by attack subs, not boomers and all nuclear-capable Tomahawks were retired several years ago.

As far as I'm aware, carriers don't carry nukes. All the nuke stuff on those refer to the engine power.

There have not been any nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers in a long, long time. The United States doesn't even have any nuclear weapons in its arsenal anymore that are capable of being launched from aircraft carrier capable aircraft.

I dunno. I do know that a former Marine I worked with claimed that the Navy would deny that there were any subs attached to a carrier group, yet folks with security clearance would always state that there were.

That subs operate with CBGs is fairly common knowledge. They don't have nuclear capability, though, because attack subs don't have nuke Tomahawks any more and SSBNs don't operate as escorts.

But, who's to say that there isn't a lone boomer sitting off the NK coast right now.

The implication that he gave was that said sub had nukes. Did it? I dunno. Would I be surprised that more subs had nukes than what we're told? No.

Until 2013, an attack sub might've had nuclear-tipped Tomahawks. Not any more, though.

Thanks, Obama.

He didn't define it as an "attack sub." Just a "sub." As in the Navy denied that any subs were attached to carrier groups. Dunno if it was true or not.

Doctrine is for attack subs to escort. Boomers only act as attack subs in Tom Clancy novels.

That's what you get for listening to a Marine in matters regarding Carrier Battle Groups.

I wouldn't worry about the missiles in those pictures.

As James F. Dunnigan said in "A Quick and Dirty Guide to War"

"While it looks impressive hauling a missile around on the back of a tank, that isn't what you want to do if you plan on actually firing it".

Phallic symbols? Trump is into Yaoi?

I'm pretty sure Johnson knew the war was unwinnable, but the thinking at the time was it doesn't matter as long as we keep theRussians at bay. It still,to this day begs the question, what would have Kennedy done? I think Kennedy was a cold warrior, but Kennedy was also very level headed. He seemed more about peace. Perhaps Kennedy would have ended the Cold War a lot sooner than Reagan supposedly did.

Of course it's speculation,but dare I say, Kennedy was a better statesmen than Reagan?