pyotr filipivich wrote:
Michael A Terrell on Thu, 7 Dec 2017
18:25:03 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Into radioactive amoebas. ;-)

Traditional carpet bombing will do that?


Sure, if they are working in a hidden nuclear bomb factory. ;-)

Michael A Terrell on Fri, 8 Dec 2017
11:11:00 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Michael A Terrell on Thu, 7 Dec 2017
18:25:03 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Into radioactive amoebas. ;-)

Traditional carpet bombing will do that?

Sure, if they are working in a hidden nuclear bomb factory. ;-)

Is that some new kind of ISIS IED - the Nuclear Carpet Bomb?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Does Pyongyang look like a stone age city to you?
north Korea cities - Google Search https://is.gd/QI3S0q
They will need to take out the capital and any sites Poindexter may
hide in, and then target all military areas; IF he launches.

--
Silence is more musical than any song.
-- Christina Rossetti

Larry Jaques on Fri, 08 Dec 2017
19:55:37 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Does Pyongyang look like a stone age city to you?

And Pyongyang is the exemplar of all of Korea. then. And the
quote "poverty" unquote must be just South Korean propaganda.

After all, no one in the Capital is suffering.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 19:22:09 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 08 Dec 2017
19:55:37 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Does Pyongyang look like a stone age city to you?

And Pyongyang is the exemplar of all of Korea. then. And the
quote "poverty" unquote must be just South Korean propaganda.

After all, no one in the Capital is suffering.

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_average_wage
But what is "Poverty". Looking at the Wiki, Switzerland has an
average salary of $7,396. The U.S. is at $4,893, about 40% less.
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Sat, 09 Dec 2017 19:22:09 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 08 Dec 2017
19:55:37 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Does Pyongyang look like a stone age city to you?

And Pyongyang is the exemplar of all of Korea. then. And the
quote "poverty" unquote must be just South Korean propaganda.

After all, no one in the Capital is suffering.

Nor are they in Burma.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/they-b...mas-ghost-city

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

--
A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full
description of a happy state in this world.
--John Locke

pyotr filipivich wrote:
Michael A Terrell on Fri, 8 Dec 2017
11:11:00 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Michael A Terrell on Thu, 7 Dec 2017
18:25:03 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
pyotr filipivich wrote:
Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?

Into radioactive amoebas. ;-)

Traditional carpet bombing will do that?

Sure, if they are working in a hidden nuclear bomb factory. ;-)

Is that some new kind of ISIS IED - the Nuclear Carpet Bomb?


They are still working on their flying carpet nuclear bombers...

On 2017-12-04, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 10:03:34 -0600, Ignoramus7946
wrote:

On 2017-12-01, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Japan's Army leadership made a similar judgement in 1941. They soon
discovered that their military couldn't prevent our submarines from
sinking all their shipping and our bombers from burning their cities.
By the end there wasn't much left to nuke.

Like the Norks the Japanese dug in deep and prepared for a long
resistance. My father told me the surviving defenders on Okinawa would
come up from their bunkers to watch and cheer his Air Corps unit's
baseball games. They knew they had lost but were too indoctrinated
with Bushido to surrender.


World War II was different because there was no nuclear weapons (until
the end). Nuclear weapons actually did what I was alluding to,
specifically, raising the level of pain for Japan so much as to force
immediate surrender.

Now there are nuclear weapons and North Korea can inflict pain on USA
remotely, outside of the theater of operations.

If NK's arsenal and operational control is survivable, and half way
accurate, then NK can win the war by inflicting too much pain on the
US (nuking several cities) and forcing it to surrender, despite our
obvious military superiority.

The question facing our decision makers, may come to "we lost Chicago
and Houston, is it worth it to continue destroying North Korea".

WHAT? If we lost two cities, SK would be an island shortly
thereafter, whether China liked it or not. Talk about waking sleeping
giants...

Larry, I am sorry that I did not answer sooner, I was over tired from
work and there was too much little stuff going on at home.

There is two points that I want to make.

First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Second, winning and losing means different things for us and for North
Korea. If, for example, North Korea loses 80% of its people but Kim
stays in power, and keeps some nukes and nuclear factories, it is a
victory for him. Nuclear weapons are terrifying and powerful, but they
do not turn large countries into glowing sand, and they cannot destroy
well placed mobile launchers if the launchers are hidden.

Lastly, any nuclear operation that turns NK into "glowing sand" would
be extremely damaging for Russia's Khabarovsk and for Japan in terms
of nuclear fallout, with obvious repercussions.

Because the above is quite obvious, I would hope that the US
leadership recognizes this and is only pretending that it is about to
destroy North Korea. What concerns me is that the 28 year old "leader"
of NK may not think so.

It may sound crazy, but it is not. North Korea can lose 80% of its
population, but force the US to surrender, pay reparations, and so on,
in case IF it is able to inflict unbearable pain on us.

No, it cannot. Our military and our people do not know the word
"unbearable".

Well, we never tried to have our cities destroyed, and yes, recently
the expense and losses in Iraq, for example, were seen as unbearable.


Now if the US actually loses that war, the terms of surrender will be
atrocious, and it will not be an honorable surrender.

I am surprised that these quite simple issues are not even discussed
publicly, even though it could easily come to just this scenario.

Evidently, we think totally differently than you, Ig. The USA cannot
lose to Korea, even if it lost =eighteen= cities to NK nukes.

If the USA lost 18 major cities, it would be almost done for as a
world power.

As soon as a single hit was scored on a US city, Trump would be on
the horn to neighboring countries telling them to move their
populations away from the border which would be glowing sand from
the 40th to the 45th latitude and the 125th to the 128th longitude.
Or possibly just hot from several hundred neutron bombs. He might
even use tactical nukes to blow down any further launches if he saw
a trajectory for the mainland USA.

Keep in mind one thing: if hostilities start, delivering nuclear hits
to the US and hoping for US surrender, not irrationally, is the ONLY
hope Kim has to survive personally.

This is no longer a game, Ig. He'd have to make most of the million+
NK troops go away before landing anyone, depending on what he'd used
to bomb them. This is for all the marbles, since for the US to lose
yet another war would be curtains for any power we maintain in the
world today. For the world's sake, we can't lose.

We can also not start a war and expect North Korea to be just another
country with newly acquired nuclear capabilities, just like Pakistan
or Israel.

Also, if the US beging a nuclear war in NK and gets bogged down, which
is entirely possible, other players can be easily seen beginning
conflicts in other parts of the world.

Everyone seems to think that nuclear wars are fought at a fast pace. I
personally doubt this will necessarily happen for several reasons, the
main of which is that nuclear attacks are moves in negotiations
(possibly conducted by means of nuclear strikes) and negotiations take
time. Even the only two actual uses of nuclear weapons, both by United
States, were purposely conducted days apart to pressure Japan and
obtain its surrender.

For example, let's say that we begin a conventional attack on NK. Kim
would quickly realize that his life is at stake and that the only way
he can make the US stop is to deliver some nuclear blows on it. So he
would, hypothetically, destroy a US city.

After that, the US, just like you say, delivers a large nuclear strike
on NK, making east Russia uninhabitable and ****ing off Russia. 60% of
NK population is dead. Kim's mobile launchers mostly survive, as does
he, and he strikes another US city.

What do we do now?

i

"Ignoramus13548" wrote in
message ...
On 2017-12-04, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sun, 03 Dec 2017 10:03:34 -0600, Ignoramus7946
wrote:

On 2017-12-01, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Japan's Army leadership made a similar judgement in 1941. They
soon
discovered that their military couldn't prevent our submarines
from
sinking all their shipping and our bombers from burning their
cities.
By the end there wasn't much left to nuke.

Like the Norks the Japanese dug in deep and prepared for a long
resistance. My father told me the surviving defenders on Okinawa
would
come up from their bunkers to watch and cheer his Air Corps
unit's
baseball games. They knew they had lost but were too
indoctrinated
with Bushido to surrender.


World War II was different because there was no nuclear weapons
(until
the end). Nuclear weapons actually did what I was alluding to,
specifically, raising the level of pain for Japan so much as to
force
immediate surrender.

Now there are nuclear weapons and North Korea can inflict pain on
USA
remotely, outside of the theater of operations.

If NK's arsenal and operational control is survivable, and half way
accurate, then NK can win the war by inflicting too much pain on
the
US (nuking several cities) and forcing it to surrender, despite our
obvious military superiority.

The question facing our decision makers, may come to "we lost
Chicago
and Houston, is it worth it to continue destroying North Korea".

WHAT? If we lost two cities, SK would be an island shortly
thereafter, whether China liked it or not. Talk about waking
sleeping
giants...

Larry, I am sorry that I did not answer sooner, I was over tired
from
work and there was too much little stuff going on at home.

There is two points that I want to make.

First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Second, winning and losing means different things for us and for
North
Korea. If, for example, North Korea loses 80% of its people but Kim
stays in power, and keeps some nukes and nuclear factories, it is a
victory for him. Nuclear weapons are terrifying and powerful, but
they
do not turn large countries into glowing sand, and they cannot
destroy
well placed mobile launchers if the launchers are hidden.

Lastly, any nuclear operation that turns NK into "glowing sand"
would
be extremely damaging for Russia's Khabarovsk and for Japan in terms
of nuclear fallout, with obvious repercussions.

Because the above is quite obvious, I would hope that the US
leadership recognizes this and is only pretending that it is about
to
destroy North Korea. What concerns me is that the 28 year old
"leader"
of NK may not think so.

It may sound crazy, but it is not. North Korea can lose 80% of its
population, but force the US to surrender, pay reparations, and so
on,
in case IF it is able to inflict unbearable pain on us.

No, it cannot. Our military and our people do not know the word
"unbearable".

Well, we never tried to have our cities destroyed, and yes, recently
the expense and losses in Iraq, for example, were seen as
unbearable.


Now if the US actually loses that war, the terms of surrender will
be
atrocious, and it will not be an honorable surrender.

I am surprised that these quite simple issues are not even
discussed
publicly, even though it could easily come to just this scenario.

Evidently, we think totally differently than you, Ig. The USA
cannot
lose to Korea, even if it lost =eighteen= cities to NK nukes.

If the USA lost 18 major cities, it would be almost done for as a
world power.

As soon as a single hit was scored on a US city, Trump would be on
the horn to neighboring countries telling them to move their
populations away from the border which would be glowing sand from
the 40th to the 45th latitude and the 125th to the 128th longitude.
Or possibly just hot from several hundred neutron bombs. He might
even use tactical nukes to blow down any further launches if he saw
a trajectory for the mainland USA.

Keep in mind one thing: if hostilities start, delivering nuclear
hits
to the US and hoping for US surrender, not irrationally, is the ONLY
hope Kim has to survive personally.

This is no longer a game, Ig. He'd have to make most of the
million+
NK troops go away before landing anyone, depending on what he'd
used
to bomb them. This is for all the marbles, since for the US to
lose
yet another war would be curtains for any power we maintain in the
world today. For the world's sake, we can't lose.

We can also not start a war and expect North Korea to be just
another
country with newly acquired nuclear capabilities, just like Pakistan
or Israel.

Also, if the US beging a nuclear war in NK and gets bogged down,
which
is entirely possible, other players can be easily seen beginning
conflicts in other parts of the world.

Everyone seems to think that nuclear wars are fought at a fast pace.
I
personally doubt this will necessarily happen for several reasons,
the
main of which is that nuclear attacks are moves in negotiations
(possibly conducted by means of nuclear strikes) and negotiations
take
time. Even the only two actual uses of nuclear weapons, both by
United
States, were purposely conducted days apart to pressure Japan and
obtain its surrender.

For example, let's say that we begin a conventional attack on NK.
Kim
would quickly realize that his life is at stake and that the only
way
he can make the US stop is to deliver some nuclear blows on it. So
he
would, hypothetically, destroy a US city.

After that, the US, just like you say, delivers a large nuclear
strike
on NK, making east Russia uninhabitable and ****ing off Russia. 60%
of
NK population is dead. Kim's mobile launchers mostly survive, as
does
he, and he strikes another US city.

What do we do now?

i

In the early 50's we thought that any major war would inevitably go
nuclear and planned accordingly, increasing our strategic capabilities
at the expense of our tactical ones.

However the crises that occurred in the Middle East showed that we
needed to be able to respond effectively and very rapidly at every
level, in order to keep small local disturbances from escalating into
large regional or global ones. We didn't always push hard enough to
obtain entirely favorable results, Ghaddafi being a good example, but
we contained the violence which was enough.

That's why we expanded the aircraft carrier fleet that we knew might
not survive the Krasny Flot but could quickly intervene almost
anywhere with only the minimum necessary containment level, such as
Marines guarding the streets and aircraft overhead.

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful than
the nation's entire Air Force. Significantly though we've never
created the political apparatus to dominate and administer another
country the way SMERSH did in post-war Berlin, instead we restore
their previous democratic institutions such as the Japanese Diet and
the Iraqi Parliament. As a US soldier in Germany I quickly leaned that
we were no more than guests in their country.

This event set the precedent for the rest of the Cold War. We arrived
in hours, the Soviets in weeks. Britain and France had lost their
international military influence when Nasser outfoxed them in the Suez
Crisis.
http://adst.org/2013/07/the-1958-u-s...-at-the-beach/

I got myself onto the circulation list for private and semi-official
critical analyses that passed around the government after major
events, a type of Samizdat. The PLA Colonels' report I mentioned
previously was one of them, as was this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Japan_That_Can_Say_No

A large section of the after-action report on Desert Storm detailed
our successes and deficiencies in hastily transporting a large armored
ground force to a distant area where we hadn't been expecting a
problem. I'm only an amateur historian, not a professional analyst,
and don't claim to have answers but I know that some -very- smart and
clever people are looking hard for them. BTW we kept reminding
ourselves that many chess grand masters are Russian.

We plan for almost anything, including having to invade France. In WW2
we learned the value of being able to invade at a place and in weather
the enemy considered impossible.

-rfGuil9

On 2017-12-10 11:36, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful than
the nation's entire Air Force.
This is some A-grade horse ****. How many thousand aircraft do you think
you can fit on one boat?

"Mary-Jane Rottencrotch" wrote in message
...
On 2017-12-10 11:36, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful
than
the nation's entire Air Force.
This is some A-grade horse ****. How many thousand aircraft do you
think
you can fit on one boat?

Thousand? Britain does not have even two hundred, and nearly half of
them are worn out.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-33618484
"Defence analysis group IHS Jane's said the RAF could be left with 127
combat jets by the end of the decade as 87 Tornados and the first
tranche of 53 Typhoon jets are due to be retired."

"Jane's says the RAF currently has 192 frontline fighter aircraft,
made up of Tranche 1, 2 and 3A Typhoons and Tornados."

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:27:32 -0800, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
wrote:

On 2017-12-10 11:36, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful than
the nation's entire Air Force.
This is some A-grade horse ****. How many thousand aircraft do you think
you can fit on one boat?

An article printed in the 11 Dec 2017 issue of the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ight-Isil.html
Stated that the RAF had:
40 Typhoons, 8 Tornado and 6 Reaper aircraft available, at the time of
writing, for use in combat. That is a total of 54 combat ready
aircraft.

The Nimitz-class supercarriers can accommodate a maximum of 130 F/A-18
Hornets or 85 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are
typically 64 aircraft.

(Reality IS stranger then fiction)
--
Cheers,

John B.

"John B." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:27:32 -0800, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
wrote:

On 2017-12-10 11:36, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful
than
the nation's entire Air Force.
This is some A-grade horse ****. How many thousand aircraft do you
think
you can fit on one boat?

An article printed in the 11 Dec 2017 issue of the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ight-Isil.html
Stated that the RAF had:
40 Typhoons, 8 Tornado and 6 Reaper aircraft available, at the time
of
writing, for use in combat. That is a total of 54 combat ready
aircraft.

The Nimitz-class supercarriers can accommodate a maximum of 130
F/A-18
Hornets or 85 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are
typically 64 aircraft.

(Reality IS stranger then fiction)
--
Cheers,

John B.

I saw similar numbers in a different, older Telegraph(?) article
about a visiting US carrier. The comparison was a British gripe rather
than an American boast.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:49:12 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"John B." wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:27:32 -0800, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
wrote:

On 2017-12-10 11:36, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful
than
the nation's entire Air Force.
This is some A-grade horse ****. How many thousand aircraft do you
think
you can fit on one boat?

An article printed in the 11 Dec 2017 issue of the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ight-Isil.html
Stated that the RAF had:
40 Typhoons, 8 Tornado and 6 Reaper aircraft available, at the time
of
writing, for use in combat. That is a total of 54 combat ready
aircraft.

The Nimitz-class supercarriers can accommodate a maximum of 130
F/A-18
Hornets or 85 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are
typically 64 aircraft.

(Reality IS stranger then fiction)
--
Cheers,

John B.

I saw similar numbers in a different, older Telegraph(?) article
about a visiting US carrier. The comparison was a British gripe rather
than an American boast.

I've always thought that memories of the world encompassing empire
was, perhaps, their worst shortcoming.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

It will kill most of them. Which is a very good thing.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:30:11 -0600, Ignoramus13548
wrote:


First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Both are Liberal run cities. Add Detroit to the mix and we would be
in pretty good shape.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:49:12 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:


"John B." wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 13:27:32 -0800, Mary-Jane Rottencrotch
wrote:

On 2017-12-10 11:36, Jim Wilkins wrote:

Even for Britain one visiting US carrier is as or more powerful
than
the nation's entire Air Force.
This is some A-grade horse ****. How many thousand aircraft do you
think
you can fit on one boat?

An article printed in the 11 Dec 2017 issue of the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ight-Isil.html
Stated that the RAF had:
40 Typhoons, 8 Tornado and 6 Reaper aircraft available, at the
time
of
writing, for use in combat. That is a total of 54 combat ready
aircraft.

The Nimitz-class supercarriers can accommodate a maximum of 130
F/A-18
Hornets or 85 aircraft of different types, but current numbers are
typically 64 aircraft.

(Reality IS stranger then fiction)
--
Cheers,

John B.

I saw similar numbers in a different, older Telegraph(?) article
about a visiting US carrier. The comparison was a British gripe
rather
than an American boast.

I've always thought that memories of the world encompassing empire
was, perhaps, their worst shortcoming.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

Britain is making a serious effort to resume their share of the load
of global peacekeeping,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_...rcraft_carrier

which is appropriate as many current trouble spots were their former
colonies, Iraq, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan for example. The USA
had relatively little global influence before WW2 and much of what we
did have was spent on trying to restrain European imperialism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Door_Policy

-jsw

wrote in message
...
...
I've always thought that memories of the world encompassing empire
was, perhaps, their worst shortcoming.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

That may be a more troubling issue for Russia. While their people can
be as capable as anyone they mostly demonstrated their abilities as
overseas exiles; the nation has a long history of feeling inferior.
The USSR fell back on the respect of fear after failing to inspire
love:
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/...reatness-19116

-jsw

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:39:47 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

It will kill most of them. Which is a very good thing.

Not good for you.

What happened to that $85 tax payment that was due today, and you said
you'd mailed a couple weeks ago? Still unpaid, what a shock.
http://www.kcttc.co.kern.ca.us/Payme...TYPE=AT&YR= C

"Thanks for the reminder!! Ill send out my payment next week" Nov 22
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc...c/cK858Vg9AgAJ

"Payment went out last Wed" Nov 29
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....Y/GKxBuGXDBgAJ

Here's a free idea for you - fewer death wishes, more personal
responsibility.

Now get off your ass and over to the county office to make that
payment. I'm still hoping there's a chance I can take credit for
forcing you to make your first contribution in five years.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 07:35:36 -0800, George Schmid G. S. @tw.net
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 04:39:47 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 15:14:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Larry Jaques on Fri, 01 Dec 2017
17:08:53 -0800 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

How do you bomb back to the stone age, a society which for most
intents is already there?

With traditional carpet bombing.

Which will do what? Bomb them further back in the stone age?
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age travels alone."

It will kill most of them. Which is a very good thing.

Not good for you.

What happened to that $85 tax payment that was due today, and you said
you'd mailed a couple weeks ago? Still unpaid, what a shock.
http://www.kcttc.co.kern.ca.us/Payme...TYPE=AT&YR= C

"Thanks for the reminder!! Ill send out my payment next week" Nov 22
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc...c/cK858Vg9AgAJ

"Payment went out last Wed" Nov 29
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....Y/GKxBuGXDBgAJ

Here's a free idea for you - fewer death wishes, more personal
responsibility.

Now get off your ass and over to the county office to make that
payment. I'm still hoping there's a chance I can take credit for
forcing you to make your first contribution in five years.

Tick tock, Wieber. Only a few more hours before the tax office closes
and they add on the $8 loser fee. chuckle

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 08:52:16 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
...
I've always thought that memories of the world encompassing empire
was, perhaps, their worst shortcoming.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

That may be a more troubling issue for Russia. While their people can
be as capable as anyone they mostly demonstrated their abilities as
overseas exiles; the nation has a long history of feeling inferior.
The USSR fell back on the respect of fear after failing to inspire
love:
https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/...reatness-19116

-jsw

Lets face it, Russia was inferior to Europe for a very long period.
Peter the Great, who reigned from 1682 - 1725 (part of the time
jointly with his brother) inherited a feudal country which had no
access to the sea.

What appears to be the very first Russian built, ocean going ship was
the frigate Shtandart, the first ship of Russia's Baltic fleet. Her
keel was laid on April 24, 1703

In contrast the Spanish armada invaded England with a fleet of around
130 vessels, in 1588. And was defeated by and English fleet (and the
weather) of approximately 100 vessels.
--
Cheers,

Schweik

On 2017-12-11, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:30:11 -0600, Ignoramus13548
wrote:


First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Both are Liberal run cities. Add Detroit to the mix and we would be
in pretty good shape.

Doubtfuly Mr. Kim would attack, say, Bakersfield, CA

Ignoramus26530 wrote:
On 2017-12-11, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:30:11 -0600, Ignoramus13548
wrote:


First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Both are Liberal run cities. Add Detroit to the mix and we would be
in pretty good shape.

Doubtfuly Mr. Kim would attack, say, Bakersfield, CA


That crazy ******* would nuke 'Gilligan's Island', if he could find it.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:56:29 -0600, Ignoramus26530
wrote:

On 2017-12-11, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:30:11 -0600, Ignoramus13548
wrote:


First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Both are Liberal run cities. Add Detroit to the mix and we would be
in pretty good shape.

Doubtfuly Mr. Kim would attack, say, Bakersfield, CA


It would be a great waste of propaganda and an expensive missile. Very
little return on his investment.

So..no...Id doubt if he would bother. Not with so many far better
targets available. Frisco...LA..just to name 2.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 20:56:29 -0600, Ignoramus26530
wrote:

On 2017-12-11, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:30:11 -0600, Ignoramus13548
wrote:


First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Both are Liberal run cities. Add Detroit to the mix and we would be
in pretty good shape.

Doubtfuly Mr. Kim would attack, say, Bakersfield, CA

No, he'd hang it a little low and to the left, hitting Taft.

--
A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full
description of a happy state in this world.
--John Locke

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017 22:19:07 -0500, Michael A Terrell
wrote:

Ignoramus26530 wrote:
On 2017-12-11, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 08:30:11 -0600, Ignoramus13548
wrote:


First is that if we lose, say, Chicago and Houston, just as an
example, and completely destroy North Korea, the outcome, for us, is
more like a loss than a victory. You can easily see why.

Both are Liberal run cities. Add Detroit to the mix and we would be
in pretty good shape.

Doubtfuly Mr. Kim would attack, say, Bakersfield, CA


That crazy ******* would nuke 'Gilligan's Island', if he could find it.

Let's hope he aims there instead of here.

--
A sound mind in a sound body is a short but full
description of a happy state in this world.
--John Locke