US President Donald Trum-p has become the first US president to set foot on North Korean soil

[Tommy T.]

42 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

Israel has had nuclear bombs for decades and I tend to think that they are more rational about how to properly use them than NK... JMHO

Mark.... I don't think there is any way to rationalize the use of nuclear weapons. And maybe they will soon be obsolete with the development of the new hypersonic missles? These are totally legal and unregulated so they may proliferate too.

So my question is this: Why are humans still so tribal by nature? In some ways, we have not - emotionally - seemed to have gotten past living in caves... I know it is a rhetorical question that nobody can answer...

[Mark Berkowitz]

1 minute ago, Tommy T. said:

I don't think there is any way to rationalize the use of nuclear weapons.

Tom, of course you're right, and even Oppenheimer (the so-called father of the A-Bomb) spent the rest of his life trying to undue what he did... but as Scott has said (and I'm paraphrasing), you just can't put the genie back in the bottle, eh

[Tommy T.]

2 minutes ago, Mark Berkowitz said:

Tom, of course you're right, and even Oppenheimer (the so-called father of the A-Bomb) spent the rest of his life trying to undue what he did... but as Scott has said (and I'm paraphrasing), you just can't put the genie back in the bottle, eh

Thanks... and I agree with what Scott said too. Why can't all these kids just play in their own sandbox and not try to invade and take over the ones from the kids next door?

[Dave Hounddriver]

57 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

Why can't all these kids just play in their own sandbox and not try to invade and take over the ones from the kids next door?

Its interesting that people all over the world do that. It is in our nature.  I used to think the same thing on a smaller scale when I lived in Edmonton, Alberta.  Why can't the city of Edmonton play in their own sandbox instead of annexing all the ones from the kids next door?

Even when a country (like China) builds its own sandbox (island) we still do not like it.  Better that bit of ocean remain covered in water than be built up into someone else's sandbox.

I think it is best summed up in these famous quotes:

Quote

William S. Burroughs is credited with the quote, “When you stop growing you start dying.” Lou Holtz said. “In this world you're either growing or you're dying, so get in motion and grow.” There is no status quo.

 

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Tommy T. said:

And maybe they will soon be obsolete with the development of the new hypersonic missles? These are totally legal and unregulated so they may proliferate too.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were behind the scenes studies on creating nuclear warheads that are compatible with hypersonic capable missiles (at least for 'tactical' nukes').   Hypothesize a scenario where a carrier or amphibious group are covered by conventional cruisers, destroyers and/or frigates.  An almost impossible to intercept hypersonic missile fitted with a small tactical nuclear warhead could neutralize that group in a single strike.

It is inconceivable that I'm the only person to think of that possibility 

[Tommy T.]

5 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I think it is best summed up in these famous quotes:

Quote

Interesting quote...thanks for sharing that

 I had a neighbour years ago who one day had somebody doing bulldozing on his five acres adjacent to my five acres. Apparently the owner was not supervising and the bulldozer operator took out the survey mark at our shared corner and bulldozed maybe five feet into my property. I contacted that owner and his first comment was, "Well it was only a little way into your property..." One of the few times in my life, I became quite livid and told him that I didn't care if it was only one inch. He had five acres, I had five acres and he should only stay on his. When, during the conversation, he stated, "Well, I'm a Christian..." I was gobsmacked. I was so angry that I didn't think, until later, that my response should have been that he should then do the "Christian" think and make things right. Eventually he did and we also eventually got along....sortof...

Anyway, I know that energy and mineral wealth have a huge lot to do with all this territorial challenging. All I can say is that sometimes I just hate "human nature."

[Tommy T.]

3 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

It is inconceivable that I'm the only person to think of that possibility 

Absolutely... More scary thoughts to keep us awake at night?

[Tommy T.]

4 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

An almost impossible to intercept hypersonic missile fitted with a small tactical nuclear warhead could neutralize that group in a single strike.

Although, from what I read last week, the hypersonic missile is so powerful, just conventionally, it could take out a carrier and more with one strike. And just removing the carrier fairly well neutralizes a task force, right? I am just guessing here. I know that destroyers and cruisers, and the like, carry cruise and other missiles too, but air attacks seem to be favoured, from what I read and see?

[GeoffH]

36 minutes ago, Tommy T. said:

Although, from what I read last week, the hypersonic missile is so powerful, just conventionally, it could take out a carrier and more with one strike. And just removing the carrier fairly well neutralizes a task force, right? 

A hypersonic missile as a kinetic missile could make a carrier deck unusable which would cripple it, that might be preferable in some circumstances as it would be less likely to get a nuclear response but it would take a tactical nuke to destroy a carrier in one hit (or at least that is the case from the articles I've read).

[Tommy T.]

1 minute ago, GeoffH said:

A hypersonic missile as a kinetic missile could make a carrier deck unusable which would cripple it, that might be preferable in some circumstances as it would be less likely to get a nuclear response but it would take a tactical nuke to destroy a carrier in one hit (or at least that is the case from the articles I've read).

Ahhh... thanks for the clarification, Geoff. I am ignorant about most modern weapons and don't always read or understand some of the details that are available. I thought - from something I read - that that kinetic energy from one of those missiles could wreck catastrophic damage to anything they might strike and that might include collateral damage to nearby ships or structures. What you say still offers little comfort - except for the possibility of reducing the escalation into nuclear war...