Someone just tried to assassinate Trump

AZVAJKU said:
Of course this map is a very rough representation of significant targets, however it is interesting to go through it and correlate on Google Maps just what is at each designated location.

For example:

View attachment 413711

View attachment 413712
Click to expand...
Blowing up military installations is almost pointless. Destroying access to food, water, electricity, and gasoline is sufficient. This does not require nuclear weapons to accomplish.

Just one hurricane near Houston made it very difficult to find gasoline in Dallas for over two weeks! And then look at what happened due to COVID where many of us could not even wipe our ass.

We live in a just-in-time world now. It takes almost nothing to provoke thirst and starvation here.
 
bobfriesenhahn said:
Blowing up military installations is almost pointless. Destroying access to food, water, electricity, and gasoline is sufficient. This does not require nuclear weapons to accomplish.

Just one hurricane near Houston made it very difficult to find gasoline in Dallas for over two weeks! And then look at what happened due to COVID where many of us could not even wipe our ass.

We live in a just-in-time world now. It takes almost nothing to provoke thirst and starvation here.
Click to expand...

MAD isn't about efficiency.....
 
bobfriesenhahn said:
Blowing up military installations is almost pointless. Destroying access to food, water, electricity, and gasoline is sufficient. This does not require nuclear weapons to accomplish.

Just one hurricane near Houston made it very difficult to find gasoline in Dallas for over two weeks! And then look at what happened due to COVID where many of us could not even wipe our ass.

We live in a just-in-time world now. It takes almost nothing to provoke thirst and starvation here.
Click to expand...
You don’t need food, water or electricity with a nuclear war. Most people will be wiped out. The reason you hit the military ammo depots is because the few that make it (mostly politicians that have a way to survive) will then not have ammunition to fight back. We are not in World War One or two times anymore Bob.
 
There is a huge amount of debate by so-called experts and Fed-Gov on strategy when it comes to a ‘First Strike’ or a ‘Retaliatory Strike’. It may not be what you think. For a first strike, one strategy is you will take out strategic level weapons. Nuke Subs, land based intercontinental, and nuke capable bombers, thus reducing retaliation. You will not take out top level decision makers or critical infrastructures. If you wipe out the top leadership who will surrender to you? If you destroy critical infrastructure your occupation has become much harder and less rewarding. The US had to rebuild the critical infrastructure of Iraq at the cost of billions. The lack of basic life support like power and water actually worked in favor of the insurgency that ‘experts’ created by de-Bathification- but that’s another story.

Another first strike strategy is that you take out a selected enemy population center with a nuke as an example of your commitment- then negotiate from there. Ask yourself- would the Fed-Gov start WW3 for your city? The answer might disappoint you. That’s one of the things about Trump- he was considered by our enemies to be unorthodox and unpredictable therefore this probably would not have worked with him making it too dangerous of a course of action.

For a retaliatory strike you take out population centers and critical infrastructure creating so much damage that a first strike would be prohibitively costly and thus not a viable option.


If you have an interest in how to assess targets check the below out. This is the ‘CARVER’ Matrix which is used to assist in choosing targets and determining level of destruction.

 
OverlanderJK said:
You don’t need food, water or electricity with a nuclear war. Most people will be wiped out. The reason you hit the military ammo depots is because the few that make it (mostly politicians that have a way to survive) will then not have ammunition to fight back. We are not in World War One or two times anymore Bob.
Click to expand...
Right, but it is senseless to create a radiation wasteland that can not be occupied for 100 years (as well as facing a backwash of radiation in the attacking country) if seeking world domination.

Regardless, the point is that we live in a fragile society which has survival issues if anything goes wrong. Our society operates less than 90% from the brink of failure.

If the whole electric grid can be induced to melt down by inserting bogus control software, that is the more pleasant way to bring the opposing country to its knees.
 
Ddays said:
Been talking up Idaho to the wife :unsure:
Click to expand...

If you look at where OR, CA, ID, and NV meet there is not much to target in the area. In addition there is not much upwind (west) of there but a possible civil target consisting of Medford? so not much fallout. Might be a great place to be.

Northern Idaho is awesome. Hard winters and very suspicious of outsiders but a great place if you want to be left alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom