Kellyanne Conway to be named Counselor to the president. Trump picked her himself!

"Mr. Trump is deeply fond of Ms. Conway, whose job as counselor will give her frequent access to the president. "

I bet he is!:haha:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...ent/ar-BBxrxCL

The component here that i am in agreement with is this... whats the point of being a nuclear power if you dont use nuclear weapons?

For example, If a specific city became an ISIS stronghold, why not nuke it? seriously... why not do that?


EDIT: reminds me of this

"You watch those nature documentaries on the cable? You see the one about lions? You got this lion. He’s the king of the jungle, huge mane out to here. He’s laying under a tree, in the middle of Africa. He’s so big, it’s so hot. He doesn’t want to move. Now the little lions come, they start messing with him. Biting his tail, biting his ears. He doesn’t do anything. The lioness, she starts messing with him. Coming over, making trouble. Still nothing. Now the other animals, they notice this. They start to move in. The jackals; hyenas. They’re barking at him, laughing at him. They nip his toes, and eat the food that’s in his domain. They do this, then they get closer and closer, bolder and bolder. Till one day, that lion gets up and tears the crap out of everybody. Runs like the wind, eats everything in his path. Cause every once in a while, the lion has to show the jackals, who he is."

It would be viewed as indescriminate slaughter and maybe even genocide. But this depends on media.

the USA gets enough bad press. whats the difference? i mean if 25,000 ISIS members holed up in a small town somewhere and we used the smallest yield nuclear weapon in the arsenal whats the big deal? especially if Russia was in on it somehow.

You mean like B61-12?

You would still deal with the fallout - both the nuclear and media kinds. In my opinion you can attain the same objectives (of destroying the village with all the inhabitants) using conventional munitions.

I agree. Send in 200 bombers with fuel-air bombs. Same results but less fallout.

More than enough to turn up the heat in your house if one comes calling.

Recent events in Aleppo being a fair comparison some would have you believe.

The problem is nuclear stability. You only need one SSN to knock out the entire British nuclear deterent, it can be achieved in a single attack.

So you either accept limited soverenity by relying on your allies or you improve your deterent to being something more than an another division for the USN.

Sure, some are waging a disinformation campaighn to support their agenda.

http://i.imgur.com/IDtfL.gif

"We cannot sit back and allow Muslim infiltration, Muslim indoctrination, Muslim subversion and the international Muslim conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

^:har:

Your talent needs to move to the stage and night clubs. :)

On the contrary. There are four submarines with one always at sea but in times of hostility at least one more or possibly even two could be called upon.

I fail to see how one SSN could 'knock out' two or more submarines which would be located many miles apart.

The entangled snare that is the Trump economic empire apparently has far deeper roots and greater possibilities for very serious conflicts of interest than originally reported:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...guration-nears



<O>

It is quite simple actually.
What you do is to send one of your SSN to track the SSBN as it leaves it's base to go onto patrol. Then, after you establish the contact you launch 2-4 cruise missiles against the SSBNs in base, with 2-4 torpedoes against the SSBN on patrol or transit.

This means that a single SSN, with a single salvo (assuming that it has 8 TTs) can destroy the entire British deterent.

That in turn relies heavily on a Bolt out of the blue attack (also known by the wonderful acronym of BOOB) which is not the easiest thing to achieve but Russians are very good at misdirection and surprise assaults. So it's definitely possible.

The point here is not that Russia (or any other specific adversary) can conduct such an attack, but that such an attack is possible, making British nuclear deterent vulnerable and unstable.