Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (325483)	3/8/2025 10:54:49 AM
From: toefonos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 358474

The fact that their is 160 longitudinal delta betwix Greenland and Alaska shows you know bovine excrement about the trigonometry of geography. To be expected as your beliefs about global warming are 180 degrees away from reality.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (325483)	3/8/2025 12:23:26 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 358474

We can launch from submarines. Very little of our force is based on land, so that argument is ridiculous. Not to mention, you don't win a nuclear war by just being the first to land a blow. You have to make sure your opponent has all of its teeth pulled, which cannot be done by pushing buttons. Those with boomers, unless you can also compromise them somehow, can't be neutralized with a hypersonic attack. Maybe after DOG-E leaves backdoors in all of our secured systems, that might work. Not sure how controlling Canada and Greenland makes any difference in that scenario, though.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (325483)	3/8/2025 2:57:37 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 358474

It depends on what the US is shooting at. Alaska is better for hitting eastern regions of Russia like Siberia and the Far East, which do have military bases and missile base. And it is far easier to supply Greenland is better for striking Russia’s western region—its political and industrial core around Moscow and European Russia. So, you need both if you are in fact planning for a nightmare scenario where Russia launches first since it can strike from two regions. If you have two massive bases for launching attacks, then you split the Russian defensive capability and the assumption is that you increase the threat to Russia in the case of their first strike, which will be determined by where they're put their money. It is important to take away the lesson from Reagan, when he saw the USSR being financially weak, he believed he could "break" them financially with an arms race utilizing the notion of SDI to cause Russia to pour money into its military arms race. He did accomplish that, even though it cost us a lot as well.