Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure the first operational nuclear bomb was during Obama and the dem congess in 2009.
You just moved your goal post from 1963 to 2009.
Wrong you are mixing apples with oranges. 1962 was building a nuclear power plant with soviet assistance. In the 80s it was building nuclear weapons with their own technology. See the difference. Even the soviets were not so stupid as to NK nuclear weapons technology.
Wrong you are mixing apples with oranges. 1962 was building a nuclear power plant. In the 80s it was building nuclear weapons. See the difference. Even the soviets were not so stupid as to NK nuclear weapons technology.
Lol.
The same soviets wanting to park nukes 90 miles off our shores and took us to the brink of war? Those soviets?
Bless your heart. Didn't you not bother to read it at all?
#1 "Probably a fizzle" i.e. Didn't work. 2006
#2 "Considered successful" ~2.5KT 2009 (go look at what I posted)
Time to give it up. You clearly had no idea what you were saying when you said they would get the bomb due to Trump. They got the bomb during Obama's term.
Your posts here are nothing but bogus arguments against Trump. This proves it 100%.
I never heard Obama say that he wasn't bothered by it.
This discussion has flew right over your head. Re-read my post. Did the Soviets give nuclear weapons technology to Cuba?
Lol.
Talk about going over one's head.
If you can't understand that different situations call for different approaches....
Let me enilighten you.
With Cuba, the strategy was to have offensive nukes in place immediately. They thought they could have them in place secretly, and once they were established, keep them there. They didn't realize the US would discover them so quickly or be as confrontational about it.
Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, it would have been a fool's errand to directly send nukes to NK and provoke al US response like that of Cuba. However, by providing the start of a nuke program under the guise of helping with power, they could start the long game.
If this still went over your head, let me know and I'll simplify it more for you.
If you can't understand that different situations call for different approaches....
Let me enilighten you.
With Cuba, the strategy was to have offensive nukes in place immediately. They thought they could have them in place secretly, and once they were established, keep them there. They didn't realize the US would discover them so quickly or be as confrontational about it.
Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, it would have been a fool's errand to directly send nukes to NK and provoke al US response like that of Cuba. However, by providing the start of a nuke program under the guise of helping with power, they could start the long game.
If this still went over your head, let me know and I'll simplify it more for you.
Your analysis is way off and completely wrong. Why would the Soviets transfer nuclear weapons technology to a nation as unstable as NK? That the Soviets intended or wanted the NKoreans to develop their own nuclear weapons is ridiculous. Furthermore by 1963, relations with the Soviets were already fraying. As I said building a nuclear power plant and nuclear weapons technology are not the same to those of us living in the real world.
That you would even argue the point shows profound lack of knowledge in this area.
Last edited by TreeBeard; 05-27-2019 at 10:29 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.