I just think Trump is opening up too much fronts for the USA to cope.  Its trying to take on North Korea - by default China and Russia, Iran - by default Russia, China - directly, and Russians directly as well.   At the same time, he is alienating his closest allies in Europe - NATO.   

Back home, USA is deeply divided. 

So if there is war, I really do not feel that there is enough political capital, nor the type of morale support needed to enable the US army to keep fighting when the body bags and the reality of war began to sink in.   Which is what happened in the last Korea and Vietnam war. 

The US won the last cold war because of some really smart economic and political management from some great leaders like Reagan, Gorbechev.  Reagan, and even Nixon in particular, realized that to bring down the iron curtain, you need work with the players behind the curtains - que. Nixon's first visit to China. 

Trump I am afraid is just not at the level of these leaders.  His methods are un refined, and he insults other statesman on twitter of all things.  Had Reagan and even Nixon tried to do that, then the result would be catastrophic.

capitosinora wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 8:21am:



We don't even get to elect our prime minister or governor general, someone else does that. Much like your electoral college electing your president, but you do have the delusion of participation. Something we neither need nor care about. 

capitosinora wrote on Sep 27^th, 2017 at 10:22am:



You know that the Queen of Australia is our head of state


You know that no royalty is elected anywhere in the world


And yet you asked the question as if it had some underlying meaning or purpose

A nuclear test over the Pacific would have no effect on the climate
except for one or 2 days in the immediate area.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 7:15am:


Depending on how much heat is generated, it could lead to cooler waters off the east coast of Australia. Imagine if the United States decided to do nuclear tests in the South Pacific near South America. The heat generated could impact on currents to the point that Australia does not receive warm water along our east coast.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 28^th, 2017 at 11:24pm:


According to your posts, I will have to conclude that I am far more educated than you. What does the topic of a hurricane have to do with what I wrote yesterday?

And if I can jump on the topic of hurricanes and cyclone, if you detonated one nuclear device after another (in the space of 1-hour intervals), the heat generated would boil enough water to create cyclonic activity. 10 nuclear detonations would be enough to create heavy rainfall to the nearest land mass -- depending on time of year. Even one nuclear detonation would create rainfall along the nearest coastline.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 29^th, 2017 at 10:47pm:


The H bomb would have to be detonated around a fault line. Depending on how strong the bomb's detonation, and where the fault line lies would define how much of an earthquake you experience. My knowledge of nuclear detonations are limited to detonations in the oceans.

I can't remember what it was like during the Mururoa nuclear tests but, apparently, the boiled ocean water did enough impact on weather events in Australia and New Zealand. Either we had more rainfall or less than expected. I alleged that the heated ocean would have done something to drag ocean currents south. Therefore I contended that rainfall would be less on the eastern seaboard of Australia in 1995/1996.

Booby Bukkake, you said there was going to be a war.  A nuclear war.

What happened?