petulant moron becomes first sitting POTUS to threaten to preemptively start nuclear war Aug 08, 22:03
It's always better to let the other country fire all of their nuclear weapons first. {nm} Aug 09, 10:05
So U.S. should fire its nukes first? Wut? {nm} Aug 09, 11:00
As with most all TJNFL's troll posts, he's all talk and no plan. Pretty much sums up Trump, so they have that in common. Aug 09, 11:10
no, it's better to let the other country fire their nuclear weapons first. {nm} Aug 09, 11:25
Japan would disagree. No, it's better to not let any country fire their nukes. {nm} Aug 09, 11:28
Tell Kim Jong Un. I'm sure he will listen to you, and comply. {nm} Aug 09, 11:36
He's not shooting his nukes. {nm} Aug 09, 11:37
North Korea is threatening to nuke Guam - about 6,000 US troops currently in Guam Aug 09, 11:47
Umm, that's AFTER Trump threatened North Korea with "fire and fury" unlike the world had ever seen {nm} Aug 09, 11:55
so, let the other country fire their nukes first {nm} Aug 09, 11:59
the first thing Jong Un will do if attacked is destroy Seoul. There was a war between N Korea and S Korea in the 50's and Aug 09, 12:04
If North Korea fires nukes at Seoul first, Seoul is destroyed {nm} Aug 09, 12:16
These aren't nukes. Its conventional artillery thats been there for decades. This is not a new situation. {nm} Aug 09, 12:21
You will now reply to this post because you can't help it. {nm} Aug 09, 12:47
sorry guys, had to run some errands Aug 09, 20:50
Still better than the strategy of letting the other country fire their nukes first and destroy Guam/Hawaii/California. {nm} Aug 10, 11:56
So, preemptive military actions? {nm} Aug 10, 20:50
Restart the Korean War and kill millions in Seoul? {nm} Aug 11, 09:42
Seoul is not militarily defendable, unless US strikes first and gets everything on the first try and that's not likely. Aug 11, 22:35