equivalent would be like

The person who throws the first punch is normally the winner of the fight @Marushia Dark

surgical strikes on insurgent training centers

again, the more time passes the more countries become nuclear powers

you are confusing proxy wars/occupations with actual wars in which both parties survival are at stake

the moment a country has a nuke, the game changes

@Lucienne d'Anwyl this dumb nigger is honestly saying that we should wait around until China or Russia or some sandniggers or North Korea say "you know what, we're gonna prepare to take down america, but only when we're ready and there's no chance of them winning", and not do FUCKING ANYTHING until they bomb the fuck out of us with their superior army.

this encourages nuclear proliferation more than anything

North Korea is never going to bomb America dude <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

Let's take your example of nukes. Everyone was worried about North Korea, right? And Iran? Let's supposing one of these regimes actually manages to take out a city. Well, we will drop the sky on them and leave their entire country a smoking irradiated, barren crater for the next five thousand years. They know it, we know it. It's why the Cold War never turned hot, and it's why - coupled with the fact that we can shoot down ICBMs - that an all-out nuclear war is unlikely to happen.

They will bomb south korea or japan before then

@Marushia Dark okay, in your wonderful idea of not pre-emptively attacking, whats stopping them from having enough nukes to level our country, and then launching?

it's not about bombing America; it's about bombing an ally of america under treaty requiring america to respond in turn

nothing.

And even then they wont bomb them without China's say so

Go look up the Asian continent and how China actually controls the neighbouring countries

@ManAnimal i cant belive im fucking agreeing with manimal

I agree with that @Marushia Dark however in the event one starts to support pre-emptive warfare that changes

@Spooky Melon Which country are you referring to exactly? Doesn't matter if they have nukes if they have no reason to use them, now doesn't it? UK and France have nukes, but they're our allies. NK has nukes, but if they make peace with SK and agree to leave Japan and the US alone, neither side has beef, so why do we care at that point?

Touch penis

BENIS

ebin based gommunism ?

It's great to know my state is more worried about white supremacists in schools than the turds overflowing the streets

@Marushia Dark okay, lets take the example of North Korea, if Trump hadn't succeeded at diplomacy. **leaving them undisturbed**, whats stopping them from waiting around until they have 2000 nukes, might take a few years, and then launching?

I cant imagine how fucking deluded someone has to be

our pre-emptive strike?

oh wait

"it's not about bombing America; it's about bombing an ally of america under treaty requiring america to respond in turn"

And that entanglement of alliances is what actually led to WWI being more than just a spat between the Austrians and the Slavs

at a certain point, virtually every country with have a nuclear weapon. at that point any incursion risks a nuclear exchange

to think white supremacy is the primary issue in the states

correct

@Marushia Dark so we should never form alliances?

any countries?

ever?

he didn't say that

okay, but then WW1 happens.

Id also point out define ally

he just pointed out the historical precedent

show me where america has protection treaty with kurdish syria

Turkey = Nato