At about 50,000 feet above the earth, the curvature of the earth is quite visible at the horizon. From space it is even more apparent. There are many NASA photographs of this observation, taken from orbit, and from the moon.

As in Afghanistan, Obama blew it by extracting our forces in Iraq too soon. We have paid in blood for that decision. In my view, we should not only continue to decimate ISIS, but also to bolster Iraq militarily against further Iranian incursion and to help stabilize the nation. It would be a good move if we could negotiate a series of three or four permanent land bases in Iraq , several of which should be along the Iranian border to act as blockades against Iran, and to provide us with ready bases from which to attack Iran if and when warranted. I feel that we will have to settle with Iran in the near future.

As I see it, the Atheist's problem is that they must devise their own version of morality without any help from God. It is comforting to note that they quite often select moral virtues that are close to Christianity, but refuse to believe that God had a hand in shaping even their morals. Of course, in their view, no fire and brimstone is in the offing if they do violate some moral code or commandment. The atheist has a more difficult time justifying his decisions about morals, which provides us with a point of attack in debates that is of a much higher order than the immediate subject, and hence tends to put the liberal atheist off his game.

Regarding my posts above, I have modified my position to include the B-2 Bomber as the one aircraft that could sneak up to the borders of the NK and let loose multiple CBU-105s on the artillery threatening Seoul. I suggested that a number of sorties would be required to silence most of the artillery.

The other more general weapon we could use is a series of nuclear EMP blasts that would stop most electronics from working in an instant, and keep them out of service for a long time through successive blasts. This would stop most missile systems, tanks, artillery, trucks, vehicles and all radar and communications throughout the effective area dead in their tracks. This would negate their air defenses as well, allowing our planes to roam freely over NK to take out all significant targets, of course, between the blasts not during them! There would be few if any personnel casualties from the EMP blasts at altitude, except possibly for those NK people flying at the time.

The one weapon we have that fits the mission to neutralize the NK artillery is the B-2. It is a stealth bomber that can carry a huge load of air to ground missiles. It is the one weapon that could sneak up to the DMZ, or any border, and unload a bay full of JDAMS/CBU-105s, and we have some 18 B-2s in service. That is the preferred attack mode, but it would take a number of B-2s to do the job. The first warning the NK would have is a rain of skeets on their artillery. This has a chance of diminishing the lethality of the NK artillery significantly, though it depends on just how hidden the artillery is before running out to fire.

The theory of "time constants" applies here: If the NK starts the war, the time to devastate Seoul is about 60 to 120 seconds. The time for them to roll tanks across the border is about 60 to 120 minutes. The time for them to hit major cities in Japan is about 10 to 15 minutes. The time to hit the US is about 35 to 40 minutes. It would appear then, that the NK would have a tactical advantage if they started the war, that is, they would do a lot of damage before we could react. Strategically, that would ensure the end of most life in the NK as we would respond to their attack with great force---nuclear, if they had used nuclear.

If we decide to strike first, the time constants become more difficult for us. To mount a major air attack from Guam. or Japan, or even SK would take significant time to assemble a major force of aircraft and fly them to their launch points, perhaps 2 to 4 hours, which would give the NK advanced warning of the attack of about 60 to 120 minutes, or even more. The same is true for Tomahawk missiles launched from a sub off the NK coast, or perhaps a bit less, say 15 to 30 minutes. Launching nuclear missiles from the US has about the same timing as the NK does, about 35 to 40 minutes. It is almost certain, then, that our attack start would be detected by the NK well in advance of most of the NK action times. This means that Seoul will be under heavy bombardment long before we could take out the NK artillery.

From all of this, one could conclude that the only way to save Seoul from total devastation is a surprise attack on the NK artillery and missile emplacements north of Seoul. That is our challenge. How to bring our forces close enough to launch airborne or other missiles into the area north of the DMZ from Seoul without tipping the NK off early enough for them to start their barrages on Seoul. It is a matter of maybe 30 to 60 seconds at best!

My take here is that Seoul will be hit heavily under almost any scenario, even if we do take them by surprise, since all they have to do is give the go signal and pull lanyards on their artillery pieces to effect a major barrage. We will surely knock many of them out in what follows, saving Seoul from subsequent barrages, but at great cost to the SK. As many have said, this war would be very ugly!

A very helpful post!

From my somewhat limited experience, I would add several suggestions:

1) Be sure of your facts since they are susceptible to challenge;

2) Be sure of your sources if you intend to reply to the obvious question "What is your source for that?";

3) Be familiar with the main logical fallacy arguments, since Liberals use them a lot, especially the ad hominem fallacy!; and finally,

4) Be sure and be very comfortable with your conservative principles and how they relate to today's world of Liberal utopian fantasies.

I suppose it goes without saying that you should stay calm, cool and collected, and master of yourself in the face of the usual vituperations a Liberal will use.

I have found it useful to start off with a question to the Liberal: Are you an atheist or agnostic?. Their reply is quite often YES, which colors just about every idea thereafter, especially questions about morality.

I thought it appropriate to seek out where God said that:

God is the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6).

I fumbled the reply, midnite. I am not in Twitter, but on your recommendation I will set it up.

Sources: (Amended to include the contribution of the Iroquois.))
The Bible;
The Torah;
Avoidance of Ruler's Law;
Avoidance of Anarchy;
Avoidance of Collectivism
Early People's Law of Israel;
Early Greek Law;
Early Roman Law;
Cicero's Commentary on Law;
Natural Law of St. Thomas Aquinas;
Anglo-Saxon Law;
British Common Law;
The Great Law of Peace (from the Iroquois)
The Federalist Papers.

The concepts of Just War and Just Killing come to the fore in any discussion of the death penalty. I find it very odd indeed that some people believe in Just War, but do not believe in Just Killing. It is much more understandable if people believe in both or neither! I believe in both, but with heavy emphasis on what constitutes Just. Why should the murderer of my daughter languish in jail, able to think, dream, read, watch TV, and have three meals a day, while my daughter lies cold in her grave? An eye for an eye, I say!

If you do not believe in either Just War or Just Killing, I suggest that you are a pacifist, and a conscientious objector, and are not to be counted upon to defend either the nation or your family when needed.

Far too many Americans are unaware of the serious threat Islam poses to the nation. I suggest that 98% of our people have not read the Koran, the Surah, or Sharia Law, but operate on the principles of Christian humanity and moral suasion to welcome Muslims into the nation. I further suggest that it is not only the Jihadists we should work against, but rather, all Muslims, since they all share the same doctrine of death to the infidel.

I did say soldiers, sailors and airmen. I should have added marines! First in battle!

Semper Fi!