Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yeager on April 25, 2006, 07:10:49 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/25/iran.rice.ap/index.html
Kinda makes a fella feel warm all over.....
Of course the liberals, and euros would tell you that Islam has every right to protect itself from the great satan.....even though these people enjoy killing themselves by exploding things in crowded places.
I guess just as long as they are the blue dots on the map.....
-
The blues die in the future during nuclear holocaust, the reds rebuild America strong again. Darwins theory of the strongest surviving. :aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/25/iran.rice.ap/index.html
Kinda makes a fella feel warm all over.....
Of course the liberals, and euros would tell you that Islam has every right to protect itself from the great satan.....even though these people enjoy killing themselves by exploding things in crowded places.
I guess just as long as they are the blue dots on the map.....
Pakistan is Islamic country, right? Thy are our allies and they have nukes?right?
So why you generalize Iran as all Islam people?
-
When are we going to attack Brazil?
-
while its supreme leader said Tehran was ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries
That alone should be enough to want to stop them. Unfettered proliferation to any nutbag third world country would be a disaster waiting to happen.
Pakistan is Islamic country, right? Thy are our allies and they have nukes?right?
So why you generalize Iran as all Islam people?
Ramzey fwiw we (the US) did punish pakistan for violiating their agreement in the prolifereation treaty. They had several brokered arms deals to include F16s that never got delivered because of it.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
When are we going to attack Brazil?
NO WAR FOR NUTS!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Ramzey fwiw we (the US) did punish pakistan for violiating their agreement in the prolifereation treaty. They had several brokered arms deals to include F16s that never got delivered because of it.
Have we treat them about bombing their plants beucose of that?
Turkey is Islamic but member of NATO.
We cant flame one relligion beucose of one country politic.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Have we treat them about bombing their plants beucose of that?
Turkey is Islamic but member of NATO.
We cant flame one relligion beucose of one country politic.
Sure we can. Iran want's to wage war on "the west" they are islamic.....it fits.
-
When oh when will you ever learn? Obviously, never.
For a century now, US interference in the domestic affairs of another country has come back to haunt it.
Iran was a friend of the US.
The present generation of Iranians distrust and dislike the UK and US because their parents lived under a brutal dictator, installed after the peaceful and thriving democracy of Iran was overthrown by the US and UK to protect the interests of the UK oil business in Iran. They wanted to keep the Iranians barefoot and poor while sucking the oil and gas wealth out the ground. The democracy of Iran wanted to end foreign interference and control of its resources.
If the US was overthrown by a larger power that you admired and trusted, but betrayed you, and you lived under a brutal dictator supported by that power, what would you teach your children?
Not one of the hostages from the embassy was killed, because the Iranians were not inhumane. They simply wanted the dictator returned from safe harbor in the US.
Learn some history, Gunslinger.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
When are we going to attack Brazil?
Whelp.. since all the mexicans are here, and all the salvadoran and hondurans are in mexico, and all the brazillians have moved up to salvador and honduras and chavez and the argentinians have moved up to brazil...
..., in answer to your question, i'd say pretty much any day now.
-
does that mean the penguins have invaded argentina? will a penguin get the lead role in evita?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
For a century now, US interference in the domestic affairs of another country has come back to haunt it.
.
Yup help out European governments during ww2.
1st with supplies then with troops.
Then some 60+ years later those same governments stick it to the US every chance they get.
That will teach the us to meddle in euro affairs.
Notice : I am not talking about the people in general. But Euro gov is just as bad as the US gov.
Bronk
-
pssst...it's "nooklar".
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yup help out European governments during ww2.
1st with supplies then with troops.
Then some 60+ years later those same governments stick it to the US every chance they get.
That will teach the us to meddle in euro affairs.
Notice : I am not talking about the people in general. But Euro gov is just as bad as the US gov.
Bronk
I guess everyone who has done something good once in their lifetime should forever be imune to stuff one does for the rest of their lives then.
Great logic Bronk :rofl
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sure we can. Iran want's to wage war on "the west" they are islamic.....it fits.
Propaganda war, do you remember mobile WMD production units, secret balistic missles .........
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Sure we can. Iran want's to wage war on "the west" they are islamic.....it fits.
So how do you suppose it is them who want to wage war?
How many countries Iran has invaded on last/current century?
Is Iran threatening to invade anyone?
WHich one it is: is Iran current threatening to invade, or is somebody speaking about invading/bombing them?
Any sovereign country has the right for self-defence. So far Iran hasn't made any moves to threaten anyone.
-
they invaded irak, they deserve to be pwnd
-
Originally posted by Debonair
they invaded irak, they deserve to be pwnd
:D
-
Originally posted by Debonair
they invaded irak, they deserve to be pwnd
so tell me when smartass?
-
1982-1988...and thats just how smart my bellybutton is. my head really pwns
-
I think he's just a kid, ramzey. Maybe just letting it go is better?
-
Originally posted by Debonair
1982-1988...and thats just how smart my bellybutton is. my head really pwns
kid just use google and dont spread b***its, ok?
chk 22 september 1980
Rolex, stupidity and ignorance should be pointed at any time, cuz ignorance spread faster then bird flue ;-)
here is som interesting reading
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html
-
Originally posted by ramzey
kid just use google and dont spread b***its, ok?
chk 22 september 1980
Rolex, stupidity and ignorance should be pointed at any time, cuz ignorance spread faster then bird flue ;-)
here is som interesting reading
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-nightline-19920701.html
by the same logic, the US never invaded germany.
we both know that aint how it happened.
P.S. your favorite bookmark is old news, boring.
P.P.S. pwnd
-
Originally posted by Rolex
When oh when will you ever learn? Obviously, never.
For a century now, US interference in the domestic affairs of another country has come back to haunt it.
Iran was a friend of the US.
The present generation of Iranians distrust and dislike the UK and US because their parents lived under a brutal dictator, installed after the peaceful and thriving democracy of Iran was overthrown by the US and UK to protect the interests of the UK oil business in Iran. They wanted to keep the Iranians barefoot and poor while sucking the oil and gas wealth out the ground. The democracy of Iran wanted to end foreign interference and control of its resources.
If the US was overthrown by a larger power that you admired and trusted, but betrayed you, and you lived under a brutal dictator supported by that power, what would you teach your children?
Not one of the hostages from the embassy was killed, because the Iranians were not inhumane. They simply wanted the dictator returned from safe harbor in the US.
Learn some history, Gunslinger.
There aren't too many folks left alive who remember the Shaw---Iran lost MILLIONS in the Iraq war....but, irregardless of how they left what they had, THIS is where they are now:
http://iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2006&m=04&d=15&a=10
During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.
At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."
These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."
The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency.
Ahmadinejad revels in his alliance with the Basiji. He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power," with which he says "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage." Ahmadinejad's ascendance on the shoulders of the Basiji means that the Iranian Revolution, launched almost three decades ago, has entered a new and disturbing phase. A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders.
The Basiji's cult of self-destruction would be chilling in any country. In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, however, its obsession with martyrdom amounts to a lit fuse. Nowadays, Basiji are sent not into the desert, but rather into the laboratory. Basij students are encouraged to enroll in technical and scientific disciplines. According to a spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guard, the aim is to use the "technical factor" in order to augment "national security."
What exactly does that mean? Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable--only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.
And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a "worthwhile" outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?" In September 2005, he concluded his first speech before the United Nations by imploring God to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam. He finances a research institute in Tehran whose sole purpose is to study, and, if possible, accelerate the coming of the imam. And, at a theology conference in November 2005, he stressed, "The most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam."
A politics pursued in alliance with a supernatural force is necessarily unpredictable.Why should an Iranian president engage in pragmatic politics when his assumption is that, in three or four years, the savior will appear? If the messiah is coming, why compromise? That is why, up to now, Ahmadinejad has pursued confrontational policies with evident pleasure.
The history of the Basiji shows that we must expect monstrosities from the current Iranian regime. Already, what began in the early '80s with the clearing of minefields by human detonators has spread throughout the Middle East, as suicide bombing has become the terrorist tactic of choice. The motivational shows in the desert--with hired actors in the role of the hidden imam--have evolved into a showdown between a zealous Iranian president and the Western world. And the Basiji who once upon a time wandered the desert armed only with a walking stick is today working as a chemist in a uranium enrichment facility.
If the VAST majority of Iranians were killed due to retaliation for wiping Israel off the map with a nuke....Ahmadinejad and the mullahs (as well as their little version of the Hitler Youth) would be non-plussed--- the greater goals of Islam would have been met. (And they hate westerners only slightly less then Israelis)
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I guess everyone who has done something good once in their lifetime should forever be imune to stuff one does for the rest of their lives then.
Great logic Bronk :rofl
Hows this for not interfering. Next natural disaster the US sends no aid of any kind. Ohh wait a Min we get bs "The US didn't send enough." crap each and every time anyway. All those places want is the $ and for us to bug out. Sorry don't work that way it has been tried , aid some how doesn't go to the people who need it.
So the one time thing just don't really work now does it .
Hows your logic now.
Has your country of origin sent 1/10 the US has sent to ALL natural disaster sights globally?
I'm guessing no.
So sit down and shut up.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Pakistan is Islamic country, right? Thy are our allies and they have nukes?right?
So why you generalize Iran as all Islam people?
Wow, first reply to this thread disarmed and killed the motive of the thread, and with only one sentence.
What is the japanese term for the disipline of trying to start and finish a sword duel with only one stroke?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Hows this for not interfering. Next natural disaster the US sends no aid of any kind. Ohh wait a Min we get bs "The US didn't send enough." crap each and every time anyway. All those places want is the $ and for us to bug out. Sorry don't work that way it has been tried , aid some how doesn't go to the people who need it.
So the one time thing just don't really work now does it .
Hows your logic now.
Has your country of origin sent 1/10 the US has sent to ALL natural disaster sights globally?
I'm guessing no.
So sit down and shut up.
Bronk
LMAO
First of all my country has sent plenty, and give more than yours do (per capita). We also offered to help when Catrina struck so you sit down and shut up Bronk.
Have a nice day Bronk :rofl
-
Originally posted by Debonair
1982-1988...and thats just how smart my bellybutton is. my head really pwns
Spend more time in school. Iraq invaded Iran which started the Iraq-Iran War that lasted a little over 8 years.
ack-ack
-
What is the japanese term for the disipline of trying to start and finish a sword duel with only one stroke?
iaijutsu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iaijutsu
DoctorYo
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Spend more time in school. Iraq invaded Iran which started the Iraq-Iran War that lasted a little over 8 years.
ack-ack
Its not that simple. True, Iraq declared war, but only after a long history of border disputes, mostly started by Iran, and demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime by Iran, and secret encouragement by the US administration (Jimmy Carter, conveyed through Saudi Arabia) which was in its own dispute with the new regime in Iran (Iran Hostages).
-
Originally posted by storch
does that mean the penguins have invaded argentina? will a penguin get the lead role in evita?
Eventually some penguin will launch a singing career and dress like a slut.. so ya it will happen:lol
-
I know I'm not as smart as the rest of you when it comes to war and stuff like that, but I believe what I believe, and I know what I feel is right, and personally I wouldn't give a madman a nucler bomb, nor would I let him or any of his closest friends (countries) develope them either.
But who am I to make policies?
Ever see Planet of the Apes? The forbiden zone used to be the east coast of the United States.
-
We have more DPCIMs than they have loons wraped in blankets.
Is there any doubt at how 3rd world banana republic these savages are?, kids in blankets to clear minefields?... lol suckers.
My wife was born in Iran, grew up there for a bit, well educated speaks 5 languages and all that... she and her friends don't have national pride at the govt slaughtering kids, they laugh at the stupid rhetoric and transparent brain washing... just like we do. Of course she can do that now that shes in the US, laughing at the lunatic fringe while in Iran is a health hazard.
-
Originally posted by Grendel
So how do you suppose it is them who want to wage war?
How many countries Iran has invaded on last/current century?
Is Iran threatening to invade anyone?
WHich one it is: is Iran current threatening to invade, or is somebody speaking about invading/bombing them?
Any sovereign country has the right for self-defence. So far Iran hasn't made any moves to threaten anyone.
you have tunnel vision. Invasion isn't the only form of aggression.
The president of Iran has clearly stated
1. He wants to wipe israel off the map
2. He will supply other muslim nations with nuke technoligy
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
you have tunnel vision. Invasion isn't the only form of aggression.
The president of Iran has clearly stated
1. He wants to wipe israel off the map
2. He will supply other muslim nations with nuke technoligy
tunnel vision?lol
The president's of US since 20 years treat Iran about bombing their land.
US support Iraq with chemical weapon to be used against Iran.
US Navy start several accidents wich can drive to war.
Arabs talking about wiping out israel is same treat as Russians treating western countries about invading them in could war. Nothing is going to happend.
Media war just speed up rising gas prices, whos interest is that?
Im not supporting iranian or any other country nuclear weapon program, im against any kind of WMD.
But treating other country we could expect they gonna treat us back. right? just to keep face
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
We have more DPCIMs than they have loons wraped in blankets.
LOL!
'loons wraped in blankets'
hehehhehehheehhahahhahhhahhaj jajjaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..
now, that just sounds....
..right
wonder how long it'll take for that one to land on the 'PC Proscribed' list.
:aok Good one, Marine!
-
Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Iranies. Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about nuclear combat. I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump - we got some flyin' to do.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
tunnel vision?lol
The president's of US since 20 years treat Iran about bombing their land.
US support Iraq with chemical weapon to be used against Iran.
US Navy start several accidents wich can drive to war.
Arabs talking about wiping out israel is same treat as Russians treating western countries about invading them in could war. Nothing is going to happend.
Media war just speed up rising gas prices, whos interest is that?
Im not supporting iranian or any other country nuclear weapon program, im against any kind of WMD.
But treating other country we could expect they gonna treat us back. right? just to keep face
wow something with some oomph. Not just retoric about "well they havn't invaded any body so they must be OK" because when those comments get made that's exactly the kind of tunnle vision I was talking about.
NEWSFLASH:
US STANCE ON IRAN IS TO USE DIPLOMACY UNTIL IT DOESNT WORK ANYMORE. Reguardless of what the US has done in the past we all live in the present. That means that what happens NOW effects (or is it affects? I can never remember) us now. If a president of a hostile nation starts spouting off that he wants to give nukes to the rest of the muslim world that scares me.
-
Looks like we invaded the wrong country there Gun, eh?
Maxwell Smart voice on/ "Missed it by >< that much" /Maxwell Smart voice off.
Keep those Fighting Keyboardists divisions ready!!
-
If the U.S. attacks Iran and Russia is one of Iran's closest allies won't Russia see the attacks as a act of aggresion or war????:confused: :noid
-
russia?
russia who?
-
Is there any such a thing as a purely "tactical" nuke?
Was there ever?
Insane gibberish. Use a nuke, and it's automatic strategical. Automatic political.
But who needs nukes anyways?
Scrape all of these 101st Fighting Keyboardists up off of their Lazy Boys and chute 'em in the desert. That should do it.
Take radical measures to hydrate them.... Give them the sacred object of their precious 2nd ammendment, point 'em in the right direction.... and go back to reading the sports section and wincing every time you come across an article that points out how bad things are going with them.
Hello and welcome to your foreign policy.
-
could it be.... ??
-
:rofl
-
(http://www.radgraphics.net/images/main/ArtilleryShell.jpg)
ALL UR BASE R BELONG TO US!111!1!!1!!!
-
That's some really hilarious stuff.
-
Yeah, it is kinda funny...kinda.
-
Here's something for ya Nash.
(http://daddytypes.com/archive/huggable_mushroom_cloud.jpg)
Even cuter, though, and more thoughtful, was the Huggable Atomic Mushroom Cloud by the British design duo Dunne and Raby. As their website says, the Mushroom "is for people who are afraid of nuclear annihilation. Like treatments for phobias, they allow for gradual exposure through different sizes."
-
lunatic
-
Originally posted by Nash
Is there any such a thing as a purely "tactical" nuke?
Was there ever?
Insane gibberish. Use a nuke, and it's automatic strategical. Automatic political.
But who needs nukes anyways?
Scrape all of these 101st Fighting Keyboardists up off of their Lazy Boys and chute 'em in the desert. That should do it.
Take radical measures to hydrate them.... Give them the sacred object of their precious 2nd ammendment, point 'em in the right direction.... and go back to reading the sports section and wincing every time you come across an article that points out how bad things are going with them.
Hello and welcome to your foreign policy.
Yup tactical nukes where designed to help fend off a soviet armor invasion into germany. Most where small enough to be deployed by medium to light attack air craft and even artillery as well. In Alaska the defense plan was to use tactical air to air and surface to air nukes to fend off massive russian bomber formations. In a military sense all of these weapons posed a "tactical" use.
-
Thread title reminds me of an old tune a local DJ did here. We had a DJ named Carl P. Mayfield (http://www.carlp.com), and he had a group called Carl P. Mayfield and the Rich and Famous Band, several big name southern rock musicians sat in on a regular basis. During the Iran hostage crisis, he did a song called "Let's Make Islamic Atomic". Not really politically correct, but it was really funny.
-
Originally posted by ramzey
Pakistan is Islamic country, right? Thy are our allies and they have nukes?right?
So why you generalize Iran as all Islam people?
Dammit ramzey you libral!! Next, you'll be asking why is pakistan our ally when they are harboring bin laden? See, my child, you just dont understand politics:huh
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yup tactical nukes where designed to help fend off a soviet armor invasion into germany. Most where small enough to be deployed by medium to light attack air craft and even artillery as well. In Alaska the defense plan was to use tactical air to air and surface to air nukes to fend off massive russian bomber formations. In a military sense all of these weapons posed a "tactical" use.
Guns,
Don't you realize that nash with his extensive military experiance is an expert in military matters? how DARE you question his absolute mastery and long distinguished service in uniform.... in some uniform..... well maybe he saw a uniform once, but he is still the emminent expert in military matters especially the part about volunteering others to do what he has not. Don't you realize that it is far more effective to merely complain from the sidelines and point out the foibles of others rather than make any contributions of your own? I mean really, shame on you Guns! :furious
-
I simply said, Maverick, that a so-called "tactical" nuke becomes both a "strategic" nuke and "political" nuke, the minute that the "tactical" nuke gets launched.
You don't think so? No? Explain how it wouldn't be, please.... I'd love to hear it.
We're not talking about "fending off a soviet armor invasion into germany" here, mmkay?
Nice little write-up, by the way, on how you need to wear a uniform to spot the difference. Appearently it aint helping you out much.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Scrape all of these 101st Fighting Keyboardists up off of their Lazy Boys and chute 'em in the desert. That should do it.
Take radical measures to hydrate them.... Give them the sacred object of their precious 2nd ammendment, point 'em in the right direction.... and go back to reading the sports section and wincing every time you come across an article that points out how bad things are going with them.
Hello and welcome to your foreign policy.
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Our foreign policy doesn't involve the use of our civilians. We do have a professional military.
As they said, "Iraq went from the fourth-largest army in the world to the second-largest army in Iraq in 100 hours". They were soundly defeated in fourd days.
In round two, it was Baghdad in three weeks.
Second point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Some of those that you deride here as "101st Fighting Keyboardists " served during this or previous wars or during the Cold War.
In your attempt to demean others, you demean yourself with those words.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Our foreign policy doesn't involve the use of our civilians.
Hmm... You might want to tell your Secretary of Defence about this new rule.
Originally posted by Toad
Second point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Some of those that you deride here as "101st Fighting Keyboardists " served during this or previous wars or during the Cold War.
Some, not all....
-
And those "some" might be offended as I am. I am tempted to offer you the opportunity to...let's see... pc would be "byte me".
As for your intimation that civilian posters here should be sent into combat to fight our wars, I'll say again we don't do that. It's a volunteer force right now and, as I pointed out, quite competent.
-
Okay, so you concede, contrary to your "point of order" post, that your entire military is run by a civilian.
And all this in the name of a post by you defending Maverick's assertion that you need to wear a uniform to understand the consequences of launching nukes. I think you picked the wrong fight here man.
I do maintain that if you believe strongly in a war, you should man-up and fight it, if possible. I sure as hell would - I kid you not.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I do maintain that if you believe strongly in a war, you should man-up and fight it, if possible. I sure as hell would - I kid you not.
You are such a work of art!
Fighting wars cannot be avoided, it's human nature and a fact of our existence. You better start using your brain.
Hey, didn't "war" defeat the Nazis?
-
Huh?
-
Nash, what war in history would you have "manned up" and fought in?
(of course, you now have 20/20 hindsight)
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay, so you concede, contrary to your "point of order" post, that your entire military is run by a civilian.
[/b]
That's it? We have a civilian SecDef? Yah, our military doesn't run the country, you're right. OTOH, our SecDef doesn't "man-up and fight" the wars he oversees. Never has.
Or were you solely referring to the SecDef as a 101st Fighting Keyboardist?
And all this in the name of a post by you defending Maverick's assertion that you need to wear a uniform to understand the consequences of launching nukes. I think you picked the wrong fight here man.
[/b]
I didn't pick any fight.
I am not defending Maverick's post.
I'm challenging your earlier characterization of posters here that you dislike, or that you disagree with as "101st Fighting Keyboardists".
A lot of guys here "manned-up" and fought. Or "manned-up" and served. Whether I agree with all of them or not is immaterial to me. IMO, they earned the right to speak of these things without being maligned.
I do maintain that if you believe strongly in a war, you should it, if possible. I sure as hell would - I kid you not.
I did. I would again.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash, what war in history would you have "manned up" and fought in?
(of course, you now have 20/20 hindsight)
WWII... and....
.....uhm, yeah, that's it so far.
Certainly not WWI.
Korea? Not so much. I don't think the "domino effect" argument had real legs. That's easy to say with hindsight, but I probably would have questioned it back then. And now, the countrty is divided in half, and that war has to this day, never ended.
Vietnam? Fahgedaboudit. Come on.
Don't get me wrong though, the Cold War was indeed a war, and well fought, and took many a man's determination and sacrifice. But I was in highschool when Gorby put the kybosh on it.
Prior to WWI?
I would have been real busy in the 1700's and 1800's.
And.... well that's the end of show-and-tell.
What's it to you anyways, Nuke?
-
Originally posted by Nash
WWII... and....
.....uhm, yeah, that's it so far.
Certainly not WWI.
Korea? Not so much. I don't think the "domino effect" argument had real legs. That's easy to say with hindsight, but I probably would have questioned it back then. And now, the countrty is divided in half, and that war has to this day, never ended.
Vietnam? Fahgedaboudit. Come on.
Don't get me wrong though, the Cold War was indeed a war, and well fought, and took many a man's determination and sacrifice. But I was in highschool when Gorby put the kybosh on it.
Prior to WWI?
I would have been real busy in the 1700's and 1800's.
And.... well that's the end of show-and-tell.
What's it to you anyways, Nuke?
like I said, 20/20 hindsight.
I'm pretty intelligent. Maybe you should consider chess rather than checkers when you reply to my posts.
-
I wish I'd have been in on the whiskey rebellion.
pwnage & drinks, sound nice
-
Originally posted by Toad
That's it? We have a civilian SecDef? Yah, our military doesn't run the country, you're right. OTOH, our SecDef doesn't "man-up and fight" the wars he oversees. Never has.[/b]
Settle down.
Maverick derides me for having an opinion wrt the use of Nukes when I am not military.
I called bs.
You went off, all "offended," saying: "Our foreign policy doesn't involve the use of our civilians."
I said that the guy who actually gives the military its orders is a civilian.
Okay?
Now you wanna get all nutso?
All I said, bro, was that there is no such thing as this outdated term: "tactical nuke."
Doesn't exist. Doesn't get fired off in some vacuum. Because the minute that it does, it's way more political than it ever was tactical.
You got something to say about that? Or would you rather stay all uniform, serving, self-righteous?
-
Nash says he would have "manned up" and fought in WWII.
Why Nash? what would you have been fighting for?
-
Chess/checkers
-
You'll note my first post came late to this thread. It addresses your first post in this thread and deals specifically with your "101st Fighting Keyboardist" remark.
That is what caused me to post. You malign a lot of people who did serve but have the audacity to disagree with you. Forgive me for expecting more.
As for tactical, there is a specific definition for a "tactical nuke".
Can a "tactical nuke" be used as part of a "strategic" policy?
Yeah, so can a tank, a rifle or an ICBM.
-
nash,
Quick and dirty response as I don't have time to stay at the keyboard today, I don't even have time to do a spell check, sorry.
As to your assertion that a nuke makes a strategic vs tactical operation, bovine feces. It is an explosive device of very limited yield. It does not make the enemy any deader than say napalm or shrapnel. That is has other possibly lasting consequences is obvious but hardly the dividing point between strategic, tactical or political considerations. The scope of the conflict can also be defined by the size of the forces and or the goals of the country deploying forces.
The tactical nuke situation already put up on the thread and discarded by you, is the use of a smaller device to stop an already strategic move by a hostile force. This is to influence the cessation of the strategic operation by the country using sizable military assets to achieve a global influential goal. Hence it is already a strategic situation and certainly political a the start of the hostilities, nuke or not.
A strategic nuke would be used against a larger theater target such as the means to continue to wage war, ie military production, mobility assets and the general population of the enemy country, a military and political asset to the beligerant country.
Easy way to think of tactical vs strategic is the immediate goals or targets. Strategic is small influence on a specific area or battlefield. Strategic means the influence of a much larger area or possibly the ability to cause a cessation of an entire country's military effort. This is not to say a tactical operation can't have a strategic influence, it just wasn't intended to do so.
War and the use of the military is by definition a political operation. it is only deployed by a country in an attempt to influence the POLITICAL goals of the country deploying it, hence a military operation is already politically motivated.
Political considerations always drive the use of the military and in this country the civilian politicians are the point of direction for the military, sometimes with less than desirable results from their lack of military abilities. LBJ comes to mind.
The presence of a uniform does not impart military expertise. The lack of any experiance certainly does not lend credence to having any military expertise at all. The lack of ever having served, lack of ability to serve and or lack of inclination to serve the country, community hardly gives anyone the right to volunteer others to do that which they won't do themselves.
In other words, before you invite others to do something, you should first have placed yourself in position to have done that same act. That is a basic tenet of leadership and integrity. Don't tell others to do what you yourself will not do. It's also insulting to deride others who have served because they acted on their beliefs if you are not willing to do the same.
I would say the "101 fighting keyboardist" term fits one who has not or would not serve quite nicely.
BTW Viet Nam and Korea were not divided by the cold war per se. They were divided at the end of WW2.
-
The way it appears to me is that we've actually facilitated or made it easier for Iran to achieve their nuclear ambitions becuase of our invasion of Iraq.
Iran senses, probably correctly, that the International Community tacitly stood by while we invaded Iraq, but won't be so accomodating if we made noise to invade Iran.
Iran's problem would be if they over-played that hand, but due to us spending the bullet, so to speak in Iraq, it makes it harder for us to do the same with Iran, even though it would be more appropiate to do so with Iran.
-
(http://www.comics.com/editoons/varvel/archive/images/varvel2006043053215.gif)
-
So Iran shouldn't have nukes because...
They're Muslim?
or
They're Fundamentalists?
or
Their leaders are loony?
or
They don't recognize Israel?
or
They use bombs on their enemies?
Other than being Muslim, what disqualifies a country from being trusted with nukes?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Iran senses, probably correctly, that the International Community tacitly stood by while we invaded Iraq, but won't be so accomodating if we made noise to invade Iran.
The International Community would piss and moan but they wouldn't DO anything if we did.
That's been proven repeatedly over and over again.
OTOH, I think Iran correctly perceives that our military is worn down and stretched (once again I smile when I think of all the continual assurances we've had since the '60's that we could fight two major wars at one time.) and I think they believe (rightly so) that Bush wouldn't be able to get Congress to sign off on an invasion of Iran.
So, Iran has no reason to fear any action by the US and they never, ever had any reason to fear any UN action.
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
Other than being Muslim, what disqualifies a country from being trusted with nukes?
Having a President that continually suggests wiping another country off the face of the earth?
-
I've never worn a uniform, and I guess that if someone who has wants to say my opinion on topics of war doesn't matter, I really can't argue with them. They're much better people than I.
But I am a civilian and last I checked a few of those 9/11 targets where civilian, as were numerous (want to say majority, don't have the facts) of the targets that have been hit in Israel.
So, though I probably don't have the right to say anything about the war or be hawkish, I think I'll just do it anyway and hope ya'll forgive me. If our soldiers lose, I lose. When I think they're being restricted or hindered in doing their job, or just getting shafted, I'm gonna stand up for them best I can, and either ***** for their cause, or send a phone card (I know, it's meager). And when I see a nation that's poised to hurt the lot of us, I'm going to go hawkish and encourage them to go take care of that mess so cowardly ol' me can sleep safe at night. I'll admit I don't have their courage, but I thank God they do.
If that makes me a poor American, or an insult to the soldiers, my apologies. But thank you anyway.
-
I think your observation is more on the mark, Toad.
-
Toad previously wrote:
Having a President that continually suggests wiping another country off the face of the earth?
Noteworthy that you avoid naming the country which they wish to wipe of the face of the earth.
Would it be our problem if it was Syria?
Will it be our problem the next time Pakistan and India go at it?
Would we rush to defend China?
The topic of this thread, "Islam is going Nuclear", shows the real concern.
-
Anybody here really think that Israel will hesitate to strike pre-emptively with overwhelming force if threatened by an Iran in the final stages of a nuclear program?
Anybody think China, Russia or Pakistan will launch a nuke on Israel in retaliation for Israels pre-emptive blow on Iran's program.. and therby risk our automatic response in kind?
Iran's nuke program is a threat... to Iran. Nobody else.
-
the average iranian doesnt seem to agree hang, they think they have a right like everyone else to the benifits of nuclear energy and aren't at all concerned about nuclear weaponry.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Anybody here really think that Israel will hesitate to strike pre-emptively with overwhelming force if threatened by an Iran in the final stages of a nuclear program?
Anybody think China, Russia or Pakistan will launch a nuke on Israel in retaliation for Israels pre-emptive blow on Iran's program.. and therby risk our automatic response in kind?
Iran's nuke program is a threat... to Iran. Nobody else.
Honestly I do not think russia or anyone else will support Iran in that way. they might support it militarily and such, providing weapons and arms. As far as actual military intervention I do not think Iran has many allies that will come to it's aid in a retalitory sense.
-
I do not think Iran has many allies that will come to it's aid in a retalitory sense.
====
Maybe not with uniformed armies but the guys that lurk in pullover masks will be brought to bear. An attack on Iran by any christian/jew military would unite all of islam in a grand sense. Unlike the unifiying action of the iraqi occupation, which garners more mulim sympathy than active support.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
the average iranian doesnt seem to agree hang, they think they have a right like everyone else to the benifits of nuclear energy and aren't at all concerned about nuclear weaponry.
If they are determined to get nukes, then Israel will certainly accomodate them with a remarkably prompt and efficient delivery.
-
Both Russia and China has invested heavily in Iran's oil industry. I suspect both will go to great lengths to defend their investments.
-
Iran will have nuclear weapons. The US will allow it, even the Isrealis will allow it. Because they know the only thing in the history of mankind that has ensured peace indefinitely between two nations that hate eachother is nuclear weapons. You see nuclear weapons mean mortal peril to the leaders of nations. And lo and behold, when the leaders of a nation realize that it's their own tulips on the line, they find peaceful solution.
Do you really think that nobody knew that india and pakistan were developing nuclear weapons?
Some will say that the religiosity of the nation of Iran will make MAD irrelevant. But I do not believe that the voices of reason in Iran are such simpletons. The president of iran, he's their Reagan. He stands up against the international community, he makes them feel like an iranian is somebody in the global scheme of things. We maintain allies in arabia that have said worse things about Isreal than he has. Bear in mind he lives in a place where the majority of people believe that Isreal orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Compared to the common Iranian, his views on isreal are liberal.
I'm not sure that mutual assured destruction is the correct way to describe what will happen to the pariah state that uses the bomb first. I think just "assured destruction" is a better phrase. Because even if the nuclear aggressor destroys the target country, that aggressor country will be destroyed by one of us other nuclear powers. And nobody else will so much as pen a word of dissaproval as the pariah state is dispatched. You'd be a simpleton to think otherwise, and like I said, I don't think the ranks of iranian leadership are populated wholy by simpletons.
-
^^
Ok, given the 'leaders' in iran are not simpletons, and given they know they'd be flash fried as a result of a ballistic missile attack on a neighbor state..
..what's to keep them from 'getting cute' and providing via cutouts to an orginization like hamas or AQ a suitcase (or conex can) full of death to be delivered to 'the great satan, with love and kisses'?
enh?
Tell me.. you assume that once these islamist nutball leaders you call 'liberal islamists' actually sleep with this stuff under their pillows and that they have 100% control of the people and agencies that are gonna be making the stuff?
Fantasy.
Our best bet is to offer the israli's access to our satellite intel (if they haven't already stolen it from us) and a clear air corridor with mid-air refulers if needed.
Afterwards, we can make indignant noises, compose strongly worded letters of disapoval in the UN mold and maybe cancel an few billion dollars in aid.
Wallah. Problem solved.
-
No it won't be solved, it will just be postponed and a lot of people will suffer and die.
America has been the most free, most prodigious and most physically insecure nuclear power with open borders for decades. If we can keep from losing a suitcase bomb, yes we actually had those, or nuclear artillery shell, then I don't feel so sure that Iran can't.
Iraq will be joining the nuclear gentlemens club soon too. It might be their first order of business after they democratically elect a fundementalist islamic government.
They might not go the route of Iran though, they might opt instead to be america's new Pakistan. That country where Bin Laden probably lives.
-
Suave,
It is not the case that iran "can't" maintain security of it's nuclear arsenal, it's a question of why they should consider giving one to a terrorist organization as not maintaining control of the weapon. If that organization gets a weapon from iran because their stated goal of using it is the same as the stated goal of iran ie wiping Isreal off of the map it has NOT lost control of the weapon, they just got it launched with a plausible deniability that it in fact launched the attack they wanted.
With no real inspections who is to say that instead of 25 serial numbered weapons were created there were in fact 30 and those 5 unlisted weapons are made available to al queda, hamas, the taliban or any other organiation which shares the iranian presidents "liberal views". If the iranian president has "liberal views" compared to the rest of the population why should that make anyone feel more secure that the population would stop the use of their weapons on anyone who does not agree with them? If they are more adamant than their president that the great satan must die and Isreal should be wiped off of the map why should we feel confident that the weapons won't be openly used? Your statements are contradictory.
-
Wow, Bush is using the same arguements for Iran that he did with Iraq. I guess that's not too surprising. What surprises me is that people buy it.
"Rice: Iran Is 'Playing Games' With Offer By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 52 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Iran's offer to let a watchdog agency inspect the country's nuclear facilities is a stalling tactic to avoid U.N. penalties that would further isolate Tehran, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.
"I think they're playing games. But obviously, if they're not playing games, they should come clean. They should stop the enrichment, suspend the enrichment," Rice told ABC's "This Week."
Iran's deputy oil minister played down the chance of U.N. action, saying punishing Tehran would send oil prices even higher.
Tehran on Saturday offered to allow inspections if the U.N. Security Council would turn the dispute over to its nuclear monitor, the International Atomic Energy Agency. An agency report confirmed Iran had successfully produced enriched uranium and defied the Security Council's Friday deadline to stop the process.
Iran maintains it will not make nuclear weapons and does not need or want them. But the United States, Britain and France suspect the intent of the uranium enrichment program is to make nuclear warheads.
..."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060430/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iran
-
Originally posted by dmf
Ever see Planet of the Apes? The forbiden zone used to be the east coast of the United States.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Did you come by your nasty habits all by yourself or were you taught to be an insulting pinhead by your child molesting parents?
Haha, oh man, I hesitated to even dignify that remark with a response, but how do I not point out that you attempt to call me nasty and insulting and then you completely invalidate yourself by making an even more nasty and childish insult?
You are a diamond in the rough! :aok :rofl
-
I always respond on this to BBS personal attacks on women with diatribe several levels higher than the opening insult. In person, it's a quaranteed bellybutton kicking.
Next time you wade into a thread you might want to consider observations and commentary relevant to the thread subject that are not one line insults against the poster.. or you'll wind up with all the negative attention your school counselors tried to tell you you'd get when you act like a ****ing *******.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Wow, Bush is using the same arguements for Iran that he did with Iraq. I guess that's not too surprising. What surprises me is that people buy it.
Ok you have a statement here, I think. Can you expound on it or is it just meant to be a mere sarcastic sound byte with nothing behind it.
I'm looking for what you think is the proper thing to do here. Something other than criticism or an empty phrase like kerry's "I have a plan" or "I'll do it better". Lets have some substance here.
Thrawn, what should be done?
Please note I am NOT saying I am in full support of what is being done now. I just want to know what you say we should be doing about iran.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I always respond on this to BBS personal attacks on women with diatribe several levels higher than the opening insult. In person, it's a quaranteed bellybutton kicking.
Next time you wade into a thread you might want to consider observations and commentary relevant to the thread subject that are not one line insults against the poster.. or you'll wind up with all the negative attention your school counselors tried to tell you you'd get when you act like a ****ing *******.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn, what should be done?
It's not my proposal, someone on here or AGW came up with it, but I support it. I would send them the following letter.
"Dear Iran,
Welcome to the Nuclear Club! If an Iranian nuclear device is detonated within or near the boarders of the United States of America and/or our stated allies, we will turn your country into a glass parking lot.
Have a great day,
Thrawn - God/King of the USA."
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175240&perpage=50&pagenumber=4
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Yup. I'm the angry internet guy, a remarkable piece of work..
tell me..
did yah figure that out all by yerself?
-
So Thrawn the sum total of your strategy is to threaten the country with anhilation if they misbehave. Do you really think they will believe it? What are you going to do if they don't believe it and detonate a nuke in say Vancouver Island or Manhatten. Are you going to respond with nuking one city? Two or five? What will you do for the reaction of the rest of the arab, or muslim if you will, world from your response?
Given a society that believes they are the right hand of God and it is their duty to either convert or destroy non believers, do you really think you can threaten them?
Now assuming that your threat premise is nothing but an attempt to be funny, what is your real idea, or do your really have one? Seriously, I want to know what you think.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Yup. I'm the angry internet guy, a remarkable piece of work..
tell me..
did yah figure that out all by yerself?
Well, credit where credit is due... I had a little help from you:aok
-
I'm hearing that Iran is about a decade or more away from creating even a limited yield nuclear weapon.
What are you hearing?
-
three years
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A98D10AC-0017-4097-9E24-A1E86531A001.htm
-
Not that I doubt that or anything - 'cuz I don't know, and am asking sincerely....
But someone has to be the first to point out the comedy factor of you, Yeager, quoting al jazeera as your source. :)
-
The USA invents the first atomic bomb 61 years ago with (by today's standards) very crude technology...I find it hard to believe an advanced nation like Iran(by 1945 standards) doesn't already have an arsenal of them .
Their problem would be lack of a delivery missle and actual detonation testing.(both would tip their hand)
Like North Korea..I bet they had an atomic egg for some time..They were just waiting to play the nuclear card when they saw fit.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
So Thrawn the sum total of your strategy is to threaten the country with anhilation if they misbehave.
In essance, it's not complete but it would be my jumping off point if Iran demostrated they had the bomb. In the mean time I would support Iran's move to allow inspectors backing.
It all depends on the time frames involved. The Bush administration has stated that they believe Iran is just stalling for time. On the other hand, if one believes that an attack against Iran nuclear science installations will only set Iran back 2-5 years, isn't that also just stalling for time?
It also depends what one's overall strategy would be. Mine would consist of two elements: the defense of the US against a primary nuclear attack; and the defense of the US against follow up nuclear attacks.
In order to accomplish the first goal I would concentrate on securing the US borders. If I had a way-back machine I wouldn't invade Iraq, but instead have gotten congress to allocate funds for tighting the borders up, giving a fraction of the price directly to the border guards, customs etc would have probably made them as close to impregnable as is reasonable. But as I don't have a way-back machine I would cut federal spending to federal entitlement programs. And if congress doesn't like, I would veto the hell out of anything that crossed by desk. (Tightening the borders would also have the side benefit of keeping illegal aliens out.). I recognise that trade must flow, so although the borders would be more secure, I would increase the number of guards and open up more lanes so to speak.
Iran has wierd demographics, they have a crapload of people in their early twenties. I believe they can be an agent for liberalism in their country if they exposed to the benefits of western culture (hence my previously stated "Bomb them with Xboxes and Playstation 2s doctrine"). I also believe that they can be radicalised by attacking their country, let alone starting a aggressive nuclear war with them. I think that if the US attacks Iran it may delay the Iranian nuclear program by a few years but it is all but gauraunteeing a recipical attack in the near future.
There is also a question of legitimacy. If the US attacks Iran they are offering just cause to be attacked to the Iranians. If Iran attacks the US first than the US has just cause. This might not mean alot to the Bush administration, but it should. Having the support of the international community is a good thing. Having your allies confidence is a good thing. They sometimes get intelligence you don't have, they can offer staging areas, logisitcal support, moral support.
Do you really think they will believe it?
Given a society that believes they are the right hand of God and it is their duty to either convert or destroy non believers, do you really think you can threaten them?
I don't know if they will believe it. I know that the Soviets thought it was their undeniable raison d'etre to spread communism and damn the consequences. Yet they sure believed it. I could make an arguement that the US and NATO's "tripwire" policy worked in western Europe for decades against those wackjobs. Perhaps it will work with these wackjobs. But if not, they would still have to get through my kick-ass border security.
What are you going to do if they don't believe it and detonate a nuke in say Vancouver Island or Manhatten. Are you going to respond with nuking one city? Two or five?
My nuclear response would be disproportional in order to make the message clear that the US isn't going to go around trading nuclear blows for blows. I would definately EMP the hell out of them, but I would err (if possible) on the side of not effecting their neighbours and not getting the border areas of Iran. And I would certainly compensate their neighbours if they are effected.
As for physical destruction, I would probably respond with an attack that does about 5X times the damage. I'm really pulling that number out of my bellybutton though, I might go as high as. I would want them to lose five times the people, and five times the total economic cost to the US in capital.
What will you do for the reaction of the rest of the arab, or muslim if you will, world from your response?
What would be the response of rest of the muslim world be to an aggressive nuclear attack from the US verses a defensive one?
Concerning the second part of my stategy, it's possible that whoever won't believe me the first time around, but they sure as **** will after I lob a few nukes in response to a nuclear attack. And I will have the internation community on my side due to the defensive nature of my attack.
Now assuming that your threat premise is nothing but an attempt to be funny, what is your real idea, or do your really have one? Seriously, I want to know what you think.
I hope I have convinced you that I'm serious. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask.
-
Thrawn,
Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate it. It's nice to have a discussion rather than the usual foaming at the mouth diatribes and the inevetable FU's tossed back and forth.
For some of what you potulate I can agree with what you are thinking but I have serious doubts that the "allies" we would have would sit still or support a nuclear response, especially an escalated response as you have outlined. I don't have any doubt that many will be cringing at the thought of several nuclear detonations on their side of the globe and would drop any indications of support for it. They would claim nuclear winter, radiation poisoning and fallout spread as their concerns and may well have a valid concern there. EMP's while less harmfull to the populations will scramble the economies of any nation affected by them as communications, computers and other devices will be trashed unless "hardened".
As to the border. I don't think there is a feasable way to really close it off short of a "Berlin wall" type od response complete with guard towers and mine fields as well as anti tunneling actions. There is simply way too much ground to be covered. Yep you can "fortify" the immediate area around towns and cities but experiance has shown that the coyotes and drug "importers" simply move to the outside of the fortification. Since that border is rather large it would be a MASSIVE undertaking and expensive as hell to say the least.
What is the solution? I don't know but I think sanctions are the first step definately. After that, given the "success" of inspections and inspectors being able to work unhindered by the indigent population in iraq, I don't hold much hope out for that. I am really afraid that there will likely be a pre emptive strike on any and all facilities in iran if they do not cave in very soon. I also think that given China's and Russia's investment in the area and already stated reluctance to consider sanctions for iraq that they will not be imposed since there are 2 veto's there in the UN. If they are unwilling to consider mere economic sanctions I doubt they will condone a military response by the UN, not that the UN will act fast enough anyhow.
This is indeed "interesting times" as the chineese curse says. I wonder where the proper route is to solve the problem. Given iran's aggressive rhetoric the stage is getting smaller and the room to move is shrinking the more agressive they get.
-
In any use of a nuclear weapon against the US you still have the problem of identifying the source.
As has been pointed out the "nuclear fingerprint" file for NK, Pakistani or Iranian uranium does not exist. There's probably a few others that don't exist as well.
So if a weapon goes off in NYC or DC and the source can't be identified.... to whom do you reply in kind?
That question has yet to be answered by anyone here.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As has been pointed out the "nuclear fingerprint" file for NK, Pakistani or Iranian uranium does not exist. There's probably a few others that don't exist as well.
So if a weapon goes off in NYC or DC and the source can't be identified.... to whom do you reply in kind?
/sarcasm
All the above ... just to be safe.
/sarcasm
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thrawn,
Thanks for the replies, I do appreciate it. It's nice to have a discussion rather than the usual foaming at the mouth diatribes and the inevetable FU's tossed back and forth.
Thanks, I appreciate it as well and find it constructive.
For some of what you potulate I can agree with what you are thinking but I have serious doubts that the "allies" we would have would sit still or support a nuclear response, especially an escalated response as you have outlined.
I think that probably Harper and England would back the US. As far as France is concerned, they have policy of nuclear response to nuclear attack. You get France on side that's practically the rest of battle in NATO right there. Plus the US would have all those ex-Soviet new NATO members on side.
I don't have any doubt that many will be cringing at the thought of several nuclear detonations on their side of the globe and would drop any indications of support for it.
I wouldn't be asking their permission, I would be informing them what I am going to be doing. And if they become dicks about I would activate article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Hell I would do that anyway to preempt them.
"Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
They would claim nuclear winter, radiation poisoning and fallout spread as their concerns and may well have a valid concern there. EMP's while less harmfull to the populations will scramble the economies of any nation affected by them as communications, computers and other devices will be trashed unless "hardened".
Wind flows east to west, so Europe would probably be fine. If they are worried about fall I could use neutron bombs. I doubt nuclear winter could result from the power of the repsonse necessary. And if so, I would point out that I'm preventing the possible future use of nukes anyway and why the hell should Iran get pass for using them.
As to the border. I don't think there is a feasable way to really close it off short of a "Berlin wall" type od response complete with guard towers and mine fields as well as anti tunneling actions. There is simply way too much ground to be covered. Yep you can "fortify" the immediate area around towns and cities but experiance has shown that the coyotes and drug "importers" simply move to the outside of the fortification. Since that border is rather large it would be a MASSIVE undertaking and expensive as hell to say the least.
I would be a massive undertaking, but no more than fighting an internation war, I think. First thing I would do would be to harness the citizenry. Americans want a secure border, look at the Minute Men. I would tell them to fill thier boots. Patrol the hell out of it if they want. I would stick DARPA on it. I would give them a mandate to discover and develope new and cheaper ways to do it. I would also call back many of the US soldiers doing service in other countries.
What is the solution? I don't know but I think sanctions are the first step definately. After that, given the "success" of inspections and inspectors being able to work unhindered by the indigent population in iraq, I don't hold much hope out for that.
I'm typically a big fan of sanction, in international politics I believe it is the most moral form of influence, besides rational discourse. Regarding Iran, it might work. But I'm pretty sure that the Russians and Chinese won't allow it to either happen, or be effective.
I am really afraid that there will likely be a pre emptive strike on any and all facilities in iran if they do not cave in very soon.
They caved, they have offered to let inspectors back in. My concern is that Rice said that it wasn't good enough. She said she wanted a resolution passed under Chapter 7 of the UN charter (allowing the resolution to be enforced militarily). I get the feeling that what you and I want (a peaceful resolution of the issue) isn't what the Bush administration wants.
I also think that given China's and Russia's investment in the area and already stated reluctance to consider sanctions for iraq that they will not be imposed since there are 2 veto's there in the UN. If they are unwilling to consider mere economic sanctions I doubt they will condone a military response by the UN, not that the UN will act fast enough anyhow.
Exactly.
This is indeed "interesting times" as the chineese curse says. I wonder where the proper route is to solve the problem. Given iran's aggressive rhetoric the stage is getting smaller and the room to move is shrinking the more agressive they get.
A couple of months ago I believed that there was no way that the US was going to attack Iran, now I feel that it's inevitable.
-
So if a weapon goes off in NYC or DC and the source can't be identified.... to whom do you reply in kind?
====
Mecca then Medina then all the major cities of Syria, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea then all the minor cities. Take a breath and go clean back thru for round two.
-
Step away from it and look at that in a non-US view.
What would that make the US?
The worst scourge of the planet in all recorded history.
Sounds cute but it would be the end of us as we'd have totally lost our soul.
-
That and likely have received a response from every nuclear power on the earth as well. Too many nukes too close to nervous folks who have them too.
-
Mav,
Check your phone messages.
-
blast them all to hell, lets get it over with :O
-
Let's see.... your plan is to nuke a dozen or so cities and then go back and hit them again to make sure.
Two dozen large nukes going off has got to be good for the planet's environment. No one can dispute that.
Then there's that little "responsibility" factor; so far no one has explained to me how we're going KNOW for certain that any one or all of those countries they're going to nuke had anything at all to do with hitting a US target.
-
I dont know what will happen, but it had damned well better be so overwhelming and so catostrophic that an entire religious belief system reorganizes itself into an all peacefull and loving faith.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
blast them all to hell, lets get it over with :O
you sound like yer bud Nuke.
-
Ah, ok... got it Yeag.
Your plan is to kill them indescriminately until you make them "peaceful".
-
Originally posted by Toad
Then there's that little "responsibility" factor; so far no one has explained to me how we're going KNOW for certain that any one or all of those countries they're going to nuke had anything at all to do with hitting a US target.
Maybe you won't. But probably you will.
"In the relatively new field of "nuclear forensics" — which focuses on analyzing the nature, use and origin of nuclear materials -- similar methods are now being applied to determine material characteristics with high degrees of accuracy."
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2002/10-17-722025.shtml
Besides, the US has at least a couple of years to further develop it. Throw another billion at DARPA.
If Iran enriches enough uranium to make a nuke while being inspected by the IAEA.
If Iran makes a nuke while being inspected by the IAEA.
If Iran decides to waste their nuke trump.
If Iran decides to risk a nuclear **** strom and use it on the US.
If the US and it's allies intelligence services don't get wind of it.
If it gets past US border security.
If no one can figure out where it came from. (we are dealing with a pretty short list here)
Then the US might be **** out of luck.
Then again, if the US attacks Iran and doesn't change other policies it will be in the same situation in a few years from now. But they will have further radicalised muslims and have lost just cause.
-
Nuclear Forensics?
From a previous thread: Nuclear Fallout (http://www.alumni.berkeley.edu/Alumni/Cal_Monthly/September_2005/COVER_STORY-_Berkeleys_Big_Bang_Project_.asp)
But some nuclear explosions do leave an isotopic signature, a DNA-like fingerprint that allows forensic physicists such as Naval Postgraduate School weapons systems analyst Bob Harney to possibly determine the origin of the fissile material in the bomb. Nuclear forensics is not a precise science, Harney warns. Post-attack sites are almost certain to be contaminated with unrelated or naturally occurring radioactivity, and there are numerous, highly enriched uranium stashes in the world with unknown signatures.
But there is no question, according to Peter Huessy, a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and consultant to the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., that Russian forensic experts could quickly detect Russian isotopes, and that highly enriched uranium (HEU) from, say, France could readily be differentiated from American HEU.
But, Huessy warns, distinguishing post-blast residues of Pakistani uranium from North Korean uranium would be more challenging, probably impossible. Because neither country is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA inspectors have been unable to collect from their facilities reliable isotope samples that could be compared to post-attack residues. Even if the uranium were traced, the source nation could claim that the material had been stolen.
No samples from Iran either.
It's not going to be "cut and dried". No way, no how.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nuclear Forensics?...
But, Huessy warns, distinguishing post-blast residues of Pakistani uranium from North Korean uranium would be more challenging, probably impossible. Because neither country is a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA inspectors have been unable to collect from their facilities reliable isotope samples that could be compared to post-attack residues.
?
"List of IAEA Member States
Eighteen ratifications were required to bring the IAEA´s Statute into force on 29 July 1957.
As of November 2005, the IAEA has 139 Member States.
...1957...Pakistan...
...1958...Islamic Republic of Iran...
...
Notes:
Year denotes year of membership. Names of States are not necessarily their historical designations.
The Democratic People´s Republic of Korea (DPRK), which joined the IAEA in 1974, withdrew its membership of the Agency 13 June 1994."
http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/MemberStates/
Oh well, my plan is not perfect but I think it's better than course Bush is persuing. The US could start by supporting the IAEA going into Iran and getting those samples instead of saying allowing the IAEA back in isn't good enough. I don't believe that any amount of compliance would be good enough for Bush et al anyway.
-
Your plan is to kill them indescriminately until you make them "peaceful".
====
yes! finally you get it :aok
the best way to take care of a problem ant, is to destroy the entire ant nest :cry
-
you sound like yer bud Nuke.
====
Nuke :eek:
they killed nuke :cry
-
He got Tormato'd..:rofl
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
He got Tormato'd..:rofl
You mean beetle broke his arm too???