Notices
Results 1 to 77 of 77
Like Tree16Likes
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By SowZ37
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By jonio
  • 1 Post By icewendigo
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By jonio
  • 1 Post By dan hunter
  • 1 Post By jonio
  • 1 Post By jonio
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By Stargate
  • 1 Post By kojax

Thread: Is Americas missile defence program a waste of money?

  1. #1 Is Americas missile defence program a waste of money? 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    With all the development of Hypersonic nuclear armed missile technology. Is America wasting billions developing a missile defence program? How effective is the one they have in place now? How much safer will countries that house these missile bases be? It takes up a huge amount of Americas defence budget..is it worth it? Will an effective system give the green light for countries who have them to be more aggressive ? Will the idea of a nuclear war be something that can be won if we have a defence against them?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Missile Defense’s Real Enemy: Math | The Diplomat


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    282
    I have little confidence in it. Testing has been rather limited and secretive, with little information released to the public about how well the systems perform. Some of the secrecy may be justified, as the more information made public the easier it will be for enemies to work out countermeasures. Still, my gut feeling is these contracters want to keep the details secret because if the full details were known the missiles would be seen to be woefully inadequate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by danhanegan View Post
    I have little confidence in it. Testing has been rather limited and secretive, with little information released to the public about how well the systems perform. Some of the secrecy may be justified, as the more information made public the easier it will be for enemies to work out countermeasures. Still, my gut feeling is these contracters want to keep the details secret because if the full details were known the missiles would be seen to be woefully inadequate.
    I came to put this link up because of the situation with Russia. Also because of the missile program they and china have. America spends a fortune on its missile defence and from all accounts it seems ineffective and continuously outdated by new missile tech. Missile tech that's alot cheaper than the anti missile tech. I was wondering if all the money spent on its missile defence could have been put into more effective areas of Americas defence budget...If America didn't keep wanting to put its missile defence bases all over Europe , would Russia still plough its budget into building unstoppable missiles? Is this missile defence actually making it more dangerous for Americans?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I would say yes for defending against nuclear bombs since the US govt took the time to explain how to defeat missile interceptors and just what results a dedicated bomber could achieve.
    http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/fema/ncr.pdf

    However a lot depends on what you mean by missile defence systems.
    Defending things like ships against short range missiles is easier because the missiles used to attack them don't travel nearly as fast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Air & Space Magazine I have read through alot of websites discussing this matter and I found there is alot of doubt within this system. Also with new Hypersonic tech it is become ever more difficult to keep up with even faster interceptors. Its seems like they are close to a system that works and a new missile is developed that puts it all out of date. It seems easier and cheaper for Russia or china to devolope missiles to bypass the defences than to defend against them. Also it seems to accelerate the arms race. Costing American tax payers billions. I understand laser systems could be the ultimate defence against such missiles but the power sources need to make laser systems work effectively.are huge and governened alot by the weather. Wasn't assured Nuclear destruction enough? Isn't America building a missile defence system in Poland or Czech a sign to Russians the cold war is not over? A huge amount of Americas defence budget has gone into this. A system that there seems to be many ways to get around if your an enemy. China traditionally have been all about defence but what would happen if they felt that America was getting close to being able to defend against their policy of counter strike? Would they concider pre-emtive. Russia has sold the p.800 To Syria. Maybe Russia will just arm all Americas enemies...They can rightly say America builds these bases in our backyard. We will sell our best missile tech to our partners. Also is it a deterrent or a provocation ? Would Russia be acting so agressivly if in their eyes America wasn't ? Why doesn't America just stick to build missile defences in their own back yard ( or is that not a good enough system )...It seems that all the missile defence capabilities do is put the false.idea in Americans heads that a Nuclear war could be won if we shoot down all the missiles. Like I say , its far cheaper for Russians to devolop faster , more protected missiles that change their flight paths making it difficult to catch them via radar. All that money put into Poland and Czech or the U.k could have been spent on building better more safe relations with Russia. I may hate Putin but Russians are like the rest of us. They just want a safer, better life for their kids.jobs. America's missile program seems to have only given people like Putin an excuse. He uses it over and over to show americas aggression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    With all the development of Hypersonic nuclear armed missile technology. Is America wasting billions developing a missile defence program? How effective is the one they have in place now? How much safer will countries that house these missile bases be? It takes up a huge amount of Americas defence budget..is it worth it? Will an effective system give the green light for countries who have them to be more aggressive ? Will the idea of a nuclear war be something that can be won if we have a defence against them?

    I happen once to get a copy of a report to Congress on the issue of Ballistic Missile defense, which was from the early 70's. I found it in a Goodwill book bin, ironicly enough. According to the report, even back then it was feasible to stop a ballistic missile. Their plan was to shoot a smaller nuke at it. That way it didn't have to actually connect with it, just come near enough to catch it in the nuclear blast. They thought they could handle the guidance and detection and etc using the computer tech of that era.

    Anyway, it was the official report. Had the names of a whole bunch of Congressmen in it as the ones who had commissioned the report.

    But of course they only had to contend with the evasion tech of their day also. A ballistic missile even back then would likely hit mach 10 or faster on re-entry, so speeds aren't really changing. But if the missile is able to change course to evade interception, that might make things harder.

    My perspective is: the quantum leap in computing between now and then should have tipped the scales more favorably toward interception, at least if we're still talking about using nukes to intercept nukes. The environmental disaster would be terrible from all those bombs going off in the upper atmosphere, but I guess that's better than bombs going off near the ground.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    I would say yes for defending against nuclear bombs since the US govt took the time to explain how to defeat missile interceptors and just what results a dedicated bomber could achieve.
    http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dhs/fema/ncr.pdf

    However a lot depends on what you mean by missile defence systems.
    Defending things like ships against short range missiles is easier because the missiles used to attack them don't travel nearly as fast.
    Dan, the greatest defense weapon system that could ever be invented, is a holistic relationship with your neighbor and human family. It is the cheapest, most effective, long lasting, creative, non-racial, non-political way known to man. Is there anyone of the critical thinkers out there that can confirm what I am suggesting? I am not aware that anything man does cannot be done one hundred percent, however, it is imperative that the the missile defense system be one hundred percent accurate, or someone is going to pay. For me I cannot conceive of loosing one life to ignorance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Dan, the greatest defense weapon system that could ever be invented, is a holistic relationship with your neighbor and human family. It is the cheapest, most effective, long lasting, creative, non-racial, non-political way known to man. Is there anyone of the critical thinkers out there that can confirm what I am suggesting? I am not aware that anything man does cannot be done one hundred percent, however, it is imperative that the the missile defense system be one hundred percent accurate, or someone is going to pay. For me I cannot conceive of loosing one life to ignorance.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Is America wasting billions developing a missile defence program?
    What we are spending now is chump change.

    How effective is the one they have in place now?
    We've never had one in place--nor really even tried.

    It takes up a huge amount of Americas defence budget..is it worth it?
    huh?

    Will an effective system give the green light for countries who have them to be more aggressive ? Will the idea of a nuclear war be something that can be won if we have a defence against them?
    They've really never been even remotely viable beyond very local defense, nor anymore than a few incoming missiles.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    My perspective is: the quantum leap in computing between now and then should have tipped the scales more favorably toward interception, at least if we're still talking about using nukes to intercept nukes. The environmental disaster would be terrible from all those bombs going off in the upper atmosphere, but I guess that's better than bombs going off near the ground.
    Unfortunately there are still problems.
    US Ballistic Missile Defense Timeline: 1945-2013 | Union of Concerned Scientists
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post

    Will an effective system give the green light for countries who have them to be more aggressive ? Will the idea of a nuclear war be something that can be won if we have a defence against them?
    They've really never been even remotely viable beyond very local defense, nor anymore than a few incoming missiles.
    Good point. I had forgotten that that was mentioned in the report I was talking about also. It was their strongest argument against building the defense system.


    And anyway there is no way to win a nuclear war. If nothing else they could smuggle a tactical nuke across the USA/Mexico border. That's why even nations like Pakistan and India get respect, even though they have no effective delivery system for their nuclear weapons. There's always going to be some way a clever smuggler could get the bomb into a foreign country's lands.


    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    My perspective is: the quantum leap in computing between now and then should have tipped the scales more favorably toward interception, at least if we're still talking about using nukes to intercept nukes. The environmental disaster would be terrible from all those bombs going off in the upper atmosphere, but I guess that's better than bombs going off near the ground.
    Unfortunately there are still problems.
    US Ballistic Missile Defense Timeline: 1945-2013 | Union of Concerned Scientists
    This part of the link gave a pretty good argument in favor of having a defense system:;

    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter's link
    January 29, 1991. President Bush announces the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) system to counter unauthorized, accidental or limited attacks.



    It would be good to have the ability to block unauthorized launches, in case a terrorist group ever manages to hack/capture/ or otherwise cause the firing of a ballistic missile without the owner intending it to be launched.
    Last edited by kojax; April 18th, 2014 at 07:53 PM.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    And anyway there is no way to win a nuclear war.
    I disagree, it's quite possible to win limited exchanges that use nuclear weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If nothing else they could smuggle a tactical nuke across the USA/Mexico border.
    Agreed and that's where most of our efforts should be in depth...in getting into the networks and organizations that might plan such a thing and finally to the customs teams searching the right ships off shore based in a combination of intelligence.

    That's why even nations like Pakistan and India get respect, even though they have no effective delivery system for their nuclear weapons. There's always going to be some way a clever smuggler could get the bomb into a foreign country's lands.
    They've both successfully demonstrated missiles fully capable of reaching each other.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post


    This part of the link gave a pretty good argument in favor of having a defense system:;

    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter's link
    January 29, 1991. President Bush announces the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) system to counter unauthorized, accidental or limited attacks.



    It would be good to have the ability to block unauthorized launches, in case a terrorist group ever manages to hack/capture/ or otherwise cause the firing of a ballistic missile without the owner intending it to be launched.
    Yes it would be, but the real intention is to be able to create a missile shield capable of defeating nationwide ICBM threats.
    So far it has not happened.
    December 15, 2010. In this intercept test (FTG-6A), an intermediate-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and a long-range interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The Sea Based X-Band radar (SBX) and all sensors performed as planned. The missile failed to intercept the target.
    January 26, 2013. In this flight test (GM-CTV-01) of a three-stage Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, the three-stage booster deployed the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle to a designated point in space. After separating from the booster, the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle executed a variety of pre-planned maneuvers to collect performance data in space. Engineering data from this test will be used to improve confidence for future intercept missions. This test is the critical first step in returning GMD to successful intercept testing.
    July 5, 2013. In this intercept test (FTG-7), a target missile was launched from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands and a Ground-Based Interceptor missile from its silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The test required an exoatmospheric kill vehicle to separate from the GBI’s upper stage booster and maneuver to a collision course with the target. The kill vehicle failed to separate from the booster. Though the exact cause of the FTG-07 anomaly is not yet known, the EKV has failed to separate from the interceptor and booster on two previous occasions, first in July 2000 and again in December 2002.
    Last edited by dan hunter; April 18th, 2014 at 08:21 PM. Reason: typos
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    This part of the link gave a pretty good argument in favor of having a defense system:;
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter's link
    January 29, 1991. President Bush announces the Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) system to counter unauthorized, accidental or limited attacks.
    It would be good to have the ability to block unauthorized launches, in case a terrorist group ever manages to hack/capture/ or otherwise cause the firing of a ballistic missile without the owner intending it to be launched.
    Yes it would be, but the real intention is to be able to create a missile shield capable of defeating nationwide ICBM threats.So far it has not happened.
    December 15, 2010. In this intercept test (FTG-6A), an intermediate-range ballistic missile target was launched from the Ronald Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and a long-range interceptor missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The Sea Based X-Band radar (SBX) and all sensors performed as planned. The missile failed to intercept the target.January 26, 2013. In this flight test (GM-CTV-01) of a three-stage Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI) launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, the three-stage booster deployed the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle to a designated point in space. After separating from the booster, the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle executed a variety of pre-planned maneuvers to collect performance data in space. Engineering data from this test will be used to improve confidence for future intercept missions. This test is the critical first step in returning GMD to successful intercept testing.July 5, 2013. In this intercept test (FTG-7), a target missile was launched from the U.S. Army’s Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands and a Ground-Based Interceptor missile from its silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The test required an exoatmospheric kill vehicle to separate from the GBI’s upper stage booster and maneuver to a collision course with the target. The kill vehicle failed to separate from the booster. Though the exact cause of the FTG-07 anomaly is not yet known, the EKV has failed to separate from the interceptor and booster on two previous occasions, first in July 2000 and again in December 2002.
    It is also a huge part of the budget. Which could be spent on a system that takes away American reliance on G.p.s, or investing into cyber warfare, and a host of other defences. If G.p.s is taken out , all this missile defence is gone . Any nation attacking America would first look at destroying its eyes. What will America do without G.p.s or its satellites?

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...PS-Alternative
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Taking out GPS is a double edged sword, because foreign nations also use it to guide their missiles to their targets.

    I'm curious: is there any viable alternative to GPS for long distance guidance?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Taking out GPS is a double edged sword, because foreign nations also use it to guide their missiles to their targets.

    I'm curious: is there any viable alternative to GPS for long distance guidance?
    Lots of them including celestial guidance (using stars), inertial guidance (used extensively before GPS), and of course once near target direct optical recognition or following a laser targeting the object by another observer.

    GPS has always been a low signal strength and easy to jam--never a completely depended on technology by the US military.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    The American GPS has been spoofed often enough that it would not be considered reliable.
    The Russian GLONASS was completely disrupted for about 11 hours on April 1. (5 p.m. until 4 a.m. Eastern Time)
    The GLONASS disruption had an effect on GPS users because most commercial recievers use both sets of satellites for fixes and if any of them are sending false time stamps the position calculations are wrong.

    GLONASS was disrupted again on April 14, but only 8 satellites were affected and only for 1/2 hour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Taking out GPS is a double edged sword, because foreign nations also use it to guide their missiles to their targets.

    I'm curious: is there any viable alternative to GPS for long distance guidance?
    Lots of them including celestial guidance (using stars), inertial guidance (used extensively before GPS), and of course once near target direct optical recognition or following a laser targeting the object by another observer.

    GPS has always been a low signal strength and easy to jam--never a completely depended on technology by the US military.
    I have to say that none of those sound particularly reliable for an ICBM. They must work I guess, because probably the first thing we'd do if we thought an ICBM were on its way to our territory is jam the GPS in hope of taking away its navigation.

    But it just seems like quite a "shot in the dark". Like they'd be lucky even to hit the right city from that far away.

    I wonder if anyone has tried setting them up to be guided by the known locations of the target's radar arrays? It's kind of a double edged sword, radar is. The signal that's getting sent out uniquely identifies the direction of the sender. So if you fly through an area with two or more overlapping radar arrays nearby, you can triangulate to know your coordinates relative to them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    While not a direct answer, it is worth noting that both Russia and Iran likely have a more effective system than US. Make of that what you will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    10
    There are no weapon defense systems in the world that can stop everything, it just doesn't make sense. If that was so we would be stupid to make those systems and go to war. On the other hand, the critical thinkers think they have critically thought the whole thing out. Everyone doing the same thing on different scales.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Yes its a waste of money, as is most of the military, in addition to being a waste of human inventiveness, resource activity and efforts.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Taking out GPS is a double edged sword, because foreign nations also use it to guide their missiles to their targets.

    I'm curious: is there any viable alternative to GPS for long distance guidance?
    Lots of them including celestial guidance (using stars), inertial guidance (used extensively before GPS), and of course once near target direct optical recognition or following a laser targeting the object by another observer.

    GPS has always been a low signal strength and easy to jam--never a completely depended on technology by the US military.
    I have to say that none of those sound particularly reliable for an ICBM. They must work I guess, because probably the first thing we'd do if we thought an ICBM were on its way to our territory is jam the GPS in hope of taking away its navigation.
    ICBMs don't need to be precise. Hitting a baseball field (or a city block) is more than accurate enough...and we've been able to do that since the 60s, well before we had GPS.
    --

    it is worth noting that both Russia and Iran likely have a more effective system than US.
    None of them have effective systems.

    --
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    Btw, how do you know nukes have not already been smuggled in sealed containers that would be locked in shielded box inside a metal container/crate? If common criminals can smuggle cocaine, why should the secret services of a state be unable to smuggle a container? just wondering (keeping in mind that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, not as its strongest link)
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Yes its a waste of money, as is most of the military, in addition to being a waste of human inventiveness, resource activity and efforts.
    While I am a big believer in massive downgrades to all military spending/resource investment, it is worth noting that warfare and the threat of warfare has been the impetus for a lot of scientific advancement and technology that is used in the civilian sector.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Taking out GPS is a double edged sword, because foreign nations also use it to guide their missiles to their targets.

    I'm curious: is there any viable alternative to GPS for long distance guidance?
    Lots of them including celestial guidance (using stars), inertial guidance (used extensively before GPS), and of course once near target direct optical recognition or following a laser targeting the object by another observer.

    GPS has always been a low signal strength and easy to jam--never a completely depended on technology by the US military.
    I have to say that none of those sound particularly reliable for an ICBM. They must work I guess, because probably the first thing we'd do if we thought an ICBM were on its way to our territory is jam the GPS in hope of taking away its navigation.
    ICBMs don't need to be precise. Hitting a baseball field (or a city block) is more than accurate enough...and we've been able to do that since the 60s, well before we had GPS.
    --

    it is worth noting that both Russia and Iran likely have a more effective system than US.
    None of them have effective systems.

    --
    Still better than ours. For having the most sophisticated and extensive stockpile of nuke/delivery systems, we sure have poor defense. What with one nation responsible for nearly 45% of all military spending, I expect more. The best defense is an offense capable of obliterating all mammalian life on the planet five times over, I suppose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    " it is worth noting that warfare and the threat of warfare has been the impetus for a lot of scientific advancement and technology that is used in the civilian sector."
    Yes, and its also worth noting that this is a correlation and that this is based on the characteristics of our barbaric militarist civilisation, and a symptom of our archaic primitive social structures that include hierarchy, money and secrecy and that glorifies militarism, it does not follow that impetus and R&D cannot emerge in another culture and civilization.

    If you were in a plastic-novelty-shite oriented civilization, and spent 60 billions a year improving the plastic novelty shit from materials to manufacturing, making sure plastic novelty shite can be deployed on mars and can keep its colour in the sunlight of Nevada and stay soft in Antarctica
    , etc, odds are someone would say, "hey be thankful of plastic novelty shit, think of all the applications that have been made possible in many aspects from materials to manufacturing thanks to the plastic novelty dog shit industry! think of all the scientific advancements it has made possible! it is the impetus for R&D! How could air bags in cars ever have been developed without the salutary research and development of the latest novelty woopy cushion fart bags!" (for our plastic novelty shit civilisation)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Still better than ours..
    On what do you base your opinion? The US and Israel are the only nations that have successfully demonstrated any real missile defense capability at all. Iran has non at all, except against the slowest and easiest to defeat cruise missiles and Russia's tech not much better.
    --

    Yes Ice, containers is a problem which is why customs inspections are increasingly being moved to ports of embarkation. They are also not easy to hide as many of us assume with a full range of existing and potential techniques to detect them. Many of them listed here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

    And again detection at a port is the last of numerous defences in depth.

    -
    I also find your naivety rather astounding and ignorant of basic human nature as individuals and as groups. I hate war more than most having participated in several and having suffered personal loss--but I'm also realistic in thinking that regardless of that dislike, a strong military and willingness to occasionally use it is absolutely necessary. Also like many Americans I'm completely sick of having to spend blood and treasure to sort out other's (particularly European) problems.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; April 23rd, 2014 at 04:06 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Still better than ours..
    On what do you base your opinion? The US and Israel are the only nations that have successfully demonstrated any real missile defense capability at all. Iran has non at all, except against the slowest and easiest to defeat cruise missiles and Russia's tech not much better.
    --

    Yes Ice, containers is a problem which is why customs inspections are increasingly being moved to ports of embarkation. They are also not easy to hide as many of us assume with a full range of existing and potential techniques to detect them. Many of them listed here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

    And again detection at a port is the last of numerous defences in depth.

    -
    I also find your naivety rather astounding and ignorant of basic human nature as individuals and as groups. I hate war more than most having participated in several and having suffered personal loss--but I'm also realistic in thinking that regardless of that dislike, a strong military and willingness to occasionally use it is absolutely necessary. Also like many Americans I'm completely sick of having to spend blood and treasure to sort out other's (particularly European) problems.
    The thing about Iran is that they use the Russian systems, remember the big stink about that? And Iran has a much smaller area to defend than America so they can have greater effectiveness which much less money spent. The Russian S-300 has a number of advantages over the Patriot system. I'm not even really talking about whose the best at stopping modern nukes because it is largely irrelevant.

    And why are you assuming I'm a pacifist? I think we should scale back significantly because one country spending nearly half of all military spending in the world is very excessive. I don't think any country needs a standing army large enough to invade other countries. Just defense. In situations when it is absolutely necessary to be aggressive, we should take an initiative to build such a military. It doesn't need to be that strong on stand by.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The thing about Iran is that they use the Russian systems, remember the big stink about that? And Iran has a much smaller area to defend than America so they can have greater effectiveness which much less money spent. The Russian S-300 has a number of advantages over the Patriot system. I'm not even really talking about whose the best at stopping modern nukes because it is largely irrelevant.
    And you evidence that the anti-missile variants have ever been tested? Or ever deployed in Iran? The S-300 antimissile variant at best is marginally effective as the first generation patriot missiles.
    Size of the nation doesn't matter, Iran is a huge nation, roughly the size of the US East coast, but more importantly no country has demonstrated any regional defence capability--the S-300/Patriot missiles are sized and designed for local defense--perhaps effectively to protect a large city but not much more capable. I doubt either could stop an ICBM.

    And why are you assuming I'm a pacifist?
    My comment was directed at our resistent utopian Icewendigo.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The thing about Iran is that they use the Russian systems, remember the big stink about that? And Iran has a much smaller area to defend than America so they can have greater effectiveness which much less money spent. The Russian S-300 has a number of advantages over the Patriot system. I'm not even really talking about whose the best at stopping modern nukes because it is largely irrelevant.
    And you evidence that the anti-missile variants have ever been tested? Or ever deployed in Iran? The S-300 antimissile variant at best is marginally effective as the first generation patriot missiles.
    Size of the nation doesn't matter, Iran is a huge nation, roughly the size of the US East coast, but more importantly no country has demonstrated any regional defence capability--the S-300/Patriot missiles are sized and designed for local defense--perhaps effectively to protect a large city but not much more capable. I doubt either could stop an ICBM.

    And why are you assuming I'm a pacifist?
    My comment was directed at our resistent utopian Icewendigo.
    I won't get into the specifications over which system is better, largely because I am not qualified to discuss it and in all probability you know the specs more. As for Iran, you're right, there is no evidence they have any other than their word which is very suspect. But Iran and Russia have been going back and forth on the sale for years, and as far as I understand it last year Russia finally agreed to sell them the systems. So they aren't there yet, but as far as I'm aware, they should be soon.

    As to the other thing, apologies. My mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    " it is worth noting that warfare and the threat of warfare has been the impetus for a lot of scientific advancement and technology that is used in the civilian sector."
    Yes, and its also worth noting that this is a correlation and that this is based on the characteristics of our barbaric militarist civilisation, and a symptom of our archaic primitive social structures that include hierarchy, money and secrecy and that glorifies militarism, it does not follow that impetus and R&D cannot emerge in another culture and civilization.

    If you were in a plastic-novelty-shite oriented civilization, and spent 60 billions a year improving the plastic novelty shit from materials to manufacturing, making sure plastic novelty shite can be deployed on mars and can keep its colour in the sunlight of Nevada and stay soft in Antarctica
    , etc, odds are someone would say, "hey be thankful of plastic novelty shit, think of all the applications that have been made possible in many aspects from materials to manufacturing thanks to the plastic novelty dog shit industry! think of all the scientific advancements it has made possible! it is the impetus for R&D! How could air bags in cars ever have been developed without the salutary research and development of the latest novelty woopy cushion fart bags!" (for our plastic novelty shit civilisation)
    That's possible, it may be that in another social structure the same advancements would be made. I doubt politicians would be as willing to fund R&D so highly without their self preservation encouraging them, though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Yes its a waste of money, as is most of the military, in addition to being a waste of human inventiveness, resource activity and efforts.
    It creates an artificial market for inventiveness. The biggest waste of all is for an inventor to be unable to invent simply because they can't get hold of the funds to do it.

    Private industry usually wants a solid promise they're going to get something out of their investment. It's kind of hard to guarantee that if all you're holding is a set of blueprints and no prototype. The military plays the role of idiot investor. It invests in all kinds of silly contraptions, most of which never end up working.


    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Btw, how do you know nukes have not already been smuggled in sealed containers that would be locked in shielded box inside a metal container/crate? If common criminals can smuggle cocaine, why should the secret services of a state be unable to smuggle a container? just wondering (keeping in mind that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, not as its strongest link)
    I used to wonder that also, but then I realized one day there is a huge problem with trying to smuggle a nuclear warhead into a country: how well do you trust the smuggler?

    You're giving someone an object that is potentially worth billions if they sold it on the open market. A tactical warhead is something any number of countries would spend their whole yearly budget to get just so they could join the "nuclear club".

    Do you really want a lone secret agent, or small team of agents, in possession of that?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "The biggest waste of all is for an inventor to be unable to invent simply because they can't get hold of the funds to do it. "
    While I agree that its a waste of creativity and brain and human potential, IF they do nothing, just as it is a waste that millions of humans starve when they could help in finding cures for cancer and space exploration, its nonetheless a bit of red herring, like saying that nazi death camps or landmine factories "create jobs" ~because theres no way that anything else could be done~, like creating an international space station or creating rapidly reusable rockets as SpaceX are working on.

    The military plays the role of idiot investor. It invests in all kinds of silly contraptions, most of which never end up working.

    If you had little to no military you could allocate this human activity on better goals, the choice between a New-Gilette-5-bladed-razor private sector development and improvements-in-mass-murder military is a FALSE choice, its like saying welcome to disneyland, rides? no theres no rides here, you choose between having your ass kicked and your face slapped. Its a false dichotomy to imply that short term profit and military are the only options (this dichotomy is created by your captilist imperialist culture, when all you have is a hammer all problems look like nails, worship of money and military creates a culture where you see all issues as things that money/capitalism or the military are the only options)



    Do you really want a lone secret agent, or small team of agents, in possession of that?
    Sure. Its easy. Im not going to give tips but its possible.

    Last edited by icewendigo; April 24th, 2014 at 08:20 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "The biggest waste of all is for an inventor to be unable to invent simply because they can't get hold of the funds to do it. "
    While I agree that its a waste of creativity and brain and human potential, IF they do nothing, just as it is a waste that millions of humans starve when they could help in finding cures for cancer and space exploration, its nonetheless a bit of red herring, like saying that nazi death camps or landmine factories "create jobs" ~because theres no way that anything else could be done~, like creating an international space station or creating rapidly reusable rockets as SpaceX are working on.
    It's true there are other ways. The space program, for example.

    Basically the best projects are vanity projects. That's most of what the military really is. It's a big vanity project. It's America's big SUV with chrome wheels and a jammin' stereo system, except multiplied by a multi billion dollar budget.

    Realistically, we only ever get real use out of a few key pieces of hardware. Lots of it just sits around for "just in case". Sometimes we like to take the SUV out hunting for terrorists.

    In the meantime, our most essential tools go underdeveloped. If we really want to take down a bunch of clandestine operatives, what we really need is human resources, not bigger and badder bombs. We need better trained spies, skilled magistrates who can handle local government for the people who's villages end up in our military's care, so their living conditions don't falter the moment we march into town and make everyone resent us for it. Stuff that doesn't make the SUV seem cooler, unfortunately. The love of gadgets is our undoing.




    The military plays the role of idiot investor. It invests in all kinds of silly contraptions, most of which never end up working.

    If you had little to no military you could allocate this human activity on better goals, the choice between a New-Gilette-5-bladed-razor private sector development and improvements-in-mass-murder military is a FALSE choice, its like saying welcome to disneyland, rides? no theres no rides here, you choose between having your ass kicked and your face slapped. Its a false dichotomy to imply that short term profit and military are the only options (this dichotomy is created by your captilist imperialist culture, when all you have is a hammer all problems look like nails, worship of money and military creates a culture where you see all issues as things that money/capitalism or the military are the only options)


    Whatever you choose has to have the combination of:

    1) - Not needing to generate a profit.
    2)- Having a built in way to verify whether the tech is good or not.

    In the private sector, the test for whether the tech is good or not is that it generates a profit. However there is a problem with that because sometimes a good tech doesn't generate a profit right away. Or sometimes it generates quite a lot of profit, but the company that developed it has no way to charge for it, so somebody else gets all that profit.


    Do you really want a lone secret agent, or small team of agents, in possession of that?
    Sure. Its easy. Im not going to give tips but its possible.

    You need to not only be able to trust the spy, but everyone around him who knows anything about where he is. You're putting a nuclear bomb in a place where any common street gang would be able to steal it if they knew where it was.


    I'm fairly confident that these sleepers must by a myth just because probably at least one nuclear weapon would have been stolen by a smaller country by now.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Still better than ours..
    On what do you base your opinion? The US and Israel are the only nations that have successfully demonstrated any real missile defense capability at all. Iran has non at all, except against the slowest and easiest to defeat cruise missiles and Russia's tech not much better.
    --

    Yes Ice, containers is a problem which is why customs inspections are increasingly being moved to ports of embarkation. They are also not easy to hide as many of us assume with a full range of existing and potential techniques to detect them. Many of them listed here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

    And again detection at a port is the last of numerous defences in depth.

    -
    I also find your naivety rather astounding and ignorant of basic human nature as individuals and as groups. I hate war more than most having participated in several and having suffered personal loss--but I'm also realistic in thinking that regardless of that dislike, a strong military and willingness to occasionally use it is absolutely necessary. Also like many Americans I'm completely sick of having to spend blood and treasure to sort out other's (particularly European) problems.
    I respect your military background lynx but your idea of helping European problems is a fantasy. Germany declared war on you in Ww2 not you on them. Your economy became a superpower because of it. You became an industrial powerhouse. Thanks to demand and also because (apart from Pearl harbour ) your industry was NOT bombed the hell out of. I respect all Americans that died fighting to stop the Nazi threat, along with Russians but lets stop with the America saviour nonsence ( that really is your own propaganda ) and there is shit loads of evidence to prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Still better than ours..
    On what do you base your opinion? The US and Israel are the only nations that have successfully demonstrated any real missile defense capability at all. Iran has non at all, except against the slowest and easiest to defeat cruise missiles and Russia's tech not much better.
    --

    Yes Ice, containers is a problem which is why customs inspections are increasingly being moved to ports of embarkation. They are also not easy to hide as many of us assume with a full range of existing and potential techniques to detect them. Many of them listed here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

    And again detection at a port is the last of numerous defences in depth.

    -
    I also find your naivety rather astounding and ignorant of basic human nature as individuals and as groups. I hate war more than most having participated in several and having suffered personal loss--but I'm also realistic in thinking that regardless of that dislike, a strong military and willingness to occasionally use it is absolutely necessary. Also like many Americans I'm completely sick of having to spend blood and treasure to sort out other's (particularly European) problems.
    I respect your military background lynx but your idea of helping European problems is a fantasy. Germany declared war on you in Ww2 not you on them. Your economy became a superpower because of it. You became an industrial powerhouse. Thanks to demand and also because (apart from Pearl harbour ) your industry was NOT bombed the hell out of. I respect all Americans that died fighting to stop the Nazi threat, along with Russians but lets stop with the America saviour nonsence ( that really is your own propaganda ) and there is shit loads of evidence to prove it.
    That's a nice bit of Eurocentric misrepresentation of history...one I actually used to take seriously before I started to read quantitative economic studies of the past couple century which without dispute and by nearly every measure the US being the dominant economy by the late 19th century. The US wasn't propelled into economic dominance by either War World--it already had it.


    It did however have great reluctant to turn that economic power into political power until after WWII, probably because of the messes it had been drawn into; most consider the Suez Canal crisis the pivotal point.
    --
    My early comment was mainly about who's been paying the bill for European security for the past half a century-- the US has been the dominant bill payer not only to keep NATO running, but also to clean up European Genocides (SE Europe during the 1990s), keep fuels flowing (Desert Storm I--in large part a continuing mess aggravated like a bad hangover by European colonialism), as well as footing the bill for broader internationally assistance overseas through the UN.

    Most Americans would be more than willing to cut the military, including this old Soldier, if other developed nations would step up and develop the force projection needed to secure energy, meet natural disaster planning, and resolve international disputes around the world. Until that time, expect the US to continue to have a huge military by default--because no one else is courageous enough or realistic enough to have one--that is until it's really needed by which point it would be too late.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Still better than ours..
    On what do you base your opinion? The US and Israel are the only nations that have successfully demonstrated any real missile defense capability at all. Iran has non at all, except against the slowest and easiest to defeat cruise missiles and Russia's tech not much better.
    --

    Yes Ice, containers is a problem which is why customs inspections are increasingly being moved to ports of embarkation. They are also not easy to hide as many of us assume with a full range of existing and potential techniques to detect them. Many of them listed here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

    And again detection at a port is the last of numerous defences in depth.

    -
    I also find your naivety rather astounding and ignorant of basic human nature as individuals and as groups. I hate war more than most having participated in several and having suffered personal loss--but I'm also realistic in thinking that regardless of that dislike, a strong military and willingness to occasionally use it is absolutely necessary. Also like many Americans I'm completely sick of having to spend blood and treasure to sort out other's (particularly European) problems.
    I respect your military background lynx but your idea of helping European problems is a fantasy. Germany declared war on you in Ww2 not you on them. Your economy became a superpower because of it. You became an industrial powerhouse. Thanks to demand and also because (apart from Pearl harbour ) your industry was NOT bombed the hell out of. I respect all Americans that died fighting to stop the Nazi threat, along with Russians but lets stop with the America saviour nonsence ( that really is your own propaganda ) and there is shit loads of evidence to prove it.
    That's a nice bit of Eurocentric misrepresentation of history...one I actually used to take seriously before I started to read quantitative economic studies of the past couple century which without dispute and by nearly every measure the US being the dominant economy by the late 19th century. The US wasn't propelled into economic dominance by either War World--it already had it.


    It did however have great reluctant to turn that economic power into political power until after WWII, probably because of the messes it had been drawn into; most consider the Suez Canal crisis the pivotal point.
    --
    My early comment was mainly about who's been paying the bill for European security for the past half a century-- the US has been the dominant bill payer not only to keep NATO running, but also to clean up European Genocides (SE Europe during the 1990s), keep fuels flowing (Desert Storm I--in large part a continuing mess aggravated like a bad hangover by European colonialism), as well as footing the bill for broader internationally assistance overseas through the UN.

    Most Americans would be more than willing to cut the military, including this old Soldier, if other developed nations would step up and develop the force projection needed to secure energy, meet natural disaster planning, and resolve international disputes around the world. Until that time, expect the US to continue to have a huge military by default--because no one else is courageous enough or realistic enough to have one--that is until it's really needed by which point it would be too late.
    America spends all the money it does on its military for one reason ... to protect America. If you look at how much is spent on Americas military compared to its g.d.p its around 2•4% , Britain is 2.3 % , Saudi Arabia is around 9%. You should realise that America is a Superpower. You should realise what it takes to remain a superpower . You are no different ( apart from you economically dominate other countries than invade to control ). You put your military bases everywhere you can to protect american interests. You have to get involved in other countries conflicts ( as the french, british ect ect ) to protect americas future. I am supporter of America because of its ideology...one which has strong links to my country the U.k. You think your ideas of democracy and individual liberty are all yours?? I am worried when I read arrogant posts like the one you have wrote, that you do not respect the very people that created the modern U.s.a..Europeans. The very people who are your ancestors. Thats arrogance. I understand that you are ex military so I guess thats why you believe you are protecting mankind. It was the same for our ancestors. Its very wrong though. You think you can retreat to your own shores and stay out of world affairs?? Then watch your countries demise. China will blast you away. Maybe its because you are a young country with too much new power to see how history works.Maybe your dumb politicians xenaphobia has given you a sense of false safety if you just leave all those.non Americans to it. If we just protect our shores we don't need to worry about what's out there. America is no more safe than anyone else who possesses Nukes. People with your attitude will sink America.

    Really I can't believe a moderator on this site is so brainwashed by his own countries rhetoric. I mean come on. No one else is courageous enough.....where do you get this from? Who do you think America is ?
    Last edited by jonio; April 26th, 2014 at 01:54 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    "expect the US to continue to have a huge military by default--because no one else is courageous enough or realistic enough to have one"
    "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
    I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

    During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
    "
    - Major General Smedley Butler


    I am worried when I read arrogant posts like the one you have wrote
    How can you be surprised that an ex-military's opinion happens to repeat the information(propaganda) hes been exposed to? Not everyone can be a Smedley Butler , and even Smedley Butler was an uninformed (informed by information that happen to be propaganda/controlled/biased) gungho soldier most of his life and a lot of people supported the war in Iraq based on the Lies they were told (because they didnt know that the first casualty of war is always the truth and that war is a racket).


    dumb politicians zenaphobia
    Imo it is a mistake to attribute the disastrous results of politics on the "dumb" characteristic of politicians. They may be dumb, but the root problem is systemic, our civilization has fundamental flaws that are both unrecognised as such and thought to be normal/unavoidable.
    (zenaphobia: the irrational fear Xena the warrior princess should be spelled Xenaphobia
    , while Xenophobia is the fear of strangers, which can and is wrongly attributed when the motivations are different but appear/correlated).


    jonio likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "expect the US to continue to have a huge military by default--because no one else is courageous enough or realistic enough to have one"
    "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "- Major General Smedley Butler
    The problem with referring to General Butler is you're going too far back in time. There's no way to be sure that the culture that was present in the military at his time is still present now over 50 years later. Back then they called it the "war department", and since no one had yet conceived of an atom bomb, they pretty much thought they could do whatever they wanted without retaliation. Have to figure that much of America's thinking would have changed in the later decades, and without evidence to know which parts changed and which parts didn't, you can't be certain General Butler's quote would be true today.
    I am worried when I read arrogant posts like the one you have wrote
    How can you be surprised that an ex-military's opinion happens to repeat the information(propaganda) hes been exposed to? Not everyone can be a Smedley Butler , and even Smedley Butler was an uninformed (informed by information that happen to be propaganda/controlled/biased) gungho soldier most of his life and a lot of people supported the war in Iraq based on the Lies they were told (because they didnt know that the first casualty of war is always the truth and that war is a racket).
    Since the late 70's they've added a lot more mental conditioning to the training program. There is focus now on making sure soldiers are psychologically prepared to take a life - which is helped if you can convince the soldier to believe with absolute conviction that his/her cause is right. It was found that many soldiers had lost their lives in Vietnam not because they were at a tactical disadvantage, nor because they didn't have the ability to aim their rifles at their target, but simply because they lacked the conviction to pull the trigger and take a human life. They would aim high or shoot randomly instead.If it hasn't been recommended to you already, I might recommend a book called "Men Who Stare at Goats". It's told in a humorous air, but actually the author did a lot of solid, first hand, research into the methods of psychological conditioning and other aspects of training used in the US military. There was also a movie made, but it bears almost zero resemblance to the book. The book isn't fiction. It's just a documentary.
    dumb politicians zenaphobia
    Imo it is a mistake to attribute the disastrous results of politics on the "dumb" characteristic of politicians. They may be dumb, but the root problem is systemic, our civilization has fundamental flaws that are both unrecognised as such and thought to be normal/unavoidable. (zenaphobia: the irrational fear Xena the warrior princess should be spelled Xenaphobia , while Xenophobia is the fear of strangers, which can and is wrongly attributed when the motivations are different but appear/correlated).
    They wanted to rechrome the wheels on America's SUV. So they thought they would take it out hunting and hopefully get it scraped up a little bit so they'd have an excuse to take some money out of the family budget to get the rechroming done. What's to understand? It's like any other vanity project. Sooner or later you're going to want to test the SUV out and see if it really can drive off road.
    jonio likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    The problem with referring to General Butler is you're going too far back in time.

    Yes, its not because S Butler talked about invasions for Oil corporations in the old days, that the government lied about Iraq or that Oil had anything to do with Operation Iraqui Liberty
    . Its not like corporations, money and conflicts of interest, media and lies still exist in "today" 's world.

    Back then they called it the "war department"
    If anything its even worst today since Orwell's 1984 wasnt published back when they initially candidly called it the "War Department". Soon they will call it the Peace Department (we are bombing with our Benevolent-52's, B52s for short, to spread peace in the region with freedom bombs).

    "they've added a lot more mental conditioning"
    Yes brainwashing helps, since most people dont have the natural habit or a hobby of killing other human beings.


    About pre-planted nuke-in-a-box: in addition to techniques I dont want to go into, an evil regime could have X decoys (the exact number of which is kept secret) hidden in the target region, one of which might or might not be a decoy.
    Last edited by icewendigo; April 25th, 2014 at 01:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    "expect the US to continue to have a huge military by default--because no one else is courageous enough or realistic enough to have one"
    "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "- Major General Smedley Butler
    The problem with referring to General Butler is you're going too far back in time. There's no way to be sure that the culture that was present in the military at his time is still present now over 50 years later. Back then they called it the "war department", and since no one had yet conceived of an atom bomb, they pretty much thought they could do whatever they wanted without retaliation. Have to figure that much of America's thinking would have changed in the later decades, and without evidence to know which parts changed and which parts didn't, you can't be certain General Butler's quote would be true today.
    I am worried when I read arrogant posts like the one you have wrote
    How can you be surprised that an ex-military's opinion happens to repeat the information(propaganda) hes been exposed to? Not everyone can be a Smedley Butler , and even Smedley Butler was an uninformed (informed by information that happen to be propaganda/controlled/biased) gungho soldier most of his life and a lot of people supported the war in Iraq based on the Lies they were told (because they didnt know that the first casualty of war is always the truth and that war is a racket).
    Since the late 70's they've added a lot more mental conditioning to the training program. There is focus now on making sure soldiers are psychologically prepared to take a life - which is helped if you can convince the soldier to believe with absolute conviction that his/her cause is right. It was found that many soldiers had lost their lives in Vietnam not because they were at a tactical disadvantage, nor because they didn't have the ability to aim their rifles at their target, but simply because they lacked the conviction to pull the trigger and take a human life. They would aim high or shoot randomly instead.If it hasn't been recommended to you already, I might recommend a book called "Men Who Stare at Goats". It's told in a humorous air, but actually the author did a lot of solid, first hand, research into the methods of psychological conditioning and other aspects of training used in the US military. There was also a movie made, but it bears almost zero resemblance to the book. The book isn't fiction. It's just a documentary.
    dumb politicians zenaphobia
    Imo it is a mistake to attribute the disastrous results of politics on the "dumb" characteristic of politicians. They may be dumb, but the root problem is systemic, our civilization has fundamental flaws that are both unrecognised as such and thought to be normal/unavoidable. (zenaphobia: the irrational fear Xena the warrior princess should be spelled Xenaphobia , while Xenophobia is the fear of strangers, which can and is wrongly attributed when the motivations are different but appear/correlated).
    They wanted to rechrome the wheels on America's SUV. So they thought they would take it out hunting and hopefully get it scraped up a little bit so they'd have an excuse to take some money out of the family budget to get the rechroming done. What's to understand? It's like any other vanity project. Sooner or later you're going to want to test the SUV out and see if it really can drive off road.
    Thankyou for pointing out my spelling mistakes. Lol.

    Also my point of dumb xenophobic politicians are because as in Ww2 certain politicians believe America can withdraw from world affairs. Hide under a rock. Its crazy to think that. Japan, Europe and everyone else who relies on your support will have to look elsewhere....you will lose your allies...
    Last edited by jonio; April 26th, 2014 at 02:07 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    The problem with referring to General Butler is you're going too far back in time.

    Yes, its not because S Butler talked about invasions for Oil corporations in the old days, that the government lied about Iraq or that Oil had anything to do with Operation Iraqui Liberty
    . Its not like corporations, money and conflicts of interest, media and lies still exist in "today" 's world.
    They barely even had to lie about it in Smedley's time. The public was pretty much fine with using military intervention to overtly assist American business. It was all part of "manifest destiny", and the Monroe Doctrine. Also American racism. Unless the military was invading a predominantly white nation, the majority of the voting public didn't care.

    All that's changed is the ideology. The inclination remains the same. As the economy moves in an increasingly cerebral direction, with less and less value placed on practical know how, the military remains one of the last places a person who doesn't like the dominant professions can look for an alternative means to support a family.

    It's amazing how otherwise ordinary people can become psychopaths when they have a child to protect. Threaten their livelihood and you're threatening their child. That then triggers a bunch of primal urges that unstoppably override the moral and logical centers of the brain with emotion, and they become ok with torture, mass murder, - you name it.

    Parents are impervious to logic and reason where their child is concerned. And their child is always concerned.


    Back then they called it the "war department"
    If anything its even worst today since Orwell's 1984 wasnt published back when they initially candidly called it the "War Department". Soon they will call it the Peace Department (we are bombing with our Benevolent-52's, B52s for short, to spread peace in the region with freedom bombs).
    I think calling it the "defense department" is probably close enough already. It seems Orwell's decision to write 1984 backfired. Most of the common public never read it, or if they did they treated it as an abstract fiction. Meanwhile governments around the world read it also, and found it valuable as a play book.

    They know to change the names, of course.


    About pre-planted nuke-in-a-box: in addition to techniques I dont want to go into, an evil regime could have X decoys (the exact number of which is kept secret) hidden in the target region, one of which might or might not be a decoy.
    Interesting idea. Then your agents can't sell the nuke to a foreign power because they're not even sure if theirs is the real one anyway.

    Too high a chance of getting caught and never making any money anyway.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    [QUOTE=kojax;557749
    I think calling it the "defense department" is probably close enough already. It seems Orwell's decision to write 1984 backfired. Most of the common public never read it, or if they did they treated it as an abstract fiction. Meanwhile governments around the world read it also, and found it valuable as a play book.

    They know to change the names, of course.


    [/QUOTE]

    Orwell served as an intelligence officer during the war. He wrote 1984 in 1947 and wanted to call it 1948 when he submitted it to his publishers.
    He was writing about the world as he saw it in his own time.
    There was no need for the governments to read it for ideas since he was cribbing from their playbook anyhow.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I always wondered why he didn't really give the people of 1984 any new technologies beyond what people already had in 1947. Not much new stuff anyway.


    Back on topic, I'm wondering what the technical obstacles are that prevent defense contractors from being able to come up with a missile that can intercept ICBM's. It sounds like most of the tests of interceptors have been colossal failures.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And anyway there is no way to win a nuclear war.
    I disagree, it's quite possible to win limited exchanges that use nuclear weapons.

    You have to be kidding. I certainly hope the military isn't telling that to its soldiers.

    If you can't stop an escalation from reaching the point of nuclear war, then once it is nuclear how would you stop it from escalating further?


    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    If nothing else they could smuggle a tactical nuke across the USA/Mexico border.
    Agreed and that's where most of our efforts should be in depth...in getting into the networks and organizations that might plan such a thing and finally to the customs teams searching the right ships off shore based in a combination of intelligence.
    As I was saying before, I think there would be a lot of vulnerabilities in such an operation. A tactical nuke is more valuable than 100 times its weight in gold. The ultimate hot potato.

    The options to move one are to either

    A- Go with Ice's option of sending multiple decoys. - Which could backfire because the increased number of decoys increases the likelihood that at least one decoy will be discovered and exposed - alerting the intended target to the existence of the operation.

    B- Use some kind of nut job extremists where every member of the group is so dedicated that they become impervious to greed. - Which carries with it the risk that the organization to which the nuke is being trusted might just as easily decide to betray the very government that gave it to them.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I always wondered why he didn't really give the people of 1984 any new technologies beyond what people already had in 1947. Not much new stuff anyway.


    Back on topic, I'm wondering what the technical obstacles are that prevent defense contractors from being able to come up with a missile that can intercept ICBM's. It sounds like most of the tests of interceptors have been colossal failures.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And anyway there is no way to win a nuclear war.
    I disagree, it's quite possible to win limited exchanges that use nuclear weapons.

    You have to be kidding. I certainly hope the military isn't telling that to its soldiers.
    It's been part of US doctrine and training since the 1950s (and I maxed several courses about how to fight and survive in a nuclear environment). In large part, because it absolutely true from an historical perspective where some sizeable fraction of key infrastructure is destroyed but no so much that a full recovery would only take a decade or two.

    If you can't stop an escalation from reaching the point of nuclear war, then once it is nuclear how would you stop it from escalating further?

    You destroy their capability to escalate. This has also been part of US first strike nuclear doctrine since the 1940s.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I always wondered why he didn't really give the people of 1984 any new technologies beyond what people already had in 1947. Not much new stuff anyway.


    Back on topic, I'm wondering what the technical obstacles are that prevent defense contractors from being able to come up with a missile that can intercept ICBM's. It sounds like most of the tests of interceptors have been colossal failures.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    And anyway there is no way to win a nuclear war.
    I disagree, it's quite possible to win limited exchanges that use nuclear weapons.

    You have to be kidding. I certainly hope the military isn't telling that to its soldiers.
    It's been part of US doctrine and training since the 1950s (and I maxed several courses about how to fight and survive in a nuclear environment). In large part, because it absolutely true from an historical perspective where some sizeable fraction of key infrastructure is destroyed but no so much that a full recovery would only take a decade or two.

    If you can't stop an escalation from reaching the point of nuclear war, then once it is nuclear how would you stop it from escalating further?

    You destroy their capability to escalate. This has also been part of US first strike nuclear doctrine since the 1940s.
    Bombs like the tsar bomb hit New york or Washington and it will be a little longer than a decade or two before you make a full recovery. The kind of thinking of your post is straight out of Dr Strangelove. Of course they train you to think its plausable to win. It is in a way. Its just the world wont be much fun to live in unless your underground. Sure two weeks before the really dangerous radioactive waste sinks into the ground but long term crops, cancers, oceans will be ruined. Still births and god knows what else will be the norm....In otherwords its madness to think so....You should research Chernobyl and see how long it is before thats safe to live for humans, before you make statements of a decade or two.....Jesus christ.....If your a spokesman for American military thinking I am very afraid. If we strike first? Its ok if you live in a bunker.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Still better than ours..
    On what do you base your opinion? The US and Israel are the only nations that have successfully demonstrated any real missile defense capability at all. Iran has non at all, except against the slowest and easiest to defeat cruise missiles and Russia's tech not much better.
    --

    Yes Ice, containers is a problem which is why customs inspections are increasingly being moved to ports of embarkation. They are also not easy to hide as many of us assume with a full range of existing and potential techniques to detect them. Many of them listed here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40154.pdf

    And again detection at a port is the last of numerous defences in depth.

    -
    I also find your naivety rather astounding and ignorant of basic human nature as individuals and as groups. I hate war more than most having participated in several and having suffered personal loss--but I'm also realistic in thinking that regardless of that dislike, a strong military and willingness to occasionally use it is absolutely necessary. Also like many Americans I'm completely sick of having to spend blood and treasure to sort out other's (particularly European) problems.
    I respect your military background lynx but your idea of helping European problems is a fantasy. Germany declared war on you in Ww2 not you on them. Your economy became a superpower because of it. You became an industrial powerhouse. Thanks to demand and also because (apart from Pearl harbour ) your industry was NOT bombed the hell out of. I respect all Americans that died fighting to stop the Nazi threat, along with Russians but lets stop with the America saviour nonsence ( that really is your own propaganda ) and there is shit loads of evidence to prove it.
    That's a nice bit of Eurocentric misrepresentation of history...one I actually used to take seriously before I started to read quantitative economic studies of the past couple century which without dispute and by nearly every measure the US being the dominant economy by the late 19th century. The US wasn't propelled into economic dominance by either War World--it already had it.


    It did however have great reluctant to turn that economic power into political power until after WWII, probably because of the messes it had been drawn into; most consider the Suez Canal crisis the pivotal point.
    --
    My early comment was mainly about who's been paying the bill for European security for the past half a century-- the US has been the dominant bill payer not only to keep NATO running, but also to clean up European Genocides (SE Europe during the 1990s), keep fuels flowing (Desert Storm I--in large part a continuing mess aggravated like a bad hangover by European colonialism), as well as footing the bill for broader internationally assistance overseas through the UN.

    Most Americans would be more than willing to cut the military, including this old Soldier, if other developed nations would step up and develop the force projection needed to secure energy, meet natural disaster planning, and resolve international disputes around the world. Until that time, expect the US to continue to have a huge military by default--because no one else is courageous enough or realistic enough to have one--that is until it's really needed by which point it would be too late.
    Your view is only one side of the equation. America was damaged by the second world war, and as it seem has developed a paranoia or one might even say a phobic fear of imminent attack. This build up of so much destructive weapons is nothing but fear. I cannot grasp the necessity for the amount of WMD, unless you have sufficiently provided for the comfort of your population. Military might does not win wars, its motivation that does that. There have been empires with military power that no other can match, yet they have gone down in history as looser's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Your view is only one side of the equation. America was damaged by the second world war, and as it seem has developed a paranoia or one might even say a phobic fear of imminent attack. This build up of so much destructive weapons is nothing but fear. I cannot grasp the necessity for the amount of WMD, unless you have sufficiently provided for the comfort of your population.
    It's not there to enable victory if someone did attack. Just mutually assured destruction.

    The reason for mutually assured destruction, in turn, is not to prevent a full war - because even a small fraction of that would prevent full war. It's to prevent tribute demands. If one side finds they are in a position to "win", then they start making "demands".

    That's the trouble with terrorism right now. Politically, we allow terrorists to fight asymmetrically. They can target our civilians, but we don't feel equally entitled to target theirs. So terrorist groups go around "making demands" - which is a "politically correct" way of saying that terrorist groups go around "demanding tribute".

    Of course they don't call it "tribute". They find some way of phrasing and rationalizing it as a request of "justice" or "redress" or something like that. But obviously it is tribute. It's being demanded at the point of a gun or bomb or whatever they've got. That makes it tribute.





    Military might does not win wars, its motivation that does that. There have been empires with military power that no other can match, yet they have gone down in history as looser's.

    You need a combination of might and motivation. It's the same as anything else in life. Ability + Motivation = Success.

    You can have all the motivation in the world, but if you lack the ability you're out of luck. But also you can have all the ability in the world, but if you lack the motivation then you'll just be a highly skilled couch potato, or a drug addict who is exceptionally good at finding a vein.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post

    Bombs like the tsar bomb hit New york or Washington and it will be a little longer than a decade or two before you make a full recovery. The kind of thinking of your post is straight out of Dr Strangelove. Of course they train you to think its plausable to win. It is in a way. Its just the world wont be much fun to live in unless your underground. Sure two weeks before the really dangerous radioactive waste sinks into the ground but long term crops, cancers, oceans will be ruined. Still births and god knows what else will be the norm....In otherwords its madness to think so....You should research Chernobyl and see how long it is before thats safe to live for humans, before you make statements of a decade or two.....Jesus christ.....If your a spokesman for American military thinking I am very afraid. If we strike first? Its ok if you live in a bunker.
    Unfortunately your comments both change the scenario and aren't really based in any factual knowledge about the subject.

    I specifically said limited strike...using an example of one of the largest nuclear weapons doesn't fit. Nor does a comparison to a first generation nuclear plant accident.

    But here's what we know from more than half a century of research and extensive research from Japan, Chernobyl and other places.

    Most nuclear and fusion weapons are 10-200 kt. (e.g Pakistan, India and US, USSR/Russian arsenal). If you survive the initial blast and fallout (easy to survive through) of those sized weapons the area can be reoccupied and started to be rebuilt in a few months with the resident only suffering a small increased risk thyroid and other cancers.

    And despite the horrific damage of such an event strike even an more important city, the US would likely completely recover in a couple decades (probably much sooner); a challenge no worse than Europe or Japan rebuilding after the horrific firebombings in the last year of WWII.

    You might not like the facts, or would rather dwell on emotional arguments, but there they are nevertheless. Limited strike nuclear wars are quite survivable and winnable; they are also something we'll likely see in the future. That being said, it's perhaps only the ignorance and share horror that have kept them from being used more often--deterrent works quite well even when it isn't based in empirical analysis of the risk or most likely scenarios.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    " Limited strike nuclear wars are quite survivable and winnable; "


    I agree, Yes, Sure as long at it is limited (and YOU are not in the blast radius) "Limited strike nuclear wars are quite survivable and winnable", but you cant be 100.0000% sure it will be limited.

    Like a Clown telling the audience, "As the last act, For your viewing pleasure, we have a surprise grand finale, I will now juggle with live thermo nuclear war heads that will detonate if I drop any, but relax, I can juggle them no problem. Drum roll please..." Any sane person would be scared out of his mind.
    Last edited by icewendigo; April 28th, 2014 at 01:37 PM.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    That type of planetary holocaust dare devil talk makes people very scared of the US in general
    not sure that's a bad thing.

    and of US anti-missile systems posted around Russia in particular
    We don't have one. And I doubt any such system is even possible.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    (I removed the last part because it was not all that pertinent)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Your view is only one side of the equation. America was damaged by the second world war, and as it seem has developed a paranoia or one might even say a phobic fear of imminent attack. This build up of so much destructive weapons is nothing but fear. I cannot grasp the necessity for the amount of WMD, unless you have sufficiently provided for the comfort of your population.
    It's not there to enable victory if someone did attack. Just mutually assured destruction.

    The reason for mutually assured destruction, in turn, is not to prevent a full war - because even a small fraction of that would prevent full war. It's to prevent tribute demands. If one side finds they are in a position to "win", then they start making "demands".

    That's the trouble with terrorism right now. Politically, we allow terrorists to fight asymmetrically. They can target our civilians, but we don't feel equally entitled to target theirs. So terrorist groups go around "making demands" - which is a "politically correct" way of saying that terrorist groups go around "demanding tribute".

    Of course they don't call it "tribute". They find some way of phrasing and rationalizing it as a request of "justice" or "redress" or something like that. But obviously it is tribute. It's being demanded at the point of a gun or bomb or whatever they've got. That makes it tribute.





    Military might does not win wars, its motivation that does that. There have been empires with military power that no other can match, yet they have gone down in history as looser's.

    You need a combination of might and motivation. It's the same as anything else in life. Ability + Motivation = Success.

    You can have all the motivation in the world, but if you lack the ability you're out of luck. But also you can have all the ability in the world, but if you lack the motivation then you'll just be a highly skilled couch potato, or a drug addict who is exceptionally good at finding a vein.
    I hear you Kojax, I was pointing out that it could be taken for granted that in order for you to go to war you should have the tools in place for war. To plan for war you must have enough reason to motivate. Wars are not contemplated on the idea of weapons, there has to be a purpose. You have to motivate your solders on the reason you find it absolutely necessary to go to war. In my neck of the woods as far as I see it, wars should only be fought in the spirit of defense. One should not attack the other on grounds of materialism, that is a common logical law. I know this may sound funny to some here, but war is a stupid idea when you consider that wars really never changes anything but set up the next cycle for war, if you have to keep having wars, where is the progress. We have advanced to such level where we hear words such as "Weapon Of Mass Destruction", we hear words such as "Mutual Destruction". We do not hear words such as Building for a better world that everyone loves. When we listen to the news it's all about technology, science, murder; we see people not as people but economic tools with numbers.
    My friend, who thought up the idea of making drones and going up into the air and fire them at people in the name of some so called critical thinking mind? The people of the USA and the world are now realizing that war is not the way out. Happy people is the way out, people who can hug each other black, white, pink, blue, any one of the beautiful spectrum we have. People who can look at the planet and love it it without trying to destroy it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Unfortunately your comments both change the scenario and aren't really based in any factual knowledge about the subject.

    I specifically said limited strike...using an example of one of the largest nuclear weapons doesn't fit. Nor does a comparison to a first generation nuclear plant accident.

    But here's what we know from more than half a century of research and extensive research from Japan, Chernobyl and other places.

    Most nuclear and fusion weapons are 10-200 kt. (e.g Pakistan, India and US, USSR/Russian arsenal). If you survive the initial blast and fallout (easy to survive through) of those sized weapons the area can be reoccupied and started to be rebuilt in a few months with the resident only suffering a small increased risk thyroid and other cancers.
    I'll chime in and add that the real damage caused by Chernobyl was from the isotopes that spread into the air from the burningfuel rods. It's not so much a matter of stuff being "radioactive" as of it being exotic chemicals that poison living beings. Remember this is atom splitting. The atoms don't always split evenly "in half" so to speak. You end up with a lot of random elements that are normally somewhat uncommon in the natural world, and which the chemistry of most living beings consequently has not evolved any protection against absorbing into their bodies.

    And once it is absorbed, then the fact it is radioactive gets to be a bigger issue because it is constantly irradiating nearby cells. The body can take a pretty good daily dose of radiation overall, but that is assuming it's spread out evenly across your body. If the radiation is coming from a point (or multiple points) inside your body, and always hitting the same cells (the once nearest to the emitters) - then we must evaluate your "daily dose" differently.

    A nuclear bomb, on the other hand, is made of a very small amount of actual material, and attempts to the best of its ability to react that material completely for maximum yield.





    And despite the horrific damage of such an event strike even an more important city, the US would likely completely recover in a couple decades (probably much sooner); a challenge no worse than Europe or Japan rebuilding after the horrific firebombings in the last year of WWII.

    You might not like the facts, or would rather dwell on emotional arguments, but there they are nevertheless. Limited strike nuclear wars are quite survivable and winnable; they are also something we'll likely see in the future. That being said, it's perhaps only the ignorance and share horror that have kept them from being used more often--deterrent works quite well even when it isn't based in empirical analysis of the risk or most likely scenarios.
    The problem is it's unlikely either side would stop at a limited strike. Round one would come to an end, and the loser would become more desperate than ever. Soon afterward there would be a round 2, and then a round 3, and .... etc

    Then once everyone is living in underground bunkers to survive the wasted atmosphere, they'd start using biological weapons to attack each others' bunkers. Only a matter of time before the bunkers stop being able to support populations.

    I suppose you could win a single battle, but I don't see any possible way to win the war.
    Stargate likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Unfortunately your comments both change the scenario and aren't really based in any factual knowledge about the subject.

    I specifically said limited strike...using an example of one of the largest nuclear weapons doesn't fit. Nor does a comparison to a first generation nuclear plant accident.

    But here's what we know from more than half a century of research and extensive research from Japan, Chernobyl and other places.

    Most nuclear and fusion weapons are 10-200 kt. (e.g Pakistan, India and US, USSR/Russian arsenal). If you survive the initial blast and fallout (easy to survive through) of those sized weapons the area can be reoccupied and started to be rebuilt in a few months with the resident only suffering a small increased risk thyroid and other cancers.
    I'll chime in and add that the real damage caused by Chernobyl was from the isotopes that spread into the air from the burningfuel rods. It's not so much a matter of stuff being "radioactive" as of it being exotic chemicals that poison living beings. Remember this is atom splitting. The atoms don't always split evenly "in half" so to speak. You end up with a lot of random elements that are normally somewhat uncommon in the natural world, and which the chemistry of most living beings consequently has not evolved any protection against absorbing into their bodies.

    And once it is absorbed, then the fact it is radioactive gets to be a bigger issue because it is constantly irradiating nearby cells. The overall level of irradiation might be low, but if its hitting the same cells again and again, then it might as well be a high level of radiation from the perspective of those cells.

    A nuclear bomb, on the other hand, is made of a very small amount of actual material, and attempts to the best of its ability to react that material completely for maximum yield.





    And despite the horrific damage of such an event strike even an more important city, the US would likely completely recover in a couple decades (probably much sooner); a challenge no worse than Europe or Japan rebuilding after the horrific firebombings in the last year of WWII.

    You might not like the facts, or would rather dwell on emotional arguments, but there they are nevertheless. Limited strike nuclear wars are quite survivable and winnable; they are also something we'll likely see in the future. That being said, it's perhaps only the ignorance and share horror that have kept them from being used more often--deterrent works quite well even when it isn't based in empirical analysis of the risk or most likely scenarios.
    The problem is it's unlikely either side would stop at a limited strike. Round one would come to an end, and the loser would become more desperate than ever. Soon afterward there would be a round 2, and then a round 3, and .... etc

    Then once everyone is living in underground bunkers to survive the wasted atmosphere, they'd start using biological weapons to attack each others' bunkers. Only a matter of time before the bunkers stop being able to support populations.

    I suppose you could win a single battle, but I don't see any possible way to win the war.
    Whatever, lets just hope that nobody with their finger on the doomsday buttons ever gets feeling depressed or suicidal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    That type of planetary holocaust dare devil talk makes people very scared of the US in general
    not sure that's a bad thing.

    and of US anti-missile systems posted around Russia in particular
    We don't have one. And I doubt any such system is even possible.

    It doesn't really make the rest of the world scared of America, it makes Americans who write posts about winning limited strikes seem a little mis informed to say the least ( I am being polite ). Luckily for America there are lots of people who are smart, funny and sane. It is madness to write a post about a limited strike on a science forum. Fine on a red neck paranoid forum where people have the I.q of goldfish. Lets stick to reality and all is ok. Hypothetical limited strikes cannot be achieved against Russia or China so its pointless discussing them, especially when this link was to discuss how effective Americas missile defence is.....not very by all Accounts!

    A nuclear war will be insanity from beginning to end....not controlled, not limited, nuclear power plants will be one of the first areas of any country (that has them ) to be hit...so your so called bad radioactive waste will be in the atmosphere with everything else. I don't want to go into long winded details but lets just say we will all be screwed.

    I would like to add before you say 'not if we strike first'.. You can't take out all of Russia and china's subs as they can't yours. So you can strike first but you'll be hit straight back. Therefore no such thing as a limited strike.
    Last edited by jonio; April 29th, 2014 at 01:56 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Hypothetical limited strikes cannot be achieved against Russia or China so its pointless discussing them, especially when this link was to discuss how effective Americas missile defence is.....not very by all Accounts!

    A nuclear war will be insanity from beginning to end....not controlled, not limited,.....
    Missile defense for other things like ships and planes, even military bases is a different thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Hypothetical limited strikes cannot be achieved against Russia or China so its pointless discussing them, especially when this link was to discuss how effective Americas missile defence is.....not very by all Accounts!

    A nuclear war will be insanity from beginning to end....not controlled, not limited,.....
    Missile defense for other things like ships and planes, even military bases is a different thing.
    What's your view on the P-800 anti ship missile that Russia has sold to Syria? Its very interesting how Russia is putting all its faith into missile tech.....s.300/400/500 etc....new multi head nukes etc....I am getting worried they will believe in a limited strike soon.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_mN2lPdLo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbPFEpJSRT8

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yxUnnbZDqAc
    Last edited by jonio; April 29th, 2014 at 02:20 AM.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    What's your view on the P-800 anti ship missile that Russia has sold to Syria? Its very interesting how Russia is putting all its faith into missile tech.....s.300/400/500 etc....new multi head nukes etc....I am getting worried they will believe in a limited strike soon.
    I really don't know enough about modern missile systems to say anything much.
    I would point out that during the Falklands war missiles were used against ships and the results are on record.

    HMS Glamorgan (D19) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    HMS Sheffield (D80) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The ships had missile defence systems and they were hit by exocets. How they would do against up to date missiles even if equipped with modern defence systems I would not even try to guess at. I can imagine that frigates or even old commercial ships might be used as physical screens to protect high value targets like aircraft carriers.

    (Falklands also saw British nuclear sub sink the Argentine light cruiser General Belgrano.)
    jonio likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,308
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    It doesn't really make the rest of the world scared of America, it makes Americans who write posts about winning limited strikes seem a little mis informed to say the least ( I am being polite ).
    And thus far, honestly you've demonstrated almost no knowledge about the subject at all.

    A nuclear war will be insanity from beginning to end....not controlled, not limited, nuclear power plants will be one of the first areas of any country (that has them ) to be hit...so your so called bad radioactive waste will be in the atmosphere with everything else. I don't want to go into long winded details but lets just say we will all be screwed.
    Speculation. And nuclear power plants would likely not be targets at all unless the goal were to knock out the nation's power. They are pretty well defended targets with little to no chance of secondary effects--in fact power plants have been bombed six times with no significant release of radioactive materials. If you idea of being screwed is adding a global average population risk about equal to being hit by lightning...you could say you are screwed I guess...the reality is your are badly exaggerating the risk based on ignorant fear rather than actually knowledge.

    I would like to add before you say 'not if we strike first'.. You can't take out all of Russia and china's subs as they can't yours. So you can strike first but you'll be hit straight back. Therefore no such thing as a limited strike.
    There are at least 9 nuclear armed nations. I agree China and Russia have a large enough force that a limited nuclear war shouldn't be possible unless it was a proxy war exchange. For others though, such as North Korea they would be limited by definition simply because they don't have a tested arsenal nor effective deployment systems.

    I'm going to comment any further unless someone actually post some credible information about the subject.
    --
    I'm left wonder why you started an OP if you didn't want to hear the answer from someone who actually knew something about the subject.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    What's your view on the P-800 anti ship missile that Russia has sold to Syria? Its very interesting how Russia is putting all its faith into missile tech.....s.300/400/500 etc....new multi head nukes etc....I am getting worried they will believe in a limited strike soon.
    I really don't know enough about modern missile systems to say anything much.
    I would point out that during the Falklands war missiles were used against ships and the results are on record.

    HMS Glamorgan (D19) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    HMS Sheffield (D80) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The ships had missile defence systems and they were hit by exocets. How they would do against up to date missiles even if equipped with modern defence systems I would not even try to guess at. I can imagine that frigates or even old commercial ships might be used as physical screens to protect high value targets like aircraft carriers.

    (Falklands also saw British nuclear sub sink the Argentine light cruiser General Belgrano.)
    Yes, I feel its easy to be one step ahead with missiles over defence...economically speaking as well as tech. As I said in earlier posts....to hit a bullet with a bullet is very hard. Now with hypersonic missile Tech?? America spends ( has spent ) billions on its missile defence capabilities, I feel unless it can really master lazer tech ( which requires massive power ) , anti missile missiles are just a waste of money. Its too easy to upgrade against them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    It doesn't really make the rest of the world scared of America, it makes Americans who write posts about winning limited strikes seem a little mis informed to say the least ( I am being polite ).
    And thus far, honestly you've demonstrated almost no knowledge about the subject at all.

    A nuclear war will be insanity from beginning to end....not controlled, not limited, nuclear power plants will be one of the first areas of any country (that has them ) to be hit...so your so called bad radioactive waste will be in the atmosphere with everything else. I don't want to go into long winded details but lets just say we will all be screwed.
    Speculation. And nuclear power plants would likely not be targets at all unless the goal were to knock out the nation's power. They are pretty well defended targets with little to no chance of secondary effects--in fact power plants have been bombed six times with no significant release of radioactive materials. If you idea of being screwed is adding a global average population risk about equal to being hit by lightning...you could say you are screwed I guess...the reality is your are badly exaggerating the risk based on ignorant fear rather than actually knowledge.

    I would like to add before you say 'not if we strike first'.. You can't take out all of Russia and china's subs as they can't yours. So you can strike first but you'll be hit straight back. Therefore no such thing as a limited strike.
    There are at least 9 nuclear armed nations. I agree China and Russia have a large enough force that a limited nuclear war shouldn't be possible unless it was a proxy war exchange. For others though, such as North Korea they would be limited by definition simply because they don't have a tested arsenal nor effective deployment systems.

    I'm going to comment any further unless someone actually post some credible information about the subject.
    --
    I'm left wonder why you started an OP if you didn't want to hear the answer from someone who actually knew something about the subject.
    Ok lynx. I am sorry if it seems that I have jumped the gun on this subject. The problem with your approach was to say a limited exchange without naming actual targeted countries. Therefore ( as this thread is about Americas missile defence ) , I was imagining a limited attack on Russia or China. It ( at the moment ) couldn't happen. There could be no winner. Obviously the size of warheads would make a difference and the amount of weapons and their means of delivery. North Korea could be won but even against a foe such as India it would be massively risky and hugely damaging to the U.s.a, in otherwords pointless to even think of. As Russia likes to sell its weapons and tech to these countries, also China, you are actually talking about defending against those who share their tech. I also understand that the human race would survive a nuclear war. It would just send us back to the dinosaurs, communications, infrastructure ect, unless just a couple of bombs are used. . Also with nuclear comes biological and chemical. All these weapons could be released ( although how Effective??? ) . There will be no limited strike war unless America / China / Russia attacked using Nukes on a weak nuclear state. Which would in a state of madness trigger a world war anyway...unless it was one of the big threes common enemy. Would America risk allowing another country to fire off Nukes? Anything is possible but limited nuclear wars, I feel are not. Anymore exchanges would unleash Hell on earth....the domino effect. Yes your correct on nuclear fallout..we were shown how to survive at school. Two weeks you could leave the house. There would be radiation poisoning for years to come but limited. They would hit nuclear power stations. They would want the powerstation to spread its waste because nuclear war means extermination. So they would use weapons to maximize that effect. This subject though is for another link. Limited strikes will never be needed or even should be planned for ( although I know they are on all sides )....conventional is good enough. I apologise for jumping to the wrong conclusion on your thread. Your post about America keeping Europe safe rather annoyed me but your knowledge on weapon systems is much appreciated.
    Last edited by jonio; April 29th, 2014 at 05:52 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    A nuclear war will be insanity from beginning to end....not controlled, not limited, nuclear power plants will be one of the first areas of any country (that has them ) to be hit...so your so called bad radioactive waste will be in the atmosphere with everything else. I don't want to go into long winded details but lets just say we will all be screwed.
    Speculation. And nuclear power plants would likely not be targets at all unless the goal were to knock out the nation's power. They are pretty well defended targets with little to no chance of secondary effects--in fact power plants have been bombed six times with no significant release of radioactive materials. If you idea of being screwed is adding a global average population risk about equal to being hit by lightning...you could say you are screwed I guess...the reality is your are badly exaggerating the risk based on ignorant fear rather than actually knowledge.
    I'm assuming you're talking about a situation where the goal is to destroy the other side's nuclear arsenal, rather than to destroy the other side altogether. (Probably implied.)

    But what kind of aftermath are they looking for here, then? A surrender? Annexing territory? Or making the other side "not a player" anymore? Preparing for a successful conventional war?

    The end game determines where it stops. If they want the USA out of world politics for a long time, they need to cripple our economy. And so if they got the upper hand in the first strike, then I would think the next several nuclear strikes after our arsenal was disabled would be targeted at power plants, factories, and stuff like that. Anything that's too hard to rebuild.

    Not every enemy has their mind on the short term. A lesson the USA has been forced to learn again and again.... and still doesn't seem to understand.





    I would like to add before you say 'not if we strike first'.. You can't take out all of Russia and china's subs as they can't yours. So you can strike first but you'll be hit straight back. Therefore no such thing as a limited strike.
    There are at least 9 nuclear armed nations. I agree China and Russia have a large enough force that a limited nuclear war shouldn't be possible unless it was a proxy war exchange. For others though, such as North Korea they would be limited by definition simply because they don't have a tested arsenal nor effective deployment systems.

    I'm going to comment any further unless someone actually post some credible information about the subject.
    --
    I'm left wonder why you started an OP if you didn't want to hear the answer from someone who actually knew something about the subject.
    Well, yeah. If you're talking about winning a nuclear war against N. Korea, Pakistan, or India, then yes it could almost certainly be achieved.

    But that supposes that China and Russia wouldn't get involved. Which seems unlikely.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Unfortunately your comments both change the scenario and aren't really based in any factual knowledge about the subject.

    I specifically said limited strike...using an example of one of the largest nuclear weapons doesn't fit. Nor does a comparison to a first generation nuclear plant accident.

    But here's what we know from more than half a century of research and extensive research from Japan, Chernobyl and other places.

    Most nuclear and fusion weapons are 10-200 kt. (e.g Pakistan, India and US, USSR/Russian arsenal). If you survive the initial blast and fallout (easy to survive through) of those sized weapons the area can be reoccupied and started to be rebuilt in a few months with the resident only suffering a small increased risk thyroid and other cancers.
    I'll chime in and add that the real damage caused by Chernobyl was from the isotopes that spread into the air from the burningfuel rods. It's not so much a matter of stuff being "radioactive" as of it being exotic chemicals that poison living beings. Remember this is atom splitting. The atoms don't always split evenly "in half" so to speak. You end up with a lot of random elements that are normally somewhat uncommon in the natural world, and which the chemistry of most living beings consequently has not evolved any protection against absorbing into their bodies.

    And once it is absorbed, then the fact it is radioactive gets to be a bigger issue because it is constantly irradiating nearby cells. The overall level of irradiation might be low, but if its hitting the same cells again and again, then it might as well be a high level of radiation from the perspective of those cells.

    A nuclear bomb, on the other hand, is made of a very small amount of actual material, and attempts to the best of its ability to react that material completely for maximum yield.





    And despite the horrific damage of such an event strike even an more important city, the US would likely completely recover in a couple decades (probably much sooner); a challenge no worse than Europe or Japan rebuilding after the horrific firebombings in the last year of WWII.

    You might not like the facts, or would rather dwell on emotional arguments, but there they are nevertheless. Limited strike nuclear wars are quite survivable and winnable; they are also something we'll likely see in the future. That being said, it's perhaps only the ignorance and share horror that have kept them from being used more often--deterrent works quite well even when it isn't based in empirical analysis of the risk or most likely scenarios.
    The problem is it's unlikely either side would stop at a limited strike. Round one would come to an end, and the loser would become more desperate than ever. Soon afterward there would be a round 2, and then a round 3, and .... etc

    Then once everyone is living in underground bunkers to survive the wasted atmosphere, they'd start using biological weapons to attack each others' bunkers. Only a matter of time before the bunkers stop being able to support populations.

    I suppose you could win a single battle, but I don't see any possible way to win the war.
    Whatever, lets just hope that nobody with their finger on the doomsday buttons ever gets feeling depressed or suicidal.
    Dan do you know we the people could stop them from going crazy? they do have to rely on us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Reading the last couple of post sends shivers up my spine when I think of what would happen after such strikes. It is not alone the fact of firing those weapons, it is what happens after the strikes. People have to survive after any war, so how would that look when there are no infrastructures? its very puzzling.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    What would likely happen if two world powers went at it and smashed each others' nuclear arsenal - The USA and China, The USA and Russia, or Russia and China - is the third one would jump in and smash the winner while they were still weak.

    Or if all three went at it, then in the after math a minor power could step up and take over.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    My point with the limited exchange of nuclear weapons is that you would have to take enormous risks in doing it. There is no point unless you yourself are under threat of being nuked yourselves. Conventional will do. Ten to twenty daisy cutters for example. Also do you think any country leaves its nuclear arsenal out to be hit by air Strikes? Do you not think that even the most stupid of generals will not realise that America would target their missiles First? The idea of quick nuking to disable their nuclear arsenal is daft. Almost mad. If Japan had had nukes do you think it would have not struck Back? Complete extermination is what Nuclear weapons are for. That's why they dropped two on Japan, on cities, not military bases...to show America will exterminate you unless you surrender. Once they're out the box all logic disappears. No military will risk a limited exchange...its all or nothing...total destruction of the enemy....military....limited nuclear wars are for those who have real missile defences who can shoot down anything that comes into their airspace. Otherwise you have to completely wipe out all of the enemy....civilians, military, all of them. Only Dr strangelove style generals would say different......that's why they made a comedy about exactly this subject.

    Nukes are to stop us wiping ourselves out....that's their only insane purpose....
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What would likely happen if two world powers went at it and smashed each others' nuclear arsenal - The USA and China, The USA and Russia, or Russia and China - is the third one would jump in and smash the winner while they were still weak.

    Or if all three went at it, then in the after math a minor power could step up and take over.
    Kojax, please kill that thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What would likely happen if two world powers went at it and smashed each others' nuclear arsenal - The USA and China, The USA and Russia, or Russia and China - is the third one would jump in and smash the winner while they were still weak.

    Or if all three went at it, then in the after math a minor power could step up and take over.
    If America and Russia went at it, then that's 1000,s of nukes, the third power would have a nuclear winter to think about....also Europe has plenty of nukes itself...China would sit back and prey like the rest of us....unless of course they sided with Russia....Then America has enough to blow them to bits also....it would be one big horrific mess...The only winners would be the criminals and mad dogs....law n order would be gone....If I was Primeminister of England, my nuclear defence would be bunkers...everywhere...with back up power supplies...sit out the madness and emerge with a half intact population....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What would likely happen if two world powers went at it and smashed each others' nuclear arsenal - The USA and China, The USA and Russia, or Russia and China - is the third one would jump in and smash the winner while they were still weak.

    Or if all three went at it, then in the after math a minor power could step up and take over.
    If America and Russia went at it, then that's 1000,s of nukes, the third power would have a nuclear winter to think about....also Europe has plenty of nukes itself...China would sit back and prey like the rest of us....unless of course they sided with Russia....Then America has enough to blow them to bits also....it would be one big horrific mess...The only winners would be the criminals and mad dogs....law n order would be gone....If I was Primeminister of England, my nuclear defence would be bunkers...everywhere...with back up power supplies...sit out the madness and emerge with a half intact population....
    Now Jonio, can you find a name for those critical thinkers? And BTW, you would be hard pressed to find anything not mad left to tell the tale of the aftermath.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    What would likely happen if two world powers went at it and smashed each others' nuclear arsenal - The USA and China, The USA and Russia, or Russia and China - is the third one would jump in and smash the winner while they were still weak.

    Or if all three went at it, then in the after math a minor power could step up and take over.
    If America and Russia went at it, then that's 1000,s of nukes, the third power would have a nuclear winter to think about....also Europe has plenty of nukes itself...China would sit back and prey like the rest of us....unless of course they sided with Russia....Then America has enough to blow them to bits also....it would be one big horrific mess...The only winners would be the criminals and mad dogs....law n order would be gone....If I was Primeminister of England, my nuclear defence would be bunkers...everywhere...with back up power supplies...sit out the madness and emerge with a half intact population....
    Now Jonio, can you find a name for those critical thinkers? And BTW, you would be hard pressed to find anything not mad left to tell the tale of the aftermath.
    Well if critical thinkers envision a limited strike....the name I would give them would be stupid....the problem with critical thinkers is they don't like to be criticised. :-) As for survivors left not being mad....your right...it would probably be those who pushed the button who would be left anyway.
    Stargate likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    My point with the limited exchange of nuclear weapons is that you would have to take enormous risks in doing it. There is no point unless you yourself are under threat of being nuked yourselves
    Paranoia is not hard to conjure. Half the American public thought Saddam Hussein was going to blow us up, even though realistically he would never have launched his nukes even if he had somehow managed to develop one.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    .If I was Primeminister of England, my nuclear defence would be bunkers...everywhere...with back up power supplies...sit out the madness and emerge with a half intact population....

    Yeah. Good idea. Because if there ever is an exchange, I imagine that whoever targets the USA would also target the UK out of the assumption they would take America's side (even though that assumption may not be correct.)

    But realistically, how would the survivors even get food? With your whole infrastructure shattered, you'd have nothing to export, which would make it hard to import enough food for the population. England unfortunately doesn't have enough of its own farmland to support more than a tiny fraction of its population (less after nuclear winter sets in.)

    In the long term, you'd be better off just building a few bunkers. Better for only a tiny fraction of the population to survive the initial blast than for a large fraction of the population to survive the initial blast, and then for a tiny fraction to survive the ensuing food wars that would inevitably be fought by all those hungry people.

    If you spare only a few, then your country can remain with its national identity intact. The survivors will continue to cooperate as brothers if there is enough farmland to sustain them all.
    Stargate likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    My point with the limited exchange of nuclear weapons is that you would have to take enormous risks in doing it. There is no point unless you yourself are under threat of being nuked yourselves
    Paranoia is not hard to conjure. Half the American public thought Saddam Hussein was going to blow us up, even though realistically he would never have launched his nukes even if he had somehow managed to develop one.


    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    .If I was Primeminister of England, my nuclear defence would be bunkers...everywhere...with back up power supplies...sit out the madness and emerge with a half intact population....

    Yeah. Good idea. Because if there ever is an exchange, I imagine that whoever targets the USA would also target the UK out of the assumption they would take America's side (even though that assumption may not be correct.)

    But realistically, how would the survivors even get food? With your whole infrastructure shattered, you'd have nothing to export, which would make it hard to import enough food for the population. England unfortunately doesn't have enough of its own farmland to support more than a tiny fraction of its population (less after nuclear winter sets in.)

    In the long term, you'd be better off just building a few bunkers. Better for only a tiny fraction of the population to survive the initial blast than for a large fraction of the population to survive the initial blast, and then for a tiny fraction to survive the ensuing food wars that would inevitably be fought by all those hungry people.

    If you spare only a few, then your country can remain with its national identity intact. The survivors will continue to cooperate as brothers if there is enough farmland to sustain them all.
    Well I guess farming is going to be a problem depending on how bad the nuclear winter turns out. The more people that survive could end up as a food source for the strong or young. A small amount (as you suggest) of people would be fed and looked after at all costs and all others would be used for their survival. The masses would be needed to help with the clean up process. To help with the survival process. This obviously would be overseen with military backing as to control the masses. One of the bunkers could be used for hydroponics to create green nutrients for the elite and rats could be bred to feed everyone else. To be honest if humans survived, I think it would just be back to business as usual...the haves, the have nots, probably ending up in world war 4. I don't give us enough credit to think we will learn something from such a horror...we don't seem to have learnt much from the last few thousand years of conflict....we forget...we don't learn from history ( only how to kill more with less) . What would change after world war Three?

    I wonder if wind turbines might get more support after world war Three?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    I don't give us enough credit to think we will learn something from such a horror...we don't seem to have learnt much from the last few thousand years of conflict....we forget...we don't learn from history ( only how to kill more with less) . What would change after world war Three?

    I wonder if wind turbines might get more support after world war Three?
    There is a quote from Einstein that is worth considering.

    I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks!
    Albert Einstein., in an interview with Alfred Werner, Liberal Judaism 16 (April-May 1949), 12. Einstein Archive 30-1104, as sourced in The New Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice (2005), p. 173.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post
    I don't give us enough credit to think we will learn something from such a horror...we don't seem to have learnt much from the last few thousand years of conflict....we forget...we don't learn from history ( only how to kill more with less) . What would change after world war Three?

    I wonder if wind turbines might get more support after world war Three?
    There is a quote from Einstein that is worth considering.

    I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks!
    Albert Einstein., in an interview with Alfred Werner, Liberal Judaism 16 (April-May 1949), 12. Einstein Archive 30-1104, as sourced in The New Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice (2005), p. 173.
    I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth — rocks!
    I know, nuclear powered rocks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post

    Well I guess farming is going to be a problem depending on how bad the nuclear winter turns out. The more people that survive could end up as a food source for the strong or young.
    I don't think cannabilism is a very good idea. If you're after a food source, maybe you should put large bushels of grain in the bunker instead of people. The grain will taste better, I think, and it stores better. You don't have to keep feeding a bushel of grain in order to keep it from wasting away into a skeleton.


    A small amount (as you suggest) of people would be fed and looked after at all costs and all others would be used for their survival.The masses would be needed to help with the clean up process. To help with the survival process. This obviously would be overseen with military backing as to control the masses. One of the bunkers could be used for hydroponics to create green nutrients for the elite and rats could be bred to feed everyone else.
    Is there really any hurry to clean up? I would think that after a serious nuclear exchange, and with so little infrastructure left, that trying to clean it all up quickly would be an exercise in futility. A drop in the bucket.

    Why not just limit the survivor pool to the number of people who can be fed by the hydroponics bunker? That way you have a stable, functional, society in place from day one. Then gradually clean up areas and rebuild as time and resources permit.

    The bleeding heart in all of us wants to save as many people as we can, but I think that taking a 90% chance of saving a few people in a way where they don't endure too much unpleasantness is better than taking a 10% chance of maybe saving half of them, and having all of them be irreversibly scarred by the horrors they endure.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,839
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jonio View Post

    Well I guess farming is going to be a problem depending on how bad the nuclear winter turns out. The more people that survive could end up as a food source for the strong or young.
    I don't think cannabilism is a very good idea. If you're after a food source, maybe you should put large bushels of grain in the bunker instead of people. The grain will taste better, I think, and it stores better. You don't have to keep feeding a bushel of grain in order to keep it from wasting away into a skeleton.


    A small amount (as you suggest) of people would be fed and looked after at all costs and all others would be used for their survival.The masses would be needed to help with the clean up process. To help with the survival process. This obviously would be overseen with military backing as to control the masses. One of the bunkers could be used for hydroponics to create green nutrients for the elite and rats could be bred to feed everyone else.
    Is there really any hurry to clean up? I would think that after a serious nuclear exchange, and with so little infrastructure left, that trying to clean it all up quickly would be an exercise in futility. A drop in the bucket.

    Why not just limit the survivor pool to the number of people who can be fed by the hydroponics bunker? That way you have a stable, functional, society in place from day one. Then gradually clean up areas and rebuild as time and resources permit.

    The bleeding heart in all of us wants to save as many people as we can, but I think that taking a 90% chance of saving a few people in a way where they don't endure too much unpleasantness is better than taking a 10% chance of maybe saving half of them, and having all of them be irreversibly scarred by the horrors they endure.
    I suspect when chaos is there all bets are off, people will change and old order will change until new order steps in.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargate View Post
    people will change and old order will change until new order steps in.
    Taking a good look at Russia should tell you that when old order dies, new order stepping in is not guaranteed. Sometimes instead of new order you just get mafia.
    Stargate likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Money as Debt, isnt strong enough, Money is Theft!
    By icewendigo in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 1st, 2013, 09:18 AM
  2. Focusing on only one oncoprotein a waste of cancer research money???
    By ScienceRocks in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 18th, 2013, 08:27 PM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 7th, 2010, 08:57 PM
  4. Star Wars and missile technology
    By leohopkins in forum Military Technology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 11th, 2009, 03:54 PM
  5. SETI: Is it a waste of money?
    By John Galt in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: October 20th, 2006, 04:12 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •