This ought to fire you up

[waste gate]

Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html


As a side note, and given the nature of this forum, where do you think the Isreali submarines are? Perhaps the IAF is the diversion.


Or perhaps, it is taking military contingency plans of the sort that every single country in the world has on file and using them to terrify people.

[CCIP]

Not really. I've been waiting for it to actually happen for a while, surprise it still hasn't. I'm personally not at all averse to this solution; and Israel should now that they're the ones most threatened by this.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

I'm on the left-wing side of things, but I'll still be the first to agree that this "friendly" is, well... :hmm:

[azn_132]

Damn nuke strikes in Iran? Later a battle is comin.

[waste gate]

Looks like the US Congressional left/leadership is behind the idea.

Hoyer said the use of force hadn't been taken off the table.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467674368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[The Avon Lady]

I just love top secret attack plans. :roll:

[Camaero]

Go Israel go! Someone has to stop them, or we will all deeply regret it later. It is that simple.

[U-533]

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”


GO ISREAL GO!!!

I fully support a nuke strike...:rock: :rock:

Everyone is so worried about "the fallout" and the "Humanity" of such an attack...

Let me ask you this: Do you honestly believe that making nicenice with Iraq or Iran , for that matter any of those Islamic run countries , will stop them from wanting your infidel head on a platter?
If you do ... go there and try to make nicenice ... please...:up:

[joea]

I fully support a nuke strike...:rock: :rock:


I don't :nope: 2 were enough.


Everyone is so worried about "the fallout" and the "Humanity" of such an attack...



Like me or do you think Isreal would be magically protected. :down:

[U-533]

I fully support a nuke strike...:rock: :rock:


I don't :nope: 2 were enough.


Everyone is so worried about "the fallout" and the "Humanity" of such an attack...



Like me or do you think Isreal would be magically protected. :down:

Well, joea... I dont think it would be "Magic".
But if Israel isn't protected... that sure would put a cramp in a few beliefs.

I personally am not worried about my Israeli friends. Israel has been proven time and time again. There will remain a remnant no matter the out come.


I just realised I have been spelling "Israel" this way "Isreal"...:rotfl:

[bradclark1]

I don't :nope: 2 were enough.

This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. If you don't do anything Iran has the bomb and that is really frightening. Their bomb making capabilities are beyond conventional munitions capabilities, so what do you do?

[geetrue]

I just love top secret attack plans. :roll:


So did Japan ...:lol:

[cobalt]

yes for israel! lets start a global war!

[bradclark1]

yes for israel! lets start a global war!
So it would be okay with you for Iran to have The Bomb?

[CCIP]

Now let me make it clear that I do NOT support this "yay nuke" thing. As per the plans, I only saw a tactical bunker-busting weapon being suggested, which I would find acceptable since it serves a military purpose. "Nuke Iran" or "blahblahblah infidels" does not sound right at all.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Send someone in to watch them, see if they're really generating power

[The Avon Lady]

Send someone in to watch them, see if they're really generating power
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[ASWnut101]

yes for israel! lets start a global war!
So it would be okay with you for Iran to have The Bomb?

Hell Yeah! Then the USA could finally dust off some of its' Minute Men and Peacekeepers.:cool:



Send someone in to watch them, see if they're really generating power

:lol: :rotfl:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Is anybody really surprised such plans exist? It would be against common sense if Israel did not have plans ready to go for a situation requiring a nuclear attack on a country whose leader has threatened to remove them from the face of the earth multiple times.

PD

[bradclark1]

Now let me make it clear that I do NOT support this "yay nuke" thing. As per the plans, I only saw a tactical bunker-busting weapon being suggested, which I would find acceptable since it serves a military purpose. "Nuke Iran" or "blahblahblah infidels" does not sound right at all.

What it does is open the taboo door to using nukes. Who is to say what an acceptable use of nukes are? Once you use one it will be easier for someone else to use one etc, etc.
Having said that I really don't see a choice but to use one if that is the only feasible option.

I would find acceptable since it serves a military purpose.
Is there any other purpose? :)

[joea]

I don't :nope: 2 were enough.
This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. If you don't do anything Iran has the bomb and that is really frightening. Their bomb making capabilities are beyond conventional munitions capabilities, so what do you do?

You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.

[ASWnut101]

depends on the type of deterrence.


shoot him with facts about how using nukes will destroy the world? No.


Fire a minuteman at him, but change the payload to some dud hunks of metal and target the areas around Tehran, his nuke plant, and his house? That can prove a very good point.

deterrence from a bunch of pansies throwing facts at him just will not get the job done.

Amejinethingamajig

try to pronounce this.:lol:

[geetrue]

Israel rejects report it may attack Iran's... (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/Israel rejects report it may attack Iran's...)


This was on my net zero start up page when I got home from church ...

I don't know if Israel would do to Iran what they did to Iraq in 1981, but can you imagine the pictures news services would show if Israel did attack Iran.

Civilian populations nearby wiped out or at least skin blisters, blind people crying, bodies of little children, women without their head scares crying and screaming.

Not good public relations for a country the UN and President Truman authorized almost 60 years ago next year to be a nation under it's own rules.

World opinion would turn against them and they would be the country with UN restrictions while Iran figures out a way to get even.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are to generate fear, not for first strike issues.

They know they would be wiped off the map to be the first to use nuclear weapons.

What that ex-mayor of Tehran has done is generate fear, because he is guided by the ruling muslim preist or whatever they call themselves.

It's just plain old fear ...

Faith and fear are a lot alike ...

In the small amount of time that it takes to replace each other ...

Click ...

They are just alike

[cobalt]

yes for israel! lets start a global war! So it would be okay with you for Iran to have The Bomb?
I don't think anybody should have the bomb.

and is it israels job to say who does and doesnt?

[TteFAboB]

Why not just drop more bunker-busters and keep dropping them untill the facility must stop working because of the random crumblings?

A tactical nuke sounds like the easy way out. I say the IAF and the USAF join forces with anybody else interested to do 24h bunker-buster bombing on these facilities. Remember WW2? Remember Bomber Command? The IAF attacks during daylight, the USAF floods the night with B-2's, B-1's, F-117's if there's still any left and whatever else.

After a few days the facilities will have to halt production because it's only a matter of time untill all corridors and rooms collapse on top of anybody inside. No reason to leave the infrastructure leading to the place intact either. Bomb the roads, railways, powerlines, send in SpecOps to sabotage the water line and shut it down.

Well, this plan would be far more expensive but who cares? I'm e-mailing it to the Pentagon.

[bradclark1]

I don't think anybody should have the bomb.
I agree but reality doesn't.

and is it israels job to say who does and doesnt?
If someone held a gun and kept saying you and your family should be wiped off the face of the earth, would you wait to see if he was bluffing?

[bradclark1]

Why not just drop more bunker-busters and keep dropping them untill the facility must stop working because of the random crumblings?

A tactical nuke sounds like the easy way out. I say the IAF and the USAF join forces with anybody else interested to do 24h bunker-buster bombing on these facilities. Remember WW2? Remember Bomber Command? The IAF attacks during daylight, the USAF floods the night with B-2's, B-1's, F-117's if there's still any left and whatever else.

After a few days the facilities will have to halt production because it's only a matter of time untill all corridors and rooms collapse on top of anybody inside. No reason to leave the infrastructure leading to the place intact either. Bomb the roads, railways, powerlines, send in SpecOps to sabotage the water line and shut it down.

Well, this plan would be far more expensive but who cares? I'm e-mailing it to the Pentagon.
You would have to beat the Russians telephone call to Iran and by the time you got there everything would have been moved so you are just bombing empty facilities.

[fatty]

You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.

I agree.

I'd bet the Iranian government will not wave their nuclear stick much more if/when they acquire the bomb. They'd be quite aware that a good deal of American nuclear weapons will be pointed squarely at them and, more importantly, their people. I think there are still lots of Iranians who aren't interested in being vapourized by a nuclear counter-strike just yet, even if it means erasing Israel.

And of course, we all know that revolution has happened before in Iran.:hmm:

This article was a step in the right direction - reminding Iranians of the consequences for going nuclear.

[baggygreen]

Im all for it - provided there is a constant flow of diplomatic pressure on. Yes, i know that it wont count for jack etc, but you've got to be seen to be doing the right thing before taking such a step.

[bradclark1]

You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.
Amejinethingamajig is nothing but a set of lips for the religious leadership.
He doesn't speak without having the words put in his mouth by those nut jobs.

[baggygreen]

And lets not forget that these nutjobs are the same ones who devote their lives to destroying anythign that doesnt fit exactly into what they deem is 'right'.

In short, they'll kill you given half a chance, without any hesitation. not to mention think they're guaranteeing themselves their virgins for it.

[cobalt]

I don't think anybody should have the bomb. I agree but reality doesn't.

and is it israels job to say who does and doesnt? If someone held a gun and kept saying you and your family should be wiped off the face of the earth, would you wait to see if he was bluffing?

if your home was riddled with bullets from IDF armed patrols would you still think they were the good guys?

there is no good guys. Israel is not the good guys, neither is Islam.

This is a thousand year old battle in which none of us were around when it started
And we'll be dead before its over.

[The Avon Lady]

I don't think anybody should have the bomb. I agree but reality doesn't.

and is it israels job to say who does and doesnt? If someone held a gun and kept saying you and your family should be wiped off the face of the earth, would you wait to see if he was bluffing?

if your home was riddled with bullets from IDF armed patrols would you still think they were the good guys?

there is no good guys. Israel is not the good guys, neither is Islam.

This is a thousand year old battle in which none of us were around when it started
And we'll be dead before its over.
What garbage dump do you forage for the dirt you pick up?

[U-533]

Amejinethingamajig is nothing but a set of lips for the religious leadership.
He doesn't speak without having the words put in his mouth by those nut jobs.


KEEP IN MIND....
Muslims believe there are 2 books being written about their lives. One book is all the bad they have done and of course the other is all the good things. Now when the Muslim stands before his god on his judgement day, knowing full well that if his bad book outweighs his good book, then the Muslim will not enter Paradise.
This is why the Muslim wants to kill the INFIDEL. It guarantees the Muslim's ticket to Paradise. No matter the evil that was done.

Look it up it's in the Koran.



You really think deterrence won't work? Amejinethingamajig doesn't seem stable but I think a lot is show.


It don't matter about his show or who told him to say what...

These type of people want your head...
Actually they just want your life and the more lives they take the more they feel their god smiles upon them.

----------------
As soon as people realise that this is their "Holy War" the "Jihad" and it will be fought to the bitter end ....... oh never mind ..... denial will not stop it.

[The Avon Lady]

Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html
I should have paid attention to the author of this article at the Times. I've come across his rubbish before.

This should give you some idea of author Uzi Mahnaimi's reputation and reliability (http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-israel-really-planning-to-attack.html).

Then ask yourself what kind of newspaper actually pays people like Mahnaimi to work for them.

[bradclark1]

if your home was riddled with bullets from IDF armed patrols would you still think they were the good guys?

there is no good guys. Israel is not the good guys, neither is Islam.

This is a thousand year old battle in which none of us were around when it started
And we'll be dead before its over.
I wouldn't allow terrorsts to use me as a front and work out of my home so I have nothing to worry about from the IDF. Seeing as you quoted me are you going to answer the question?

[Enigma]

:damn:

[dean_acheson]

Amazing, the mentality of some folks on this issue....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/7/115611/5148

For some on the hard left, I don't think that there will be happiness until we are all living under Shria.... it's like the new Marxist/Leninist/Maoism....

Anything and anybody that is against republicanism, capitalism, and liberalism is fine with us! The enemy of my enemy is my friend mentality of the college hippy crowd.

[Enigma]

Reading that article from Kos, I think anyone would have to say that there is logic to it. It's not an extremst view at all. Nor a suprising consideration.

Beyond that, your comments are just, well, silly. :yep:

For the record, I consider myself left of center, but I think the Daily Kos is a rag, and tend to be partial towards a much more level headed crowd. (or source.)

[The Avon Lady]

Reading that article from Kos, I think anyone would have to say that there is logic to it. It's not an extremst view at all. Nor a suprising consideration.
To sum it up nicely, I'll quote poster LeftOut at LGF (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23916_The_Protocols_of_the_Daily_Kos#commen ts), who quotes from the article's end:
[quote]leftout 1/7/2007 07:37PM PST
[quote]I am not here advocating an Iranian ‘preemptive’ strike on Israel or the U.S. But those who argue for a U.S./Israeli first-strike on Iran should be, at least if they have even a modicum of respect for the basic moral principle of universality (that we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones - to paraphrase Noam Chomsky). Those that don't - at last count, all of them - should not be taken seriously.
Ah, the musky aroma of moral relativism.

All cultures are equal. Cannibals have as much right to eat human flesh as Americans have to eat Quarter pounders. Who am I to make value judgements?
There are a lot more comments worth reading there that show the imbecility of this KOS article - one of many.
Beyond that, your comments are just, well, silly. :yep:
Well, well.
For the record, I consider myself left of center
The center itself has long ago been shifted left.

[Enigma]

Ok. So, Democrats want to be bombed by Iranians. Got it. Ok.

:damn:

I started a response, but really, why bother.

I'll say it again. Kos is a rag. LGF, is also, a Rag. But at least they all have something to do with their precious time today.....

[Enigma]

...I'd also add, If I were Israel, and Iran had the bomb, and I had the option of taking out Irans capability to use the bomb? Of course, in the words of the fictional Captain Ramsey, "Drop that ****er. Twice".

Although, when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons? I agree with the XO. "The true enemy is war itself."

There. Maybe it helps when put in submarine movie terms. :lol:

[The Avon Lady]

I'll say it again. Kos is a rag. LGF, is also, a Rag.
I'll say it again, too:

"Ah, the musky aroma of moral relativism."

[Enigma]

Yeah, nice job. Helpful. Great discussion. Glad I stuck around for it.

[cobalt]

What garbage dump do you forage for the dirt you pick up?
Excuse me? People like you are one of the reasons they're bombing subways and buildings. I havent seen a single post by you advocating anything else but far right nonsense. Sure lets let Israel nuclear bomb Iran. Great Idea. Go and read some Michelle Malkin.


And ok, if they are building nukes I do advocate taking out that capability. Not because Iran is evil, but two countries with nuclear bombs that hate each other, is not good for anybody.

Theres conventional weapons that can get that job done. Using a nuclear weapon in this situation is a massive show of force which will likely fire muslims up past the breaking point.

[The Avon Lady]

What garbage dump do you forage for the dirt you pick up?

Excuse me? People like you are one of the reasons they're bombing subways and buildings.
:rotfl:
I havent seen a single post by you advocating anything else but far right nonsense.
:rotfl:
Sure lets let Israel nuclear bomb Iran. Great Idea.
Actually, I never said anything about Israel using nuclear weapons.
Go and read some Michelle Malkin.
Excellent suggestion (http://www.google.com/custom?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&cof=L%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fmichellemalkin.com%2Fgraphics %2Fmm_logo.gif%3BLH%3A124%3BLW%3A750%3B&domains=michellemalkin.com&q=%2Biran+%2Bisrael&sitesearch=michellemalkin.com)!

[Enigma]

Ahh yes, another fine source of all things accurate and true. Of all that is rightous and and worthy of my time. Michelle Malkin.

You sure know how to bring a topic to a screeching halt....:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

You sure know how to bring a topic to a screeching halt....:rotfl:
You keep coming back here to say that.

Interesting. :hmm:

Actually, not.

[Iceman]

I just love top secret attack plans. :roll:

LMAO..:rotfl:

[STEED]

As I recall from about this time last year folks were saying there will be a war with Iran and the troops will be going in soon. And here we go again, I would not be surprised to hear this again next year. :hmm:

[Enigma]

You keep coming back here to say that.

Well, someone has to be saying something I suppose. As opposed to parroting.

[TteFAboB]

(...)the basic moral principle of universality (that we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones - to paraphrase Noam Chomsky). Those that don't - at last count, all of them - should not be taken seriously.

I might be able to impugn this.

Prolonging the logic from this confused paragraph, that is, by taking it seriously, Ahmadinejad and Khamenei must not be taken seriously as neither accepts this basic moral principle of universality, therefore Iran does not have a right to attack the US/Israel.

To paraphrase (read:quote) Ayatollah Khamenei: “The only way to confront the Zionist enemy is the continuation and fortification of resistance and Jihad.”; "Talks with the United States have no benefit for us and are harmful to us." Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad do not grant Israel the right of existence they grant to Palestine, in short, their principles of existence are not universal. In other words, the line quoted here is self-contradictory.

An attack on Iran or vice-versa wouldn't have anything to do with "rights" anyway, but with necessity. But If we do want to qualify the parts involved, however, it is still clear which part offers, practices and believes in most and more important rights. This means that a supreme Iran would apply to others less rights (with or without quotes) than the US or Israel.

Still, there is no such thing as a basic moral principle of universality. Every moral principle must be universal, if not, it isn't a principle, much less a "moral principle". It is not its application that will make or break the universality of a moral principle but the moral principle itself, the universality must be contained in the principle itself, it is the principle that will qualify itself as universal self-evidently. Also, you cannot apply something that is universal in greater or smaller scales, quantities, intensities. A thing is either universal or it isn't. It can't be a more universal or less universal, so it's impossible to apply an universal principle more stringently to yourself than to others. One thing could approach universality more than others, but if it reached it, it would become universal, while others still wouldn't.

But very well, let's apply to others what we apply more stringently to ourselves: begin applying freedom of the press in Iran, then freedom of thought, expression and religion. Then let's make women equal to men in the legal codes. Next we should apply fair trials in Iran. Then apply massive privatization of the Iranian state to breakdown its power and empower its citizens. We should apply a system of free-enterprise so that Iranians do not depend on the state and on elected officials for everything. Enough? The list goes on.

Now, would this blog agree with this? Would this blog propose we demand or force the application of Democracy, Republicanism and Capitalism on Iran? I thought so. We almost forgot about letting Iran decide its own way didn't we? One who speaks of reciprocity only when it favours oneself does not speak in name of reciprocity at all but in that of opportunistic egoism.

Lastly it is important to note the point beneath the surface of the argument: "Those that don't - at last count, all of them - should not be taken seriously". This isn't about Iran or any bombing but about excluding competition and eliminating the voices that do not serve the author. One who seeks to be taken seriously by those who imagine themselves to be serious is trapped by the pressure and the limit of the group's opinion, of what is considered serious and what isn't. He is not a free thinker nor can conduct sincere investigation. To say that we should not take seriously anybody who meets (or fails to) this and that criteria is a totalitarian attempt to end the debate by silencing opposition, to eliminate discussion and to exclude freedom of thought. Accept being framed by the group or you won't be taken seriously. Exaggeration? Well, "at last count, all of them" were excluded. That means the ambition is as high as "all of them" goes and can be applied to "all of them".

I don't care the slightest if you take me seriously or not, but I will never turn down anything you have to say to me on the basis that I will not take you seriously because you think differently from me. Do not believe, however, that I will allow you to abuse this freedom I grant you so that you may deny it to me if ever in power. I will denounce your totalitarian nature before that, as I hereby denounce the totalitarian nature of the argument from the article linked to.

[geetrue]

I’m not debating anyone … I just want to add some truth

Hard earned lessons from World War II

Japan did not come to the bargaining table till they were defeated

Iran better not strike first …

“Some minds remain open long enough for the truth
not only to enter but to pass on through by way of a
ready exit without pausing anywhere along the route.”—
Sister Elizabeth Kenny, Australian nurse (1886-1952).

[U-533]

I’m not debating anyone … I just want to add some truth


Hard earned lessons from World War II

Japan did not come to the bargaining table till they were defeated

Iran better not strike first …

“Some minds remain open long enough for the truth
not only to enter but to pass on through by way of a
ready exit without pausing anywhere along the route.”—
Sister Elizabeth Kenny, Australian nurse (1886-1952).

Hallelujah!:sunny: :sunny:
You have just hit the nail on the thumb.:up:

I'm not really comparing the Japanese to Whacked Out Terrorist after all they only had a certain religion that would (??Sacrifice??] themselves for glory.... With Iran and Iraq thats all they got.

Any way I agree with you,:up: And Sister Elizabeth Kenny.:sunny:

[SUBMAN1]

I just love top secret attack plans. :roll:

Exactly. If it's top secret, how the hell do they know about it? They don't.

It all comes down to the fact that any country prepares for any instance of any conflict. The fact the Isrealies prepare for a nuke scenario is part of what having nukes, bombs, or even any conventional or non conventional training is about. THey must be prepared for any action the government asks of the military.

Any idiot that doesn't think the Americans or Russians don't practice drills on launching their nukes at each other is living in fantasy land! :cool:

-S

[baggygreen]

Um, i think its more US and China rather than US and Russia. I think its pretty well established that were Russia to try anything, their rockets would more than likely home in on the Kremlin as well...:doh:

[Schatten]

As for the US nuclear missile training/planning you can be sure that they still run scenarios aimed at taking out Russian nuclear missile sites as well as the sites that still exist in the former USSR. Because you just can't ignore nuclear weapons even in countries that are being "nice" at the moment.

In the same vein I'm sure the Chinese sites are routinely planned/drilled against, as well as the Pakistani, Indian, French, etc. weapons facilities. Hell, I'm sure the US planners have contingency plans for even taking out Israel's nuclear arsenal, just on the off chance that the state of Israel suddenly collapses and someone like Hamas has the remote possibility of getting their hands on one of the weapons. That's a very unlikely scenario, but it should be planned for.

I mean if they aren't planning for such strikes on any or all of those targets, allied and pontentially hostile alike then they don't deserve to keep their jobs. Like I said you can't ignore any known nuclear weapon anywhere in the world, no matter who owns it and how much of a friend they are because things change and just because someone builds it, it doesn't mean they necessarilly will always have positive control over it.

As for the "top secret Israeli plan" up there, like it's been said if they aren't preparing for it then they don't deserve to keep their jobs in the IAF either. Whether or not it's likely is another story. I think that someone, be it Israel or the US, will have to deal with Iran's potential nuclear weapons capability at some point. Whether or not that's done with nukes, or even with conventional strikes remains to be seen, diplomacy is the best option sure but if that isn't going to work then you can't put up a blanket statement that "well we just simply can't even conceive of using military action let alone nukes against Iran" or that will both undercut your negotiating position (since they know there's no stick backing it up) or if military action is needed then your public will be up in arms because you said it was off the table.

Personally I don't have any problem with the IAF taking out Iran's nuclear sites. I mean just to get there they'd have to fly over at least one Muslim country, and if that (or those) countries let them then it sends a fairly strong signal to the rest of the Muslim world that it isn't necessarilly a non-Muslim vs. Muslim thing, but a non-insane nations vs. insane one thing. Publically they'd say the usual things, but privately you can bet your bippie that the Turks, Jordanians or Saudis would perfectly happy if Iran's nuclear ambitions went away, even if they had to swallow that the IAF (or USAF) did it.

At least that's how I see it at this point.

[Enigma]

I recall reading a book on how the Chinese military is basically designed to defeat the American military, on the premise that you target the biggest guy on the block as your benchmark for possible military opponents...

[SUBMAN1]

Um, i think its more US and China rather than US and Russia. I think its pretty well established that were Russia to try anything, their rockets would more than likely home in on the Kremlin as well...:doh:
Don't kid yourself. Cold war enemies tension have given way to smiles and Political Correctness. We are probably more under threat of nuclear war today than we were back when the Soviet Union existed.

-S

PS. Stephen Hawkings explains this possibility better than anyone.

[Enigma]

We are probably more under threat of nuclear war today than we were back when the Soviet Union existed.

I would agree that there is just as good a chance of nuclear conflict in the world today, but your suggesting that the US is at more of a threat from nuclear attack from Russia today than, say, pre-Detente?

C'mon.....:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

We are probably more under threat of nuclear war today than we were back when the Soviet Union existed.
I would agree that there is just as good a chance of nuclear conflict in the world today, but your suggesting that the US is at more of a threat from nuclear attack from Russia today than, say, pre-Detente?

C'mon.....:roll:

It doesn't take rocket science to see the hostility, whether right or wrong against the US from Rissia. There is also hostility from the US to Russia. The enemies are not dead, just that they smile a lot now. Also, as Stephen Hawkings puts it, all it would take between our two countries is for one to simply mis-interpret the actions of the other and the switch could be thrown.

Another scenario that could spur this scenario is for example if the US developed a world changing technology like Nanotechnology and didn't share it. Imagine buying a perfect product on a molecular scale for pennies on the dollar. An example would be like a car - you can buy that Mercedes over there for $100K, or I can sell you this one at $10K that is perfect and doesn't need to go to the shop for a million miles and is guaranteed to never have a sqeak or rattle ever! You just destroyed the world economy overnight.

This is just one example of how a technology could cause a war like this.

-S

[Enigma]

I have no argument with that.
I have an argument that the chances of a nuclear strike against US interests by Russia is dramatically less now than before Detente. You know, no 24 hour bombing crews with engines spinning on the ground, no trying to sneak missiles into Cuba, massive cut backs in submarine patrols to the US coasts.
Sure. The president of Russia recently reffered to the US as "Comrade Wolf". But, we do joint naval excercises with these people now. The suggestion that we are "as likely" to be attacked by Russians today as we were 20 years ago is absurd. :huh:

[SUBMAN1]

I have no argument with that.
I have an argument that the chances of a nuclear strike against US interests by Russia is dramatically less now than before Detente. You know, no 24 hour bombing crews with engines spinning on the ground, no trying to sneak missiles into Cuba, massive cut backs in submarine patrols to the US coasts.
Sure. The president of Russia recently reffered to the US as "Comrade Wolf". But, we do joint naval excercises with these people now. The suggestion that we are "as likely" to be attacked by Russians today as we were 20 years ago is absurd. :huh:

It is exactly that high alert and knowing exactly what the other was doing that was safer than the current state of possibly misconstruing what the other is doing right now. We live in a much more dangerous time.

-S

[Enigma]

I disagree.

We didnt know the missiles were in Cuba until they were in Cuba. I suspect today we would know long before they were in position. You also had a hell of alot more fire power in range of American soil, using alot of technology thats obsolete today. The chance of a misread launch detection or a nuclear release based on bad intel was far more prevelant then than now.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. :know:

[bradclark1]

Don't kid yourself. Cold war enemies tension have given way to smiles and Political Correctness. We are probably more under threat of nuclear war today than we were back when the Soviet Union existed.

-S

PS. Stephen Hawkings explains this possibility better than anyone.
No. Not even close.

[SUBMAN1]

I disagree.

We didnt know the missiles were in Cuba until they were in Cuba. I suspect today we would know long before they were in position. You also had a hell of alot more fire power in range of American soil, using alot of technology thats obsolete today. The chance of a misread launch detection or a nuclear release based on bad intel was far more prevelant then than now.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. :know:

I agree to disagree too, but there are a lot smarter people than me in the world who all hold the view I just gave you. The potential for a mistake is so high, its bad. The worst part is something you mention above - detection technology. We use ancient satilites built in the 70's and 80's that are falling into disrepair for our detection now, and their is no budget to replace them as they are beginning to fail. That is one of my biggest problems with the US Air Force - this should be one of thier biggest priorities yet its all back burner to them now. Someone needs to go kick our Congressmen into action on subjects like this.

-S

[Enigma]

I agree to disagree too, but there are a lot smarter people than me in the world who all hold the view I just gave you.

Who?

Im sure there are some people smarter than I who think you are waaaaaay off on this, too.

The potential for a mistake is so high, its bad.
As will be the case as long as Nukes exist.

As long as there are nuclear weapons anywhere, we risk complete destruction of nations.

Is that risk as great as it was when the USSR was at its strongest? Is the Russian military in a state if nuclear readiness as it was? Is Russia still are cold war icey enemy? Are our relations with Russia consisting of teletyped messages between world superpower leaders, both hoping to avoid a nuclear war?

As someone said above. Not even close. Noone will argue with you that the risk of nuclear disaster exists today. However, I bet you will be hard pressed to find anyone that suggests we are more at risk of a nuclear strike from Russida today, as we were pre-detente. If anyone does in fact agree with that, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[SUBMAN1]

Just doing a quick search on the internet reveals that Sadia National Labs is asking the same sort of questions, and that the view is divided:

Results indicated that 64 percent of participating scientists and 54 percent of participating legislators considered the breakup of the Soviet Union to have decreased the chances that the US will become involved in a nuclear conflict. However, opinion was more divided among the general public, with 42 percent considering the risks of nuclear war to have decreased and 43 percent considering risks to have increased since the Soviet Union¹s breakup.

[SUBMAN1]

Also - it seems in 1983 we were dangerously close!!! SOmeone almost pushed the button!

-S


Shortly before 5pm yesterday the Australian Senate passed a motion put by Democrat Senator Lyn Alison recognising that on 26 September 1983, the world had come frighteningly close to nuclear annihilation. It was saved by the reluctance of duty officer Colonel Stanislav Petrov of the Soviet missile corps to press a flashing red button that would have initiated an automatic sequence that would have sent 15,000 warheads to incinerate the US and its allies.

This would most likely have ended civilisation and most life.
Amid wailing sirens and flashing light, Colonel Petrov held firm and convinced his superiors that what seemed to be a US missile attack was a 'glitch'. Experts on nuclear weapon systems generally credit Colonel Petrov with having saved the world.


....
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/risk.htm

[SUBMAN1]

And here is the first couple paragraph from a NOVA transcript on the subject:


"Russia's Nuclear Warriors"

PBS Airdate: November 6, 2001
Go to the companion Web site (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/)
NARRATOR: In the shocking aftermath of the attacks on New York and Washington, even as we grapple with the war on terrorism, the nuclear nightmare is stirring once again. Some experts say the risk of an accidental launch of a nuclear missile may be even higher today than in the Cold War.......
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2814missileers.html

-S

[Enigma]

Well, yeah. 1983. The 80's. The Cold War. Soviet/Afghan war. Polish Solidarity movement. Invasion of Grenada. Berlin wall?

This was a period when we were at great risk of nuclear annhialtion, as opposed to today, when that threat is existant, but to a much lesser extent. (Not quite as bad as, say, 1962, but....)

[Oberon]

Also - it seems in 1983 we were dangerously close!!! SOmeone almost pushed the button!

-S


Shortly before 5pm yesterday the Australian Senate passed a motion put by Democrat Senator Lyn Alison recognising that on 26 September 1983, the world had come frighteningly close to nuclear annihilation. It was saved by the reluctance of duty officer Colonel Stanislav Petrov of the Soviet missile corps to press a flashing red button that would have initiated an automatic sequence that would have sent 15,000 warheads to incinerate the US and its allies.

This would most likely have ended civilisation and most life.
Amid wailing sirens and flashing light, Colonel Petrov held firm and convinced his superiors that what seemed to be a US missile attack was a 'glitch'. Experts on nuclear weapon systems generally credit Colonel Petrov with having saved the world.


....
http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/risk.htm

It was all happening in '83 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83)

[SUBMAN1]

Well, yeah. 1983. The 80's. The Cold War. Soviet/Afghan war. Polish Solidarity movement. Invasion of Grenada. Berlin wall?

This was a period when we were at great risk of nuclear annhialtion, as opposed to today, when that threat is existant, but to a much lesser extent. (Not quite as bad as, say, 1962, but....)
Read this transcript - it might change your mind:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2814missileers.html

-S

PS. Add this link to the list:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/missileers/

[Enigma]

Will do.


It doesn't take rocket science to see the hostility, whether right or wrong against the US from Rissia. There is also hostility from the US to Russia. The enemies are not dead, just that they smile a lot now. Also, as Stephen Hawkings puts it, all it would take between our two countries is for one to simply mis-interpret the actions of the other and the switch could be thrown.



I thought we were discussing the liklihood that Russia would launch and attack the US? Obviously, Russians nuclear equipment isnt in great shape. What i've been telling you is that there is less chance the Russians would launch at us today. Now you seem to be going in the direction of "accidental launch..." :hmm:

I'll read that transcript when I get back from lunch. Thanks for the link. :up:

[SUBMAN1]

Will do.


It doesn't take rocket science to see the hostility, whether right or wrong against the US from Rissia. There is also hostility from the US to Russia. The enemies are not dead, just that they smile a lot now. Also, as Stephen Hawkings puts it, all it would take between our two countries is for one to simply mis-interpret the actions of the other and the switch could be thrown.


I thought we were discussing the liklihood that Russia would launch and attack the US? Obviously, Russians nuclear equipment isnt in great shape. What i've been telling you is that there is less chance the Russians would launch at us today. Now you seem to be going in the direction of "accidental launch..." :hmm:

I'll read that transcript when I get back from lunch. Thanks for the link. :up:

No problem.

My ideas include every scenario by the way - not limited to what I write above, and I do not say the Americans won't launch against the Russians either since our Sats are aging and becoming unreliable, and we could easily have a glitch too thinking they launched when they didn't. Accidental is the likely cause, but never discount intentional from either side - Russia or the US. You can add China into this group too.

Another example, the US threatened 100% nuclear retaliation against Saddam if he used chemical weapons against our ground troops. So don't ever think the US isn't against launching anything itself too.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Another thought just popped into my head - this discussion on nukes reminds of the scenario of the 10 ton elephant standing in the middle of the room and everyone is trying to ignore it! :D

They exist. They are there. They are on high alert.

There is a very good chance we will need our SPF 10,000 sunblock one day!

-S

[geetrue]

As long as there are nuclear weapons anywhere, we risk complete destruction of nations.

Is that risk as great as it was when the USSR was at its strongest? Is the Russian military in a state if nuclear readiness as it was? Is Russia still are cold war icey enemy? Are our relations with Russia consisting of teletyped messages between world superpower leaders, both hoping to avoid a nuclear war?

As someone said above. Not even close. Noone will argue with you that the risk of nuclear disaster exists today. However, I bet you will be hard pressed to find anyone that suggests we are more at risk of a nuclear strike from Russida today, as we were pre-detente. If anyone does in fact agree with that, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

To agree or disagree is not the problem when it comes to accidents ... Accidents do happen ... There is a nuclear depth charge still stuck in the mud up in Puget Sound ... Another nuclear device has never been recovered off the coast of Georgia from another mistake made by our own country.

The Russians have never kept a treaty with America yet and they don't tell the truth, even when they tell the truth they don't tell the whole truth. All of those submarine accidents lead me to believe that far worse has happened we never heard about.

But as far as Russia launching a strike on the good ole USA I agree that Putin is much smarter than every Russian president he has served under in the KGB. He's one smart dude ... so cool his own country got mad when he was slow to show remorse over losing a nuclear submarine and it's entire crew.

Did you know that Putin has a prayer chapel just down the hall from his office in the Kremlin and that it has been reported that he attends it often?

Prayer is when you trust in someone besides yourself ...

When America and Russia become real friends we will defeat the Muslim terroist together ... but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

[Enigma]

Interesting articles, thanks again for posting.....

Theres no question that aging equipment and obsolete technology is a worrisome state. No question. Especially given the fact that there are seemingly lots of folks who just love to steal a nuke and toss it into Uncle Sam's back yard. As I said before, as long as nukes exist anywhere, there is a threat, and there is a reason to worry. You can destroy nations, as long as they exist.
As the officer in that article states, Nuclear weapons are a deterrent.
Given our relationship with Russia, our mutual interests, detente, the fall of the USSR, etc, I think the chance of an accidental response launch, OR an intentional act of war, are far, far less than 1960-1990. Thats as simple as I can put it. :yep:

It's a good discussion none the less. :up:

[bradclark1]

I think the chance of an accidental response launch, OR an intentional act of war, are far, far less than 1960-1990. Thats as simple as I can put it. :yep:
You can add a couple more far's to that. There is no comparison. It was a given the U.S. forces in europe would use nukes with even a soviet conventional attack.

[Enigma]

....and heres an article that I think supports your theory and not mine, but im a good sport. :up:

Twenty-five years ago, an official with the Ronald Reagan administration asked my opinion on whether America was facing a clear and present danger from Russia. I said no.
Despite the heated rhetoric on both sides, the Russians never intended to initiate an attack on the West, their strategic objective being to split Europe from the U.S. On the other hand, their fear of being attacked was countered, even in the face of Reagan's hostility, by their faith in America's common sense. Why should the richest nation on earth invite horrific devastation upon itself without a logically compelling reason?
Today, I am no longer that optimistic. Washington's unwarranted presumption of global nuclear superiority -- the mainstay of this administration's National Security Strategy from the beginning -- has taken an alarming twist. And the Russians, still capable of destroying America with a nuclear strike, are seriously worried.
Too little attention has been given to a plan the George W. Bush administration is considering. It calls for certain strategic delivery systems, previously solely designated for nuclear war, to be put to use with conventional warheads. About $50 million has been allocated to three studies of placing conventional weapons on submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
Who cares that there is no technology to tell which kind of warhead has been launched? Russia will have to trust Washington that it is not the target of a first-strike nuclear attack.
This idea comes in the wake of an article earlier this year in Foreign Affairs, titled The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Supremacy, that contains these statements:
"The current and future U.S. nuclear force seems designed to carry out a pre-emptive disarming strike against Russia or China.''
"It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.''
"If U.S. submarines were to fire missiles from areas in the Pacific, Russian leaders probably would not know of the attack until the warheads detonated.''
If Russian leaders have read these statements and taken them as an expression of administration policy, they may have reached some very unpleasant conclusions.
Washington's intention to legitimize the use of first-strike strategic delivery systems, expecting no retaliatory move by Russia, provoked Col. Viktor Litovkin to write for the Russian news agency Novosti (and reflecting Moscow's official view): "Any nuclear power will be sorely tempted to launch a retaliatory strike after detecting incoming strategic ballistic missiles. A retaliatory nuclear strike seems to be the only way to stop an all-out ballistic-missile attack involving nuclear and conventional warheads.''
Disingenuously, then-Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meeting in August with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Ivanov, suggested that Russia could do the same thing.
"Russia has some misgivings about such preliminary plans,'' Ivanov replied. "I am not ready to say that Russia agrees to join this initiative.''
This gobbledygook in no way implies indecision on Russia's part. Rather, it reflects the traditional Soviet-style presumption that any unambiguous rejection of U.S. terms by Russia may be misconstrued as a sign of fear and weakness. Rumsfeld, however, interpreted these words in line with Washington's wishful thinking, telling a news conference that the Russian defence minister would probably phone him from Moscow and call the U.S. proposal a good idea.
No such luck. Should Washington unilaterally proceed with this insane plan, and eventually an intercontinental ballistic missile launch is made -- whether intended against Iran or anybody else -- a Russian retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States could follow, triggering the unthinkable.
The United States is facing a clear and present danger, compared to which the worst nightmares of the "war on terror'' will pale. It's time to start paying attention.
Alexander Artem Sakharov is a former fellow of the Institute of U.S.A. and Canada Studies in Moscow.

[bradclark1]

....and heres an article that I think supports your theory and not mine, but im a good sport. :up:
Not really because thats an "if" the U.S. reloads the missiles. As far as I know that hasn't happened and I doubt it will happen for the simple reason that bad things could happen. This idea was surfaced some years ago and there was some rumbleing about it then.

[Enigma]

Well, there you go then. :yep: :lol: