| Author | Message | ||
     Greatlaker |
Good or bad? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/06/nobody- is-going-to-wait-saudi-drafting-nuclear-back-up-pl an-to-counter-iran/ | ||
| Aesquire |
Well, it means Saudi Arabia's rulers agree with Israel's. ( about Iran being run by genocidal loons ) No way are the Sauds going to allow Tehran to genocide their way into a religious monopoly. Sunni Arabia, Shia Iran. All the other Gulf States will want their own nukes too, to keep the others from conquering them. That's what the people I respect say, The current U.S. Administration says different. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Eh, why the hell not? We don't seem to care about who has WMDs these days. I guess nuclear non-proliferation is a concept of the past. | ||
| Hootowl |
I give us 10 years before one goes off in DC or NY. With Pakistan already having them, I'm surprised it hasn't happened already. | ||
| Ducbsa |
"I'm surprised it hasn't happened already." From Wikipedia: The 14 Trident II SSBNs together carry approximately fifty percent of the total US active inventory of strategic thermonuclear warheads. In spite of Barry & Valerie, I have to believe that the Navy has contingency plans for targets in a variety of spots. Whether the C in C would use the plans is not fully known. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Ft_bstrd, "I guess nuclear non-proliferation is a concept of the past." Jeremy, I think that is somewhat true since President Reagan started his "star wars" policy of more defensive weapons. It seems like right now, if the military channel (now the heros channel)series has it right, we now can identify an offensive weapon launched from anywhere in the world as soon as it comes out from its hole and shoot it down before its even 10 miles downrange, probably with a laser device or at least a highly accurate conventional weapon. Also I believe we can shoot one down from orbit like hitting a needle in a haystack. AND I hope we have the right President in office and the right Congress to immediately take a retaliatory action against the aggressor. Hoping to say "take your best shot and you will die"........quickly. I am hawkish on this. At the same time it surely would be in our interest to try and stop any other nation from acquiring a nuclear capability, even one who is seemingly our ally. We made big mistakes with N. Korea and others. Hopefully our superior technology gives us a distinct edge in most aggressive situations by other unfriendly nations. Peace, love and serenity is always a goal, just not too easily acquired in this current world situation with people who want to kill us just for being who we are. Bob | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
Think of the technology that the US had in WW2. Everything was huge klunky primitive crap. We still figured out how to make two bombs. Now the information is out, doing it again just takes work and resources. It's inevitable that some craphole country will get a nuke eventually. We of course have to try to stop this but eventually, some clown will mail San Fransisco a nuke in a container. | ||
| Aesquire |
Bob that tech was developed, but not deployed. There is ONE anti-missile site in Alaska, with a couple of anti-missiles, and the Navy can shoot down missiles if they are in the right area. When Putin or a mullah shoot at us we will have warning, but not a way to stop it. And, since Jimmy Carter killed civil defense, we don't even train our kids to duck & cover..... and not to look into the light. Sorry. Iran has been "5 years away" from a nuke for 20 years. Do the math. | ||
| Slaughter |
They would be fools to use a rocket to deliver nukes. Better a shipping container. | ||
| Aesquire |
During the cold war the speed of delivery of a rocket or jet made sense. It was much harder to ship a nuke to Moscow. Not so much NYC. Today for mobile targets it still makes sense. Plus of course the phallic symbol ego thing with rockets. For Iran, shipping containers make perfect sense and it's entirely possible Iran's first few nukes are already in the U.S. waiting to be loaded into rent a trucks for delivery to downtown detonation. Putin or Kim could also just ship bombs here, and the lack of radar track would be good cover. Keeping in mind Putin is perfectly happy to lie by training and faith, it's a good technique for attack with initial deniability. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Honestly, I don't believe that nuking a US city is the primary objective. The death toll projections for one or multiple EMPs were as high as 90% of the population of the US. You can either nuke a city with a small to medium yield device or knock out large sections of the US with an EMP. They are used to living in the 7th century. The average US citizen, not so much. I believe a Russian or North Korean designed missile carrying an Iranian warhead would be most likely launched from a cargo ship. Benefits of altitude provided by the missile. Proximity provided by the point of launch. Probability of shoot down, zero. They won't need to nuke us, they will simply sit back and allow us to kill ourselves. China and Russia will work to carve up the rest of the world in our absence. US population will be reduced to a more manageable size, say 32M people? No infrastructure. No communication. Very little transportation. We would be wide open for invasion by land, sea or air with very little ability to defend ourselves. Our military will attempt to regroup but the efforts will be spread between defending the nation, going on offensive and keeping the general population from killing each other. Additionally, our military is dependent upon US industry and infrastructure. No refining, no fuel. No food production, no rations. No industry, no spare parts, ammo, replacement weapons, new planes, new tanks, new ships, new vehicles. Alternative means of widespread WMD attack, cyber attack of our infrastructure. Collapse a relatively small segment of the grid and it suffers a cascade failure. Longer term impact would be the pending US dollar dump to be committed by Russia and China. Oddly, the fracking companies threw a wrench in the Russian plans driving the OPEC nations to flood the market with oil driving down international prices and severely hindering the Russian economy. If you wanted to permanently wreck the US, EMP is the way to go though. | ||
| Greatlaker |
I was hoping this thread was going to lead to a discussion about possible Shia vs Sunni warfare but instead it has devolved into statements about nukes hitting America. Typical. | ||
| Pwnzor |
An easier way to do that would have been: "What do you all think about (x)" or the ever-popular: "I think (x) about (y)" I think Shia vs. Sunni warfare would be bad. There. Discuss among yourselves. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Considering Iran's persistent declaration has been the intention to strike Israel and "the west", a Shia vs. Sunni war isn't the first on Iran's mind. Kinda have to play war games given the facts on the ground. The only folks Shia hate more than Sunnis are Jews and westerners. | ||
| Hootowl |
Iran's first nuke (beyond testing) will not go off in an islamic country, so talking about shia vs sunni is pretty silly. I expect they'll make good on their promise to wipe Israel off the map, then export a few to the west. They're not worried about retaliation...Armageddon is their end game. | ||
| Ourdee |
My favorite of the crazy nukes was the ones with lenses to focus the energy into a beam. My second fave.s were the underwater nukes to take out subs. I haven't been near a nuke in over 30 years. Wonder if they stopped developing the new ones. What is the difference between a sunni and a shia? And no I'm not playing straight man to set up a punch line. | ||
| Aesquire |
Oirdee, Sunni -Shia? It's actually simple. After Mohammed died, it got down to who would inherit the spiritual & temporal kingdom. ( in Islam they are One ) The 2 main factions ( there are many others ) followed different leaders, and the rest is history. Serious hatred between them, but as Ft points out, they will work together to kill Jews and Christians first, then settle their differences. ( by killing each other, as usual ) The Sunni and Shi'a both trace their differences to the 7th century C.E., when disagreements over the successor to the Prophet Muhammad arose. The Sunni maintain that the Muslim community was to select the Prophet's successor (caliph) to lead, whereas the Shi'a believe the Prophet chose his son-in-law, Ali, to be his successor. Read more: http://www.patheos.com/Library/Sunni-Islam.html#ix zz3TkLiY76P The Orion Project developed nukes that were like a shaped charge designed to throw most of their kinetic energy in one direction, still with classified details, although the basics are public. AFAIK, the Bomb Pumped X-ray laser project faded away, partly due to lack of testing, or possibly because it worked.  As to the Original point, The Saudi's know that AFTER Israel, They are next on the target list, because of the religious differences, and, of course, the Oldest reason for war, wealth. Tel Aviv btw has a population & size about the same as Miami Florida, In Canadian terms, more people than Halifax or Laval, but smaller in size. I'm not sure if Jerusalem would be the second target after Tel Aviv, it depends on how much Iran wants to keep the Holy sites there, vs. the Apocalyptic urge to get the 12th Imam risen. ( look that one up yourself, it's crazier than a lot of things but not the nuttiest apocalypse myth ) Greatlaker, Sunni vs. Shi'a warfare has been around a long time. Why are you interested in it? Are you rooting for a side? | ||
| Greatlaker |
Sunni's believe that Shia's are heretic's. Sunni's believe that Shia's should be eradicated. Iraq under Saddam Hussein, who himself was "Sunni", repressed the Shia majority population. When democratic elections were introduced to Iraq the Shia majority elected a Shia government. The Shia government in Iraq then started to persecute the Sunni minority population. These pissed off Sunni's then started up ISIS. The Shia population in Syria and Iraqi government forces then started fighting with the ISIS Sunni's. So what you presently have in the Mid East is a proxy war being fought by Syria and Iran and Hezbollah representing the Shia population vs the Sunni population of ISIS and Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If you throw out the minor protagonists you have a war going on between Iran and Saudi Arabia for control of Iraq, Sunni vs Shia. Now both sides want to go nuclear. So which side do you want to pick? The Shia side which is Iranian and Persian or the Sunni side which is Arab? Throughout history Shia Islam and Persian's have been the more moderate and progressive muslims while the Arab Sunni's have been the more conservative and backward muslims. Hostilities between the two sides have been growing since WWII. Which faction should the western world pick? | ||
| Aesquire |
Which side did England pick? England & France drew the map to reward their friends. Saddam's tribe fought for Germany in WW2. Also allied with the Soviets. One serious problem is the U.S. State dept. Loves one side. (I have a very low opinion of State ) Which side paid for Obama's college? That might tell you who the current U.S. regime supports. It's not like Obama's going to be honest. My take is whoever Obama supports will be the wrong side. It's his pattern so far in ruining other countries. ... and this one. I don't support either. No matter who rises it's going to be pre-medieval, aggressive, and intolerant. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Can we just nuke them all? Might take some spring out of their step with a mushroom cloud over Mecca, Tehran, Baghdad..... Ultimately, you have 1.5B inhabitants of earth who are mutually exclusive to the other 5.5B inhabitants. As such, there are really only two options: 1) Kill Muslims until they renounce Islam and live in peace with the rest of the world 2) Kill Muslims until there are no more Sadly, like the first Crusades, Islam is the global aggressor and a response must be mustered to address the aggression. Unfortunately, I don't believe the average American can tell good from evil, right from wrong. We don't have the stomach that our grandparents had. We tolerate evil, engender it, nurture it, capitulate to it. We definitely don't meet it head on. Not any more. | ||
| Oldog |
If you wanted to permanently wreck the US, EMP is the way to go though. that is only because even though our law makers have known about this for over 30 years and have done nothing. As I understand it 2, megaton range thermonuclear weapons ~ 50 miles up over the mid west, and byebye grid, the miles of un shielded high lines will act antennas and be spiked by the emp effectively destroy the connected equipment, } | ||
| Greatlaker |
Hind sight is 20/20. After 9/11 the ideal American response would have been to dismantle the Saudi royal family as autocratic rulers and implemented a parliamentary system for elective government while at the same time taking every Wahabi cleric in the country for a one way trip out to the desert never to return. The madrasa education system could then be dismantled and in its place a secular system could be created where children can actually be educated. Once the moderating effect of a non Wahabi Arabia starts to take hold then attention could be turned to other countries. With the new Arabia created, the U.S. could then start picking away at Iraq, Egypt, UAE, and Yemen and getting those countries to moderate and start implementing human and democratic rights. As it stands now, there is a constant downward spiral as Sunni countries try to emulate the ever changing islamic doctrine implemented by the kingdom which changes regularly which each successive king as he negotiates control of the country with differing Wahabi clerics. Although Iran speaks rhetorically of the destruction of Israel, it's mostly bluster to appease the Iranian Shia population which empathizes with the Shia Palestinian population. If the Palestinians had been Sunni there wouldn't be any Iran/Egypt hostilities today because the Shia don't give a damn about Sunni's in general. As such, since the Iranian revolution there has been a constructed proxy war with Israel as the Iranians have radicalized their version of Islam since the removal of the Shah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Israel_proxy_conflict Long story short. The Saudi Royal family must be relegated to a constitutional role only or they must be exiled. The Wahabi doctrine of Islam must be eliminated. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Unfortunately, our actions and reactions are tainted by our projection of First Amendment protections on the rest of the world. Our expectation of guarantee of religious freedom is reciprocated very few places. We don't want to be accused of "waging a war in Islam" in spite of the fact that Islam is waging a war on western civilization. Has been since the fall of the Shah of Iran. Was during the Barbary Coast War. Was during the Crusades. Was during the 7th Century. Muhammad was a savage war lord who created a political system of control veiled as a religion. He modern day followers are executing upon Muhammad's edicts to the letter. If you follow the teachings of a war lord instructing you on how to wage war and how to treat those who are kafir or al-riddah, at some point in time you must follow through on those teachings or the people will turn against you. Every where that Islam becomes the majority, poverty, decline, violence, oppression, crime. It's a disease. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Pave it. | ||
| Aesquire |
Greatlaker, That might have been a good strategy in 2001-2003. I would have ( after freeing Afghanistan & Iraq, not my choices, just picking a point in time to make my suggestion ) followed the ONLY successful occupation model in history, Japan & Germany post WW2. Specifically Japan. Impose a stripped down, government limiting Constitution with freedom of speech & religion. A temporary Viceroy to rule until a Republic could be established. A mass education campaign to get the basics in the locals heads ( they did in the real world embrace that in Iraq right away ) & probably have the most corrupt initial results of that publicly executed to encourage the others. ( I'm thinking about the Afghan President & his cronies..... the people over a much larger area would have loved us for that alone ) I would have pulled the alllied fighting forces out of the urban areas asap and replaced them with m.p. forces working with a select local Army force. The fighting forces would move to the borders. Iran & Syrian borders in Iraq, Pakistan & Iran in Afghanistan. Any jihadi crossing the border would be burned in place so the smoke could be seen by the invading country. I also would have taken out the leaders of Iran after we had proof they were sending fighters and weapons. Repeat process there. Syria I would leave because they were supplied by Iran plus Putin needs Syria for a warm water port. Deposing Assad would start up the U.S.- Soviet war again. As it has under Barry the Weasel. THEN I would have tackled the Wahabist Saudi problem. But your way might have worked better, we'll never know. Because of the oil supply issue they did not go after the Saudi's. Today we could, with Canadian & U.S. oil production. But the "Arab spring" idiocy of Obama's supplying what is now ISIS in Syria screws that up. We may have to go parking lot. I'm open to suggestions. The only positive of Obama's policies is we may end up with a free Kurdish state. .... but then Turkey is going to finish freaking out. (Message edited by aesquire on March 08, 2015) | ||
| Aesquire |
Also. Thank you for the rational discussion. I agree that the Wahabist disease needs vivisection. | ||
| Bob_thompson |
"I don't believe the average American can tell good from evil, right from wrong. We don't have the stomach that our grandparents had." "We tolerate evil, engender it, nurture it, capitulate to it. We definitely don't meet it head on." "Not any more." I agree. Well stated Jeremy. And NO, I would not even venture a guess as to a fix, but we should be pro active in SOMETHING!; and not just keep talking and giving into things with Iran. Some times a show of force to let a bully know he can be vulnerable works..........I'll bet PM Netanyahu and his people would agree. And right now maybe ISIS is getting the message, first hand. I also believe Obama will do nothing "seriously offensive" to Islamic extremists; only minor politically advantageous things. Good discussion guys. Bob | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
The only good thing I can say about our response to ISIS is that the message has been sent lod and clear: We ain't comin'. You are on your own. ISIS is now facing a fight on three fronts 1) Kurds from the north 2) Iraqi regulars from the south 3) Asad and Jordanian forces from the east. To really defeat ISIS, you'll need to strangle the money flow coming from all those "moderate muslims". | ||
| Bob_thompson |
Totally agreed Jeremy on all counts and on the read below: "To really defeat ISIS, you'll need to strangle the money flow coming from all those "moderate muslims"." A couple of well placed MOAB's (easy to do with our current technology on targeting), we, or an ally, could at least stem the flow from the oil wells and refineries they control and do it by military 5 star General executive action. F*** Obama. I know that's dreaming but I understand its something like 1M a day. Just DO something! | ||
| Daddio |
......"Some times a show of force to let a bully know he can be vulnerable works........." A few years ago, remember, Syria's air defense network, provided by Iran, went suddenly dark, and a few loud 'bangs' were heard. This really frightened Iran, as they had equipped Syria with a better system than they had implemented for themselves, since Syria was a sort of early detection zone. |
