Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,486 Year: 6,743/9,624 Month: 83/238 Week: 0/83 Day: 0/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 166 of 241 (445827)
01-04-2008 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by molbiogirl
01-03-2008 5:07 AM


quote:
You sure got somethin' against the Ruskies.
I, unlike you, know that their systems almost killed everyone. One incident happened a couple years back where some Scandinavian country launched a weather satellite and the Kremlin failed to inform several of its posts of this event which they knew of, resulting in those bases almost launching an attack on the US as they thought the missile was coming over the pole. Their problem isn't predelegation, but a combination of poor, obsolete technology with hair trigger weapons.
quote:
My previous post was in response to your pile of horse apples that "a truck bomb will wipe out everyone on the succession list".
Now, having no way to defend that scenario, you've chosen to fabricate a ridiculous plot worthy of a Tom Cruise movie.
No way? Are you seriously suggesting that typhoon and oscars don't exist? That cruise missiles can't be launched off of cargo ships? That Russia doesn't have the capacity to do this?
Stop watching Hollywood movies. My argument, which you are clearly ignoring, is that a combination of events would occur at the same time to eliminate the ability of succession to proceed rapidly enough for massed return strike. You are fallaciously assuming they are all separate. It is not my fault you are a huge liar.
quote:
I get the distinct feeling that no matter how many times I tear your paranoid blithering to shreds, you'are going to ignore my response and foam at the mouth about an even more convoluted fntasy.
You haven't torn anything apart. You keep ignoring a ever increasing number of my points and you abandon your points. That's called losing. Furthermore, you haven't shown you know anything about the technical nature of nuclear weapons, from international treaties to the weapons themselves. You can say whatever you want about what you think I know, but until you can prove you understand at my level, it's pointless.
quote:
Au contraire mon frere. I am well aware of the glitches inherent in the current system.
But the fact remains, your "solution" creates more problems than it solves.
Seriously? Are you insane? How does having no weapons in existence create more problems then having hair trigger systems which have almost wiped out all life on the planet numerous times?
But you'll pretend that doesn't exist because it's easier for you.
quote:
In fact, your 'solution" does nothing to prevent a scenario like the gibberish you posted tonight.
Are you mentally challenged? How can a nation launch a first strike attack with weapons they do not have? Could Saddam attack US allies in the Gulf with imaginary weapons? You are officially off your rocker.
quote:
What, praytell, would prevent those wiley Ruskies from carrying out such a fiendish plot if all nuclear weapons were disassembled?
You think the Russians are incapable of covertly assembly the necessary weaponry?
The fact that they'd get nuked back in a week. The Russians are incapable of producing the large number of weapons without us knowing about it. Hell we could track their subs and their silos. What makes you think we can't do it now? We can see whales from space are you're saying we can't figure out that the Russians are building a large number of weapons? Plus running a weapons program is extremely expensive. South Africa (here is where I again prove I know what I'm talking about and you are a ignorant talking head) after apartheid dismantled its secretive gun weapons (that's uranium based since you obviously don't know) due partially to its obsecence cost.
quote:
Yeah. That's going real well.
Better then how it was prior to the NPT.
quote:
A terrorist steals the parts.
Now was that so tough?
Better then them stealing a whole weapon as they can do now. Plus if we lock down the parts, specifically the critical masses, there's not much they can do. Actually it's easier then that. If we went to entirely implosion type and destroyed all of the shaped charges and fort knoxed the machines to make them, there's nothing they can do. A SLIGHT flaw in a shaped charged will result in a dud implosion weapon. Hint: if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be losing this like Illinois just lost the Rose Bowl.
Plus if everyone went to complete and total virtual arsenals, there would be no parts to steal other then the several ton machines necessary to produce the parts (along with the knowledge itself). Terrorists would have to steal huge machines, the raw materials to build them, along with specific blueprints and have to kidnap numerous scientists and technicians to build the weapons. Now, I have a hard time believing they could pull that off without anyone noticing or figuring out where they went. Plus intercepting a ship full of nuclear machining parts is pretty easy.
But maybe you have some way that could do that without anyone noticing the several ton machines missing and a number of known scientists and technicians missing as well. Not to mention several pounds of plutonium along with all of the necessarily equipment to handle it safely.
quote:
Um. You don't have to be real precise with a nuke.
But you do have to know where they are. Pakistan for example is a large country. Where are they in the area? Even the North western provinces are large areas of land. It would take several (I mean like 15) megaton weapons to 'pacify' the area. Indonesia is even worse. Good luck trying to figure out what island terrorists could be chilling on.
quote:
Oh! I see. It's just Pakistan you're worried about.
No, it's just an example.
quote:
Well. Given that a 400kt bomb can't even wipe out Washington DC, I'm not too awful worried.
Wipe out as you mean level everything, no. But to render the city useless and much of the surrounding area radioactive, a 400kt is rather overpowered. Several 20~50 kt weapons would be better. And they'd be cheaper too.
quote:
Now you're nattering on about "not being able to control terrorists" and "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".
Try to focus, mmmkay?
Now.
It is not my fault you cannot understand the relationship between terrorists, wmd and states.
quote:
We "can't control terrorists" BUT "no terrorists have ever used a WMD".
Either we can't control terrorists and they are a threat OR we can control terrorists and they do not pose a threat.
Try to pick a side and stick to it.
No, we can't control terrorists and historically terrorists have never used a WMD. That doesn't mean terrorists aren't a threat. Please be honest for a change. The reason terrorists haven't used a nuke is because they haven't had access to them. And the reason they haven't had access to them is because states don't give them weapons.
quote:
I merely pointed out that no one knows whether or not Israel has nukes and you for damn sure don't know whether or not the U.S. gave them nukes.
I never said that I knew we gave them. I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if we did.
quote:
Doesn't that kinda take alla the air out of your virtual system? After all, if the Russians sold off some of their weaponry, that means there are nukes out there that can't be accounted for. Up to 100 1kt bombs, they say.
Not at all. My point, my fundamental point has been to remove weapons entirely. The threat of nuclear terrorism is bad, no doubt, but the threat of hair trigger annihilation is far, far, far worse. One nuke, as you said, even at a collosal 400kt level would only eliminate one city. Thousands of ICBMs, SLBMs all MRVs would decimate the world over and over.
And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed quote box.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by molbiogirl, posted 01-03-2008 5:07 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:14 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 168 by molbiogirl, posted 01-04-2008 7:38 PM obvious Child has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 167 of 241 (445881)
01-04-2008 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 1:06 AM


reality check.
The systems worked and the Ruskies did not launch.
End of case.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:06 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:08 PM jar has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 168 of 241 (446054)
01-04-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 1:06 AM


I, unlike you, know that their systems almost killed everyone.
It's not their system that I'm talking about. It's your delusional "coordinated truck bomb attack" that is sooooo 1950s.
Are you seriously suggesting that typhoon and oscars don't exist? That cruise missiles can't be launched off of cargo ships?
I haven't answered your questions about missile defense yet.
That Russia doesn't have the capacity to do this?
I have the capacity to mow down a few dozen shoppers at the local mall with an automatic weapon. That doesn't mean I am going to.
How can a nation launch a first strike attack with weapons they do not have?
They would have the weapons, dink. They would just be disassembled.
Better then them stealing a whole weapon as they can do now. Plus if we lock down the parts, specifically the critical masses, there's not much they can do. Actually it's easier then that. If we went to entirely implosion type and destroyed all of the shaped charges and fort knoxed the machines to make them, there's nothing they can do.
This hasn't been proposed. This is just another example of one of your drug fueled reveries.
If a virtual system of this sort has been proposed by a reputable source, please. Provide a cite.
The fact that they'd get nuked back in a week.
Again. Assuming your delusions are somehow feasible, how would the U.S. respond if the Russians launched a coordinated truck bomb attack on nearly all of our facilities?
South Africa (here is where I again prove I know what I'm talking about and you are a ignorant talking head) after apartheid dismantled its secretive gun weapons (that's uranium based since you obviously don't know) due partially to its obsecence (sic) cost.
Dear. We haven't been discussing South Africa.
You are a master of the non sequitur.
Plus if everyone went to complete and total virtual arsenals, there would be no parts to steal other then the several ton machines necessary to produce the parts (along with the knowledge itself).
That is not the virtual system that has been proposed by anyone in a position of power.
The only virtual system that has been proposed is disassembly, a la Pakistan.
Better then them stealing a whole weapon as they can do now.
The danger isn't that they will steal from us. The danger is that they will steal from an unsecured facility in Russia.
I notice that you haven't provided any proof of your claim that the USSR kept track of their WMD.
We can see whales from space are you're saying we can't figure out that the Russians are building a large number of weapons?
Underground facilities. A la North Korea.
But you do have to know where they are.
That isn't as difficult as you think. Any number of times, we have had a very good idea of the general area where Osama Bin Laden is hiding. If we were also pretty darn sure he had a nuke, we wouldn't hesitate to light his ass up.
Wipe out as you mean level everything, no. But to render the city useless and much of the surrounding area radioactive, a 400kt is rather overpowered. Several 20~50 kt weapons would be better. And they'd be cheaper too.
So what? You said millions would die. They wouldn't.
The reason terrorists haven't used a nuke is because they haven't had access to them.
Oh, but you don't know that. After all, you claim that Russian weapons are missing.
Not at all. My point, my fundamental point has been to remove weapons entirely.
You missed the point.
Those supposedly missing weapons could be in the hands of NSAs right now. Or maybe the Russians just squirreled them away.
If all weapons were disassembled, those weapons could be used by NSAs or Russia in your paranoid truck bomb fantasy. Hell, they could be used by any number of bad actors.
You need to answer 4 questions:
1. What makes you think Russia would attack? No more of your fevered imagination, buster. Cite reputable sources that feel a scenario such as the one you proposed is likely.
2. Why is predelegation necessary if, as you admit, a truck bomb would not wipe out Washington DC (leaving the line of succession intact)?
And, as a corollary, since you've mentioned the Joint Chiefs' predelegation twice, why would the Pentagon be exempt from a truck bomb?
3. Why do you think that it would be difficult to assemble/transport nukes out of sight of even our best spy satellites?
4. Why do you think that virtual system verification would be effective?
And it's disturbing that I have to check my previous post to see how much you ignored.
I agree. You're disturbed.
How does having no weapons in existence create more problems then having hair trigger systems which have almost wiped out all life on the planet numerous times?
I'm calling bullshit on this one. All life on this planet, hm? Cites, please.
Now. About missile defense.
First, let’s take a look at our current capabilities.
The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is an agency under the Department of Defense. Its mission is to develop, test and prepare for deployment a missile defense system. Using complementary interceptors, land-, sea-, air- and space-based sensors and battle management command and control systems, the missile defense system is able to engage all classes and ranges of ballistic missile threats. Using:
” 24 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBI) emplaced in silos in Alaska and California.
” 21 Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) sea-based interceptors.
” 7 Navy Aegis BMD Destroyers configured for the Long-Range
” 3 Navy Aegis BMD Cruisers and 7 Destroyers, armed with SM-3’s to engage short- to intermediate-range missiles, and also perform the LRS&T mission.
” 549 Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) missiles.
” A Sea-Based X-Band (SBX) radar capable of providing robust discrimination capabilities.
” Active upgraded early warning radars in California and the United Kingdom and an upgraded Cobra Dane radar in Alaska.
” 2 Forward-Based X-Band Radars (AN/TPY-2) delivered (one deployed to Japan).
” Initial Global Integrated Fire Control (GIFC) capability.
” A Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) system on line at three Combatant Commands with situational nodes within the National Capital Region.
All of these systems are in place and operational.
Command and Control:
BMDS (Battle Management and Communications). ensures the critical flow of information for the survival of our nation, friends, and allies. It provides warfighters at both the strategic and tactical levels of command the capability to plan the ballistic missile defense fight while concurrently tracking all potential ballistic missile threats; directing weapons to engage on a distributed network; and pairing any sensor with the best available weapon system to defeat ballistic missile threats at any range, in any phase of flight, in all theaters, and with coalition partners.
The BMDS currently uses a variety of existing radars. Some are integral to individual Elements, or at fixed sites. Others are forward-based, such as the AN / TPY-2 radar which detects ballistic missiles early in their flight and provides precise tracking information for use by the BMDS. Employing a variety of sensor systems provides coverage and extended ranges for more sophisticated engagement strategies.
Detection:
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense uses a variety of satellites (Defense Support Program) and radars (Cobra Dane radar, Upgraded Early Warning Radars, Sea-Based X-Band radar, Forward-Based AN/TPY-2 radar, and the Aegis AN/SPY-1 Radar) to obtain information on launch warning, tracking, targeting, and discrimination via the BMDS Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications system and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Fire Control and Communications component. This information provides the Ground-Based Interceptor with the ability to locate, identify, and destroy the incoming ballistic missile warhead.
The first AN / TPY-2 radar has been forward-deployed to Shariki Air Defense Missile Site in Japan to provide early warning and a capability to search for and track threats to the U.S. homeland, friends and allies, and deployed U.S. forces. The radar will acquire, track, discriminate, classify, identify, and estimate the trajectory parameters of threat missiles and missile components. It will pass this target data to the Ballistic Missile Defense Command and Control system for further dissemination as part of an integrated, layered defense system. Earlier detection with forward-based radars, coupled with layered sensors, will give the BMDS a continuous tracking and discrimination capability with more shot opportunities to engage the target, resulting in an increased probability of successful engagement.
Intermediate and Short Range Missile Defense:
Three Aegis cruisers and three Aegis destroyers, equipped with the latest “go-to-war” BMD-capable weapon system and armed with the Standard Missile-3 interceptors, are capable of intercepting short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.
Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense also serves as a forward-deployed sensor by extending the battlespace and providing early warning of an intercontinental ballistic missile launch.
Aegis sensors transmit track data to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense command center via the BMDS. This Long-Range Surveillance and Track capability assists in the defense of the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska, by providing tracking data to cue other system sensors and initiate a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense engagement. This capability is resident on all BMD-equipped Aegis ship.
Intermediate and Long Range Missile Defense
Ground-Based Midcourse Defense uses a variety of satellites (Defense Support Program) and radars (Cobra Dane radar, Upgraded Early Warning Radars, Sea-Based X-Band radar, Forward-Based AN/TPY-2 radar, and the Aegis AN/SPY-1 Radar) to obtain information on launch warning, tracking, targeting, and discrimination via the BMDS Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications system and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense Fire Control and Communications component. This information provides the Ground-Based Interceptor with the ability to locate, identify, and destroy the incoming ballistic missile warhead.
THAAD consists of four principle components: truck-mounted launchers, interceptors, radar, and fire control/communications. The launcher can rapidly fire and reload the interceptors and provide storage and transportation of the interceptors. The THAAD radar supports the full range of surveillance, tracking the target and guiding the interceptor during flight. THAAD’s Fire Control and Communications component provides the Element’s battle planning, fire control, and communication backbone, linking THAAD to the BMDS and other air and missile defense networks used by the Armed Services.
The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) Element will provide the BMDS with rapidly deployable ground-based missile defense components that deepen, extend, and compliment the BMDS to enable any Combatant Commander to defeat short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles. THAAD is a land-based Element that has the capability to shoot down a ballistic missile, both inside and just outside the atmosphere, using “hit-to-kill” technology (directly hitting the incoming missile to destroy it), providing regional or limited area terminal defense. THAAD provides an effective defense against ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction by making it likely that their lethal payloads will be destroyed before reaching the ground.
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is the most mature Element of the BMDS. Now operational with the U.S. Army, this Element is a land-based system built on the proven Patriot air and missile defense infrastructure, making it easier to enhance system capability through upgrades of previously-fielded assets. As the best defense against short-range ballistic missiles, Patriot was deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, where it successfully engaged all threatening ballistic missiles within its scope of operation. The Under Secretary of Defense approved the transfer of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and realignment of the Medium Extended Air Defense System programs from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army in March 2003. provide 360-degree coverage on the battlefield. The system components will be linked to the BMDS’s Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications Element, including access to a broad range of sensors from across the Armed Services. It will also be integrated with other U.S. and allied systems. The MEADS will provide short-range defense for vital civilian and military assets, defend deployed troops, and provide continuous air and missile defense coverage for rapidly maneuvering forces.
Systems in development:
Multiple Kill Vehicle
Airborne Laser
Ballistic Missile Defense Space Systems
Kinetic Energy Interceptors
I have every confidence that these systems, in addition to those already online, will provide adequate missile defense.
All info from http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/faq.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:06 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:50 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 171 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 12:17 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 169 of 241 (446154)
01-04-2008 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
01-04-2008 9:14 AM


Re: reality check.
quote:
The systems worked and the Ruskies did not launch.
No. The Ruskies disobeyed their procedures and ignored their systems. Heck, we disobeyed our procedures and ignored our systems.
How you people can be against the removal of nukes from hair trigger is just amazing.
Could you explain to me how having thousands of ICBMs and SLBMs on hair trigger alert capable of eliminating all life from the planet within 30 minutes is safer then having no such weapons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 01-04-2008 9:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 11:00 AM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 170 of 241 (446161)
01-04-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by molbiogirl
01-04-2008 7:38 PM


quote:
It's not their system that I'm talking about. It's your delusional "coordinated truck bomb attack" that is sooooo 1950s.
Perhaps if you actually argued against what I wrote instead of arguing with arguments you made, you'd have a point. You're like a insolent child who refuses to address a entire equation, pulling out one variably and calling the entire thing false without even addressing the entire equation!
quote:
I haven't answered your questions about missile defense yet.
You have gone out of your way to ignore a huge amount of points and questions.
quote:
I have the capacity to mow down a few dozen shoppers at the local mall with an automatic weapon. That doesn't mean I am going to.
So therefore you agree. The Russians DO have the capacity to render succession useless.
quote:
They would have the weapons, dink. They would just be disassembled.
Explain to me how you build large numbers of weapons from blueprints requiring a fair amount of industrial capacity, resulting in tell tail signs of production with no one knowing.
quote:
This hasn't been proposed. This is just another example of one of your drug fueled reveries.
If a virtual system of this sort has been proposed by a reputable source, please. Provide a cite.
Your ignorance is appalling.
Nuclear Terrorism : The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe
Assessing virtual nuclear arsenals
Nuclear weapons in a transformed world : the challenge of virtual nuclear arsenals
Besides, I'm waiting for you to explain how hair trigger is safer then VNAs, either dismantled or completely virtual.
Let's try a experiment. I like Cheese. You say "I hate/like Cheese."
quote:
Again. Assuming your delusions are somehow feasible, how would the U.S. respond if the Russians launched a coordinated truck bomb attack on nearly all of our facilities?
You assume that we wouldn't be able to tell that they were building large numbers of truck bombs. Explain to me, how we, the US can see whales from space, figure out that Nk was building weapons from detecting chemicals in the parts per billions and yet wouldn't be able to figure out that Russia was building thousands of nukes?
And you call ME delusional...
quote:
Dear. We haven't been discussing South Africa.
You are a master of the non sequitur.
Apparently you have no idea what the term EXAMPLE means.
quote:
The danger isn't that they will steal from us. The danger is that they will steal from an unsecured facility in Russia.
I notice that you haven't provided any proof of your claim that the USSR kept track of their WMD.
Why should I when you can't even prove you know the difference between a gun type and implosion type? And don't go running to Wikipedia. That's for cowards and losers.
Russia will remove its weapons when we remove our weapons. It's that simple. The cost of running a program (as you clearly ignored from South Africa Example, look its the word you don't know!) is tremendous. Without the threat of nukes, nuclear MAD disappears along with it the billions in costs to maintain and build new weapons.
quote:
Underground facilities. A la North Korea.
The one we fettered out with satellites? Oh wait...you lose for what, the 500th time here?
quote:
That isn't as difficult as you think. Any number of times, we have had a very good idea of the general area where Osama Bin Laden is hiding. If we were also pretty darn sure he had a nuke, we wouldn't hesitate to light his ass up.
True, it's not that difficult, but it is difficult to reduce civilian losses from the use of a weapon. And Bin Laden would likely not keep a nuke with him for obvious reasons.
quote:
So what? You said millions would die. They wouldn't.
Based on what? Are you saying that a 400kt used in DC wouldn't kill millions? Or are you going to pretend I never asked that?
quote:
Oh, but you don't know that. After all, you claim that Russian weapons are missing.
Well that depends on what you think of Ol' Drunkard may he rest in peace. And just because the Russians have lost a nuke doesn't mean the terrorists have it. The Us has a disturbing long list of lost nukes and we're pretty sure the terrorists don't have them.
quote:
If all weapons were disassembled, those weapons could be used by NSAs or Russia in your paranoid truck bomb fantasy. Hell, they could be used by any number of bad actors.
Possibly, but you are again ignoring one of key points I made about disassembly. Since you obviously don't know how nukes work, I'm going to explain how a implosion weapon functions. A implosion weapon worked by taking a small amount of plutonium, and placing curved shaped explosives around it. When the charges explode, they force the plutonium to implode, resulting in a explosion. Now, if you disassembled (i already mentioned this, you just pretended it didn't exist) these weapons and destroyed the shaped charges, they'd have to steal the milling machines to make them. Good luck with that. ONE slight flaw, less then a hair will cause the weapon to fail. If they steal everything except for the charges (since none would exist) they'd have to make it themselves. Without Russian help, it's almost certain they'd give up and make a dirty bomb. Please stop ignoring large parts of my posts.
quote:
2. Why is predelegation necessary if, as you admit, a truck bomb would not wipe out Washington DC (leaving the line of succession intact)?
God you annoy me.
I have stated this before and you keep pretending it does not exist:
1) The Bomb itself would be part of a larger attack
2) Other members of the succession would be killed at the same time across the country
3) At the same time as the bombs went off, short range (read cruise) would be launched as well as weapons from Oscars and Typhoons.
You being a giant dishonest liar are creating your own arguments and fabricating that I made them.
quote:
And, as a corollary, since you've mentioned the Joint Chiefs' predelegation twice, why would the Pentagon be exempt from a truck bomb?
They probably wouldn't. Predelegation would be assigned to people across the country, likely at least ONE person at all times in Cheyenne Mountain. That person could only be killed with several multimegaton warheads all directly hitting the mountain. By then, the retaliatory strike would have already been launched.
quote:
3. Why do you think that it would be difficult to assemble/transport nukes out of sight of even our best spy satellites?
How many we talking about? One or two, or a handful? Possibly. Several hundred or several thousand? Impossible. The amount of labor, tools, specific people, fumes, etc would give it away.
quote:
4. Why do you think that virtual system verification would be effective?
You first have to understand the relationship between the US and Russia. When we signed the biological weapons convention, we showed them how much we had. They freaked out as their stockpiles were tiny. Thus they built up HUGE amounts of bio weapons. We know this as we can now properly verify and there were reports of famous Russian biologists dying in seemingly unnatural rates. The US built up HUGE numbers of nukes because we thought the Russians had more then we did. Having clear and open verification of virtual weapons eliminates that mentality yet keeps the threat of nuclear 2nd strike open. Weapons got built in large numbers because we were afraid the other person had more. When we know that the only weapons they have are either in blueprints or disassembled with specific parts such as shaped charges destroyed, there's no longer that threat. Plus we know how many each other has. The accounting for dissembled parts would be real easy. We should have X, Y, Z number of these parts, and they should have A, B, C number of those. There will always be the problem of secret weapons programs as evident by Libya, Israel, Iran, South Africa, South Korea (yes they initially tried, the IAEA slapped them on the wrists for it), Taiwan and possibly Saudi Arabia, but in today's world, the threat of a huge secret weapons program is virtually impossible.
quote:
I agree. You're disturbed.
Then you're delusional.
quote:
I'm calling bullshit on this one. All life on this planet, hm? Cites, please.
Colonel Petrov Saves The World, September 26, 1983
1983 had 59,938 weapons. The VAST majority of them Soviet or US. let's assume a LOW ball number of 40% on hair trigger, 24,000 nukes. Let's assume a 1 megaton payload (rather tiny consider virtually all of those hair triggers were hydrogen). That's 24,000 megatons of nuclear power.
The Nuclear Winter
quote:
The World Health Organization, in a recent detailed study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine), concludes that 1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injufles and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. This would represent by far the greatest disaster in the history of the human species and, with no other adverse effects, would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism. Unfortunately, the real situation would be much worse. In technical studies of the consequences of nuclear weapons explosions, there has been a dangerous tendency to underestimate the results. This is partly due to a tradition of conservatism which generally works well in science but which is of more dubious applicability when the lives of billions of people are at stake. In the Bravo test of March 1, 1954, a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb was exploded on Bikini Atoll. It had about double the yield expected, and there was an unanticipated last-minute shift in the wind direction. As a result, deadly radioactive fallout came down on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands, more than 200 kilometers away. Most all the children on Rongelap subsequently developed thyroid nodules and lesions, and other long-term medical problems, due to the radioactive fallout.
End of the World as we know it. Except maybe Roaches...
I find it amusing that someone who is so anti-Bush is buying in to his missile plan...
Obviously you haven't looked at the success rates of the missile shield. or how its tests are cheats. We got a 70% score on missiles flying OUT of the US from coordinates we KNEW about AHEAD of schedule. That's bullshit.
NMD: Test Failures and Technology Development
Global Security
Plus a real Missile attack will involve a thousand+ weapons. Our missile defense cannot handle that. The PAC is a joke. We can't even shoot down scuds with that.
It's amusing watching you being a Dubya Cheerleader.
Use the peek button to see how I adjusted the links.
Providing the title of the page lets readers know what they are about to read.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed Links

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by molbiogirl, posted 01-04-2008 7:38 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:02 AM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 171 of 241 (446167)
01-05-2008 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by molbiogirl
01-04-2008 7:38 PM


What's your alternative
Could you explain how leaving weapons on hair trigger is safer then removing them and either destroying or disassembling them?
You claim to know of the many, many incidents where full salvos of thousands of missiles almost occurred, yet you seem to be adamantly against the removal of hair trigger.
Here are 20 historical incidents that almost lead to nuclear war
Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: Issues: Accidents: 20 Mishaps that Might Have Caused Nuclear War
And the addition of the Muscot 1985 almost launch over the Norway satellite can't be discounted, or this one:
Page not found – Federation Of American Scientists
A faulty computer chip almost ended the world as we know it and you're against going virtual?
Care to explain your seemingly INSANE position?
And getting back to the crazy religious whackjob, wouldn't REMOVING weapons from active and ready status decrease the damage they could do?
It seems you are just arguing for fun, independent of just insane your argument actually is.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by molbiogirl, posted 01-04-2008 7:38 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:05 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 172 of 241 (446170)
01-05-2008 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 11:50 PM


Fix your links.
You've made the page go all wonky.
So therefore you agree. The Russians DO have the capacity to render succession useless.
No. Again. A remarkable talent for missing the point.
Your ignorance is appalling.
Babycakes, nowhere in your cites is there a definition of "virtual system". 2 cites to Amazon and 1 cite to Survival magazine? Hey. Is that anything like Soldier of Fortune?
Much to my chagrin, my University does not carry a subscription to Survival magazine, so I am unable to read the article.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a cite that I can actually read?
You assume that we wouldn't be able to tell that they were building large numbers of truck bombs.
Ding ding ding! Johnny, tell Obvious child what he's won!!!
If you are convinced that we can detect nuclear weaponry being assembled underground, how, praytell, did we manage to miss North Korea's entry into the nuclear club?
Why should I when you can't even prove you know the difference between a gun type and implosion type?
TRANSLATION: I am a puss and I haven't any cites. So I am going to bluster and fume and hope she doesn't notice.
Cites!!!
The one we fettered out with satellites?
First. Fetter: a shackle for the ankles or feet.
Unless you are suggesting that we somehow managed to disable the nukes from space, I don't think you meant "fettered".
Second. We "fettered" North Korea's nukes via seismographs, when they performed an underground test.
The only satellite data we had was "construction of some platforms and crates hundreds of miles from the possible test site, near a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon."
Or perhaps you have some satellite data you'd like to share. Please, do tell.
True, it's not that difficult...
End of story.
We justified bombing Japan to prevent loss of American lives. This wouldn't be any different.
Are you saying that a 400kt used in DC wouldn't kill millions?
That's right. Did you even bother to look at the link I provided?
Well that depends on what you think of Ol' Drunkard may he rest in peace.
No. That depends on the evidence you have to offer that 100 1kt weapons are missing.
Cites?
Possibly, but you are again ignoring one of key points I made about disassembly.
But that's not how disassembly has worked in the past, precious. See also: Pakistan.
God you annoy me.
Thank you!
1) The Bomb itself would be part of a larger attack.
So. The. F***. What.
You have yet to demonstrate that the entire line of succession would be destroyed.
You think all of these people...
* The Vice President
* Speaker of the House
* President pro tempore of the Senate
* Secretary of State
* Secretary of the Treasury
* Secretary of Defense
* Attorney General
* Secretary of the Interior
* Secretary of Agriculture
* Secretary of Commerce
* Secretary of Labor
* Secretary of Health and Human Services
* Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
* Secretary of Transportation
* Secretary of Energy
* Secretary of Education
* Secretary of Veterans Affairs
* Secretary of Homeland Security
...all hang out in the exact same spot at the exact same time?
2) Other members of the succession would be killed at the same time across the country.
So. You are proposing that, due to their remarkable intelligence gathering capabilities, these wiley Ruskies know the exact location of all of these people on any given day?
3) At the same time as the bombs went off, short range (read cruise) would be launched as well as weapons from Oscars and Typhoons.
You still haven't answered one of my questions:
1. What makes you think Russia would attack? No more of your fevered imagination, buster. Cite reputable sources that feel a scenario such as the one you proposed is likely.
Several hundred or several thousand? Impossible.
Your nightmare scenario doesn't require hundreds.
TRANSLATION: Virtual systems do nothing to prevent a nuclear attack. Dozens of nuclear weapons can be assembled, shipped to the U.S., positioned via trucks, and take out vital military and government facilities.
By then, the retaliatory strike would have already been launched.
A week later. Remember! It's a virtual system!
Thus they built up HUGE amounts of bio weapons. We know this as we can now properly verify ...
Cites?
Here's my cite:
Bioweapons treaty in disarray as US blocks plans for verification
Nature 414, 675 (13 December 2001)
Now, if you disassembled (i already mentioned this, you just pretended it didn't exist) these weapons and destroyed the shaped charges ...
You just keep dreamin'!
1983 had 59,938 weapons.
I didn't ask: Is there enough nuclear weaponry to destroy life on earth?
I asked: You claim that accidents (faulty systems, etc.) have endangered "the entire planet". Where is your proof?
Obviously you haven't looked at the success rates of the missile shield. or how its tests are cheats.
I'm calling bullshit on this one.
Cites?
Your first link is 8 years old.
Your second link is 6 years old.
I provided up to the date info.
Plus a real Missile attack will involve a thousand+ weapons. Our missile defense cannot handle that.
Two things.
1. You still have yet to provide evidence that Russia is likely to attack.
2. Cites?
It's amusing watching you being a Dubya Cheerleader.
Dubya can kiss my shiny metal ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:50 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:16 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 173 of 241 (446171)
01-05-2008 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 12:17 AM


Re: What's your alternative
Here are 20 historical incidents that almost lead to nuclear war.
OH NOES!
NOT NOO KYOO LUR WARS!
And getting back to the crazy religious whackjob, wouldn't REMOVING weapons from active and ready status decrease the damage they could do?
No. It would provide ample opportunity for our frenemies, tho.
My solution?
All nuclear weapons are destroyed! Everybody lives in peace and harmony! And gumdrops and kittens and rainbows!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 12:17 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 174 of 241 (446173)
01-05-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 1:02 AM


Re: Fix your links.
*sigh*
Why do I bother when you are essentially arguing with yourself? Not to mention completely ignoring a exponentially increasing amount of arguments I make.
Okay, Dubya's cheerleader, what is your plan?
Since you are obviously against the removal of hair trigger weapons, what is your realistic plan? Or do you just bitch and have no solutions?
And seeing how you believe the shield will work, why is that every test we conduct is pre-scheduled and hardly represents anything close to a real flight plan from China, NK or Russia?
Plus since you believe the shield is so worthwhile, could you care to explain how it will deal with a thousand mylar balloons?
How do you argue without understanding the subject? Furthermore, do you believe you are even remotely acting like an adult?
If you want to act like a 5 year old, you can. If that is what you need to do to 'win' so be it. It's just pathetic.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:02 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:21 AM obvious Child has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 175 of 241 (446174)
01-05-2008 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 1:16 AM


Re: Fix your links.
FIX YOUR EFFING LINKS.
AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:16 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:22 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 178 by AdminPD, posted 01-05-2008 5:10 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 176 of 241 (446175)
01-05-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 1:21 AM


Stop Ignoring Questions
quote:
FIX YOUR EFFING LINKS.
AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
Perhaps, dear immature infant, if you read them you'd learn something.
Furthermore, why should I answer anything you ask when you have gone out of your way to ignore virtually every question I have asked you?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:21 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 4:34 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 188 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 6:05 PM obvious Child has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2896 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 177 of 241 (446200)
01-05-2008 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by obvious Child
01-05-2008 1:22 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
Please list the questions I have failed to answer.
If you refuse, I can only assume you no longer wish to debate this issue any further.
And this discussion is at a close.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 1:22 AM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 2:39 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 178 of 241 (446201)
01-05-2008 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 1:21 AM


Civil Discussion Please
MBG and OC,
Rule #10: Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
Enough trash talk. If you can't argue the position and not the person, then please refrain from continuing this discussion.
If you continue this inflammatory behavior, you will be suspended for 24 hours.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple
Edited by AdminPD, : Fixed Lin
Edited by AdminPD, : Changed OB to OC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:21 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 93 days)
Posts: 34140
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 179 of 241 (446225)
01-05-2008 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 11:08 PM


Re: reality check.
How you people can be against the removal of nukes from hair trigger is just amazing.
Could you explain to me how having thousands of ICBMs and SLBMs on hair trigger alert capable of eliminating all life from the planet within 30 minutes is safer then having no such weapons?
Yet another strawman. Stop misrepresenting my position.
Can you ever debate honestly?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 11:08 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by obvious Child, posted 01-05-2008 2:42 PM jar has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4370 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 180 of 241 (446274)
01-05-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 4:34 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
This is pointless. None of my key points have even been acknowledged. Until they do, this is pointless.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 4:34 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024