next war: Japan

[ViperPilot 0]

I don't think you understood what I said...nukes are useless against terrorist orgs b/c they don't belong to any state, reside in specific cities, etc. There's no distinct local to target when it comes to fighting terrorists. Therefore, nukes are useless in the war on terror.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I don't think you understood what I said...nukes are useless against terrorist orgs b/c they don't belong to any state, reside in specific cities, etc. There's no distinct local to target when it comes to fighting terrorists. Therefore, nukes are useless in the war on terror.

Terrorists tend to have a nation of origin. See Taliban.

Make the hosts accountable for their guests and they'll think about who they harbor.

But Sudsy - get real. No nation will be able to use nukes without a much more solid collection of evidence than was used for the Iraq war.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

There's no irony there - it makes perfect sense. Members of the nuclear family have a huge advantage over non members, and its in their interests to keep it. Elementary school game theory.

Really? Then why did South Africa dismantle it's nuclear capability openly, and without external pressure in the early 90's?

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

Terrorists tend to have a nation of origin

Terrorists have a NATION of origion, not a STATE of origion. Big difference. Al Qaeda has no STATE affiliation, just multiple states it acts within. No single state govt takes responsibliity and fully supports a terrorist organization. Yes the Taliban was somewhat of an irregularity, but it also wasn't the same type of group as Al Qaeda...they were a bunch of mafia-style guys running a corrupt govt for profit. They weren't as much the run into a building a blow yourself up kind of guys (not saying it didn't happen, just not even close to the same level as AQ).

So many times the world has come close to nuclear devestation, so many times it has been avoided through rational thought processes. This will continue. (more of a reply to Sudsy on that one).

[ViperPilot 0]

Either there was severe underground pressure or they're just complete idiots. It makes since to be the kid w/ the bigger stick on the block. What did they gain from it? I don't see US, France, Germany, India, etc. following. Therefore, it was a bad move to get rid of the ability (from their POV), unless there was pressure, inability to afford the program, etc.

[Tonto 1]

Pressure? After a war had ended and Democracy installed?

Inability to afford the program? When the tax base had increased by 80%, there was no war to fight and ecconomic embargo had ended?

Complete idiots? Well, they managed to unseat a party that had been in power for 46 years and install a democracy without the support that Iraq is currently getting from a Superpower, and have managed to keep that democracy going for 12 years now. That doesn't sound that idiotic to me.

t

It's the year of the Pig.

[billvon 3,067]

>There's a chain of numerous individuals who must confirm intel,
>confirm this is the course of action required, etc.

There's also a constitutional requirement that the congress, not the president, declare war. We got around that pretty fast.

>Plus nukes are useless against terrorism, which everyone, including Bush, realizes.

So is conventional warfare. But it's taken many 3 years to realize that.

>If there was intel of an imminent bio attack...well it'd be from some
>terrorist org and therefore there'd be no city, state, etc. to target and
>launch on.

This would be funny if I didn't think you were serious, but alas, I think you typed that while being completely serious. Are you saying we would not launch an attack against a country that had only tenuous ties to terrorism?

>Incredibly wrong

Then you say:

>Yes we nuked Japan to end the war, but it was done to save an
>estimated million American soldiers from a country who'd already lost
>countless numbers fighting since 1941 in Europe and the Pacific.

Like I said, we would still win - but by nuking civilians in Japan that win would come more easily. You have proven my point.

>Bottom line in war - Us or them. I choose them to die. I don't feel one
>bit bad about us using nukes against them, better them then my grandpa
>or any other Americans.

In the beginning of this you said I was incredibly naive to think that nukes could be used against a potential threat, then you listed a reason why you would have no problem using nukes against a potential threat. I rest my case.

[ViperPilot 0]

I didn't say they were idiots in every facet. Of course it was great that they dislodged the govt and installed a democracy. But what exactly was their reason for giving up nuclear technology? Seems idiotic to just give it up. What reasons were behind the decision?

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

There's also a constitutional requirement that the congress, not the president, declare war. We got around that pretty fast.

In the case of a sudden launch on the US and thus an order for a counter-launch, Congress would be bypassed. So I don't think Congress has too much relevance here. Even I may have mistakenly lead you or others to believe Congress had a heavy role in the process.

Quote

So is conventional warfare. But it's taken many 3 years to realize that.

We can only train and begin to fight based on previous experiences. When something new happens, we have to adapt, learn and come up with new tactics. The next war won't be the same, they never are.

Quote

Are you saying we would not launch an attack against a country that had only tenuous ties to terrorism?

No, I'm saying we wouldn't launch nukes on a state with tenuous ties to terrorism. Now, if a state itself launched a bio attack on the US, then yes, we may launch nukes, but we wouldn't launch because we thought the terrorists who did this were training in the hills of Afghanistan or something like that. We would only possibly launch if the STATE of Afghanistan (for example) was the actor and perp of the attack.

Quote

Like I said, we would still win - but by nuking civilians in Japan that win would come more easily.

In a very basic way you could look at it like that. But the real reason is not just because we're lazy. There was the major reason of sparing American's lives, that's why we did it. It had nothing to do with eaze, it had to do with stopping an already too-high of casualty war.

Quote

In the beginning of this you said I was incredibly naive to think that nukes could be used against a potential threat

Nope, you didn't read my post. You were naive to think the launching of nukes is a simple 3 step process that happens at the snap of the President's fingers. It is not naive to say nukes could be used against a potential threat. Hasty responses lead to completely incorrect statements. I rest my case.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

What reasons were behind the decision?

I think there was only one reason.

South Africa is a key player in the region, but is, by no means a world power, and has no ambition to become one. Every state within delivery range of a South African Nuke, was one of the "Front Line" states that had sheltered, trained, armed and equiped the people who currently sit in our government. The governments and people of Namibia, Botswana, Angola, Zimbabwe. Zambia, Mozambique and even those further afeild like Tanzania and Kenya had experienced attacks from the apartheid government. There would be little cause for us to have a nuclear capability which could be used only against these former allies of the liberation struggle.

South Africa has retained it's civilian nuclear program and has generated nuclear power since the 1970's without incident. Clearly the technology is not lost, and if required, a nuclear capability could be redeveloped, since we are one of the worlds largest suppliers of uranium. With mines that go to 13000 ft below ground level, satelites won't see squat. I think the government knows a nuke is simply not a requirement in today's political climate.

It's the year of the Pig.

[Frenchy68 0]

Quote

There's a chain of numerous individuals who must confirm intel

^&%**)@%#!! And as Arnie so eloquently said:
"It's as satisfying to me as, uh, coming is, you know? As, ah, having sex with a woman and coming. And so can you believe how much I am in heaven? I am like, uh, getting the feeling of coming in a gym, I'm getting the feeling of coming at home, I'm getting the feeling of coming backstage when I pump up, when I pose in front of 5,000 people, I get the same feeling, so I am coming day and night. I mean, it's terrific. Right? So you know, I am in heaven. "
Intel is worth as much as your ability to interpret it is. History is a bitch...

"For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

[lurch 0]

china would so fuck over the u.s. it is not funny.


BWAHAHAHAHA....
Scuse please.
Um, Rhys, you don't know Americans. We invented the phrase "can of whoopass". We invented the portable hellgate commonly called a "nuke", remember?
And just how many unmotivated chinese peasants with pitchforks does it take to stop an F-16, anyway?

Or a whole squadron of em?
Or a Trident? ICBM? MIRV?
They have primitive human wave warfare strategies left over from the past 4000 years of dynasties kicking each other out of power. We have everything else.
The chinese are making toys for us as fast and cheap as they can hoping trade and entertainment will keep us from completely overrunning their culture with Levis movies and Mcdonalds. Their kids don't want war they don't want stupid hokey childish slogans about great leaps forward and long marches and communist mind control crap their parents bought into. They want what we got, what they see on TV. Nice clothes. Malls. Infinite food-they gotta be sick of just rice by now. Refrigerators microwaves and a dvd player for everyone. Xbox. Cheap used cars. Convenience stores. Electricity. Running water. Paved roads. I could go on....
They fuck with us, they lose all that, and what little stability they have. Their half-fossilized commie leadership values social stability above all else, to the point of being willing to slaughter a few hundred students to maintain it. They'd never risk it just to start a pissing contest with us.
I'm just worried about what happens when they ditch the commie crap and free themselves. Unleashed and clawing for first-world status they will be unstoppable. But by then they won't be the same china we currently see as a possible enemy so its a moot point. They're the best trading partner and biggest consumer market in all human history. China is patient. It will dominate, in time. LONG time.

Live and learn... or die, and teach by example.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

I don't think you understood what I said...nukes are useless against terrorist orgs b/c they don't belong to any state, reside in specific cities, etc. There's no distinct local to target when it comes to fighting terrorists. Therefore, nukes are useless in the war on terror.

I understood what you said, and in the context of what you're saying, I agree. In fighting a disorganized, geographically spread force, nuclear weapons don't really provide a tactical advantage, definitely not one which could be justified, anyway.

But take a step back for a moment. Birds-eye view.

War on Terror, hmm? What sorts of things have been done under that pretext which were not also tactically advantageous against the declared enemy? Executive power grabs immediately come to mind (Patriot Act, semantic designation of "enemy combatant" to sidestep laws, the whole torture memo debacle, etc.).

What about military action in general? Aside from an easily justifiable direct response against Afghanistan after 9/11 (as well as the followup Al Qaeda hunt), just how effective is further military action in eliminating terrorism at large (think Iraq's being sold under the War on Terror)?

I'll give you a clue: it's not. Aside from specific missions that have rendered Al Qaeda a lot less effective (a *great* thing), the US's growing military presence in that region is inciting terrorism, not curbing it. And if you think that for a minute that incidents of terrorism going through the fucking roof over there has no effect over here, think again. The hate is growing.

The War on Terror is a war on ideology moreso than it is on an opposing force. The enemy is amorphous, fueled by fierce and deeply driven (religious/spiritual) territorialism that does not die when shot or blown up. Coming from a layman's perspective, the only effective military solution with which I can come up is genocide. Which, of course, is horribly unrealistic, as no matter how anyone tries to package that one, no one's gonna buy it nor stand for it. EDIT: But I still won't put it past anyone in power to consider, or even try it.

There are very, very smart people at top levels of the U.S. government who know all this quite well. It's silly, albeit entertaining, to consider otherwise.

So why, then, would the U.S. be taking action under the banner of the War on Terror which pretty much could counter its objectives? Simple: there are other objectives, which have been gone over and gone over and determined to be worth the risk. Worth it for whom? What are these objectives? Does it even fucking matter to me as long as I can crack a beer every night when I get home and watch TV?

For those who really do care, it's vitally important to take that step back. Bird's eye view. And see that governments take action that are not in line with stated objectives (or goals under which they're sold) all the freakin' time. I don't like it, I don't think it's right, but it's a fact.

In light of this, thinking, "Nuh-uh. No way would we use nukes. Never. I mean, they're not effective against terrorists, so we won't use them," is roughly equivalent to "Not my kid."

Only on a global scale.

Don't put a damned thing past anyone in power, no matter how unlikely. The moment we let our guard down is the moment we start taking a force-fed liking to intrusion without lube.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

We invented the portable hellgate commonly called a "nuke", remember?

As a matter of fact, the nuke was NOT invented in the USA. The USA was the first to build them, though.

You might try googling "Szilard", "Frisch-Peierls memorandum", and "Maud Committee".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,067]

>You were naive to think the launching of nukes is a simple 3 step
>process that happens at the snap of the President's fingers. It is not
>naive to say nukes could be used against a potential threat.

A gross oversimplification on my part. Add as many details as you like. It took a little over a year after 9/11 to drum up support for a war with Iraq; I imagine justifying a nuclear option would take longer still. But I think you are kidding yourself if you thought we would never do it.

Right now we are sitting pretty. We have the strongest economy in the world, the cheapest fuel, the most powerful military. Those things won't always be true. There will come a day when China is taking most of the oil that used to come to us, and our economy starts collapsing as a result. Someday we will not have the strongest military in the world. Someday we will have to face the possibility that someone may be ordering us to do stuff, and threaten regime change if we don't. (Of course by then we will have disbanded the UN, so best not to hope for help from that direction.)

Three year ago, when we were in very good shape overall, we justified an incredibly costly war with some pretty tenuous and amorphous goals. Even war proponents were constantly shifting the 'real goals' of the Iraq war. But it flew, and we now find ourselves in a war that did not accomplish many of its stated goals, but is still being touted as a Good Thing.

Now picture a US where our situation is a lot more dire, where we are soon going to lose our economic and military edge to an economic aggressor like China. That's a much bigger threat than Al Qaeda. Do you really think that when the US is threatened in a serious way, our response will be MORE measured than today? You really think that we will look at the situation, and say "best just let things take their course; we'll make a fine subordinate nation?"

I suspect we will want to fight. We will fight the people committing "economic terrorism," who are "trying to destroy the american way of life." I can almost hear the impassioned speeches now about the evil enemy bent on our destruction. Heck, take any Cold War speech and do a search/replace; you've got an anti-China speech. (Or an anti-X speech; China is by no means the only real threat out there.)

Now add a terrorist group that launches a biological attack against the US, then runs back to China and hides in the provinces. What will our reaction be?

Now, so far, we have stuck to conventional weapons mostly because we can, not because we would never use nukes. If we were faced with a potential loss in a war, we would use nukes just as fast as the president could act. And people who oppose that would be labeled enemies, traitors, and anti-americans just as they are now.

Will all that happen? I hope not. But if we hope to avoid that endgame, we're heading down the wrong road now. We're setting ourselves up as the big bully on the block, and bullies have a way of falling in a very spectacular way. I hope that the efforts we are making in the opposite direction (trade agreements with China, supporting peace talks with North Korea) start to take over center stage from the latest US-led war.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Right now we are sitting pretty. We have the strongest economy in the world, the cheapest fuel, the most powerful military. Those things won't always be true. There will come a day when China is taking most of the oil that used to come to us, and our economy starts collapsing as a result. Someday we will not have the strongest military in the world. Someday we will have to face the possibility that someone may be ordering us to do stuff, and threaten regime change if we don't. (Of course by then we will have disbanded the UN, so best not to hope for help from that direction.)

A wee bit dramatic, don't you think?

Your scenario is bullshit. It is highly likely we'll lose the leadership role, just as England did. China may not be the one to take it - their population mass works against them as much as it helps. But we'll still have two oceans and thousands of nukes to keep us independent. North Korea has that with just a tiny arsenal.

Economic independence may go. The Euro might replace (further) the dollar in the world.

As for your Tom Clancy scenarios...you do know he writes fiction, and pretty bad stuff at that, right?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As a matter of fact, the nuke was NOT invented in the USA. The USA was the first to build them, though.

Given the engineering challenges, that's the key. Just as the person behind fusion should be the one that makes it work - delivering more energy than consumed.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There's no irony there - it makes perfect sense. Members of the nuclear family have a huge advantage over non members, and its in their interests to keep it. Elementary school game theory.

Really? Then why did South Africa dismantle it's nuclear capability openly, and without external pressure in the early 90's?

t

As you said it yourself, SA has no apparent need for a nuclear arsenal and has far better uses for that capital. Had it not had vast uranium resourcs and a nice symbiotic relationship with Israel, I wonder if it would ever have happened.

As it stands, maybe there is still a secret alliance there should needs change. And as you state, the country could easily rebuilt if it desired, making you little different from Japan. Toyko disdains the bomb while enjoying the nuclear shield of the US, having its cake and eating it too.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As for your Tom Clancy scenarios...you do know he writes fiction, and pretty bad stuff at that, right?

well, may it is bad stuff, but at least it's tedious

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Interesting article on this subject.

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/slasheastasia_1.htm

[billvon 3,067]

>It is highly likely we'll lose the leadership role, just as England did.

Agreed.

> But we'll still have two oceans and thousands of nukes to keep us independent.

If we find ourselves with the same desire to meddle in the affairs of other countries, and we attempt to do so, those oceans won't protect us. They didn't protect us from World War I, World War II or 9/11. And when we get backed into a corner we will use those nukes. That's what they are for.

So the best we can hope for is that we get a little smarter at how we deal with other countries, so we don't find ourselves in that corner.

>As for your Tom Clancy scenarios...you do know he writes fiction, and
>pretty bad stuff at that, right?

Yeah. He wrote a story a while back about a terrorist using an commercial airliner to take out a building in Washington, DC, killing thousands of people. Thank god that never happened.

Seeing a story in fiction doesn't make it any more likely to happen. It also doesn't make it any more likely that it won't.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If we find ourselves with the same desire to meddle in the affairs of other countries, and we attempt to do so, those oceans won't protect us.

If we lose the leadership role, we'll quickly find that attempts at meddling will be ignored. (See France) Doesn't mean we'll be embroiled in war.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

As a matter of fact, the nuke was NOT invented in the USA. The USA was the first to build them, though.

Given the engineering challenges, that's the key. Just as the person behind fusion should be the one that makes it work - delivering more energy than consumed.

Really? Curious that the top folks at Los Alamos were theoreticians, then. And many of them from outside the USA.

You might also google "tube alloys" to see where the engineering design of a U235 separation plant and a U235 bomb came from.

PS fusion power is already reality: H-bombs, and even just go out and bask in the Sun

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

PS fusion power is already reality: H-bombs, and even just go out and bask in the Sun

curious that you consider a thermonuclear bomb a form of energy. Not exactly what I'd call clean power, or even vaguely useful.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

PS fusion power is already reality: H-bombs, and even just go out and bask in the Sun

curious that you consider a thermonuclear bomb a form of energy. Not exactly what I'd call clean power, or even vaguely useful.

Not energy, you have to be kidding! What do you think generates all that blast, heat and light?
Clean? Never heard of the neutron bomb?
Useful? If not useful, why does the USA keep so many in its arsenal at great expense to taxpayers like me and (I hope) you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.