Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Decimation of U.S. Naval capability (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Decimation of U.S. Naval capability
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"Are we discussing a two-megaton weaponized EMP? That we're assuming Iran has been able to develop, or has purchased from Russia? "...

Yes, what do you think an EMP attack would employ... two megaton gamma ray enhanced water balloons?

Jasonr

"Would it silence Facebook and Twitter? Like, for good? Please tell me it would. "...

Yes.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
Wonderful! What would be the effect of a single, high altitude, two-megaton nuclear device detonated over the central U.S.?
Would it silence Facebook and Twitter? Like, for good? Please tell me it would.
Don't forget the Ipads.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, what do you think an EMP attack would employ...
A small, cheap bomb.
EMP-maximized atomic weapons are so difficult that we as a country apparently gave up on developing them. They also produce a LOT of gamma radiation, meaning that you're not just shorting out electronics. The length of the pulse matters quite a bit -- it's the difference between frying solid-state electronics and blowing a transformer -- and it's not trivial to develop a bomb that emits in a specific band. One thing that you might find interesting is that bombs specifically designed for EMP apparently have less effective range, because they don't propagate quite as well; they penetrate better, however. (This obviously matters to the area of effect.)

Me, I think it's more likely that our moustache-twirling villains would just toss their nuclear bomb up into the stratosphere and set it off. But if you think they'd work on it for a few decades first, that's okay.

[ August 07, 2015, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"EMP-maximized atomic weapons are so difficult that we as a country apparently gave up on developing them. "...

Source? That is your thoughtful response?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am going out for the night Tom, but I will tip my hand by saying we both know you have no source for your claims. You actually managed to get every detail about an enhanced EMP nuke wrong... including affected area, sophistication, and the reason we are no longer interested in propogating a weaponized EMP (E1 pulse, the one we are concerned with) through nuclear detonation.

Keep making stuff up though, this is exactly the type of approach I have come to expect from you. [Wink]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Noel, they do have you on the grounds that you do not acknowledge your own errors.

Prove me wrong by taking responsibility for all your wrong Obamacare predictions

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

I am home for the night after all. How fortunate!

"And no, I was discussing our efforts to tune E3 pulses, not E1. Were you talking about E1? "...

Is this a tacit acknowledgement that the radius of EMP obtainable from a moderate yield, 1950's vintage Mark 18 nuke, detonated 250 miles over the central United States can cover the entire country from coast to coast? Now that you are paying attention, what would be the effect of fried microcircuitry in our modern age be?

"Consider this: I know how to use Google, and yet am saying things that contradict what conspiracy sites and military fanboy sites say about Russian EMP. "...

I'm proud of you Tom. Now answer the question; what is your source (and no, wiki will not help you).

Greg,

Do I understand correctly that you would consider my position on the UCA relevant to this discussion?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, you deleted your post Tom... prudent decision!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
"Have the submarines also been dry-docked? Note that not in the air 24-7 does not mean "not in a position to bomb Iran without overflying Russia. "...

Is this an admission you were wrong? (finally)

No, Ohio class submarines are not in dry-dock... and your point is?

Oh, I have no problem admitting I don't have in depth knowledge of when US bombers are in the air. That being said, the point remains that the US has the ability to strike Iran's major population centres without approaching within 500 km of any part of either Russia or China; and if Iran were to have used a nuclear device to attack the USA (and if it was even nearly as successful as you seem to think it would be) then both Russia and China would likely be praying for the USA to counterattack the country that had just proven itself to be exactly as insane as you already claim it to be.

Regardless, neither Russia nor China would respond to the USA counterattack militarily at that point, because the USA would still have the ability to destroy both of those countries 20 times over, even without the ability to sustain a long term war. And I believe the most recent arguments against dealing with Iran suggest that Russia and China are and have always been rationale enemies not bent on suicide, unlike the Iranians.

Now, are you still trying to claim that China did not begin development of ICBMs on the order of 50 years ago? Are you still claiming that the DF-5 was China's first ICBM, and that it only came online in the mid 1990s? Here, let me again quote your very specific statement:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
The first Chinese ICBM, the Dongfeng 5 (CSS-4), began production in the mid-1990s

Interestingly, every thing about that statement, including the implications, was completely wrong. Also note that you wrote this in response to my claim that China had actually been designing and developing ICBMs for about 50 years, which your own reference later showed to be correct.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ah, you deleted your post Tom
*sigh* Yeah, you know why?
Because I realized that this is you doing what you always do: talking out of your ass, saying "nope" whenever someone contradicts you, and being witheringly condescending to conceal the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. And anyone who spends the time to actually engage will just get drawn into longer and longer discussions and digressions, in the hopes that you'll be able to pull them into the weeds and debate "facts" that amount to divergent opinion.

You do this every time, noel. It appears to be what you think discussion is. It's been a while since you've stunk up the place, but still I should have remembered.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Greg,

Do I understand correctly that you would consider my position on the UCA relevant to this discussion?

Noel, it is not your position that I consider relevant to this discussion. For example, I disagree with Seriati's position on the same issue, but he authentically acknowledged the demonstrated truth based on data when I presented it. Instead, I was referring to your inability to acknowledge when you were wrong, no matter how exhaustively your errors were documented, as being relevant to this and every other topic that you discuss. This is what was demonstrated by your inability to acknowledge your erroneous assertions regarding Obamacare.

[ August 08, 2015, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

Is this statement of *yours* :

"China first developed nuclear warheads in the 1960s and deployed ICBMs in 1975, so claiming they have the ability to deliver nuclear devices anywhere in the world only 50 and 40 years later does not support your argument. "...

... supportive of my timeline for China's ICBM development, or yours? I can wait for you to do the math.

"Oh, I have no problem admitting I don't have in depth knowledge of when US bombers are in the air. "...

Well, actually, you not only have a problem with that, but even remembering the substance of your earlier assertion... :

"Noel, are you purposefully ignoring the fact that the USA has nuclear bombers in the air right now, and probably has a half dozen submarines within striking distance of Iran? "...

First off by ~twenty three years on the SAC "Triad" deterrent doctrine (2015 rather than 1991), and now ~twenty four years (1975 rather than 1998) on China's "anywhere in the world" ICBM capability. (And I retrospectively note with some gratification that I got the missile designation correct after all.)

Can you acknowledge these facts before moving on to historical planning details regarding EMP in Russia, China, and Iran. These are available in open source material.

Tom,

"You do this every time, noel. It appears to be what you think discussion is. It's been a while since you've stunk up the place, but still I should have remembered. "...

This sounds a lot like juvenile foot-stomping. Just a simple admission that you are wrong about :

- The number of EMP devices necessary to black out the United States.

- The sophistication of an EMP device.

- The radius effect of an EMP device.

- The pulse-type which an effective EMP device is optimized for.

I can wait.

Greg,

"I was referring to your inability to acknowledge when you were wrong, no matter how exhaustively your errors were documented, as being relevant to this and every other topic that you discuss. "...

This much I will concede; you relate "facts" in much the same manner at Tom, and Donald, but for purposes of this discussion I treat you as an honest detractor notwithstanding.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

"And anyone who spends the time to actually engage will just get drawn into longer and longer discussions and digressions, in the hopes that you'll be able to pull them into the weeds and debate "facts" that amount to divergent opinion. "...

As an aside, you do not believe that exchanges on Ornery should ultimately amount to agreement upon "facts", reserving debate for matters of opinion?... Interesting.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
As an aside, you do not believe that exchanges on Ornery should ultimately amount to agreement upon "facts", reserving debate for matters of opinion?... Interesting.

There are always three levels of possible analysis for any set of facts:

1) Establishing the basic facts, i.e. data

2) Extrapolation based on those facts; we can call this "assessment", which is still fact-oriented but involves applying general principles to specific data to create new secondary data.

3) Opinion: what you think or feel about the facts.

Debate can occur on all three levels, and bad debate usually collates all three so that the topic of argument is muddy and often at cross-purposes. Particularly bad debate is when, once people believe they've gotten past the level of "what are the facts" and try to forward an assessment or opinion the basic facts come into dispute again and it undermines the possibility of progression. There are also fallacies associated with this, where a person can endlessly micro in on too small a level of detail and therefore make impossible the discussion of the larger scale assessment or opinion; similarly a person can include too little detail and base an assessment or opinion on a trivial amount of data. You can form your own conclusion about where you (or any of us) falls into this schema.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

"There are always three levels of possible analysis for any set of facts... Debate can occur on all three levels, and bad debate usually collates all three so that the topic of argument is muddy and often at cross-purposes. "...

By "collate", you mean failing to order one's assessment of facts into proper categories, correct?

"Particularly bad debate is when, once people believe they've gotten past the level of 'what are the facts' and try to forward an assessment or opinion the basic facts come into dispute again and it undermines the possibility of progression. "...

This seems to beg the question of relevance. How would you distinguish this statement from "Don't confuse me with the facts"?

"There are also fallacies associated with this, where a person can endlessly micro in on too small a level of detail and therefore make impossible the discussion of the larger scale assessment or opinion... "...

Formal polemic fallacies are a little more cut-and-dried than this statement seems to imply, and rarely appear in practiced debate. Contextualization is the solution for "too much information", if there is such a thing.

"... similarly a person can include too little detail and base an assessment or opinion on a trivial amount of data. You can form your own conclusion about where you (or any of us) falls into this schema. "...

Of course, anyone can "form" a conclusion on anything, at any point, and for any reason. Disciplined debate is not quite so flexible on this point. As Daniel Moynihan famously said, "You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.".

Good debate clarifies ones "feelings" about "facts", however derived. For example, in this discussion :

- EMP, natural or man-made, either is, or is not, a phenomena capable of catastrophic impact on a society reliant upon electrical grids, and microelectronics.

- Man made EMP either is, or is not, possible through the use of a single, moderate yield, comparatively low complexity, nuclear device.

- Effected area of this device detonated at high-altitude either is, or is not, "localized".

- Gamma Ray induced electrical impulse in a powerful non-localized burst (E1) either is, or is not, disastrous in its effect upon microcircuitry.

- Iran either is, or is not, developing ICBM technology capable of reaching "anywhere in the world".

- Iran either has, or has not, assessed militarized EMP as a tailor-fit for use against the decadent west, and its primary embodiment... The Great Satan.

Now, you can with justification feel however you like about the overall nuclearization of Iran because, or inspite of, these questions of fact... but you cannot "feel" the questions away by failing to address them with reasoned inquiry. Wouldn't you agree Fenring?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just in case you thought nobody noticed you dancing away from the question, noel, I will repeat it here from your convenience:
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Are you still trying to claim that China did not begin development of ICBMs on the order of 50 years ago? Are you still claiming that the DF-5 was China's first ICBM, and that it only came online in the mid 1990s? Here, let me again quote your very specific statement:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
The first Chinese ICBM, the Dongfeng 5 (CSS-4), began production in the mid-1990s

Interestingly, every thing about that statement, including the implications, was completely wrong. Also note that you wrote this in response to my claim that China had actually been designing and developing ICBMs for about 50 years, which your own reference later showed to be correct.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

I am making allowance for the fact that you are an attorney, and may not know the difference between "development", and "production". I will also assume that, as a Canadian, you did not have a contemporaneous concern with the fact that the Loral deal, brokered by Willie Clinton, made the heart of the United States a target for the *enhanced-range* Chinese DF-5, not Saskatchewan.

That said, I will avoid more critical characterization of your statement and simply state your entire post is naively ridiculous.

Is it necessary to actually walk you through what targeting "anywhere in the world" means in American English?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're still dancing, noel. Instead of responding with feeble insults, try addressing the substance of the claim that you made a number of demonstrably false statements.

An ICBM has a very specific definition: it does not mean "can strike the USA from anywhere in the world". By the definition provided by your own expert source (Wikipedia) the DF-4 is an ICBM. China deployed it in 1975.

The DF-5, to which you referred, was also an ICBM and was deployed in 1981 (again, according to your own source); but it was not the first Chinese ICBM as you claimed - nor was it even the first ICBM deployed by China. It also wasn't in production in the mid 1990s, having been supplanted by the DF-5A.

Maybe you meant to site the DF-5A, which actually was produced and deployed in the mid 1990s, but to which you did not refer, and which was not even close to being the first Chinese ICBM produced, never mind deployed, by China.

Let me once again refer you to your specific words:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
The first Chinese ICBM, the Dongfeng 5 (CSS-4), began production in the mid-1990s


Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring,

Watch closely as Donald's statements are properly contextualized. Peripheral as his nit-picking is, unless I get down in the grass with him, he will never realize the diversion was necessary.

"... specific definition: it does not mean 'can strike the USA from anywhere in the world'. "...

However; the definition which I provided *was* "anywhere in the world", but let's try wiki's first, and then what appears to be yours for the sake of argument;

- Wiki (not my source) seems to define an ICBM as a "two-stage" missile. This strikes me as entirely arbitrary from a strategic perspective. I was building two-stage rockets in high school.

- You appear to be employing a definition which means, literally, "between continents". This is not a very useful working definition. The Bering Straight is 53 miles wide at its narrowest point, and by that measure the Palestinians have "ICBM" rockets (with a comfortable range to spare) as of 2014, courtesy of the Iranians.

- My definition was "anywhere in the world" (the one which you repeated). In the context of this thread it means the Iranians are testing ICBM technology capable of delivering an EMP device at high altude over the central United States... something the Chinese could not do until ~1998, courtesy of Mr. Clinton.

"By the definition provided by your own expert source (Wikipedia) the DF-4 is an ICBM. China deployed it in 1975. "...

Again, in the context of this thread, was Chinese capability circa 1975 relevant to this discussion?

"Originally posted by noel c.:

The first Chinese ICBM, the Dongfeng 5 (CSS-4), began production in the mid-1990s "...

Correct, and your problem with that is... ?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I forget how we got here. Was a nuke fight the reason we needed a stronger, or could make due with a more lean, navy? [Razz]
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Excellent question DW,

A permanent carrier group presence, placed within striking distance of Iran gives us the capability of monitoring, and destroying their R&D/storage facilities even without reliance upon any other nation's good-will, at a time of our choosing.

Barry has crippled the next chief executive's options in that regard, and I believe this result was an intentional policy decision.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Inherited a country in economic collapse with two ongoing wars and a deficit of a trillion and a half dollars per year. Fixed economy. Biggest reduction in deficit since WWII (and a better recovery than Europe or Japan).

What a technically true whopper that is. Obama's deficits are still higher EACH year than the highest deficits recorded by any President that came before him (on an absolute basis), even inflation adjusted there's barely a handful of years the deficit exceeded the LOWEST Obama deficit. The reason this Whopper comes in as technically true is because 2009 recorded the highest deficit in history (by more than a factor of 3), not because of any "economy saving" actions by this President.

It's likely claiming if you inject people with a fatal illness, you saved them by doling out a cure.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Two biggest worldwide economic collapses in last century were 1929 and 2008. The preceding decade in each period was characterized much more by financial deregulation than by the increase in governmental oversight. That seems to point to deregulation as a proximate cause.

That's actually a false meme. At no point did deregulation increase faster than regulation. At every point through 2008 regulation increased overall.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What metric are we using for "regulation?" Are we just counting laws?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Watch closely as Donald's statements are properly contextualized. Peripheral as his nit-picking is, unless I get down in the grass with him, he will never realize the diversion was necessary.
Of course a diversion was necessary - whenever you are caught making a false statement, a diversion is your go-to position. You are basically famous for it, noel.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
Wiki (not my source) seems to define an ICBM as a "two-stage" missile

Actually, no: Wikipedia explicitly defines an ICBM as follows :
quote:
An intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is a guided ballistic missile with a minimum range of more than 5,500 kilometres (3,400 mi)[1] primarily designed for nuclear weapons delivery (delivering one or more thermonuclear warheads).
And here are a few other definitions and their sources. You might notice a pattern.

Collins English dictionary 1. (Military) intercontinental ballistic missile: a missile with a range greater than 5500 km

Merriam-Webster: : a type of missile that can fly from one continent to another

Encyclopedia Britannica ICBM, in full intercontinental ballistic missile, Land-based, nuclear-armed ballistic missile with a range of more than 3,500 miles (5,600 km)

Special Weapons primer of the Federation of American Scientists simply define an ICBM as having "ranges of greater than 5,500 km”, and is used as the basis for the Wikipedia entry.

This is the definition I provided for you on the previous page, and which for whatever reason you have repeatedly ignored, so this:
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
You appear to be employing a definition which means, literally, "between continents".

... is just one more instance you being completely a-factual.

As an aside, you do realize that this
quote:
Now they can deliver a nuclear device anywhere in the world at hypersonic velocity
Does not suggest that even you believe that these characteristics define what an ICBM is (notwithstanding that you still seem to be completely baffled by the point I was making when I challenged the relevance of that statement, given China's 60 year history in missile research and development, and 50 year history of ICBM R&D.)
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald,

... Still choking I see? [Wink]

I thought the definition was "quite explicit". :

"Wiki: :Special Weapons primer of the Federation of American Scientists simply define an ICBM as having 'ranges of greater than 5,500 km.' "

"Merriam-Webster: : a type of missile that can fly from one continent to another. "

So which is the definition you are using as a diversion?

I have already mentioned, these two are not equivalent, and neither meets the contextual criteria that I gave you (and which you repeated).

Do you want to gnaw on this shoe a little longer before addressing the topic of the thread?

Is my assertion that an EMP device delivered at high altitude over the central United States by a nuclearized Iran, governed under a theocracy dedicated to the eschatological proposition that divine fulfillment relies in destroying the Great Satan, something worth guarding against?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"For I am the lord of the dance said he..."

There is a pretty consistent definition, noel, though you continue to try to obfuscate. I will give you kudos for consistency, though - you have historically never been above creating your own definitions when it serves you, and ignoring facts that disprove your points.

But it is academic at this point: you were wrong not just in that the DF 4 is by all common definitions an ICBM, you also placed production of the DF 5 in the wrong decade. And this was all beside the point, that you still can't seem to grasp, that China had an active ICBM program from the 1960s, so suggesting as you did earlier that China was able to develop worldwide nuclear capabilities in only a small number of years since the late 1990s was a complete misrepresentation.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
... And now your answer to the premise of my thread... ?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
P.S. , "... China was able to develop worldwide nuclear capabilities in only a small number of years since the late 1990s was a complete misrepresentation. "...

If, by this, you mean that China was able to hit any target "in the world" prior to the marriage of Loral's assistance in guidance technology during the late 1990s, and the extended range DF-5, you are wrong.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
What metric are we using for "regulation?" Are we just counting laws?

Pick one, there were more regulations in total, they were more complex and they had more scope. The cost of compliance also went up.

What I think is being referred to is the specific repeal of certain laws, but that is NOT the same thing as there being less regulation. The difference being key when making an argument that more regulation is better (rather than just a specific law should not have been changed).

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So since you know what is meant, you are engaging in empty nitpicking?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you asking me? The answer is no, it's not empty nitpicking, to point out a claim is based on an invalid premise.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
So since you know what is meant, you are engaging in empty nitpicking?

If I had to argue Seriati's point I would say that the regulation/deregulation axis isn't necessarily a good determinant of whether the financial industry is advantaged at the expense of the people. While at first glance deregulation would appear to be what financiers look to achieve, this is only true if regulations introduced would specifically be bad for business or reduce their income (or at least make things more fair). I already brought up one point which was the Federal Reserve Act, which, while being a piece a legislation regulating the banking system, was obviously the brainchild of bank interests and helped them tremendously at the expense of many, and likely also directly caused the Great Depression.

In this sense I would suggest Seriati's objection isn't mere nitpicking. This is especially so when the financial sector has huge influence in legislative affairs, which increases the chance that any regulatory action will actually be empowering rather than disempowering for the banks. Only if we think of regulation as "taming" the banks does it become tautologically true that at such a time affairs are more stable.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel c.

(1) Can you say a little bit more about the Loral-China incident you are referring to? There was a notoriously faulty New York Times article in the late 1990's that led Congress to pass a damaging piece of legislation called the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (or ITAR). Hurt the US aerospace industry and turns out to have been based on a story that was later partially debunked, or at least that's my memory.

(2) I disagree with most of your statement below:

quote:
A permanent carrier group presence, placed within striking distance of Iran gives us the capability of monitoring, and destroying their R&D/storage facilities even without reliance upon any other nation's good-will, at a time of our choosing.

Barry has crippled the next chief executive's options in that regard, and I believe this result was an intentional policy decision.

There's a whole bunch of ways to do monitoring, moving a carrier out of a region does not stop monitoring. If it comes to destroying some part of Iran, that can also be done without carriers (there were a lot of sorties in the Iraq War that did not come off of carriers, and not all from local bases - US bombers can and do refuel on on missions). And if things ever did devolve into war with Iran, you move the carrier back. See, that's what carriers do - they move around the world.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati, what Obama has done with respect to the deficit is far better than what anyone imagined could be done. Remember Mitt Romney - he made a campaign pledge to cut the deficit (and we all know how reliable campaign pledges are) and Obama beat the target Romney set out.

You can try to demean this accomplishment using terms such as "technically true" and "whopper", but anyone who remembers what was happening to the economy in 2008 has a different perspective. When Obama came in, the economy had shrunk by almost 10% in 6 months. It was the biggest economic collapse in 80 years. And it's not like that cataclysmic a level of economic devastation stops immediately. The Republicans were like deer in the headlights - don't pretend that there were active alternative policies the Republicans were advocating, they were shell-shocked. The Bush Administration came up with a 3-page document for the $700B bailout that essentially said "give us money and we'll use it as we see fit to bail things out".

Take a look at the actual deficit reduction trends, the two biggest improvements since Truman were Bill Clinton and Obama, and Obama's recovery was even steeper than Clinton's.

link

quote:
The reason this Whopper comes in as technically true is because 2009 recorded the highest deficit in history (by more than a factor of 3), not because of any "economy saving" actions by this President.


Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pick one, there were more regulations in total, they were more complex and they had more scope. The cost of compliance also went up.

What I think is being referred to is the specific repeal of certain laws, but that is NOT the same thing as there being less regulation

How about the other extreme, when the economy was healthy and the balance of wealth was at its peak (as opposed to the imbalance of today). In the 1960's, government strongly regulated transportation, telecommunications, and banking. Government determined routes and set rates for shipping, trains, commercial air traffic, etc. Media ownership was strongly regulated, television stations needed to prove they were operating in the public interest, and if they took a political position they needed to provide equal time for an opposing viewpoint. Banks had strong enforcement of Glass-Steagal, and different financial institutions had their specific roles and government auditors to verify.

If number of regulations are your metric, are you then saying that the regulatory environment of the 1960's had far less regulation that we had in 2008?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Athelstan
Member
Member # 2566

 - posted      Profile for Athelstan   Email Athelstan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Off topic pleasantry.

At the end of March this year I was one of the crowds who flocked to Stokes Bay (Hampshire, UK) to see the USS Theodore Roosevelt when it was moored in the Solent, just outside Portsmouth. Everyone there was genuinely pleased to see it. I believe the ship was on a world tour.

Stokes Bay is one of the places the Americans and Canadians camped prior to D-Day.

Posts: 715 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel c.
Member
Member # 6699

 - posted      Profile for noel c.   Email noel c.       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg,

"(1) Can you say a little bit more about the Loral-China incident you are referring to? There was a notoriously faulty New York Times article in the late 1990's that led Congress to pass a damaging piece of legislation called the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (or ITAR). Hurt the US aerospace industry and turns out to have been based on a story that was later partially debunked, or at least that's my memory. "...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/loral053198.htm

ITAR was already in place at the time of the Loral blunder. An assessment by the Pentagon determined that the transfer of guidance technology had enabled the Chinese to target any point in the U.S. with nuclear warheads, as their commercial heavy launch vehicle was identical to the extended-range DF-5. The Clinton State department tightened down on missile/satellite technology as a result, but turned around and authorized another commercial launch.

I am not surprised about your concept of carrier function/deployment. I'll get to it later... I'm busy right now.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by noel c.:
P.S. , "... China was able to develop worldwide nuclear capabilities in only a small number of years since the late 1990s was a complete misrepresentation. "...

If, by this, you mean that China was able to hit any target "in the world" prior to the marriage of Loral's assistance in guidance technology during the late 1990s, and the extended range DF-5, you are wrong.

OK, I am honestly on the fence now: I can't make up my mind whether you are still purposefully misrepresenting the point I've spelled out to you repeatedly, or if you really are that dense. [Smile]

I'll try one last time:
  • China has had an active, long range missile research and development program since the early 1960s.
  • China has had a nuclear weapons program for about as long.
  • China first developed ICBMs in the 1970s.
  • China developed ICBMs capable of crossing the Pacific only in the 1980s.
  • Pretending that China did not already have 35 years of nuclear and ballistic missile research under its belt in the late 1990s is a flaw in your argument.
  • Even without a testing ban, developing ICBMs can take decades.
  • Iran developing an EMP device with a range sufficient to reach central North America, without the ability to test it beforehand, and with even limited inspections in place, will take an especially long time.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1