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 5)

 - 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
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That and, of course, when you wrote the following, you were completely talking out of your bum:
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
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And I should add - even if that is what you really believed when you wrote it, the Chinese having what you admit as being ICBMs (by your unique definition) in the mid-1990s means that they did not start from scratch prior to "Loral's assistance" so bringing up Loral as a counterargument to my claim that Iran developing an EMP ICBM would take decades is a non-sequitur.
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 
Greg,

"There's a whole bunch of ways to do monitoring, moving a carrier out of a region does not stop monitoring. "...

This is a test Greg; Tell me what monitoring assets we can have on station, at will, minus a regional carrier launch capability?

"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). "...

This statement is true as far as it goes. I assume you are talking about our B2 fleet. Do you know where they are individually based, and what the fastest response time is?

"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. "...

Really? Then why don't we have just one carrier?

As an aside, there is absolutely no way this could "devolve into war" unless there was a reason to actually occupy the country. The dichotomy of treaty, or war, is a false one employed by liars, and the ignorant.

Donald,

"
- China has had an active, long range missile research and development program since the early 1960s. (Not "long range" enough to meet my definition of a true ICBM, or the functional criteria of this thread.)

- China has had a nuclear weapons program for about as long. (Almost)

- China first developed ICBMs in the 1970s. (The definition you are using is arbitrary, and inapplicable to the context of this discussion. I will explain it to you again if necessary. [Wink] )

- China developed ICBMs capable of crossing the Pacific only in the 1980s. (Minus the inapplicable nomenclature, true.)

- 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. (Straw Man. Why not spin this one back to 1232 AD, when the Chinese first used rockets against the Mongols? The year that you need to focus upon is 1998, when Loral showed the Chinese how to configure a guidance sustem for their newly designed extended-range DF-5.)

- Even without a testing ban, developing ICBMs can take decades. (First, there is no "ban" against the Iranians continuing development of their own ICBM capability in the Kerry capitulation. Second, it only takes shipping time for a country to have fully functional long range missiles, and nuclear warheads. Ask Saudi Arabia.)

http://nypost.com/2015/05/17/saudi-arabia-to-buy-nuclear-bombs-from-pakistan-report/

- 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 inspection. (Precisely how many times was the "Fat Boy" tested before being dropped over Nagasaki in 1945?)

I need you to begin focusing on the facts provided to you before making your arguments.

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 
This is like watching a horrible remake of War Games. Only this time the W.H.O.P.E.R. is playing as Iran and is suppose to concede the game; not because mutual destruction makes the game futile, but because the spunky teen playing as the U.S. had those one or two pivotal carrier groups.

Never mind that if a completely rational and strategic calculation made the difference the confrontation wouldn't have started in the first place...

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it was just a matter of a shopping trip, Iran would have nukes already. Not to mention the only country likely to sell weapons to Iran would be Pakistan and that the seems like an unwise decision. Feel free to argue that selling nukes to the Saudis is equivalent to selling them to Iran, by the way.

How hard is it to develop a mega-ton range weapon anyways? Pakistan doesn't seem to have any and N Korea's gotten nowhere close. Everyone else who's tested has done fission nukes first and the fusion (and you don't get mega-ton bombs without fusion?).

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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., your Loral story is a distortion, a Benghazi-like political fiction that has been debunked (see the second half of this article in the American Journalism Review).

link

But I am certain you can not acknowledge this, because as was demonstrated with your predictions on Obamacare, you are incapable of acknowledging when you are wrong. That does rather erode your credibility.

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 
DW,

"Iran and is suppose to concede the game; not because mutual destruction makes the game futile... "...

A viable game is played under "rules" adhered to by both "players". That model does not work here.

Western countries do not expect to ever use thermonuclear warheads because deterrence drives military planning; i.e. ; if a segment of an opponent's nuclear arsenal can survive a first strike, they are immune from attack. Iran's military planners have not bought into the deterrence doctrine because they are governed by a theocracy that ascribes to a catastrophic eschatology.

You may be interested in the list of Western countries that do *not* consider EMP warheads to fall in the same category as their thermonuclear cousins.

"How hard is it to develop a mega-ton range weapon anyways? "...

Not hard at all. I believe the odds are better than even that they already have them.

[ August 12, 2015, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
governed by a theocracy that ascribes to a catastrophic eschatology
Cite please.
quote:
I believe the odds are better than even that they already have them.
You think Iran already *has* nuclear weapons?

[ August 12, 2015, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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,

Rgarding intelligence, surveillance and reconaissance of Iran, let me just point to a few sources

Air Force ISR
link

Space ISR - some examples mentioned here link

The Navy also has one marinized Global Hawk flying (10,000 mile range, not carrier-based) and will have a fleet of Global Hawk variants called Triton in place. There are also ISR capabilities from Navy ships that are not carriers.

And in addition to all of this ISR capability, theoretically there might be some capabilities that don't get published in articles that one can easily link to in the internet.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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:
(Not "long range" enough to meet my definition of a true ICBM, or the functional criteria of this thread.)
Just to jump back in quickly: your personal definition is neither one that is generally accepted nor is even accepted as this thread's "functional criteria".

You want to make it so that your personal definition be accepted as such, but that won't happen.

Oh and this:
quote:
China first developed ICBMs in the 1970s. (The definition you are using is arbitrary,
Heh. Given that this definition is the main definition accepted by, well, everybody aside from noel c, your use of the word "arbitrary" is at least consistent with your posting style.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  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 
And the situation within Iran appears to be more complex than suggested by some of those opposing diplomacy. Iran is not Nazi Germany, nor is it as politically totalitarian as the Soviet Union or China when we negotiated with them:

quote:
In the last presidential election, candidates ideologically closest to the supreme leader garnered only a few million votes, while the one candidate running as a reformer, Hassan Rouhani, received more than 18 million votes. Rouhani’s wide margin of victory strengthened his position as a partially independent actor within the Iranian regime.

In addition to the president, other groups have obtained some political autonomy within Iran’s fractured authoritarianism. Civil society is constrained but still fighting. A vibrant underground of publishing, theater, music, and poetry continues to spread. Divides exist even among the clerics. Conservatives still dominate, but several top clerics have voiced their support for Iran’s reformist forces and criticized—sometimes openly, sometimes more discreetly—conservative policies. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s own brother, Hadi Khamenei, recently described the eight-year presidency of Rouhani’s predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as some of the “darkest [years] in the history of the country,” adding that the conservatives are trying to “give a bad image to the reformists.” This political system—authoritarian but with pockets of pluralism—has created the relatively permissive conditions for a serious, public debate about the nuclear deal.


Moreover, in refraining from taking a firm public position for or against the agreement, Khamenei himself has encouraged this debate. Given the extent of Khamenei’s control, the Iranian negotiators could not have signed the accord without his approval. In public, however, the supreme leader has refrained from praising the work of his negotiating team, saying only that the deal must be ratified through the proper “legal channels” and will not change Iranian policy toward the “arrogant U.S. government.” Khamenei’s mixed signals have allowed others to speak out more forcefully on the nuclear pact.

Rouhani crushed his conservative opponents in the 2013 presidential election in part because he advocated for a nuclear deal. This agreement is his Obamacare.

Those supporting the deal include moderates inside the government, many opposition leaders, a majority of Iranian citizens, and many in the Iranian American diaspora—a disparate group that has rarely agreed on anything until now.

First and most obviously, the moderates within the regime, including Rouhani and his close friend and political ally, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, negotiated the agreement, and are now the most vocal in defending it against Iranian hawks. Rouhani crushed his conservative opponents in the last presidential election in 2013 in part because he advocated for a nuclear deal. This agreement is his Obamacare—his major campaign promise now delivered. Former Presidents Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, as well as moderates in the parliament and elsewhere in government, have also vigorously endorsed the accord. During the negotiations, Rafsanjani, for example, celebrated the fact that Iran’s leaders had “broken a taboo” in talking directly to the United States. Since the agreement was signed, he has said that those within Iran who oppose it are “making a mistake.”

Second and somewhat surprisingly, many prominent opposition leaders also support the deal. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a popular presidential candidate in 2009 who is now under house arrest for his leadership of the Green Movement protests against Ahmadinejad’s reelection, backed the pursuit of the agreement, albeit with some qualifications. He’s joined by other government critics, some only recently released from Iran’s prisons. Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human-rights activist and Nobel laureate now living in exile, expressed the hope after an interim agreement was reached in April that “negotiations come to a conclusion, because the sanctions have made the people poorer”; she labeled as “extremists” those who opposed the agreement in Iran and America. Akbar Ganji, an Iranian journalist who spent more than six years in prison in Iran, also praised the agreement, writing that “step-by-step nuclear accords, the lifting of economic sanctions and the improvement of the relations between Iran and Western powers will gradually remove the warlike and securitized environment from Iran.”

Polls show that most Iranians agree with these positions, and public opinion is apparent not just in the Iranian government’s numbers but also in the results of earlier surveys conducted by the University of Maryland and Tehran University. The sentiments of many ordinary Iranians were manifest in the spontaneous demonstrations of joy that took place in many Iranian cities after the agreement was announced.

link
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  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 
quote:
DW,

"Iran and is suppose to concede the game; not because mutual destruction makes the game futile... "...

A viable game is played under "rules" adhered to by both "players". That model does not work here.

I thought that was MY point. [Roll Eyes]

A "strong military" in general and a "sufficient carrier fleet" in particular has almost no bearing on this particular stalemate / hypothetical confrontation. At our "weakest" we still outclass them to such a ridiculous level of capability that neither conventional nor nuclear deterrence factors in.

Does them being an EMP threat make for an argument in a strategic or material change for our military?

Clandestine and diplomatic? Sure. But military?

[ August 12, 2015, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

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 
NH,

"Cite please." ...

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews. Book 041, Number 6985: Sahih Muslim:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler, he will break the cross, kill the pigs, and abolish the Jizya tax. Money will be in abundance so that nobody will accept it (as charitable gifts). Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656 Bukahri

Narrated AbuHurayrah: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: There is no prophet between me and him, that is, Jesus (peace_be_upon_him). He will descent (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Antichrist and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him. Book 37, Number 4310: Abu Dawud

"You think Iran already *has* nuclear weapons?

As I wrote, the chance is better than even that they already have a nuke. They clearly lack a delivery vehicle.

DW,

"I thought that was my point. "...

If it was, they we agree that their nuclear capability should be destroyed?

Donald,

"Just to jump back in quickly: your personal definition is neither one that is generally accepted nor is even accepted as this thread's 'functional criteria'. "...

If you believe that, then make your case.

Greg,

"Rgarding intelligence, surveillance and reconaissance of Iran, let me just point to a few sources. "...

What do you want your link to demonstrate? It does not address my question at all.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, how is any of that different from the Book of Revelations? It's a pretty big step from "their holy text talks about the end of the world" to "they don't mind getting their country turned into a radioactive wasteland."
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
NH,

"Sorry, how is any of that different from the Book of Revelations? "...

First, it is not the Book of "Revelations". Would you do us the service of reading the "Book of Revelation" before you ask me how it is different?

"It's a pretty big step from 'their holy text talks about the end of the world' to 'they don't mind getting their country turned into a radioactive wasteland.' "...

They do not expect to be turned into a radioactive wasteland, and as I have already stated, they are probably correct that the use of an EMP device on the U.S. would not result in nuclear reprisal.

Military planners in China, and Russia, view the use of EMP weapons similarly.

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 
Greg,

I just saw your link that allegedly debunks the Pentagon appraisal of Loral's security breach. Do you have something else that you meant to cite?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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:
they are probably correct that the use of an EMP device on the U.S. would not result in nuclear reprisal
Seriously, noel, why do you feel this way?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why don't you explain why garden variety end-of-the world poetics says anything meaning about the beliefs of a rather specific group. Unless you think one can establish what the Pope believes by quoting Revelation? And then predict how he's going to act in a geo-political context.

On one hand, you refer to a site that says the results of EMP will be millions of dead Americans (60-90%? I don't feel like going back to the website to check). On the other, you don't think it will result in a nuclear reprisal. Which is especially interesting since the potental damage (according to your "experts") is pretty close to the answer of a rather important question: do we have enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy the enemy. You're basically arguing that the entire calculus of MAD is wrong.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
Tom,

Because there is no logical basis for a thermonuclear reprisal, and Islamic countries could weather an in-kind EMP attack.

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 
NH,

"Why don't you explain why garden variety end-of-the world poetics says anything meaning about the beliefs of a rather specific group. Unless you think one can establish what the Pope believes by quoting Revelation? And then predict how he's going to act in a geo-political context. "...

If you tell me that you have just read the Book of Revelation, I will take the time to answer you... if you still feel the need.

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 
NH,

"On the one hand, you refer to a site that says the results of EMP will be millions of dead Americans (60-90%? I don't feel like going back to the website to check). On the other, you don't think it will result in a nuclear reprisal. Which is especially interesting since the potental damage (according to your 'experts') is pretty close to the answer of a rather important question: do we have enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy the enemy. You're basically arguing that the entire calculus of MAD is wrong. "...

I am arguing that the calculus of MAD is irrelevant to Hassan Rouhani.

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.:
Tom,

Because there is no logical basis for a thermonuclear reprisal, and Islamic countries could weather an in-kind EMP attack.

How about "so they never do that again?" Or how about "so no one else thinks they can do that and get away with it?" Or how about "because blood calls for blood"? If you think this last one isn't logical then you don't understand how logic is a construct of the human intellect, and how the human intellect is the slave to the passions.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why? I mean I could tell you that I have, though I haven't and I won't. I'm reasonably familiar with its contents but it wasn't exactly a staple of my church's gospel readings. It gets referred to a fair bit and some of the imagery is convenient for genre fiction.

What do you think I'm going to find in there? Assuming you're interested in a conversation.
quote:
I am arguing that the calculus of MAD is irrelevant to Hassan Rouhani.
Then why mention that "there is no logical basis for a thermonuclear reprisal"?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
quote:
DW,

"I thought that was my point. "...

If it was, they we agree that their nuclear capability should be destroyed?

Dismantled yes. As for a pre-emptive strike? Let others in the region take care of that if they are so inclined. If Iran is scrambling for nuclear weapons (which I believe) then it’s to prevent conventional attacks against them. It is not to erase Isreal and damn the consequences. It’s not to lob an EMP our way and hope our response isn’t TOO bad for them. None of that means I think we should just let it slide.

Even the risk of proxy use of such weapons makes it hard to justify a U.S. lead / unilateral first strike. We have proven beyond doubt that we can’t nation build. We can neutralize a threat and let the chips fall as they may. Possibly things work out more to our liking once we topple a regime, possibly things get even messier. We can’t just “defeat” Iran. I’m not even sure targeting every known or suspected nuclear site would be useful. If we DID do so, who do we want to fill the power vacuum? Would they? What is the chain reaction if we got our way there?

When you are dealing with an area where even our allies make us uncomfortable, you stall and promote a stalemate. You don’t knock over that first domino until you got a good idea of what things will look like when things stop falling over. Or you could just figure out ways to make money off the whole messy situation for as long as possible and occasionally use the specter of terrorism and war to keep your own population distracted.

I was (making the mistake of?) trying to tie this into the original post. Strategically, a "decimated Navy" has little to do with Iran. Unless you think they are so dumb that just being reminded a carrier group is out there they will go, "Oh ****! I almost forgot about that carrier. Scrub that plan. Too risky!"

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 
The ONLY thing to stop us from a nuclear reprisal would be if we thought we could achieve the same result with conventional weapon for personal gain. Not making it glow in the dark in order to just TAKE their resources after we kill them all...

As their neighbors may have a thing or two to say about that... Would they prefer to go, "hey! Keep your fallout away from my borders!"? Hard to say.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  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 D.W.:
The ONLY thing to stop us from a nuclear reprisal would be if we thought we could achieve the same result with conventional weapon for personal gain. Not making it glow in the dark in order to just TAKE their resources after we kill them all...

As their neighbors may have a thing or two to say about that... Would they prefer to go, "hey! Keep your fallout away from my borders!"? Hard to say.

This is a good point, and in fact if Iran's neighbors felt there was a 100% chance of a U.S. nuclear reprisal they might be interested instead in opening up the doors to the U.S. to just march in and have everyone carve up Iran like a turkey and take all the stuffing. This would be better for all concerned and not only would they gain by it but they wouldn't have to worry about nuclear fallout.
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,

"How about 'so they never do that again?' "...

They only need to do it once.

"Or how about 'so no one else thinks they can do that and get away with it?' "...

No one else needs to do it.

"Or how about 'because blood calls for blood'? "...

As a practical proposition, there is a second shoe to drop following an EMP attack. If we were to let the H-bombs fly, there is a distinct possibility one would come our way, and not necessarily from Iran.

"If you think this last one isn't logical then you don't understand how logic is a construct of the human intellect, and how the human intellect is the slave to the passions. "...

Perhaps your passions, but I even doubt that.

NH,

"What do you think I'm going to find in there? Assuming you're interested in a conversation. "...

The "differences" you were asking about.

"Then why mention that 'there is no logical basis for a thermonuclear reprisal'? "...

Because you people seem to think the Iranian leadership think like you.

DW,

"We can’t just 'defeat' Iran. I’m not even sure targeting every known or suspected nuclear site would be useful. "...

I am not suggesting we "defeat" Iran. I am saying we should blow up their nuclear storage, and R&D sites.

"If we DID do so, who do we want to fill the power vacuum? "...

There would be no "power vacuum".

"What is the chain reaction if we got our way there? "...

Well, countries that presently view use of EMP weaponry as "safe" would probable make some major revisions in military planning.

"Strategically, a 'decimated Navy' has little to do with Iran. Unless you think they are so dumb that just being reminded a carrier group is out there they will go, "Oh ****! I almost forgot about that carrier. Scrub that plan. Too risky!' "...

I appreciate that you returned to the original subject. I am not assuming one or two carrier groups would intimidate Iran, but predicting that we will need them, and I know exactly the trigger for their use.

[ August 12, 2015, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: noel c. ]

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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:
Because there is no logical basis for a thermonuclear reprisal
noel, you are on record as saying that you believe an EMP strike would destroy the entire country. Why would you not consider this sufficient basis for a thermonuclear reprisal? Bear in mind that the opinion of the Iranian leadership is irrelevant to determining this "sufficient basis," as they are not the ones deciding whether to launch a reprisal.

[ August 12, 2015, 12:18 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,

"noel, you are on record as saying that you believe an EMP strike would destroy the entire country. Why would you not consider this sufficient basis for a thermonuclear reprisal? "...

It is hard in my mind to justify killing Iranians because I "anticipate" starvation for millions of Americans who will, in all probability, turn on their fellow citizens in a domestic war of survival.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
Well before the first American starved, and possibly hours before you started shooting your neighbors to take their stuff, we would have launched.
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 
Why?

... It all fits pretty well into Islamic eschatology, doesn't it?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
No, not particularly. I'd actually say that it fits some Christian models of the End Times far better, in fact.

We would launch because we will not permit a country to strike with any seriousness at America without our following to destroy them. That because not launching would fundamentally undermine the power structure of the other nuclear powers -- and that this is known to other nuclear powers, who would not retaliate unless they had previously agreed to the original strike -- and any America that survived would prefer to be a country in a world where this launch happened.

We spent two decades and hundreds of billions of dollars, killing hundreds of thousands of foreigners and permanently disfiguring our political infrastructure, because a few dozen guys killed just over 3500 people. A real attack would invite near-unanimous agreement on the total, convenient destruction of the attacker.

[ August 12, 2015, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
noel, I think you misunderstood my question. When I asked "what's the difference", I meant that they're both texts that deal with the end of the world. The content of the text is less important than how it gets interpreted and put into practice. What you're doing is like trying to describe the American legal code by quoting the declaration of independence.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
Tom,

Where in the "Christian model", do Christians take it upon themselves to kill infidels?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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 
God helps those who help themselves, noel. Those rains of fire aren't going to happen on their own. [Wink]
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 
NH,

"noel, I think you misunderstood my question. When I asked 'what's the difference', I meant that they're both texts that deal with the end of the world. "...

Okay

"The content of the text is less important than how it gets interpreted and put into practice. What you're doing is like trying to describe the American legal code by quoting the declaration of independence. "...

Not really. The Declaration of Independence provides a decent conceptual framework of tyranny, and freedom. The legal code (at least up to the 1930s) is generally written with liberty as a priority.

Islamic writings are easily contrasted in respect to Christian eschatological "liberty", and *who* brings it.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you can use the Declaration to fully explain what murder is under US law? Or every instance in which liberty is used as a legal or rhetorical device in the American legal system?

The map is not the territory. The text is not the religion.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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 
NH,

"So you can use the Declaration to fully explain what murder is under US law? "...

Foundational concepts do not need to "fully" explain what will nonetheless manifest in varying degrees of fidelity to specific application.

"Or every instance in which liberty is used as a legal or rhetorical device in the American legal system? "...

If it is merely rhetorical, then *any* terrain could be overlaid. For example; term "Democratic" appeared in the official title of almost every modern communist state, but the pattern itself paid tribute to its antithesis. Islam is fully consistent with the non-rhetorical application of its written tenents. It means what it says.

"The map is not the territory. The text is not the religion. "...

Do you believe religious text is relevant to the religion that produced it?

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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:
Islam is fully consistent with the non-rhetorical application of its written tenents. It means what it says.
I know a surprising number of Muslims who would disagree with you, noel. [Smile]
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,

I know a surprising number of atheists who don't have a clue about religious thought, and motivation inspite of self-perceived insight.

Posts: 3564 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  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