News Obsession: Islam's War Against The West

[Ivan Seeking]

What is a superpower? Perhaps someone can provide some information as to the current numbers and yields of fission and fusion bombs possesed by each member of the nuclear club.

claiming that someday, for some reason, the usa will go berserk unexpectedly and destroy the rest of the world belongs in science fiction.

I never said that. I said that if we are attacked or feel sufficiently threatened, we would retaliate - if the attack or threat is of sufficient magnitude, we would use nuclear weapons. It is a matter of policy and there is no match for our arsenal - not even close.

Next, we know who our enemies are. This child's game of cat and mouse won't work if things get serious. If the people who run these scenarios calculate that in a given situation we have to take out the entire ME, we would. It is part of our MADness.

Finally, you can be sure that we have run these very simulations many times and considered every possible outcome. In the eyes of our military's computers, we have all died a million deaths already. Once it starts, the computers will decide who lives and who dies. Heck, it is all that we could do as a people to stop the military computers from gaining full launch control capability with no human interventions whatsoever. It was argued by the 10% that with the next generation of missiles, there was no time for humans to make these decisions. And we don't know for a fact that these systems never did go into place.. that was a huge issue not that long ago. Either way, once it starts - once the nuclear genie is let out - there will be a precisely calculated strategy for total victory implemented that has no regard for human life or the magnitude of the loss.

 

[Astronuc]

That should probably be put into context.

If the government was willing to start a nuclear war that would result in massive death among the general populace while protecting the government, it would imply the government had little regard for its citizens.

Well, it is my experience and observation that the US government - or at least the highest levels (particularly the current administration) - has little regard for the majority of citizens. Bush et al are concerned about themselves - not the country.

If the government realized there was no way to protect the general populace from a nuclear attack initiated by another country, it implies something completely different. In the second case, the only protection from nuclear attack is to make sure the consequences to the attacking country would be so severe that no other country would initiate the attack. Protecting government officials so there was someone to make the decision to retaliate would make perfect sense.

Unless the missile silos received a direct hit, they are free to lauch if the US was attacked. The boomers are sent out somewhere in the ocean where they are undetected, so in theory, they are assured survivability and can launch their missiles at whomever.

It would also mean there was someone to coordinate whatever remnants of emergency response might be left. I have my doubts about how effective the government would have been in doing much for the general populace in the aftermath of a nuclear war (especially in light of Katrina), but having a central government still in place should at least be more effective than nothing. After all, eventually the government did provide some emergency help to the gulf coast.

Not only Katrina. Consider also, the loss of the electrical grid - i.e. no electrical supply. That would prevent access to food, water and medical care. There was not viable plan for the US in a post-nuclear world, just as there was no viable plan for the recovery of Iraq after the invasion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, it is my experience and observation that the US government - or at least the highest levels (particularly the current administration) - has little regard for the majority of citizens. Bush et al are concerned about themselves - not the country.

Also, in worst case scenarios, it may not even be a disregard for life. If it is determined that the only possible victory may lie in some small percent survivability, we have to take it. This is preferable to absolute destruction.

Unless the missile silos received a direct hit, they are free to lauch if the US was attacked. The boomers are sent out somewhere in the ocean where they are undetected, so in theory, they are assured survivability and can launch their missiles at whomever.

Yes, the subs gaurantee a second strike capability even if the entire US land based missile fleet is destroyed by a surprise first strike. Also, I know that the land based silos are designed to withstand a nearby strike, so it would take a direct hit on every installation to completely disable the land fleet. Finally, the air fleet completed the triad, but AFAIK, less the B2s, to a large extent that leg is now obsolete. Of course the anti-missile ABL will probably remain in flight much as the old B52s loaded with nukes once did.

There was not viable plan for the US in a post-nuclear world, just as there was no viable plan for the recovery of Iraq after the invasion.

Sure there was: You're on your own.

Edit: Actually the plan was to crouch under your desk, cover your head with your arms, and don't look at the flash. [that way you'll never see it coming. ]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Astronuc mentioned Dr. Strangelove - a uniquely American satire. By chance...

 

[loseyourname]

Finally, you can be sure that we have run these very simulations many times and considered every possible outcome. In the eyes of our military's computers, we have all died a million deaths already. Once it starts, the computers will decide who lives and who dies. Heck, it is all that we could do as a people to stop the military computers from gaining full launch control capability with no human interventions whatsoever. It was argued by the 10% that with the next generation of missiles, there was no time for humans to make these decisions. And we don't know for a fact that these systems never did go into place.. that was a huge issue not that long ago. Either way, once it starts - once the nuclear genie is let out - there will be a precisely calculated strategy for total victory implemented that has no regard for human life or the magnitude of the loss.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have to point out the irony in your citing of a fear that was played out to a T in the Terminator movies in the service of rebuking the claim that this fear constitutes science fiction.

 

[Yonoz]

Astronuc mentioned Dr. Strangelove - a uniquely American satire. By chance...

(Off topic)
That is one of my favourite movies. Peter Sellers was a true artist.

 

[navneet1990]

hehehehehe
isnt this topic funny
i mean you people actually think that US did something great by attacking iraq
from where we look at it from our part of the world
we sit laughing everyday at the fact that THE US looks like one constipated freak trying to find a way out of the mess it has gt itself into by attacking iraq
and always history has shown that
the US wants all countries to surrender to it by giving some reasons such as nuclear weapons and all
but its always been that the US has been the first and the only to use such weapons
and now that every asian country wants to develop its own weapons the Uncles scared that his ass is the target for all these weapons
and now he's running franctically up and down signing contracts with India and all which is only making indias life better as now we can use the french technology by the way of the treaty and grow stronger
everything reaches its peak and the falls eventually
the time has come for US too
its only time till the war begins
the US will destroy many of that i don't not argue
but it will perish too and is such a way that it can never again build

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, since many Americans oppose Bush and his policies and have from the start, you clearly have little to no understanding of what happens here. Also, with a fifty year head start, good luck catching up with the US. But the really important point is that if we don't prevent WWIII from ever happening, there probably won't be enough survivors to matter who won. This is a fact that Americans have understood for decades. You should learn this as well.

You already started to learn the lessons of MAD in your stand-off with Pakistan.

At the same time, we have been ready to fight this war for fifty years. We don't want it, but if given no choice, the missiles will fly and we won't have any old enemies left. And much of the world would probably be uninhabitable.

 

[navneet1990]

stand off with pakistan
oh yes
if it wasnt for you americans we would have probably excreated them out by 1960 or 70
well all that happens happens for its own good
now does it

so what you mean to say is that you'll just go all guns blazing at whatever you feel like
huh
how intelligent is that

but from what I've seen
whenever the US battles physically like land wars where they can't use anything other than guns and tanks and all they've been screwed badly
i mean during an exercise with the indian pilots and all they got battered
it was like yu got 7 of us and we got 11 of your and that was also on some old rusted planes
what i mean is you have no skill only technology

your able to sustain only because of technology but now i don't think that's going to go on for long
you see
its only the initial force which is required to set a body in motion
after that the body moves fast depending on the force applied
i do believe that the force applied isn't enough
but hey
ARE WE IN WAR??

 

[grant9076]

but from what I've seen
whenever the US battles physically like land wars where they can't use anything other than guns and tanks and all they've been screwed badly
i mean during an exercise with the indian pilots and all they got battered
it was like yu got 7 of us and we got 11 of your and that was also on some old rusted planes
what i mean is you have no skill only technology

Actually, in exercises we are adamant about keeping our wartime tactics classified when we train with other countries. That way we find out more about others' tactics without "tipping our hand". That is why many countries think that they are more than a match for us...until they actually face us in real combat.

Also, on the ground (i.e. desert storm), our tank formations have been known to totally destroy enemy tank formations that out number us by as much as 3 to 1.

 

[Gokul43201]

hehehehehe
isnt this topic funny

Not to anyone but you, so far!

i mean you people actually think that US did something great by attacking iraq

Who specifically are you addressing, and where did these people state this opinion?

from where we look at it from our part of the world
we sit laughing everyday at the fact that THE US looks like one constipated freak trying to find a way out of the mess it has gt itself into by attacking iraq

If the political, economic, and humanitarian troubles in Iraq are a source of your amusement, that might explain why you find this amusing. Most of us, however, get no pleasure out of a situation where thousands of innocent people have been blown up by bombs and missiles.

stand off with pakistan
oh yes
if it wasnt for you americans we would have probably excreated them out by 1960 or 70
...
so what you mean to say is that you'll just go all guns blazing at whatever you feel like
huh
how intelligent is that

And if India "excreated" Pakistan, perhaps that would be intelligent?

i mean during an exercise with the indian pilots and all they got battered
it was like yu got 7 of us and we got 11 of your and that was also on some old rusted planes

Ahem! The Su-30 MKIs are not "old rusted planes"! They're the best the IAF has. Or are you calling the F-16 old and rusted? That may be closer to the truth. In any case, the exercise was designed to the strengths of the IAF (all engagements within sighting distance). You're not going to have that opportunity all too often in the real world.

what i mean is you have no skill only technology

And naturally, there's no skill involved in developing the technology!

your able to sustain only because of technology but now i don't think that's going to go on for long
you see
its only the initial force which is required to set a body in motion
after that the body moves fast depending on the force applied
i do believe that the force applied isn't enough
but hey
ARE WE IN WAR??

Is this supposed to be poetry? It is just vague and unsubstantiated rambling that does not nearly conform to the standards of this subforum. If you wish to participate in this forum, please make clear, relevant and verifiable arguments. If you want to wax poetic on whatever comes to mind, please first take a lesson in poetry.

 

[Werg22]

This thread is full of completely erroneous claims. Believing that terrorists are actually threatening us interiorly is as ridiculous as the communism phobia that plagued the country more than 40 years ago. Interestingly, today's neoconservatives use the same methods than their predecessors used during the cold war era - that is inducing fear of being attacked in the population in order to gain support. 9/11 is not an attack, its retaliation. Failing to make a distinction is fatal to our relationships with the Middle-East. I believe we have been arrogant in the way we deal with them. How can we hope to gain their sympathy when we're so obviously biased and unfair in the Israeli-Palestinian problem, possibly the major source of anti-Americanism in the region and the Islamic world?

 

[devil-fire]

Believing that terrorists are actually threatening us interiorly is as ridiculous as the communism phobia that plagued the country more than 40 years ago

this is vary true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/view/

the FBI publicly claimed they found a sleeper terrorist cell in lodi but it turns out the investigation by the FBI in this case was eager to make conclusions without investigating the validity of evidence

 

[TuviaDaCat]

i really can't see why some people here repeat the american force...
it has nothing to to with the islam. the islamic "wars" this day are all about guerilla and terror attacks world wide.
the only way to fight a guerilla with the full force mentioned here, is to mass massacure of whole towns. which is absolutly unacceptable, I am sure you will agree.

when using force, the best way is to use a lot of intelegence, and focused attack.
but it can only delay, or prevent bad things from happening in the short timespan. as long as the islamic folk will not oppose terror, there is nothing you can do about it, they rise and fall, rise and fall, it has no end, look at israel and its neighbors.

another thing is that the more dangerous organisations need sponsers to exist, and iran is a such. if they are prevented one way or another, from buying weapory and supplies many organizations will fall...

though things might just happen naturally as time pass, for the power of the islam lies with the oil, as it dries out so will the money of those currpted lears...ah, one last thing, i must say that its quite funny that the fighters in afganistan fought americans with american weapons =)
i gues that the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is only valid for one war.

 

[Yonoz]

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1335wmv&ak=null"

The difference between Europe and the Islamic world is in quality, not in degree. What I mean is that the Christian view of the world is not political, but humanistic. It is human beings who are the basis for politics. A Christian person has great liberty to separate his religious faith from his political activity.
...
In our case, political rule was based... Ever since the struggle over who would inherit Prophet Muhammad's place, political rule was essentially based on religion.
...
The tribal and sectarian structure has not disintegrated, and has not melted down into the new structure of democracy and the democratic option.

 

[LightbulbSun]

That wasn't the point. The point is that if "terrorists" manage to sneak a nuke or biological weapon into the US and detonate it, the entire world will be brought to its knees. I just think people should know that. I'm not saying that I support the use of nukes or those who might use them, but we have them, and if cornered we will use them. Of that you can be sure. And it won't just be a nuke or two like the terrorists hope to achieve, it may well be hundreds or thousands of them if all hell breaks loose. There was a time when we were ready to launch something like 20,000 nuclear warheads.

The difference between the knuckleheads that we are fighting today and the Soviets is that the Soviets were smart enough to know just how dangerous we really are.

Hundreds or thousands of nukes? I think after dropping ten our entire species would be extinct. That's operation abort our species right there.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Beautiful speech, but time and time again in history it has been proven that war is typically what solves a problems and introduces progression.

That is true in the short term that wars get rid of obstructions, but it's not good at creating anything. Didn't our Founding Fathers say after the Revolutionary War that this country will never wage war again? Well here we are 200+ years later still fighting wars.


Progress (to me at least)= The obsoletism of wars, using more of our cerebral cortex instead of the territorial aspects of our brain that was used back by our predecessors who were much more unevolved than us. NOT perpetual warfare.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hawking: Nuclear war is still probably the greatest threat to humanity, at the present time. Even after the end of the Cold War, there are still enough nuclear weapons stockpiled to kill us all several times over, and new nuclear nations will add to the instability. With time, the nuclear threat may decrease, but other threats will develop, so we must remain on our guard.

Vargas: Do you think it is possible that the human race will go extinct in the near future?

Hawking: There is a possibility that the human race could go extinct, but it is not inevitable.

This is not a prophesy of doom, but a wake-up call.[continued]

ABC News interview with Stephen Hawking
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2319559&page=1

 

[Hurkyl]

I think after dropping ten our entire species would be extinct. That's operation abort our species right there.

Do you have a reason to think that, or are you just fearmongering?

 

[Anttech]

Do you have a reason to think that, or are you just fearmongering?

10 wouldn't kill *us* all, but it could wipeout a large number, a very large number depending on where they were targeted. 10 fairly 'small' ones, ie <10 megaton, could wipeout the majority of American/European Civilisation. Europe by targeting all important cities in Europe

But there would never just be *10* set off... It would escalate most probably

 

[Hurkyl]

10 wouldn't kill *us* all, but it could wipeout a large number, a very large number depending on where they were targeted. 10 fairly 'small' ones, ie <10 megaton, could wipeout the majority of American/European Civilisation. Europe by targeting all important cities in Europe

But there would never just be *10* set off... It would escalate most probably

Fine. You agree that 10 nukes would not wipe out the human race, and thus LightbulbSun is just fearmongering.

I ought to ask you the same question I asked him: do you have reason to believe what you have said?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This references an official list of known active nuclear stockpiles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Hurkyl, is it your position that we can safely use a nuke or two, or ten, and not set off a wider nuclear conflict?

 

[turbo]

We may be about to find out. Once the Stennis carrier group is deployed in the Persian Gulf, Israel is likely to preemptively attack Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities, and then if Iran makes any response that involves the US forces, Bushco gets its new war. I hate to be a pessimist, but I have no faith in the current administration's ethics or morality. That second carrier group is there for a reason, and this administration has demonstrated that they favor war over diplomacy hands-down.

 

[Hurkyl]

Hurkyl, is it your position that we can safely use a nuke or two, or ten, and not set off a wider nuclear conflict?

My position is that LightbulbSun and Anttech have offered no reason to believe that the detonation of ten nuclear missiles is sufficient to wipe out the human race, or even half of American/European civilisation.

 

[Gokul43201]

There were models developed in the 70s and 80s for doing fatality estimates. The rough impression I've got is that a 5-10 Mt explosion will take out the entire population of a large city (of about 5 million people or thereabouts). So, ten of these will nearly decimate the population of a medium sized country like the UK or France.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My position is that LightbulbSun and Anttech have offered no reason to believe that the detonation of ten nuclear missiles is sufficient to wipe out the human race, or even half of American/European civilisation.

Sure, with the exception of the Soviet doomsday bomb, which was never built, nothing that I have ever heard would suggest that ten nukes are sufficient to wipe us all out. In fact, there have been plenty of above ground detonations.

Number of above ground detonations:
Country / detonations / year / total yield
United States 216 1945-1962 153.8 mt
U.S.S.R. 214 1949-1962 281.6 mt
United Kingdom 21 1952-1958 10.8 mt
France 46 1960-1974 11.4 mt
P.R.C. 23 1964-1980 21.5 mt
South Africa 1 1979 0.003 mt
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/atest00.html

So there have been 521 above ground detonations with a combined yield of ~480 Megatons. However, many of those tests involved relatively low yields. The largest bomb ever detonated was the Tsar Bomb at 50 mt., and codenamed... Ivan.

However, I don't think anyone can provide evidence to suggest that limited nuclear war is possible. The only examples would be from WWII, and no one but us had the bomb. Also, a runaway escalation of events was always a hallmark of cold war scenarios.

It is also important to remember that air bursts do not create nearly the problem that a ground level burst would.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread is full of completely erroneous claims. Believing that terrorists are actually threatening us interiorly is as ridiculous as the communism phobia that plagued the country more than 40 years ago. Interestingly, today's neoconservatives use the same methods than their predecessors used during the cold war era - that is inducing fear of being attacked in the population in order to gain support. 9/11 is not an attack, its retaliation. Failing to make a distinction is fatal to our relationships with the Middle-East.

On what do you base your claim? I have listened to this evil US crap from the ME my entire life, and it has certainly gotten worse; much worse. I agree that US policy and the military industrial complex have been a big part of the problem, but that doesn't change the realities we face today.

I have wondered if there really is a threat, as many say, but I'm not about to leap to the conclusion on faith alone that this is all a ruse. Are you saying that no one seeks to use a nuke or a biological weapon as a form of retaliation? Granted, the Bush admin has used fear mongering to further their political cause, but that doesn't suggest that no threat exists.

Retaliation, attack, it is rather a matter of symantics, don't you think? Also, how long have the Sunnis and Shia been going at it? If we change our policies tomorrow, when would we no longer be targets for terrorists?

Also, it is not possible in retrospect to claim that the Soviets wouldn't have attacked had they calculated that victory was possible. We were both trapped by the power of our own arsenals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There were models developed in the 70s and 80s for doing fatality estimates. The rough impression I've got is that a 5-10 Mt explosion will take out the entire population of a large city (of about 5 million people or thereabouts). So, ten of these will nearly decimate the population of a medium sized country like the UK or France.

Here is some good infomation that I posted in another thread.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/

 

[trajan22]

I noticed that you stated that "...air bursts do not create nearly the problem that a ground level burst would." I would like to note that this would create an emp pulse that could(if detonated at the right height) possibly wipe out the entire electronic infrastructure of North America. This could be nearly as catastrophic as a city being wiped out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problem with a ground burst is that when materials are exposed to the core of the explosion, they become highly radioactive fallout. This is why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "reasonably safe" [meaning mainly long term effects; see links above] after the detonation - they were air bursts.

But, secondary concerns are certainly noteworthy.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is interesting.

Abstract
We use a modern climate model and new estimates of smoke generated by fires in contemporary cities to calculate the response of the climate system to a regional nuclear war between emerging third world nuclear powers using 100 Hiroshima-size bombs 5 (less than 0.03% of the explosive yield of the current global nuclear arsenal) on cities in the subtropics. We find significant cooling and reductions of precipitation lasting years, which would impact the global food supply. The climate changes are large and longlasting because the fuel loadings in modern cities are quite high and the subtropical solar insolation heats the resulting smoke cloud and lofts it into the high stratosphere, 10 where removal mechanisms are slow. While the climate changes are less dramatic than found in previous “nuclear winter” simulations of a massive nuclear exchange between the superpowers, because less smoke is emitted, the changes are more longlasting because the older models did not adequately represent the stratospheric plume rise.

http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/11817/acpd-6-11817_p.pdf

One-hundred Hiroshima sized bombs would be 1300 kt, or 1.3 mt - one small bomb by today's standards.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Do you have a reason to think that, or are you just fearmongering?

I'm not fearmongering. I don't know why you're implying such accusations on me.

 

[Hurkyl]

This is interesting.


http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/acp/acpd/6/11817/acpd-6-11817_p.pdf

One-hundred Hiroshima sized bombs would be 1300 kt, or 1.3 mt - one small bomb by today's standards.

Hrm, that sounds like the paper backing one of the articles I was reading. Recall that the estimate of the effect on the climate is not due to the tonnage: it's due to the amount of soot created by the fires that would presumably be running rampant through the targetted cities and nearby forests. It's unclear to me how the amount of fire created by one 1500kt bomb compares to the amount of fire created by 100 15kt bombs.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'm not fearmongering. I don't know why you're implying such accusations on me.

Just an implication? I thought I was being rather explicit. I'll try harder next time.

Well, what was the point of making stuff up in post #66? I generally consider exaggeration to make something sound worse than it really is a form of fearmongering.

 

[Anttech]

I ought to ask you the same question I asked him: do you have reason to believe what you have said?

The reason I said it Hurkyl, is believe it or not, because I believe it to be true... Nuclear Bombs today are city killers, (and the rest). 10 Bombs would probably end civilization in Europe as we know it...

Plus if 10 were dropped on Europe. I can tell you, the UK and France would hit back at whoever did it.. Causing a nuclear War.. Which general means end of the world as we know it...

 

[Anttech]

My position is that LightbulbSun and Anttech have offered no reason to believe that the detonation of ten nuclear missiles is sufficient to wipe out the human race, or even half of American/European civilisation.

Nice spin, so you wouldn't think that having:

London
Paris
Rome
Amsterdam
Brussels
Athens
Budapest
Moscow
Warsaw
Frankfurt

Nuked wouldn't wipe out the majority of European *civilization* ? I suppose those cities are irrelevant to what makes us European? Ignoring the fact that at least 3 of those cities have populations reaching 20 Million within the fallout zone of a 10Megaton yield Nuclear attack (its probably 4, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Moscow)...

I never said anything about killing 50% of the population, but I have no doubt that 10 Nuclear Bombs dropped on European Cities would Effect European Civilisation so drastically that i would consider it wiping it out.

 

[Anttech]

Well, what was the point of making stuff up in post #66? I generally consider exaggeration to make something sound worse than it really is a form of fearmongering.

What would you call when someone Purposefully(?) lumps your opinion with another that isn't yours? Like in post #74

 

[LightbulbSun]

Just an implication? I thought I was being rather explicit. I'll try harder next time.

Well, what was the point of making stuff up in post #66? I generally consider exaggeration to make something sound worse than it really is a form of fearmongering.

It was my OPINION. I forgot to put "in my opinion." I'm not a nuclear weapons expert so I can't back up my opinion with any factual evidence. If I came off as fearmongering then I apologize because that was not the intent of my post. I still don't believe justifying even a small nuclear war is a wise decision to make.

 

[Hurkyl]

What would you call when someone Purposefully(?) lumps your opinion with another that isn't yours? Like in post #74

In that particular example, I call it answering a question.

Plus if 10 were dropped on Europe. I can tell you, the UK and France would hit back at whoever did it.. Causing a nuclear War.. Which general means end of the world as we know it...

Okay, but it was the ensuing nuclear war that ended the world, not those 10 bombs.

Nice spin

Huh?

, so you wouldn't think that having:

London
Paris
Rome
Amsterdam
Brussels
Athens
Budapest
Moscow
Warsaw
Frankfurt

Nuked wouldn't wipe out the majority of European *civilization* ?

No. Of course, I'm assuming that, for example, "87 square kilometers of Paris and 551,608 square kilometers of uncivilized territory" is a grossly inaccurate description of France.

 

[Anttech]

No. Of course, I'm assuming that, for example, "87 square kilometers of Paris and 551,608 square kilometers of uncivilized territory" is a grossly inaccurate description of France.

Perhaps you need to go learn what the word civilization means