Bring on Iran

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Professor Danger!, Feb 12, 2010.

  1. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    You are correct. What I am trying to say is the the Soviet Union was building itself up through hostile takeoevers. It was mostly in countries within its sphere of influence.

    The US did the same with supporting governments in S.America.

    The Soviets then tried to muck it up in S. America further aggravating the problem already. In the end it was still proxy battles.

    Look, I think we agree here. All I am saying is whats up with all the America hate when other countries have been pulling the same shit yet there is nary a whisper about it.
  2. WillisPDunlevey

    WillisPDunlevey Mildly Dipped

    Feb 2, 2010
    Wow, they got the airborne laser to work... for at least one test.

    Its amazing what 27 years of research and billions of dollars will do. IIRC, they meant this as a test program for the lasers that were to be (eventually) mounted in satellites as part of Reagans star wars (build one on a plane first then put them in space.

    At least they gave up on X-Ray Lasers (project Excalibur)
  3. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 30, 2009
    Damn, I expected this thread to turn into an interesting technological discussion, and it turned into a US vs The World flame war.

    However if anyone has more information to contribute about why laser-on-a-plane based solutions could be more efficient than missile based solutions, I would be interested.
  4. Professor Danger!

    Professor Danger! Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Aug 30, 2009
    Aren't lasers supposed to more precise? So if we're messing around with missiles and someone fucks up, hey there goes a city. As opposed to maybe a house?
  5. alec

    alec White heterosexual male Orderite

    May 21, 2003
    pffft... Iran will have nukes before the US has its toy shield.

    Just saying.
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I doubt this shield is really aimaing the the Iran in the long run. Definetly not.

    Though would it not be better to invest more time in de-escalate potential conflicts like either with Iran, North Korea or any other nation that we see as "danger" (which I see as very subjective!).
    I mean did the cold war teached us nothing at all?

    The bigest danger is not coming from a back yards nation like either Iran or N Korea as the potential for them to not just build nuclear weapons but also get the technolgy and investement needed for ICBM missiles that actualy work ... well is pretty small. It has cost Korea a lot to just get one single succesfull test and eventualy a few nukes and I have my doubts that they have more then 1 or 2 which are ready. Letz be realistic those nations have not the best economy around if anything the nuclear weapons they have are no real threat to the US since it hasnt been in the past by other nations which had already similar plans and gave up on it since it proved to be extremly expensive. What nations like Korea or Iran hope to get is "savety". A garantue that they dont face at some point eventualy he same fate like Afghanistan or the Iraq did recently by a US/NATO attack. And when you compare how Bush talked about nations like the Iran and Korea in the public and media (axis of evil anyone?) its not like they thought that much out of context it is interesting to note that the effort to get nuclear weapons increased in Korea dramaticaly when the Bush administration was still in charge. Many things happen not simply cause people "hate" or "disslike" each other but simply out of fear.

    I think the real issue for the future might be the relation between the US and Russians (again) cause they are in a situation where they face more or less only Nato states particularly with the former Warsaw Pakt states which are now a part of the Nato. They feel already now politicaly surround and a "anti nuclear rocket shield" or what ever will not help here in the long run if you ask me. How did the Russians reacted when the US announced a "rocket shield" in Poland? Does anyone really believe they wanted this kind of shield cause of terrorists? Terrorist which have no ICBM or long range rocket that works available? Its pretty obvious against who this shield was. And it was not some islamic state.

    Of course everyone has the right to protect him self but I doubt this shield is aiming at terrorists or small nations like the Iran. I think they aim at what is seen as a real potential danger for the future eventualy and that is still Russia and eventualy in the future China since those are the only nations I see with the needed performance to send a nuclear weapon across the globe and have a military big enough to interfere.

    Already the Star Wars programm from the Reagan time proved to be a political problem. Cause one should never forget that such a system could be always abused or seem from a different point of view as a "first strike" idea even when it sounds impossible or unthinkable at the moment the situation might change in the future and we all know that military leaders are paranoid when it comes to that.

    Nations in Europe, China or Russia ask themself of course what will happen if the US really would install a system that is capable of defeating nucler missiles in the air? The question is what kind of effect this will have on foreign policy? Its not like the things the US did the last 10 years happend unoticed.

    Which means now that simply cause it happend in the past we have to contiune that way in the future? Till what happens?

    I really dont like this examples which include "empires" of the past when at least back then there was never a real danger or potential to destroy the whole world in the process.

    Are there similarities? Probably. Its like the french say, the more changes the more its the same. History repeats many times particularly when we forget about it. But I guess today thx to technology and advanced weapon systems at least the outcome might be different and changing for the case something is really going wrong.
  7. Professor Danger!

    Professor Danger! Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Aug 30, 2009
    Like when invaders completely destroyed entire civilizations and/or cultures through enslavement and dispersing them throughout the "empire" processes?

    We'll just use Israel until our awesome laser is working.
  8. Slaughter Manslaught

    Slaughter Manslaught Vault Senior Citizen

    Dec 11, 2006
    Would't planes and ships with computer-aimed railguns actually work better?
  9. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    @crni vuk

    The only way we will really achieve the kind of peace that hippies envision, is the day that EVERY nation/person feels that they can completely and totally trust EVERY other nation/person.

    Due to something as fundemental as human nature (this is why I use the past as a comparison), do you really think something like this will happen?

    Even without hedgemonies interference, cultures have repeatedly warred and killed eachother for years over the smallest things.
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Only if the Roman Empire or Alexander the Great had access to nuclear weapons and other interesting weapons of mass destruction.

    Seriously the complete annihilation of civilisations was usualy not a "complete" one. Usualy even in slavery many civlisations have been able to keep their traditions (see the jews which managed to do that for a long time) or most of the time they have been simply assimilated by their conquerers then simply killed in a mass genocide. This was one of the great moves by the Romans to not just conquer a teritory but also make use of the people and eventualy embed them in their society and most important military.

    The US is not trying to really destroy other cultures well not in a way as it happend either in acient or medieval times. But what I am worried about is the agressive politics as a third world war might be the last one. Thus why I am more worried about the actions some nations perform today and do not like very much the "it happend in the past as well" analogies since the requirements are a completely different one and certain situations might prove to be extremly devastating (remember why most nations agreed to mostly remove Medium-range ballistic missile and not rely on them that much in Europe anymore? Slow reaction time, geting a nuclear bomb from Berlin to Moscow in less then 10 min and vice verca was sure nothing that helped to cool down the situation in general)

    I am not saying there would be no similarities with the past. Its always about power, wealth, religion the typical needs and roots of all conflicts this things didnt changed over the last 10 000 years. How did a teacher told me once the other cave men had the more handsome females and they had the biger rocks and thats how everything started.

    Its the outcome and effects which have increased tremendously. It's simply not anymore about the Romans destroying a celtic culture or British comonwelth troops striking down a indian revolt which would leave the other parts of the world more or less untouched. To many things today happen on a global level and I just think that no nation really can today stand anymore the kind of agressions we have seen in the past. Not when thinking about a potential global war that would definetly have some effect on EVERYONE.

    I dont know how its with the rest of the world but I have no ambitions to face some nuclear hollocaust or anything else similar to that only cause a few politicans have eventualy the desire to follow the steps of many already dissapeared empires since they have a urge and feeling to satisfy their craving for power or follow other ideas like "forcing democracy and ideals on people" or what every they want to call it.

    What are you talking about hippies? Next youre calling me a liberal or something?

    Seriously whats up with you people do you crave war or something feeling some need to get in a trench with a spade and hack your way trough the front line or something ... :crazy:

    I am calling no one here a warmonger in general but ... did you never even read some stories about the cold war or at least watched movies like Thirteen Days or any other movie which had that as thematic.

    It has really less to do with thrust or not thrust. Its about balance. politicaly and economicaly

    You know reality was a few times very close to a nuclear war only cause the other side had fear to loose their face and while the danger NOW is not high it doesnt mean it still cant happen in the future if we dont at least TRY to do something against it.

    I see more or less only 2 ways with different nations and always advancing military. Either we stop it and try to solve our problems more on a diplomatic and political level (granted this will not work always and conflicts will still happen ... ) or we one day face another world war. All we need is to give people the right reasons to get paranoid or what ever. And overly agressive military research and foreign policy in relation with global issues around energy and resources this are for many a more then welcome reason to be paranoid.

    is it cause this is a Fallout community or why are people craving for some nuclear war or something ... :D
  11. Bal-Sagoth

    Bal-Sagoth Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Nov 1, 2008
    Yet another reason no one should worry about Iran, despite what ever half assed nuke they come up with it will not change the fact Israel has a very large stockpile of nuclear,chemical, and biological weapons. Not to mention a very advanced delivery system that can strike anywhere in Iran (The Jericho III).

    Granted one "half assed nuke" would be devastating to Israel but if Iran willingly hit Israel with said nuke then Iran would cease to exist as we know it.

    Iran may be led by a bunch of superstitious religious fuckwits but I doubt they are that stupid to ever dream of using the nuke themselves. Handing off the material to some rogue group is another issue in its self and I would imagine a bit more scary and more of a possibility.
  12. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    Yeah, I don't think it's an issue of moral relativism by saying that some other Empires set the groundrules for America. It is a broader issue that reflects on human nature. I doubt that if New Zealand or Brazil or Canada were sole superpowers that they'd be any better. They wouldn't. Associating the failures and foibles of the human condition with a particular color flag or some arbitrary national boundary is kind of silly.

    It's kind of like the "bad guy" speech from Scarface.
  13. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 30, 2009
    Crni Vuk, I do not share your optimism.

    As a European, knowing unstable dictatorship like Iran or North Korea could potentially launch nukes at targets in Europe freaks me out.
    So I'm all for an anti-missile base in Europe. I guess the cost is small for the security it could grant.

    The only problem here is that Americans are doing it (WTF ?) on our continent, whereas we should be doing it ourselves.

    But said lasers need a plane and a pilot to be carried. So you have to get the plane to be prepared, take off, reach the target AND destroy it, all this in a very short time frame.

    So, to me, a guided missile fired automatically at the instant the attack is detected would always be superior in terms of reactivity.
  14. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    @crni vukand cimmerian nights

    No, I am not calling you a hippy. I use the word hippy because people have un-realistic expectations when it comes to politics. I also use the word hippy because hippies have a distorted and naive view of peace, (most likely because they were high off their asses).

    Remember John Lennon sang of no war, no religion, no governments or nations. How can that ever be realistic when one views mankinds history. Also, in order to achieve a one world government/utopia, certain nations would have to use the very thing they hated to achieve their means.

    I am not using the past to justify imperial aggression so much as to show the chance for a utopia, no matter how badly some may want it, is extremely low.

    Even if humanity did all lower their weapons, there will always be an ingenious asshole who would take advantage of that situation and history would resume its violent course again.

    Also, my initial post was primarily about all this bullshit anti-america shit when the middle east has been killing itself over religion since time memorial. The PRC as some here have felt the need to bring up lots of times (Tibet/defense of N. Korea/belligerent attitude towards Taiwan whether justified or not), is also not a nice guy. Russia seems interested in returning to its old superpower status if it hasn't so already with its own Iraq (Chechnya/Georgia/South Ossetia). Again, France, who loves to bitch, was still trying to hold down their possessions a near 40-30 years ago, in (Indochina), till Ho Chi Min kicked their asses out.

    The thing is peace sounds great but achieving it globally is a a monumental challenge I do not see us achieving in the near future (especially the peace the hippies are thinking about).

    My post has been about global competition and how competition will never (both militarily in technology, someone was mentioning why the US felt the need to devise better weapons to kill others with, and economic competition), will never disappear unless we all called it quits at the same time.

    PS: In regards to the nuke fight, I really doubt it will happen. As I have said before, those who are in a nuke fight lose regardless of whoever "wins". As soon as the nuke entered the arsenals of multiple countries, we traded nuclear annihilation for mutually assured destruction.
  15. Professor Danger!

    Professor Danger! Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Aug 30, 2009
    I pretty much agree with you on this. Though it's kinda creepy that Iran could pretty much start a full-on nuclear war. Just a couple well placed bombs and we're all pretty screwed.

    True, but we have to start somewhere. Eventually i'm sure we'll come up with some laser device that will work better than a guided missle (assuming we aren't all nuked first).

    Hell, remember the first computers? It all starts somewhere. Not with the end result.
  16. Stealste

    Stealste First time out of the vault

    Jan 15, 2009
    Surely the whole point of nuclear weapons is MAD? I don't worry about them possibly having this technology, i really don't. They may not like America or the west, but they are most certainly not going to nuke anyone, as we all know the result would be total destruction of their nation. If i was in Irans position i'd have done the same. There's only one thing (other than their large, organised military) that would guarantee that America, Britain or any of the previous 'coalition' forces would not decide to stamp an in-effective western 'democracy' on them- Nuclear weapons. Who can blame them for wanting the sort of security that the other nuclear nations enjoy?
  17. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    And the biger issue about that part is that the Russians feel politicaly isolated when you consider how many former Warsaw pakt states now are a member of the NATO. And I think its no surprise who is in charge over the military in the NATO today. At least the USA is the bigest factor in it. If I would be a Russian president or a member of the military staff I would not feel all to well about a US controled anti-rocket/defence shield right next to my door (Poland) either. Simple politics. Particularly since the Russians did never and still do not trust the NATO. They promised Gorbatschow in the 90s that the NATO has no plan to expand or any ambitions to embed east european states in the organistion. Now we have almost all of them as members in the NATO what ever if that is a good or bad thing is a entirely different question and depends on how you look on it (for Poland its probably not bad I guess). But as Russian you might get the impression that you cant thrust anything the NATO is saying so its not far to assume that they think its unlikely when the US claims that this shield is meant as defence only against nations like Iran or Korea.

    We will face at least here in Europe in the future political problems not just cause of the NATO and former Warsaw Pakt states but also cause of the Russian enclave around Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) which proves to be a problem for the people living there and still is not solved in a satisfying way.

    Also there is really no danger for Europe either from the Iran or N Korea what ever they send flying to uswill meet a appropriate response from Europe. They might destroy something here but will also face total anihilation afterwars there is no other way. Mahmud Ahmadinedschad might be a diactor of some sort but hes definetly not that stupid not to know what he can expect from some attack at Europe or the the US. Also what kind of reason would he have to attack us here in Europe? They ususualy see their enemy in Israel. Truth is that states like the Iran, Lybia or N Korea need us a lot more then we need them. Do you know how big the food import from the US/Europe to North Korea is? Its a ironie we send them food for their starving civlians cause they spend most of their money for either the military or a nuclear programm ... bizare isnt it. And the case is similar to Iran. Those nations get more support from the western world then most people think. We are talking here about humanitarian actions mainly of course.

    The situation at the moment is that nations like N Korea or Iran have to fear much more the US or Europe then WE would have to fear them. And that is why we see them trying to get access on nuclear weapons cause this means a much smaller risk regarding a invasion and if we think about how many places have been attacked recently by the NATO forces like Afhanistan or Iraq its understandable for them to have fear. I mean does anyone think any army either in Europe or US would start a invasion on some nation if they know that they might start to use a nuclear weapon in the conflict for the case they are loosing and thus inflict a lot of heavy casualties? No one at home would accept it if you suddenly have a few 100 000 soldiers die. Thats more then just a political suicide for any president regardless if US or Europe.

    It might be unrealistic but you have to start somewhere. Cause what would be the alternative with super powers in charge (China, Russia, USA, Europe) armed to their teeth with some of the deadliest weapons human kind has ever developed not just with nuclear technology but also with biological and chemical agents. We have the power to blow up our whole planet a few times. I have no ambitions to see that power in action regardless how nice the firework might look! But I also think that fear or irrational fear will always lead to unlogical situations and decisions (see cold war). Thus why it doesnt help to invest in a better mouse cause the other side will just simply design a better cat!

    Nations like Russia or USA and somewhat the Europeans have the fear to loose their predominance and that is one of the reasons why we see so many invesetments in military today. The cold war might be not present but it doesnt mean the politicans today would not seek for dominance over others either politicaly or economicaly or with the military.
  18. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    Well, if all nations decided to go peaceful at once then it would not be a problem.

    As cool as Fallout was, I seriously doubt anything like that would happen. People who want power genrally have the intelligence to keep it and not fuckup what they have. A nuke fight will guarantee that the current big nations suffer the most.
  19. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    except when one of those nations thinks they are "save" from a strike. Like trough a rocket shield ... or if another nation is thinking the enemy is "save".

    All it needs is people in charge that have enough fear or a form of paranoia. Similar to the situations of the cold war. As said its impossible to say what might happen in the future when you have again eventualy politicans in charge like in the past that also fear to loose predominance. For what ever reason (with different presidents and leaders there have been always different relationships between the USA and Sovietunion with rather "cold" and "hot" times)

    By thinking about the recent past and military power some possess I as European have more fear from the US, Russia and China. Not some dictator in Iran or N-Korea. Its very unlikely that they will start someting like a Attack or what ever. They simply dont have the resources for a long war. While on the other hand both the US and Russia proved their will for agressions and wars already.
  20. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    Crni Vuk

    As to the missile shield idea, I doubt the US will develope one efficient enough to deter nukes. Also, I don't care how much people think our military is number one but our defenses are far from flawless. A real working and efficient ballistic missile defense system will be discovered quite quickly by intelligence sources from other countries.

    Just consider the nuclear secret theft by the PRC as one example. If discovered, the other major powers will exert enough pressure on the US to call it off or otherwise face a combined alliance which no matter how advanced our military is, we will lose.

    I do entertain some conspiracy theories and the one I find the most probable is the current superpowers have already worked out some kind of deal. A balance of power is maintained globally and all disputes are to be resolved through proxy battles whether that be "legitimate/puppet " government forces or rebels and "terrorists". As some scholars have said, the UN is merely a form of "Panem Et Circenses", with no real power being tied down by the permanent security council.