Bring on Iran

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

  1. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I am not so sure about that:

    Inside the Apocalyptic Soviet Doomsday Machine

    I have no clue what the future will bring us. But I never liked the idea about more and better advanced military when we face more serious issues like the eventual war for water
  2. CloudlessDruid

    CloudlessDruid Not a Soviet Droid Orderite

    Oct 11, 2008
    Its almost like an equation which is like "humankind being doomed chances = weapons tech x (time doing nothing to improve environmental issues + time worsening environmental conditions)

    huh, thats sounded pretty nonsense, but ok

    Weapons getting more and more powerful, and countries developing each day more and more defenses means that when basic resources begin to be missed, powerful countries will use all their "mighty" otherwise used only for 'defense' to get these resources. Pretty much what the USA has done to Mexico in Fallout, but not for Oil.

    Thats a pretty recurrent matter here in Brazil. Some veeery anti american and leftist people have brainwashed a significant part of the population with histories about the USA wanting to annex the Amazon Forest, because they know they'll need water in the future, and here, well, water isnt really a problem and is not even going be.
    I think thats all bullshit, by a huge list of factors. The USA wouldnt invade Brazil, even if they needed water.
  3. x'il

    x'il Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Mar 3, 2009
    No, they wouldn't. It is more likely they would just "endorse" some fascist dictator or "over-friendly" government that would let them have what they need at very low prices (ye olde classic tactic).

    But, pffft, a war for water? could you imagine a world war happening for that cause? in a water covered planet? I think at that point humankind would be very much fit (and deserving) for extinction.

    A question about the laser though; shooting down a weapon of mass destruction won't make it detonate? or be released (if it's some biochemical horror)?
  4. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    ahm ... guys? You know Water is not always simply water

    Ever tried drinking from the ocean ? Well I would definetly not recomend that

    (...) Accidentally consuming small quantities of clean seawater is not harmful, especially if the seawater is consumed along with a larger quantity of fresh water. However, drinking seawater to maintain hydration is counterproductive; more water must be excreted to eliminate the salt (via urine) than the amount of water that is gained from drinking the seawater itself.

    We are talking about "clean" water. Usualy or preferably ground water and this resource is definetly limited. Particularly in areas where you have rarely rain.

    Usualy a nuclear warhead will not explode on impact or accidantly. It needs either a fuse or other ways to let it detonate. You have to achieve some fision or fusion (not sure right now). And to achieve that isnt easy. So shooting the rocket down or even destroying the warehead would not triger a nuclear chainreaction at least well not from my knowledge. How it is with eventual polution in the stratosphere or on the ground from the damage is a different question.
  5. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    From the little I know about nuclear weapons in general, they do not detonate unless the weapon has been armed.

    Radiation leakage from a damaged device is possible.
  6. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    yea, but i bet the leakage the warhead would do until teams can get there and contain it is much less than the actual explosion.

    at least thats what logic tells me.

    even doing this to a chemical or biochemical or biological weapon could pose more risk as you would create a trail of where it leaves the warhead minus what would get destroyed in the fire of the rockets exhaust.
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    depends on the numbers and position. If you would destroy the warehead on the ground contamination would be limited to that area if anything since such wareheads have a quite good protection. Destroying a large number of them in the stratosphere will have a much more devastating effect.

    Biological agents would be less of an issue since there is usualy no bacteria wich could survive the destruction either on the ground or most probably in the stratosphere. The heat alone from its fall would certainly do the job.

    Chemical weapons would eventualy suffer a similar fate, some loose their reaction/effect when exposed to great heat and the numbers of both chemical and biological weapons are much smaller compared to nuclear missiles.
  8. Sorrow

    Sorrow So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Feb 9, 2006
    Because they hate Freedom.
  9. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    I don't know that fictitious video game settings are a solid basis for anything. (Quiet down, be cool man, we don't want the Canadians to know when we're coming). :wink:

    Dune on the other hand though....
    Nice to see that fear mongering crosses both sides of the political spectrum and national borders too. Isn't humanity great?

    Methinks these leftist are Dune fans.
    Steal your water? Brain washing factions grasping for popular support? Destroy the ecology to exploit natural resources? Panoplia Prophetica? Dire news indeed.
    Evidently the Bene Gesserit have infiltrated your country and are carrying out their Missionaria Protectiva.
    I see plans within plans. You must act quickly and get the support of the Fremen before the Baron Harkonnen curries enough favor from the the Emperor Shaddam IV to send his Sardukar legions, who, with the aid of the Spacing Guild can consolidate a monopoly on the flow and ditribution of spice, errr water. The Lansdraad and CHOAM are in on it too. I will not fear. Fear is the mind-killer...

    I'm serious man. Harkonnens are bad dudes.

    Freedom from what, proximity to Israel?
    If we just gave them the "you know whos" and pulled out already I'd bet that would curtail most of the "death to america" anger their leaders use to distract them from how back-asswards things are there.

    I did not say this. I was not here. :wink:
  10. CloudlessDruid

    CloudlessDruid Not a Soviet Droid Orderite

    Oct 11, 2008
    I know it isnt, it was just an example haha, I probably would say the same thing if I didnt knew Fallout, but of course with another example.

    Agreed, but the sad part is that, I really believe that our crazy leftists really think that this is plausible. Brazilian communists are not the average 80's soviet lenin-marx student communist. They are more into stalin-mao way of get the things done. And, yet they believe that Stalin and Mao really believed in what they were doing.
  11. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    Well one of the biggest miffs is the US presence in Saudia Arabia. From, what I know, SA is a place for Musims only.

    Iran hates us because of the sha we put in charge and all the bad shit he did.

    Another reason is we support Israel. I do wonder what would happen if we stopped supporting Israel.
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    They would still hate the US just for the lulz. Also with that sha thing I guess one can blame the Brits just as much even not even more.
  13. Alphadrop

    Alphadrop A right proper chap.

    Aug 21, 2008
    Saudi Arabians make exceptions for people giving them lots of money and guns.
    Though BAE Systems just got busted for illegally selling them several planes so it's not all smooth sailing.
  14. x'il

    x'il Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    Mar 3, 2009
    Well, obviously. But seawater can be made drinkable, it's not like we are talking middle ages here. I'd wager building the necessary processing infrastructures would be more cost efficient than prolonged wars, invasions, etc, etc (not to mention infinitely more reasonable).
  15. Patton89

    Patton89 Vault Dweller

    Nov 21, 2008
    Australia, amongst many other countries, already has sea water desalintation plants.
  16. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Just that not all people on this planet have access to this kind of technology. Nor do all people life near the ocean. Of course its not impossible and of course its already in action somewhere. But I am talking about a global issue. Do you really believe we can support whole humanity with water from the ocean? Dont be silly guys. Or is Australia geting all its water from the ocean? Clean drinkable water is one of the most valuable resources we have. Oil, Gas, Uranium. All those kind of materials are important for a modern society. But ever tried to succesfully go without clean water? Around here we take water as granted. But truth is that its not and that we have to take care about it. If a shortage occurs it doesnt mean that all kind of water is dissapearing suddenly from the planet or that there will not be technology around to get access to clean water but prizes will increase dramaticaly. And that is not a good thing. Look how the situation is already now in places where Water is scarce. Its definetly a problem of the future.
  17. Aphyosis

    Aphyosis Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    Nov 4, 2009
    Just a quick comment on this. Are you familiar with the principle of Mutually assured destruction?

    A brief summary is this; If America launches a nuclear attack on say, Russia as a example, Russian can retaliate before the American missiles hit, resulting in both sides being destroyed.

    MAD Basically means noone is willing to fire a Nuclear weapon unless they are incredibly desperate or some other factor pushes them so hard they have no choice. I trust the American government more than i do some other country's with their Nuclear arsenal, but a defense system making a country hardened to a Nuclear assault destroys the principles of MAD, probably endangering more lives than it saves.

    To my knowledge Nuclear weapons need to be armed and explode by causing Fusion or Fission, usually via a controlled blast caused by high explosive in a directed manner in a contained area. As such, the high explosive has a number of fail safes and military grade stuff needs to be armed and detonated by a detonator. Accidental detonation is not possible via impact or even a interception missile. Its actually quite safe to shoot warhead or even drop a bomb on it. A nuke can be safely shot down, however the wreckage will leak radiation.
  18. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    Oct 30, 2009
    I don't agree with your analysis.

    First, there are plenty of countries that don't have nuclear weapons, so they aren't concerned by MAD, yet they haven't been attacked by a single nuclear weapon yet.
    So there is obviously another, more important socio-psychological factor that prevent use of nuclear weapons, and it isn't MAD.
    MAD is really just good to explain why Russia and USA didn't respectively blow themselve up, that's all.

    Second, an efficient anti-missile technology would probably spread way faster than nuclear technology has, and we would end up in a situation where ICBMs become obsolete. In such a world MAD wouldn't even exist anymore.
  19. Dead Guy

    Dead Guy Senate Board Director oTO Moderator Orderite

    Nov 9, 2008
    I think it's more probable that those with nukes would try to disable or circumvent the defenses instead.
  20. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Exactly, thx to MAD no one has been attacked yet. But it doesnt mean the world wasnt close to do that. There have been many well known and rather un-known incidents with nuclear weapons during the cold war from the time with the Cuba crisis or the simple parts where a computer got some bugs and would show nukes on the way to the enemy (happend a few times in the soviet union at least, and I think as well in NORAD).

    The reason why a shield against ICBMs is very questionable is the situation that a politican or military could get the idea they are "save" from any nuclear threat or that the losses would be acceptable. Such elements have a clear impact on domestic policies and foreign affairs.

    This is really not just what some think as "conspiracy" theory. Its usual human nature. No nation be it the US, Russia or China (soon) would just sit back and enjoy loosing its predominance and authority. With a idea, even if if not true that youre save from a nuclear attack politicans and military personal might decide in certain situations more agressively then with diplomacy. This kind of situations have already happend and it was very close to escalation and if the military would had been in charge or if Kennedy would had listened to them we might had seen a nuclear war! Remember those people WANTED to attack Cuba directly and that definetly would have caused a reaction by the russians. Actualy I have even read about a Russian submarine which had nuclear weapons against naval vessels equiped which got shoot either accidantly or on purpose but did not fired its nuclear arsenal even when it had the right for it since comunication with moscow was not possible in that moment and in such situations the decision to use nuclear weapons is left to the commander in charge but he decided simply not to do it. Imagine what would have happend if the commander was nuts.

    Even if we are not today in a situation like the cold war. I doubt other nations feel that well with the idea about some anti rocket shield. The russian gouvernement did expressed his concerns about the defence system in Poland more then once. They just know like everyone else that this shield definetly has not very much any Iranian or Korean weapons in mind ...

    We talked about that already. What do you guys think who has the biger potential of inflicting "damage" to the US? The Iran or Korea. Or the Russians and Chinese? We are just talking about a "potential" here. Not current politics or foreign affairs. Politicans and analyst know very well that what is today politicaly stabile might look different in 10, 15 or 50 years. We could eventualy face a new cold war in the future. Who knows that. China and Russia are already know thinking about agreements and contracts.
    The Russia-China Friendship and Cooperation Treaty: A Strategic Shift in Eurasia?

    The 2001 Russia-China treaty covers five important areas of cooperation:

    • Joint actions to offset a perceived U.S. hegemonism; 2

      Demarcation of the two countries' long-disputed 4,300 km border;

      Arms sales and technology transfers;

      Energy and raw materials supply; and
      The rise of militant Islam in Central Asia.

    I am not a expert when it comes to such very important political situations, but it definetly will prove a interesting concept for the future!