Bring on Iran

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

  1. el_jefe_of_ny

    el_jefe_of_ny Still Mildly Glowing

    222
    Jan 6, 2010
    how dare you. HOW DARE YOU!

    :naughty:

    Well. The do have an enormous missle silo built at the bottom of a large mountain. It has been around since 1998. My friend worked for the defense department in designing a digging missle to destroy it when the time comes. He didnt design it but did the espionage research for it. He probably got fired not long after as he was a retard and would openly talk about these things BEFORE he got drunk. HE would pre-drunk babble. It made no sense. However, I am assuming we, the us of FUCKIN A probably have that crap countered within the past 12 years.

    North Korea?

    Nuclear weapons are REALLY easy to build. A regular person without a science degree can make their own nuclear weapon. IT just takes mining and time. Uranium bombs need no physics professor and no chemist. I would be surprised if most countries do not own 10-20 nuclear explosives. It's like trying to ban Iron. Uranium is so prevalent around the globe and the centrifugal technique is so simple it's near stone age.

    Israel probably is toast in 10 years or less from a poorly constructed bomb creating massive clouds of fallout.

    But hey, that's good news for us! Fallout4: New Jeruselem?
     
  2. Blakut

    Blakut Vault Senior Citizen

    Jan 9, 2008
    Nope. MAD works only if both parties have nukes. You are better protected from a nuclear attack today if you don't have nukes.

    And Iran can't play MAD. It cannot Assure the distruction of an enemy like the US or Russia. With 2 nukes that might not go off, you cannot Assure the Destruction of an enemy. But you can terrorize people and make for a good propaganda tool.
     
  3. Aphyosis

    Aphyosis Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    473
    Nov 4, 2009
    How so? The Japanese sure as shit weren't.

    Indeed, which is like i said earlier, the reason they are trying to obtain this capability currently.
     
  4. Ratty Sr.

    Ratty Sr. Formerly known as Ratty Moderator Orderite

    Apr 23, 2003
    That's true, but my point is, the risk is and will always be miniscule compared to other nuclear-related hazards. For example, accidental launches, erroneous launches based on incorrect or incomplete intelligence, Broken Arrow scenarios and even sabotage by foreign powers have all occured or very nearly occured at various times in history and pose a far more realistic risk. In fact, all the security measures I mentioned were put in place primarily to prevent those kinds of incidents, and if they ever got lax due to excessive nuclear proliferation, I'd be more worried about another Able Archer 83-type scenario than a bunch of crazed towelheads.
     
  5. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    yes, I remember the situation about the Pershing II and the debates it still starts sometimes even today in Germany. Most people here never feelt inherently more save cause of those rockets. And Able Archer shows why ...

    Yeah, but cause its possible doesnt makes it a "realistic" scenario. I could be hit by a meteor while using the toilet on a flying plane. It "can" happen. I am sure. But it doesnt, for example legitimate a fear against flying in general if the potential to get hit in your home is much higher but you ignore it simply cause no one talks about it.

    See for example, Stanislav Petrov - 1983 incident
    Shortly after midnight, the bunker's computers reported that an intercontinental ballistic missile was heading toward the Soviet Union from the US.[6] Petrov considered the detection a computer error, since a United States first-strike nuclear attack would be likely to involve hundreds of simultaneous missile launches, in order to disable any Soviet means for a counterattack. Furthermore, the satellite system's reliability had been questioned in the past


    The movie WarGames for example is also somewhat based on a real incident:
    Author David E. Hoffman, in his 2009 book, The Dead Hand describes a similar real-life incident in June of 1980, where a US military computer chip failed, triggering a full missile alert which passed through two stages of possible retaliatory action against the Soviet Union before it was discovered to be a false alarm.


    Again. I dont say we have to loose all our concerns or should not think about all possible settings. But I think Ratty very well explained what we should really fear. Simply cause those kind of situations have already happend quite often in the past and are a much more realistic setting. Nuclear weapons are usualy high tech equipment. And as long one doesnt give some suicidal lunatic on purpose access to such equipment without payment of course since they usualy dont have the money or resources AND a chance to use it AND transport it to its final destination for them (thus why I said, looking to much movies) its not really possible for such organisations to get access to such equipment.


    what do you mean by that? Cause Japan was hit by a nuclear weapon twice in the end of WW2?

    You cant compare that truly with anything that happend later simply cause at that point the US was the only force that had the weapons ready and the Soviets didnt had any before 1949 if I remember corretly and Japan as fighting force was at that time in 45 not really relevant anymore so the chance to shoot down the plane with its bomb was rather small ~ There was still a fear though the Nuclear bomb could be a dud!. No one knew around the end of the 40s or in the 50s really how to "deploy" nuclear weapons or how they should be used in combat really from a military point like tanks or planes which have seen extensive use before the bombs. For example the question to either use it in direct combat against enemy troops or just against civilian targets. The development started somewhat anyway more or less cause of the fear the Nazis could be faster. The idea what to do with it really came later. Remember before the Trinity test many didnt even know "exactly" how big the damage would be the test was a form of calibration. Historians believe that the damage done by the 2 nuclear strikes are compared to other weapons of that time vastly overrated cause if the US would have simply contiuned with their bombing raids particularly the firebombs damage and kills would have been much higher compared to the 2 strikes, the time it needed to develop them and get new weapons ready. The psychological effect from those weapons though is a different situation and probably a lot more important then any damage it did in "numbers" alone.

    There have been many that thought its just another form of "long range artillery". Later developments proved that its classification was more of a strategical then tactical weapon (in the way how you would use simple artillery for example everyone will agree that even a smaller nuclear missile is not comparable with light artillery in its use or effect).

    Things changed later and also the way how nuclear weapons have been seen either by the military or civilans. And the situations with the Pershing II in Germany proved very nicely how absurd the "more nukes make us more save" idea is as it did nothing else then make the whole situation more instabile. The ICBM has a "wait time" which is quite long from the start of the missile, the time it needs to enter space and hit its location. Moderm medium range ballstic missiles like the Pershing II needed eventualy a few minutes to reach Moscow from Germany. Reaction time was a lot smaller. Failures here a lot less forgiving (compare 1983 incident with some ICBM and now replace it with medium range missiles that give you a lot less time to "think")

    The best way to make your self save from nuclear attacks is really ... not to have any nuclear weapons as it makes you not a primary target for the other side.



    Cant say when I had the last time such a nice discussion. Aaahhh ... life can be so nice without trolls.
     
  6. Aphyosis

    Aphyosis Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    473
    Nov 4, 2009
    What im saying is, History doesn't exactly back up the claim "If you don't have nukes, people wont nuke you if you have a disagreement" It does however backup the claim "If both sides have nukes, neither are real keen to use them"
     
  7. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    and all I try to say is that the situation of 1945 cant be compared with any situation in the last 60 years. So its a moot comparision :P
     
  8. d0gz1lla

    d0gz1lla First time out of the vault

    6
    Feb 17, 2010
    Well regarding the laser thing. Why would they make it? Well simple, what is the fastes thing currently in our world that we know of? Light. Light travels the fastes, while any bullet/missle/cannon weapon need like 10 min to reach its destination, light based weapon wouldnt, almost an instant "damage".
    Just common sence. Faster you hit, better advantage you have over others.

    Crni vuk, dont think russia would have anything to do whit serbia, to be honest, serbia and russia looked or at least "looks" in quite good relationship. hehe, i know the situation down there since im from that region my self.

    But regarding N Korea, heh, they wont attack anyone, at least not them self, they would defend, doubt about atack. Same goes for Iran, all i see in them is they want to be left alone, no help, no "democratic" crap, just flying it solo.

    I mean as i remeber corretly one of the reasons the "US invaded" Iraw was becouse it was allegedly contaning "chemical weapons". So they went in ; dont forget iraq was pretty much cripled from its past wars ( iraq - iran ; iraq Soviets ; iraq - america ); and they stripped iraq from its goverment, streched almost all holes they can find and there was no weapon of mass distruction to be found ( chemical nor biological ).
    Begs the diffrence, why not then invade iran or some other country "that might have this or that kind of weapon". Simple as it may seem, those countrys are to strong to fight a war whit them.

    + dont forget the chain reaction it could cause whit the "eastrn power block" as you could call it. Any of those "closed countrys" China, N Korea, Iran, Russia, if would be invaded, the rest of the "axis of evil" would jump on the feet, what would happen one may only assume. WW3 anyone? :D



    About nuclear weapons, we cant do anything about it, think there is like more then 120 nuclear war heads stored in EU by US. ( Yes EU is sitting on nuclear bombs all the time already) so dont worry everybodys doing it, its the new hip thing. You know that saying. "im not afraid of a man whit bunch of them, but a man whit one of it."


    Btw this topic is so "streched" whit all the inner topics is hard to cover all at once . :D



    And about middle east. Well hamas is only fighting the Israelis, becouse they want their land back. ( im not saying its anybodys land, dont want to go into a argument which i dont want to really get much involved who is the prime factor for fucked up situation down there). They have their lets say primitive and fucked up tactics, like using childrens etc etc. But its basicly the only "para-military" group out there. And usually paramilitary groups tend to use more extreme tactics.
    Before Hamas there was Fatah. Basicly if you ask me Hamas screw the only chance they had to really do something for a way of freedom. They exiled and hunted down Fatah, so majority of Fatah actually went in to Israel and got a place to stay out there, in exchange for obvius intell on hamas. Hmm, another group leader whos looking only at his ass. :)

    We cant really say any country in the world is right or wrong, if you dont live in that country really. Why? Becouse every country whit its religion have its own reasons and views, why are they fighting for something. To them it may seem perfectly normal, to others like completly lack of normal usage of brain cells. hehe



    Ill just keep looking in this topic if any more interesting convo goes on. But really the whole topic is huh, much to read trough and to reply to. :wink:
     
  9. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Crni, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the past 60 years are typical for the situation in the future. There's no reason to assume that, at all.

    As for the risk of rogue nuclear explosion - note that I originally said rogue nuclear explosions, not specifically terrorist threats. Add to that that, again, the risk is incredibly high if this does happen. That it is unlikely (and yes, I know it's unlikely) does not change that fact.

    Lastly, MAD is not infallible when pertaining to nations, either. Specifically, what do you think will happen when desperate regimes get driven into a corner at wartime. Do you think North Korea would shy away from detonating a nuke if US troops were just outside its capital?
     
  10. el_jefe_of_ny

    el_jefe_of_ny Still Mildly Glowing

    222
    Jan 6, 2010
    I dont really care that the USA dropped a nuke on Japan. I wouldnt care if Japan did the same to the US. It really is insignificant in terms of general war toll. Yeah, it was quick and had shock value, but thats the only difference.

    That whole "The USA was the only barbaric country to use Nukes" thing is retarded. It just is pointless. Every country that likes to write this was trying to make a nuclear weapon and drop that mofo on their buddies that very year. the US just had the shit together 2-3 years before anyone else did.

    Look at how many people Turkey killed, women and children wise, rape wise, etc in Armenia very close to the time of WW2. The world said nothing about the millions vs the 100's of thousands.

    The world is not at all different from then. THe cold war was a thought up scheme to continue warfare and spend tax dollars without checking. I wish people DID use nuclear weapons. There would be peace and people would shut up quick on both the agressor and victim side. Instead, we get this pansy system of diplomacy whereby our tax dollars are squandered in countering "threats".

    The Middle east seems to have the balls to use a tiny nuke. Yes, it will be tiny. you need a fission fusion nuke to do real damage. You need a fission fusion fission fusion fission to knock out a country.

    a fission fusion bomb is something no poor, backwards country who doesnt play politics is going to be using anytime soon. Especially a fission fusion fission, the one that blows away cities plus causes lots of decades of cancer.
     
  11. OakTable

    OakTable Vault Senior Citizen

    Nov 26, 2009
    I can't believe it. My mind has been blown by your insensitivity, and I frequent ENCYCLOPEDIA DRAMATICA for Pete's sake. "LOL I don't care that hundreds of thousands perished instantly and thousands more were doomed to a slow death by radiation sickness and cancer years after the war."
     
  12. Arr0nax

    Arr0nax A Smooth-Skin

    624
    Oct 30, 2009
    Let's see... el_jefe has a point in stating that the Armenian genocide is largely ignored comparatively to Hiroshima whereas it was a far more atrocious war crime.
    Yet the way you use it in your argumentation is a little... shocking, because Hiroshima is clearly an atrocity that should be remembered as a big sign : "Nuclear Weapons sucks"
     
  13. Alphadrop

    Alphadrop A right proper chap.

    Aug 21, 2008
    Considering the U.S has accidently dropped nukes on Britain (out the back of a transport plane by accident) this does seems quite likely to happen.
    They didn't go off obviously but it was a tad embarrasing.
     
  14. CloudlessDruid

    CloudlessDruid Not a Soviet Droid Orderite

    Oct 11, 2008
    oh my, never heard of that before hahaha, when that happened?
     
  15. el_jefe_of_ny

    el_jefe_of_ny Still Mildly Glowing

    222
    Jan 6, 2010
    yeah whatever, atrocity. It is an attack during a real war. Yeah, genocide. You know, that's not really a big deal. Only for people left. Once your dead, your freakin dead. Who gives a shit? You certainly dont, dont kid yourself.

    What is a lot worse than dying instantly, painlessly, is being raped with multiple people and knives, that sucks.

    It is like when people say: Oh my gosh, she was raped 30x locked in a cage, BUT SHE SURVIVED!!

    Who the hell cares? Freakin, beat me to death with a pipe, please. Just dont fuck with me so bad. The Armenian thing was worse than classic thoughts on genocide as the mass brutality, torture and rape outweighed the clean carnage.

    I just cant see nukes as an atrocity. Especially a near perfect fusion reaction. Hardly any Fallout.
     
  16. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    Oh no, people die, who cares?
    Well, most people in the world certainly care about people dying. You can go on with this neat contrarian train of thought that hundreds of thousands of people dying isn't all that bad, but you're not going to convince anyone.
     
  17. DarkCorp

    DarkCorp Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Oct 27, 2003
    Oh for fucks sakes people need to get off that Japan stuff.

    Does anyone know really how agressive the Japanese were??

    They were kamikazying ships for fucks sakes. They simply were not going to give in.

    The Nazis had a Werewolf insurgency plan, but apparently Hitler fucked the country up so bad that they didn't have the logistics and supply to carry it out. Otherwise, the same thing could have very well happened.

    Imagine an enemy who just won't fucking quit no matter how many men, munitions metal poured into them. Heard of the Banzai charges where whole units would charge American positions just hoping to take out some before they died.

    And for those bleeding hearts out there, did you even BOTHER to look up shit about Unit 731?? These guys were no different than Mengele. They butchered thousands WITHOUT ANESTHETIC!!! Could you imagine being opened up, fried by radiation, infected by plague, being spun to death in a centrifuge, having horse blood injected into your veins, having chemicals injected into your eyes for the sakes of trying to change eye color?? Those are just a tad bits of the horrors the Japanese and Nazis inflicted upon thousands of POWs, Chinese/Koreans/etc. What about the downed american airman who were dissected alive at Kyushu University?? How about the thousands of "comfort" women the Japanese used?

    Typical propaganda bullshit. You feel for one side yet give two shits of a rats ass about the people on the recieving end of japanese imperial aggression.

    Japan wanted to be a big player and fucked up pure and simple. Their aggressivness provoked the usage of the A Bomb.

    You want to know about how "hardcore" the japanese military were? Look up Hiroo Onoda and Teruo Nakamura. These guys were fighting till 1974 for fucks sakes. Could you imagine the death to civilians and military personnel had the US actually tried to invade the japanese islands proper??
     
  18. Professor Danger!

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

    421
    Aug 30, 2009

    If people opened their ears in History class, they'd know about the Armenian genocide, just like WWII. I learned about it in high school. And this was before I got into history. I still picked up on it.

    You act like the Armenian genocide was either hidden away or ignored from history.
     
  19. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    I love your one-sided plea, but it's really overly one-sided.
    The issue is that hundreds of thousands of civilians died in two acts of bombing. The underlying assumption for the Truman administration was that without such a blow, it would be extremely hard to get a capitulation without having to find a land war on Japanese soil, causing heavy casualties.

    However, we don't really know that. There were plenty of indicators that the Japanese were already close to surrendering, and the Soviets were marching in from the west to add to their woes. It's hard to say that these bombs were necessary, and there has been plenty of discussion on what way the war would've played out without those bombs. And, as is often the case, there are arguments for both sides. Your extremely strong contention that these bombings were essential is completely overstated and overconfident.

    What doesn't help is that there are several additional reasons for the US to launch these bombs: ending the war very quickly would keep the Russians out of Japan, preventing them from putting up a satellite state there. Second, it gave them a chance to field-test the new nuclear bombs, and simultaneously show the world that they had a devastating new weapon.
    These most probably weren't primary reasons, but they at least were convenient by-products.


    The Werewolf plan ostensibly didn't fail because there was a lack of resources, but because there was a lack of will. They had lost, Hitler was dead, everyone who mattered had been arrested, and no one was really interested in playing terrorist for people who had died. It had never really been implemented well and it never played a role. Besides, we can't know to what extent these bombings prevented that from happening. There was a strong military presence in Japan for years, and what really saved them a lot of problems was the preservation of the Japanese emperor.

    The Turks ignore and/or deny it, mostly.
     
  20. Professor Danger!

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

    421
    Aug 30, 2009
    True. And some people apparently deny the Holocaust ever happened. Idiotic people need not apply.