SHHHH!!!! Don't say "addictive" or Simon will be in favor of it! He's already against prohibition in all forms and If I understand his point correctly, depriving a lunatic of nuclear weapons is a form of "prohibition."
Actually, you might have a point there Diogenes. Maybe Ah mah Dinnerjacket just wants to have nuclear weapons because of the prohibition? Maybe the whole non proliferation is a waste of money? Maybe we should do away with the whole prohibition of nuclear weapons nonsense and just let everyone have the right to own them? We have been fighting this "war against nukes" for almost 7 decades now and looking at the result, I would say it has been a loosing battle.
I mean every bana republic has them now. You can basically buy them from a dealer at the street corner. Think of all the billions this has cost and of all the progress in the development of better nuclear reactors, this has prohibited.
Am I being completely serious here? Not even completely sure myself right now
I take issue with your usage of the phrase "fighting this war against nukes for almost 7 decades." No we haven't. We have been fighting it in the same namby pamby way we attempt to fight the drug "war."
My opinion is that if you are going to "WAR" you beat the bloody dog shite out of them. If we were conducting an actual "WAR" on drugs, we would have invaded and destroyed anybody responsible for producing them.
By the same token, were we engaged in a "War against Nukes" we would have pasted those soviet scientists who were developing them for Stalin, just exactly as THEY expected us to do, and exactly as Curtis LeMay repeatedly advised us to do.
The half-hearted crap we have been doing can hardly be called a war, and it's results are both appalling and predictable. It is mostly a "Sitzkrieg." It may yet result in millions dead, at which point the fallacy of doing things this way becomes apparent to everyone. Then the question will be asked: "How could we have allowed this to happen?"
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
The resistance unfortunately had no support from the allies. I think it would have still been successful, if it had.
I think the lesson from this is that the west would do a good job in supporting the opposition in Iran by giving them active help and by promising them incentives that will help them gain support among the other higher ranking officials and the population.
I take issue with your usage of the phrase "fighting this war against nukes for almost 7 decades." No we haven't. We have been fighting it in the same namby pamby way we attempt to fight the drug "war."
So you did get the idea I was trying to convey, but you are taking issue with it?
Or you did not get the idea I was trying to convey, but agree with what I am saying? Confused.
In case you missed it, I was being sarkastic and tried to spin your earlier post a little further.
sigh...
Skipjack wrote:The resistance unfortunately had no support from the allies. I think it would have still been successful, if it had.
I think the lesson from this is that the west would do a good job in supporting the opposition in Iran by giving them active help and by promising them incentives that will help them gain support among the other higher ranking officials and the population.
And who is to say that this is not happening already, and from multiple angles. I personally would guess that the "Iranian Oppositionists" are and have been courted from many angles. I would also guess the same applies to "Iranian Seperatists" or "Iranian I'm Being Persicutedists".
I really do think that there is much desired use of indigineous anger. This is a founding tenant of Unconventional Warfare. There must be an internal element to exploit/grow. If not, then it is not UW. This is SF 101. It is also Insurgency 101, "get external support". There must be sponser(s) and sponsee(s). All insurgencies in the "Sovereignty Era" have had external support.
I take issue with your usage of the phrase "fighting this war against nukes for almost 7 decades." No we haven't. We have been fighting it in the same namby pamby way we attempt to fight the drug "war."
So you did get the idea I was trying to convey, but you are taking issue with it?
Or you did not get the idea I was trying to convey, but agree with what I am saying? Confused.
In case you missed it, I was being sarkastic and tried to spin your earlier post a little further.
sigh...
I caught the sarcasm, but I regarded your post as an opportunity to vent. I think it is horrible that we ever allowed anyone who was not an ally of ours get their hands on Nuclear Weapons. We should have stopped the Russians, (and by doing so would have likely stopped everyone else who saw what we did to their scientists) and we certainly should have stopped the North Koreans and the Iranians.
Again, THANK YOU JIMMY CARTER for the mess you've left behind. Millions have already died because Carter was President. (Iran/Iraq war.)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Skipjack wrote:I would say it the other way round "one nuke cant destroy israel, but it can destroy iran". If Iran was to use only one nuclear bomb on Israel, it would be the end of Iran. The US and Israel would wipe Iran from the face of the earth.
Personally, I found the target badly chosen. IMHO, it would be better to target Achmadinnerjacket and his religious zealots instead of the nuclear scientist. But then, who am I and what do I understand about these things?
I don't know... if you're an Iranian who'd like to see that crackpot toppled, do you just blow him up right off the bat, or do you make it seem like he's ineffectual and worthless, putting doubt in the minds of even his closest followers, and THEN blow him up?
And who is to say that this is not happening already, and from multiple angles.
Ok, then it is very subtle. I think that it would certainly not hurt to make some promises and letting the general population know about. "Sugarbread and whipp", is what we say here.
You guys certainly did not do it for the resistance in Germany during WW2. That was huge mistake that cost millions of lives.
Anyway, talking about the now, I am sure that the Iranian people would appreciate the idea of things actually improving for them with their current government gone. Where is the propaganda? Where are the movies/videos/songs that promise a future of friendship and prosperity to the Iranian people if only the free themselves from their oppressive and manipulative government. I mean their government is feeding them manipulated news all the time and we cant even counter with something that could even be the honest truth? I think that this whole effort is half assed, yes half assed and I also think that certain people would rather see a real war, because that means cashflow for certain people. And I think that this is the reason why no real effort is being made. Same with NK, btw. And dont tell me that this is not possible! It was possible in fracking WW2!
Diogenes wrote: Give me a break. We killed more people in the Fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo than we did in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
......
We would have unhesitatingly killed ten times the number if we had to. "Psychic shock" is not even an issue.
Wikipedia wrote:84,000 - 200,000 - American USAAF bombing of Tokyo
66,000–237,062 - Atomic bombing of Hiroshima
39,000–108,000 - Atomic bombing of Nagasaki
24,000–40,000 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II
Your numbers seem a bit off, but in the ball park. Which actually has nothing to do with the psychic shock. I didn't say the MILITARY was shocked, I said the American PEOPLE were. And it was all a matter of perception, not numbers. Tokyo and Dresden were massive, but not REALLY well publicized bombing campaigns carried out with "same-ol-same-ol" techniques. H&N were ONE plane, ONE bomb... oh s#!t!!!
Personally, I sort of suspect that said shock prevented indiscriminate use later on; so may have been a good thing.
No, Wikipedia is off the ballpark. The numbers of the victims in Dresden have been redacted downwards over and over again. My dad still learned 300,000 in school, Wikipedia at first said 100,000, then it was 60,000, then 30,000 now it is 24,000 to 40,000. Give it a few more years and the allies will have simply dropped food over Dresden and the whole thing was a humanitarian mission...
Diogenes wrote: Give me a break. We killed more people in the Fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo than we did in Nagasaki or Hiroshima.
......
We would have unhesitatingly killed ten times the number if we had to. "Psychic shock" is not even an issue.
Wikipedia wrote:84,000 - 200,000 - American USAAF bombing of Tokyo
66,000–237,062 - Atomic bombing of Hiroshima
39,000–108,000 - Atomic bombing of Nagasaki
24,000–40,000 - Bombing of Dresden in World War II
Your numbers seem a bit off, but in the ball park. Which actually has nothing to do with the psychic shock. I didn't say the MILITARY was shocked, I said the American PEOPLE were. And it was all a matter of perception, not numbers. Tokyo and Dresden were massive, but not REALLY well publicized bombing campaigns carried out with "same-ol-same-ol" techniques. H&N were ONE plane, ONE bomb... oh s#!t!!!
Personally, I sort of suspect that said shock prevented indiscriminate use later on; so may have been a good thing.
I actually looked up the numbers before I posted it. Estimates vary wildly with some as high as 200,000 for Dresden, but I intentionally did not correct it because I have found that when I put an occasional iffy statement out there, people tend to look up the actual information that I wanted them to have. I can think of a no more useful way to get people to look at a topic.
I make efforts to use a clever turn of phrase, or a juxtaposition of a related picture, but often one can never tell what method will actually get someone to explore something I am trying to describe.
Anyway, my point was that humans will not long wring their hands over the deaths and killings of other human beings. Human life is becoming cheaper every year it seems to me. At this point I do not doubt for a minute that the Religious nuts in Iran would be willing to kill millions in Israel, or Millions in Iran.
If we have to kill thousands to stop the death of millions, I think it is a good bargain.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:If we have to kill thousands to stop the death of millions, I think it is a good bargain.
Or maybe just one to save millions...what if someone targets the president of Iran? After all, that presidential executive order that forbids assasination of heads of state only applies to heads of state. If president Ahmadinejad isn't the head of state(isn't that the Supreme Leader?) he would be legally fair game under US(to say nothing of Israeli) law. How many lives would have been saved if say someone had asssasinated Stalin in 1930 or so to say nothing of Hitler or Pol Pot?
mdeminico wrote:I don't know... if you're an Iranian who'd like to see that crackpot toppled, do you just blow him up right off the bat, or do you make it seem like he's ineffectual and worthless, putting doubt in the minds of even his closest followers, and THEN blow him up?
If the despot has a large fanatical following, you need to destroy him socially first. There's also the point of identifying who among the enemy leadership is incompetent and letting them live, to bleed the enemy from within.
hanelyp wrote:If the despot has a large fanatical following, you need to destroy him socially first. There's also the point of identifying who among the enemy leadership is incompetent and letting them live, to bleed the enemy from within.
Destroy him socially? I am afraid that only the military solution is actual now - simultaneous attack on all known nuclear objects including Busher power plant, enrichment plants, uranium ore mining and primary metallurgical plants, etc. After this president together with his followers will be able only make demonstration for CNN cameras crying there producing terrible sound and burning then the USA and Israel flags.
Normally I'd automatically say the hit was done by Israel, I slightly hesitate because of the slight twist in MO. Mossad SOP is two guys on a motor bike, they drive right up beside the target at a stopsign, passenger pulls out an Uzi and empties the clip into the driver.
This time it's a magnetic antitank mine or the equivalent. A reasonable choice given three people in the car makes it more complicated, but it's a slight twist in MO. That widens the suspect list to the US, other Iranians, even the Germans, who recently stated Iran must not have nukes, and have a history with magnetic antitank mines.
Alsan, I would expect even more shocking violence over this issue in 2012. I've heard that your president might come out claiming to be the 12th Imam, to me he's more of a talking dog.
choff wrote:Mossad SOP is two guys on a motor bike, they drive right up beside the target at a stopsign, passenger pulls out an Uzi and empties the clip into the driver.
This time it's a magnetic antitank mine or the equivalent. A reasonable choice given three people in the car makes it more complicated, but it's a slight twist in MO. That widens the suspect list to the US, other Iranians, even the Germans, who recently stated Iran must not have nukes, and have a history with magnetic antitank mines.
Two guys on a motor bike shooting after opening of traffic light not Italian? And if we have broken neck hence Japanese or Chineses?
