We are Doomed! DOOOOOMMED I say!

[ladajo]

ladajo wrote:
They do not put accurate information in the public domain, if they did, there would be no point to it all being classified.


For all sorts of reasons, plenty of officially classified info is also public domain - the one does not cancel the other.

Yes, sometimes. But I can assure you that nuclear information is amongst the most tightly held. Held to the point, that there is really no public information on just how much is held. In fact, inside the system, it remains tightly controlled with limited and special access regimes. This includes tech and policy.

That is the same for *any* weapon. And even if you possess that weapon yourself you can not be certain what your enemy's "triggers" will be for using theirs

Nope. This is a specific construct for only the nuclear regime. Other weapons systems do not enjoy the unique postion that nuclear ones do. Nuclear systems have their very own and specific policy and use controls. Theonly other system that will face this will be Global Strike. But, it will not be the same, just more of a "let's keep the other guy from thinking it is nuclear" approach.

Yes, there is still a great deal of debate about the strategic decisions made by all sides during WWII. But this mechanistic process of constraints, restraints and triggers that you suggest is not the whole story - in 1945 the decision to use atomic weapons had an obviously political dimension. The final decision was that of the chief executive, not the Generals'.

Actually, you are wrong in this. Yo also still do not undertand the construct. Specifically, in WWII use authority was delgated down. Also not the last time that happened. During Korea and Vietnam, as well as other events, use authority was delegated down. Again, you know not of what you speak. You know not how nuclear command and control works.

There is a huge amount of published data about the effects of the bombs, much of it from the Japanese themselves. And even were all of your classified information released it would still not tell "the whole story", it would just tell a different story.

Yes and no. The Japanese data was generated with US support to study long term effects across a spectrum of domains. There is also a large pool of information that the US generated that remains controlled. The controlled information includes not just technical aspects. ONe of the interesting, and oft overlooked points that is in the public domain is the actual summary death/destruction directly related ( we will say first and second order effects) to the strikes. But that is routinely glossed as it does not support the 'anti-nuke' pundits. I have been to ground zero in Japan, have you? It may surprise you if you haven't (my guess). Give you some things to think about at the least.

Bottom line, the weapons used in Japan are nothing like the weapons we have to day. And Japan is the only publically visible use. Much hyperboly and supposition has fed the mythos out of those two weapons. And much of the mythos growth has been fed by a on purpose lack of release of real data from controlling sources since then.

So where did I claim to "understand contemporary US Nuclear Strategy"... strawman.

No intended as such. I intended to type "Contemporary Strategy", but was thinking along several lines as I wrote that. Chalk it up as a typo.
You also really need to learn more about debate fallacies. You are very stuck on the whole 'Strawman' theme.

Note the phrase "that threatened Israel's existence". I think it a more than reasonable deduction that an attack that threatened Israel's existence (ie the highly unlikely circumstance that Israel was on the verge of being overrun by its enemies) would trigger Israel's use of its nuclear weapons. Do you disagree?

Nope, I do not disagree. What I take issue with is the idea that either or both countries could "threaten Israel's existence". Not likely at this point.

I assure you that that rather depends upon what I meant by a "fair idea"

Expand it as you wish to be more amorphous. But, what you are not getting is my point that there is no chance of it being "fair".

I guess Israel, not having conducted battlefied testing

True. But you leave out the fact that by building functional weapons, you learn a great deal about what they can and can not do. I would also ask you to consider how you know that Israel has never tested a live weapon? I would ask to you to consider how and from who Israel got its weapons, and in the ask yourself if there is a possibility that either data was provided, or sims and test ranges were cooperatively used under the guise of the cooperating nation(s) own test programs.

[CKay]

I have been to ground zero in Japan, have you? It may surprise you if you haven't (my guess). Give you some things to think about at the least.

You mean the building that remains standing despite being directly below the detonation - I've seen pictures. There's a guy used to run a roadside cafe down the road from me who was a POW in Nagasaki. He was at the time locked up in a cell close to ground zero but survived unharmed. So, if yo're trying to say that the effects of the use of nuclear weapons have been in part over stated (in a similar way to that which aerial bombing of cities was before WWII) sorry, that's not news to me. I've heard it all before...

You also really need to learn more about debate fallacies. You are very stuck on the whole 'Strawman' theme.

You're very stuck on their use. :shrug:

Note the phrase "that threatened Israel's existence". I think it a more than reasonable deduction that an attack that threatened Israel's existence (ie the highly unlikely circumstance that Israel was on the verge of being overrun by its enemies) would trigger Israel's use of its nuclear weapons. Do you disagree?

Nope, I do not disagree.

In which case, and as I rather suspected all along, your response to my post was wholly beside the point.

What I take issue with is the idea that either or both countries could "threaten Israel's existence".

I hate to say it, but that's another strawman. I never said that Iran or Egypt could threaten Israel. In fact that was the point of my first post. For any one of a number of reasons Egypt would not join a war with Iran against Israel - not the least of which being that even in the highly unlikely event that they beat Israel's conventional forces they would have nothing to gain, and a fair bit to lose...

I would ask to you to consider how and from who Israel got its weapons, and in the ask yourself if there is a possibility that either data was provided, or sims and test ranges were cooperatively used under the guise of the cooperating nation(s) own test programs.

Britain, France and the US - mainly the first two. And I would ask you to consider who are Iran's allies and the possibility that information about Israel's likely nuclear capabilities could be passed to Iran from them.

[ladajo]

Ladajo wrote:
I have been to ground zero in Japan, have you? It may surprise you if you haven't (my guess). Give you some things to think about at the least.

You mean the building that remains standing despite being directly below the detonation - I've seen pictures. There's a guy used to run a roadside cafe down the road from me who was a POW in Nagasaki. He was at the time locked up in a cell close to ground zero but survived unharmed. So, if yo're trying to say that the effects of the use of nuclear weapons have been in part over stated (in a similar way to that which aerial bombing of cities was before WWII) sorry, that's not news to me. I've heard it all before...

Ahh, nope, not what I am talking about at all. Broaden your target alot, think some about what I have been saying, and you just might figure it out. Good luck.

You also really need to learn more about debate fallacies. You are very stuck on the whole 'Strawman' theme.

You're very stuck on their use. :shrug:

You are very limited in your understanding and repertoire. Tediously so. I fully concede that you will not move beyond your misunderstanding of the sole fallacy you claim to know and cite as your primary defense over and over in every discussion you have with anyone on this board.
Your box, enjoy living in it.

Note the phrase "that threatened Israel's existence". I think it a more than reasonable deduction that an attack that threatened Israel's existence (ie the highly unlikely circumstance that Israel was on the verge of being overrun by its enemies) would trigger Israel's use of its nuclear weapons. Do you disagree?

Nope, I do not disagree.

In which case, and as I rather suspected all along, your response to my post was wholly beside the point.

My post was merely an attempt to broaden your understanding and perspective. I see I have wasted my time. Normally it is interesting to talk with you, but in this case you have become tiresome.
Again, your box, enjoying living in it.

What I take issue with is the idea that either or both countries could "threaten Israel's existence".

I hate to say it, but that's another strawman. I never said that Iran or Egypt could threaten Israel. In fact that was the point of my first post. For any one of a number of reasons Egypt would not join a war with Iran against Israel - not the least of which being that even in the highly unlikely event that they beat Israel's conventional forces they would have nothing to gain, and a fair bit to lose...

Sigh. I never said that you did. Oh so tedious. You keep missing the bus with your predisposition. Sigh.

I would ask to you to consider how and from who Israel got its weapons, and in the ask yourself if there is a possibility that either data was provided, or sims and test ranges were cooperatively used under the guise of the cooperating nation(s) own test programs.

Britain, France and the US - mainly the first two. And I would ask you to consider who are Iran's allies and the possibility that information about Israel's likely nuclear capabilities could be passed to Iran from them.

Sigh. That is the most naive thing you have said yet. Dear boy, Iran does not have any allies. I wonder who you think are??? Those unknown "allies" of yours merely have needs, and currently see Iran as a useful tool to help with them. Watch how fast your suppossed "allies" drop Iran like a hot rock in the coming days. I would also point out that your weak statement is predicated on fantasies that these "allies" would a.) actually know what Israel's capabilities and policies are, and b.) be willing to tell Iran anything truthful or at all.

When you are ready to come play in the real world let me know. My mistake was thinking that you may be interested in an inside glimpse of what really makes the topic turn. Due to your self-defensive disposition, you completely missed the fact I was trying to add to your understanding, not say you were wrong or stupid.

Oh well. ":Shrug:" I'm done. Enjoy your box. If you want to peek out sometime, let me know, I'll be around. Cheers.

[CKay]

a load of patronising waffle

[CKay]

you will not move beyond your misunderstanding of the sole fallacy you claim to know and cite as your primary defense over and over in every discussion you have with anyone on this board.

For what it's worth (which admittedly in't much), in discussions on this forum I have drearily pointed out at least three different types of fallacy - straw man, ad hominem and non sequitur. I'm afraid, without referring to one of those logical fallacy lists, that is pretty much my full repertoire.

Speaking of which, I find it kind of interesting that you suddenly became an expert on the whole logical fallacy area shortly after I'd pointed out your frequent use of the straw man fallacy, the meaning of which I had to explain to you... hmm? One might be forgiven for thinking that prompted you to do a bit of googling, leading you to one of those logical fallacy lists, which you've since been quoting from at every avaliable opportunity.

(And any misunderstanding about the meaning of the straw man fallacy is all yours - you have over-complicated a very simple concept a number of times now.)

Dear boy, Iran does not have any allies.

Well, for now Syria and Hezbollah/Lebanon are considered allies of Iran. So you're wrong there. Dear boy.

And Iran is certainly on good terms with Russia, China and India. Russia and China have both vetoed UN resolutions against Iran. Russia has given Iran technical aid and nuclear materials for it's nuclear programme and sold them some fancy anti ship missiles (Sunburn is it?). All three are buying buying Iran's oil (and not in dollars). All three are nuclear powers. Now they may not be allies in the very strictest sense, but they certainly have shared interests, not the least of which is doing down the US.

Actually, scratch that last sentence - here's an article which talks about an overt alliance between Russia and Iran. And if Iran's involvement in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is not an alliance with Russia and China, I don't know what is.

It is, therefore, not beyond the realm of fantasy to think that Russia or China might advise Iran about their common enemy's nuclear capabilities so that Iran might develop a better "reality based perception" of the US's "triggers, restraints, constraints" (and so avoid triggering a nuclear response in the Gulf).

in 1945 the decision to use atomic weapons had an obviously political dimension. The final decision was that of the chief executive, not the Generals'.

Actually, you are wrong in this. Yo also still do not undertand the construct. Specifically, in WWII use authority was delgated down.

Authority to use the bomb may have been delegated down, but in the first instance the decision to allow use of the bomb and to then delegate that authority was Truman's. The bomb could not have been used without Truman having first agreed to it. And that decision was obviously hugely political (the war was already all but won).

EDIT: Here you go: http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm: page 506, "Though responsibility for the decision to use the atomic bomb was the President's, he exercised it only after careful study of the recommendations of his senior advisers". And plenty more evidence there (with citations) to show that Truman was involved all of the way through the decision process.

[Diogenes]

Chart Of The Week: This Is Who Is Selling

That group is corporate insiders: the people who know the fundamental prospects of their companies better than anyone, and certainly better than the propaganda media or the always wrong Wall Street sell side analyst brigade. And as the chart below demonstrates, insiders are now out and selling in record quantities.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chart-week-who-selling

[Diogenes]

'Massive Wealth Destruction' Is About to Hit Investors: Faber

Investors, particularly those in the "well-to-do" category, could lose about half their total wealth in the next few years as the consequences pile up from global government debt problems, Faber, the author of the Gloom Boom & Doom Report, said on CNBC.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46923999

[DeltaV]

[hanelyp]

That assumes interest rates remain low. If double digit inflation is recognized and interest rates follow, expect the red line to rise MUCH faster.

[Diogenes]

America's Debt Is Greater than Entire Eurozone's (and U.K.'s) Combined Debt

As the chart shows, America's debt is currently $15.1 trillion, while the Eurozone (which includes France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, the U.K., and others) has a combined debt of $12.7 trillion. (All dollar amounts are in U.S. dollars, and the data refers to closing 2011 numbers.)

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ame ... 36847.html

[ladajo]

And the combined GDP of the Euorzone compared to the US GDP is?

[krenshala]

See, this is why we shouldn't have let Uncle Sam have that credit card he was asking for ...

[choff]

I like Bill Still's solution to the debt problem, have the government stop printing interest bearing bonds for sale to the banks and start printing money. If this creates an inflation problem raise the banking reserve rate. People online are picking up on this idea in Canada, England, and Europe too.

[Diogenes]

I like Bill Still's solution to the debt problem, have the government stop printing interest bearing bonds for sale to the banks and start printing money. If this creates an inflation problem raise the banking reserve rate. People online are picking up on this idea in Canada, England, and Europe too.

I personally think of Government induced inflation as a THEFT of people's money.

Money is merely a place keeper for a good or service. What they are in effect doing, is stealing that good or service by rendering it's place keeper more and more worthless.

[Teahive]

It's effectively a form of tax. If you consider tax in general as theft, then that crime really started with whatever expense that required the government to take on debt.