http://gamingtrend.com
December 22, 2014, 04:35:11 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Iranian Boats (possibly with GWB at the helm) Harass US Warship  (Read 23398 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #120 on: January 17, 2008, 07:33:56 PM »

Quote from: Kevin Grey on January 17, 2008, 07:18:34 PM

President holds sole authority for the use of nuclear weapons, both tactical and strategic.  Doesn't matter what the policy says or how a theater commander feels.  If the president orders it, then that will happen.  New doctrine doesn't "loosen" the trigger because lack of doctrine didn't tie his hands before.  Further, should he go nuts and authorize a nuclear strike, the presence of existing doctrine is not a defense for his actions. 

That is correct, if you assume the President is accountable to nobody for anything.  Such is not the case.  He has to operate within the bounds of the Constitution and our laws.  Unprovoked and illegitimate hostility is, legally, not allowed.

It's not a nuclear attack, but his attack on Iraq was illegitimate... and a war crime.  Just because everyone is looking the other way and letting it happen does not make it otherwise.

So yes, he may have his finger on "the button", but that doesn't mean actually using it is legitimate.  Our nuclear arsenal was always sold to the American people as a deterrent... not as an offensive weapon to be used to attack OR threaten other countries with (and doing so is, of course, in violation of the UN charter).
Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: January 17, 2008, 07:41:31 PM »

Ok a question:

If the repubs lose the election in November, does that mean that they stopped rigging elections because there isn't a Bush in the whitehouse or that things are suddenly legit again...or that the Dems have somehow unrigged it and then re-rigged it in their favor?

Secondly, if the repubs win again, would that be 3 elections in a row that have been rigged?  And did said vote rigging only begin with the election of Bush...?
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: January 17, 2008, 07:42:45 PM »

Unbreakable, I agree with most of that but my point to David remains- none of these nuclear doctrine shifts are actually effecting the likelihood of them being employed.  At least not in the sense that it's the doctrine that allows those options to be used. 

If the President wanted to use a nuclear response to a non-nuclear threat, lack of plan or policy would not prevent that from happening. 
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: January 17, 2008, 07:43:37 PM »

Unbreakable, I have spent 15 years in the nuclear weapon business (ICBM and ALCM) and I can say without a doubt, you do not know what you are talking about. You don't know where nuclear weapons are, you don't know how they work, you don't know where they are aimed (or anything about how that works), you don't even know the policies on them are. You are stating your opinion, which is completely wrong. Even what the press tells you is usually completely wrong. I have been involved in various things that the press reported on and they almost always get the story completely wrong.

You are not more knowledgeable on anything, you spout your opinions and then back them up with articles that don't really prove your point. So quit stating your opinion as fact, because it is not.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #124 on: January 17, 2008, 08:02:12 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 17, 2008, 07:41:31 PM

Ok a question:

If the repubs lose the election in November, does that mean that they stopped rigging elections because there isn't a Bush in the whitehouse or that things are suddenly legit again...or that the Dems have somehow unrigged it and then re-rigged it in their favor?

When... when they lose.

Anyway, no.  It means they were unable to rig enough to gain the victory.  Unless your electoral system is a complete sham, the amount you can influence has been cited as around 15%.  The Repubs are going to lose by at least 25%, meaning they have no chance of victory short of overthrowing the government (since they have not been able to get the electoral system to be a complete sham... which hasn't been for lack of trying).

Quote
Secondly, if the repubs win again, would that be 3 elections in a row that have been rigged?

No, it would be four.  You are forgetting 2002.

Quote
And did said vote rigging only begin with the election of Bush...?

No, but the "WAAAAAAH!!! THEY DO IT TOO!!!!!" whine is not a legitimate reason for rigging an election.

That's the key difference between us: I could care less who is rigging the election, I just want it stopped.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 08:05:22 PM by unbreakable » Logged
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #125 on: January 17, 2008, 08:34:56 PM »

So the dems rig elections too but the repubs are better at it?
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #126 on: January 17, 2008, 08:43:22 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 17, 2008, 08:34:56 PM

So the dems rig elections too but the repubs are better at it?

This is actually becoming scary, isn't it?
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #127 on: January 17, 2008, 08:54:59 PM »

Quote from: ATB on January 17, 2008, 08:34:56 PM

So the dems rig elections too but the repubs are better at it?

There have been rigged elections in the past, in an ad hoc manner.  But only the Republicans put forth the effort to become a true criminal conspiracy.

Note how every time a Republican gets thrown in jail for fraud or theft... you will always hear about a contribution to the GOP involved.  It's just like turning in your weekly envelope to Tony Soprano.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #128 on: January 17, 2008, 08:59:30 PM »

Now you are just being silly. Please post links comparing the GOP to the mob, that should be good for a laugh.

You say you know more than anyone else here about things, but you already admitted you don't know anything about Hezbollah (nor do you care to know anything), and then you claim something as fact about weapons you obviously don't know anything about. Please post about something you do know, and then please give legitimate links and not just the insane rantings you seem to like.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #129 on: January 17, 2008, 09:18:18 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 08:59:30 PM

Now you are just being silly. Please post links comparing the GOP to the mob, that should be good for a laugh.

You say you know more than anyone else here about things, but you already admitted you don't know anything about Hezbollah (nor do you care to know anything), and then you claim something as fact about weapons you obviously don't know anything about. Please post about something you do know, and then please give legitimate links and not just the insane rantings you seem to like.

There's a lot of things I don't know anything about.  As I said, what Hezbollah does has zero influence on Americans in America, so my concern about America taking action on it ends there.  Further, I seriously doubt anyone in these forums can state with authority who is or isn't financing who, especially since they can't even figure out who the USA is or isn't financing.  It's a non-issue.  You, I, or anyone else here can't speak intelligently about it... so what's the point in pretending?  That doesn't matter to you, since you are chronically uninformed on essentially all these matters, but it does matter to someone who tries having a reasonably informed opinion.

I already gave a link to information showing USSTRATCOM is now targetting Iran.  When you willingly keep your head in the sand, don't expect me to view your opinions with any credibility.

If you can't be bothered to read anything on the subject... or use Google... or follow links... or whatever... maybe you should just avoid these discussions.  It seems like it would save you a lot of stress, and prevent people from losing respect for you.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 09:22:04 PM by unbreakable » Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #130 on: January 17, 2008, 09:21:59 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 08:59:30 PM

Now you are just being silly. Please post links comparing the GOP to the mob, that should be good for a laugh.

I think James Gandolfini is a Republican?   paranoid
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #131 on: January 17, 2008, 09:22:55 PM »

Quote
The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying!

i find it scary too.  and its not just the the government, the politicians running for president on both sides of the isle have lobbed around more than enough hypothetical nukes as well.  the last three or four years have made incredible strides backwards in the field of nonproliferation

and policy DOES matter.  it broadcasts a states nuclear intentions to the rest of the world and has an effect on nuclear development and nuclear policy.  frankly i feel much better living in a world where nuclear weapons are a deterant, not an option.  ive seen numerous generals on cspan stating its absurd to even suggest tactical nuclear weapons, as conventional options are just as viable.  all the talk of "nuclear options" does an immeasurable amount of harm to any hopes of nonproliferation.  these things are terrifying and we should be focusing on destroying them, not proclaiming their infinite usefulness to the rest of the world
Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #132 on: January 17, 2008, 09:26:50 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 06:45:10 PM

Quote
Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


Maybe you didn't get the memo but the United Nations has been broke for decades, and no credible state is going to abide weak multilateral regulations when it feels itself legitimately threatened. Why would, or should we listen to an organization that has given states like Sudan prominent roles on committees for human rights.

How in God's name are we "legitimately threatened"?
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #133 on: January 17, 2008, 09:31:45 PM »

You posted a link of a proposed plan, that did not claim that we were pointing anything at Iran.

You know so little on how nukes work and the policies surrounding them, it would be better if you just didn't comment on them because you are making yourself look like a fool.
Logged
Kevin Grey
Global Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 13976


View Profile
« Reply #134 on: January 17, 2008, 09:40:30 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 09:22:55 PM

and policy DOES matter.  it broadcasts a states nuclear intentions to the rest of the world and has an effect on nuclear development and nuclear policy. 

The OPLAN being discussed is not policy in that sense.  It's a classified government document intended for internal use and not to be broadcasted to the rest of the world.  The bits mentioned above were from the declassified bits of a previouis OPLAN and came about due to a request of the Freedom of Information Act. 
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #135 on: January 17, 2008, 09:43:05 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 09:22:55 PM

Quote
The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying!

i find it scary too.  and its not just the the government, the politicians running for president on both sides of the isle have lobbed around more than enough hypothetical nukes as well.  the last three or four years have made incredible strides backwards in the field of nonproliferation

I am guessing you don't know how we recently got rid of the Peacekeeper weapon system and converted MMIII to one warhead instead of 3? We also got rid of a ACMs and have converted some other missiles.

Honestly you guys, as far as nukes go, don't believe anything you read. The government doesn't make any of this information public knowledge and the media guesses to fill in the holes. One base I was at the press reported that we shipped our nukes to England. We didn't even have nukes. They just saw bombers land empty and take off with missiles.
Logged
denoginizer
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 6538


View Profile
« Reply #136 on: January 17, 2008, 09:52:51 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 09:43:05 PM

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 09:22:55 PM

Quote
The fact that the goverment is loosening the trigger on the nukes for a broadser set of use, specifically non nuclear threats, is terrifying!

i find it scary too.  and its not just the the government, the politicians running for president on both sides of the isle have lobbed around more than enough hypothetical nukes as well.  the last three or four years have made incredible strides backwards in the field of nonproliferation

I am guessing you don't know how we recently got rid of the Peacekeeper weapon system and converted MMIII to one warhead instead of 3? We also got rid of a ACMs and have converted some other missiles.

Honestly you guys, as far as nukes go, don't believe anything you read. The government doesn't make any of this information public knowledge and the media guesses to fill in the holes. One base I was at the press reported that we shipped our nukes to England. We didn't even have nukes. They just saw bombers land empty and take off with missiles.

Wait a minute...

Are you telling me that there is not a red button next to W's bed that all of the nukes are directly connected too with long copper wires?
Logged

Xbox Live Tag: denoginizer
PSN Name: denoginizer
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #137 on: January 17, 2008, 09:53:29 PM »

Quote
converted MMIII to one warhead instead of 3?

you are right in that i lack specialized knowledge.  what became of the 2 additional, now free warheads?  i pray they were mothballed so to speak, and not used to create 2 new MMIIIs.  im guessing not however because i think the last numbers ive read had strategic warheads listed at around 5,000 (down from something like 7500 just a few years before)

and i still think there has been a less than subtle shift in how cavalier those within government, and those attempting to become government, view the "usability" of nuclear weapons.  my one consolation is, again, the high ranking military officials who will hopefully be screaming in their ears to tone down the rhetoric

*edit* although the 5000 doesnt include warheads held in reserve - that number is much higher
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 09:55:11 PM by Doopri » Logged
CSL
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1356


View Profile
« Reply #138 on: January 17, 2008, 09:54:17 PM »

Quote from: Blackadar on January 17, 2008, 09:26:50 PM

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 06:45:10 PM

Quote
Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


Maybe you didn't get the memo but the United Nations has been broke for decades, and no credible state is going to abide weak multilateral regulations when it feels itself legitimately threatened. Why would, or should we listen to an organization that has given states like Sudan prominent roles on committees for human rights.

How in God's name are we "legitimately threatened"?

Never said we were, you need to read that again.
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #139 on: January 17, 2008, 10:06:11 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 09:53:29 PM

Quote
converted MMIII to one warhead instead of 3?
and i still think there has been a less than subtle shift in how cavalier those within government, and those attempting to become government, view the "usability" of nuclear weapons.  my one consolation is, again, the high ranking military officials who will hopefully be screaming in their ears to tone down the rhetoric

Despite what certain people will have you believe, there hasn't been any big changes in the mission. It is still peace through deterrence. The DoD makes "just in case plans" for everything, when the media gets a hold it they freak out and claim that we are now doing things differently. It's just not the case. The idea of us just going around using nukes because we can is absurd and is the equivalent to Bush's saber rattling. Unbreakable can scream all day that we have nukes aimed at Iran and Bush has been given permission to use them, but its the same as Bush going up there and saying if we don't remove Saddam from power the world is going to end. It's all just talk with no basis in reality.
Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #140 on: January 17, 2008, 10:16:11 PM »

its not just the president.  ive read every article in foreign affairs self-authored by the major candidates.  its a chance for each one to give a brief overview of their foreign policy prerogatives and EVERY single one (hmm i might have lied there may be one who didnt) offered nebulous little clues and knowing winks about their nuclear posture.  whether its "everything is on the table" or "i wont rule any options out" they do nothing to assuage fears that nuclear weapons are viable in other than a deterant / response capacity.  to me thats scary - more so than DoD contingency plans.

Quote
It's all just talk with no basis in reality.

and thats not true.  candidates nuclear posture aid in creating a reality when they become president.  its like telling your wife youd stab her in the face if she cheats.  maybe you will, maybe you wont but it sure as hell alters the dialogue once its thrown out there.




Logged
Doopri
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2853


View Profile
« Reply #141 on: January 17, 2008, 10:26:54 PM »

and just in case anyone cares what would make me, personally happy

thousands of contingency plans and one official unequivocal line: "this country will never use nuclear warheads in an aggressive capacity"
Logged
Farscry
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4004



View Profile
« Reply #142 on: January 17, 2008, 10:42:56 PM »

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 10:26:54 PM

and just in case anyone cares what would make me, personally happy

thousands of contingency plans and one official unequivocal line: "this country will never use nuclear warheads in an aggressive capacity"

That works for me, too.

As for the whole Iranian boat thing that prompted this thread (holy crap, I miss two days and end up three pages behind on a thread!), my thought is that it's too similar to the whole Gulf of Tonkin fiasco, which we now know (from reports & documents finally released this month through the FOIA) was fabricated to justify the Vietnam War to both Americans and the international community.
Logged

Purge - You have unlocked an Achievement!
You are now of the rank reprobate
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #143 on: January 17, 2008, 10:48:25 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 09:31:45 PM

You posted a link of a proposed plan, that did not claim that we were pointing anything at Iran.

You know so little on how nukes work and the policies surrounding them, it would be better if you just didn't comment on them because you are making yourself look like a fool.

Well I'm glad you said that!  Since you know so much more than me, I'm sure you can easily show how and why I'm wrong, citing all your sources, etc.

I look forward to reading it!

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 10:06:11 PM

The idea of us just going around using nukes because we can is absurd and is the equivalent to Bush's saber rattling. Unbreakable can scream all day that we have nukes aimed at Iran and Bush has been given permission to use them, but its the same as Bush going up there and saying if we don't remove Saddam from power the world is going to end. It's all just talk with no basis in reality.

And I'm sure the same thing goes for saying we need overthrow Iran's government or the world is going to end, right?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 10:52:03 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #144 on: January 17, 2008, 11:36:18 PM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 10:48:25 PM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 09:31:45 PM

You posted a link of a proposed plan, that did not claim that we were pointing anything at Iran.

You know so little on how nukes work and the policies surrounding them, it would be better if you just didn't comment on them because you are making yourself look like a fool.

Well I'm glad you said that!  Since you know so much more than me, I'm sure you can easily show how and why I'm wrong, citing all your sources, etc.

I look forward to reading it!

Cite sources? I don't need to, it's what I do for a living, and something I am not going to talk about on an internet forum beyond what I have said already. I am not getting up here fear mongering by throwing around ideas with no backing or basis, I am just pointing out to you that you literally know nothing about the subject, nor do you care to learn. I am also not the one telling everyone here that they are uneducated about everything under the sun like you are. Except on one subject, but in that subject, I do have a bit more knowledge than you.

You cannot say things here Unbreakable without any credible support and declare everything you say as fact and then expect us all to believe you because you tell us you are more knowledgeable than us. In fact you are doing what the government does, but even more extreme.

In the end I think you have issues, I don't mean that as an insult, but you say such absurd things, its hard to believe that a sane person could come up with such ideas. But at the same time you don't research anything out of your bubble, you read what you want to and ignore everything else.

I am done responding to you, it only encourages you to get on your soap box and spew more tripe.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #145 on: January 17, 2008, 11:40:27 PM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 11:36:18 PM

You cannot say things here Unbreakable without any credible support and declare everything you say as fact and then expect us all to believe you because you tell us you are more knowledgeable than us.

You mean, like what you do?

Quote
In fact you are doing what the government does, but even more extreme.

LOL!

Quote
In the end I think you have issues, I don't mean that as an insult, but you say such absurd things, its hard to believe that a sane person could come up with such ideas.

And yet, ideas you find yourself unable to disprove.  I mean, without resorting to personal attacks, shocked amazement, and zero facts.  Laudy, I hope you don't get the vapors, since I seem to be offending your delicate sensibilities.

Quote
But at the same time you don't research anything out of your bubble, you read what you want to and ignore everything else.

Kind of a funny accusation to make, seeing as you've posted zero links.

Quote
I am done responding to you, it only encourages you to get on your soap box and spew more tripe.

Well of course!  Hit and run, that's how it works, right?

I guess in Lee's no-spin world, there's no possible way he could post links to un- or de- classified material.  So, let's all just take his word for it that he's an expert, and always right, etc etc.

Let us know when Iranian ships "attack" the Navy "again", mkay?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2008, 11:43:05 PM by unbreakable » Logged
Blackadar
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3458



View Profile
« Reply #146 on: January 17, 2008, 11:43:30 PM »

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 09:54:17 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on January 17, 2008, 09:26:50 PM

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 06:45:10 PM

Quote
Article 2

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.


Maybe you didn't get the memo but the United Nations has been broke for decades, and no credible state is going to abide weak multilateral regulations when it feels itself legitimately threatened. Why would, or should we listen to an organization that has given states like Sudan prominent roles on committees for human rights.

How in God's name are we "legitimately threatened"?

Never said we were, you need to read that again.

Not directly, but you certainly made that inference in response to Unbreakable's point.
Logged

Raise the bridge! I have an erection!
ATB
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Thanks for everything, Ryan. 1979-2013


View Profile
« Reply #147 on: January 18, 2008, 01:25:57 PM »

Wow I have the biggest thread in Political nonsense history! Truly the emperor has new clothes!  nod
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #148 on: January 18, 2008, 04:26:15 PM »

Congrats!
Logged
WalkingFumble
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 655



View Profile
« Reply #149 on: January 18, 2008, 05:01:38 PM »

i think i missed something.  what did syria do other than open its doors for iraqi refugees?  sponsor terrorism and try to get wmds?  maybe they helped saddam help al qaeda with 9/11...
 
why isnt venezuela on our "to nuke" list?
Logged

XBL: I3L00DFUMBLE  -  132,578     |     PSN: WalkingFumble     |     Nintendo Revolution:  1440 9434 2198 4442
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #150 on: January 18, 2008, 07:45:05 PM »

Quote from: WalkingFumble on January 18, 2008, 05:01:38 PM

why isnt venezuela on our "to nuke" list?

Because Venezuela has a lot of their oil tied up in sand, which is right on the surface.  Nuking them would make all that radioactive, which is the last thing the Bush Crime Family wants to happen.  It's so much easier to just bribe a few generals and have them turn the country into a dictatorship.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 424


View Profile WWW
« Reply #151 on: January 19, 2008, 06:02:35 AM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well

He is talking out his ass. Not a single special weapon in our arsenal is loaded with a preprogrammed target. Loading a target requires executive approval of a launch preparation. But of course Lee knows this which is why he called him on it.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #152 on: January 19, 2008, 06:05:06 AM »

Quote from: Rip on January 19, 2008, 06:02:35 AM

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well

He is talking out his ass. Not a single special weapon in our arsenal is loaded with a preprogrammed target. Loading a target requires executive approval of a launch preparation. But of course Lee knows this which is why he called him on it.

Proof?  Or are you invoking your almighty "anonymous dude on intarweb expertise"?


BTW, it's kind of flattering how over 25% of your posts are personal attacks on me.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 06:07:00 AM by unbreakable » Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 424


View Profile WWW
« Reply #153 on: January 19, 2008, 06:10:34 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:11:08 PM

Quote from: CSL on January 17, 2008, 01:52:02 AM

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 01:46:35 AM

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 01:00:34 AM

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 12:09:38 AM

So I guess you have an equal level of concern when Bush and Cheney start talking about invading Iran, and the fact (FACT) that we are pointing our nuclear arsenal at Iran?

Reference please.

Good point I was aware of the qoutes on 'stablizing' or 'restructuring' Iran, but I had NO idea we were pointing our nuclear arsenal at them...I would like to know the source of that fact as well

Its just more bullshit from him - I mean why would we point our long-range ICBMs at Iran when any strike we'd use to cripple them would be accomplished with conventional weapons.

Besides, even if they were going to use nukes they aren't going to use ICBMs that need to be retargeted, they'd use nuclear weapons launched from aircraft carriers or Diego Garcia.

Well you see, this is exactly why I say people who disagree with me are far, far, far less informed on things than I am.  When I state fact... it's "bullshit", but when you voice an ignorant opinion... what is that supposed to be called?  Being "fair and balanced", or "your opinion"?

Having a discussion of important matters, like this one, is generally like having a gun fight with somebody who brought a pair of boxing gloves.

If you can't bother to be informed, you can at least be civil.

[edit] I'll find a better source for that article.  I hate hearing people flame the messanger since they can't be bothered to address the message.

[edit2] I have to find a more specific article, but that should suffice for now.

There are very few nations on earth we don't have nuclear strike plans for. Just like the news media has obituaries already prepared for just about every famous person. In addition the ones who have "WMD" capabilities have preemptive plan alternatives. Non-issue.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #154 on: January 19, 2008, 06:14:20 AM »

While I'm flattered that now at least 1/3 of your posts are directed toward me, I might suggest you read the entire thread... then make your replies.

Had you done so, you might have come across the article I posted shortly after the one you quoted above.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 424


View Profile WWW
« Reply #155 on: January 19, 2008, 06:18:00 AM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 06:11:26 PM

prouding through the links there is some indirect statements about new prorities. And a few refrences that get specific such as

"The nuclear strike plans against Iran, North Korea and Syria, however, presumably were carried forward into the next OPLAN 8044 Revision 05 from October 2004, a plan that was still in effect as recently as July 2007."

and
"NSPD-17 reaffirmed that, if necessary, the United States will use nuclear weapons against anyone using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces abroad, and friends and allies, according to Washington Times. But a top-secret appendix to NSPD 17 specifically named Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya as being among the countries that are the central focus of the new strategy, and that options included nuclear weapons."


So if i understand the subtext several countries (with Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya being called out) are on our top list for retalation with nuclear weapons, if they attack with what we lossely define as WMDs. That is kind of scary since as far as I can tell that defintion is rather loose. So another plane into a building could be techncailly defined as a WMD and  allow for a nuclear response especially the countries called out in the appendix. That is scary. As a said anyone justifying use of nukes as a good idea under any circustance (except if the rest of the world has already fired there's) makes me think armeggedon is closer than we think.


The definition of WMDs isn't really all that narrow. I can assure you flying planes into buildings wouldn't be classified WMDs, unless they were full of BIO weapons or something like that.
Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #156 on: January 19, 2008, 06:23:55 AM »

Quote from: unbreakable on January 17, 2008, 05:29:42 PM

Sure it does.  He says that my claim that the USA is targetting Iran with our nukular arsenal is "bullshit"... and the article discusses how our policies have been changed.  The article did not, obviously, know what those changes were, because that's "secret".

But if you want more detail... here, knock yourself out.

Or, just google for "USSTRATCOM target iran".  Honestly, it's not that hard to actually be informed.  It's just so few people even bother to try.

And had you actually, you know, read anything people were talking about, you (or Lee, or whoever) may have noticed this:

Quote
Three months after NSPD-14, on September 14, 2002, President Bush also signed NSPD-17 (National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction), a directive that articulated a comprehensive strategy to counter nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. NSPD-17 reaffirmed that, if necessary, the United States will use nuclear weapons against anyone using weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces abroad, and friends and allies, according to Washington Times. But a top-secret appendix to NSPD 17 specifically named Iran, Syria, North Korea and Libya as being among the countries that are the central focus of the new strategy, and that options included nuclear weapons. Those options were in place with OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. The motivation for the new strategy, one participant in the interagency process that drafted it told Washington Post, was the conclusion that "traditional nonproliferation has failed, and now we’re going into active interdiction." NSPD-17 is sometimes also called the preemption doctrine.

Emphasis mine.

So the translation is, EXACTLY as I've said, that the new to this Bush administration policy has been changed TO a first-strike nuclear attack targetting Iran.  Meaning, America is using it's nuclear arsenal to threaten a non-nuclear armed nation, which is (at the least) in violation of the UN Charter.

That's not something which was done before, it's not routine, etc etc to whatever other justificating spin you try putting on it.

And of course, it gets better from there...

Quote
The regional strike plans also found their way into the draft Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (Joint Publication 3-12), which was under preparation within the military at the time Revision 03 was created. Yet the doctrine showed that planning went beyond retaliation and included preemptive strikes. The second draft from March 2005 listed five scenarios where use of nuclear weapons might be requested:

• To counter an adversary intending to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S., multinational, or allies forces or civilian populations;
• To counter an imminent attack from an adversary’s biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy;
• To attack on adversary installations including weapons of mass destruction, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons, or the command and control infrastructure required for the adversary to execute a WMD attack against the United States or its friends and allies; [this was probably the "target base" in OPLAN 8044 Revision 03]
• To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces;
• To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use.

Think a little about those last two, especially:

"To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces"
"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary WMD use."

Those statements are so vague they can essentially cover any offensive use of nuclear weapons, regardless of whether the nation/organization/whatever they are used against have nuclear weapons or not.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 06:36:14 AM by unbreakable » Logged
unbreakable
Guest
« Reply #157 on: January 19, 2008, 06:50:28 AM »

Quote from: Lee on January 17, 2008, 10:06:11 PM

Quote from: Doopri on January 17, 2008, 09:53:29 PM

Quote
converted MMIII to one warhead instead of 3?
and i still think there has been a less than subtle shift in how cavalier those within government, and those attempting to become government, view the "usability" of nuclear weapons.  my one consolation is, again, the high ranking military officials who will hopefully be screaming in their ears to tone down the rhetoric

Despite what certain people will have you believe, there hasn't been any big changes in the mission. It is still peace through deterrence. The DoD makes "just in case plans" for everything, when the media gets a hold it they freak out and claim that we are now doing things differently. It's just not the case. The idea of us just going around using nukes because we can is absurd and is the equivalent to Bush's saber rattling. Unbreakable can scream all day that we have nukes aimed at Iran and Bush has been given permission to use them, but its the same as Bush going up there and saying if we don't remove Saddam from power the world is going to end. It's all just talk with no basis in reality.

Hmmm....

Quote
March 1 (2003): Operations Plan 8044 Revision 03 enters into effect, the first to use the new name OPLAN 8044 instead of the Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) used since 1961 (for name change, see here).
   The new name reflects major changes made to the strategic nuclear war plan since the end of the Cold War, and that "USSTRATCOM is changing the nation's nuclear war plan from a single, large, integrated plan to a family of plans applicable in a wider range of scenarios."
   Revision 03 is a transitional step toward the New Triad and future war plans. Notable changes include new executable scenario driven strike options against regional states (North Korea, Libya and Iran), changing the attack structure to increase strike execution flexibility, and more streamlined National Target Base and options. Implementation of SIOP 03 necessitated "grooming" of weapons to optimize performance and improve confidence of mission success.

I dunno Lee.  The more I look into this, the less of an expert you appear to be.
Logged
Rip
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 424


View Profile WWW
« Reply #158 on: January 19, 2008, 07:01:37 AM »

Quote from: davidf on January 17, 2008, 07:15:14 PM

Quote from: Kevin Grey on January 17, 2008, 07:02:13 PM



Just because there is a doctrine in place does not mandate that it will be followed.  No theater commander is going to start using nukes without presidential authorization just because his plan book states that it's an option. 

This is what what the military does- they make plans for every possible contingency out there so if whatever worst case scenario should occur then there is at least something already on paper that can be worked from.  The flipside is that if the President wanted to use nuclear weapons then he wouldn't be stopped by someone saying "but,sir, we don't have a plan on paper for that." 


I'm possibly naive here, but the pentagon plans, thats their job, but a creating a policy expanding the usage of nukes beyond direct nuclear repsonse is loosening the trigger. I agree it likely is in response to 2001, but does that make it right that since 9/11 happened we get to throw nukes out the next time we get attacked? I think if we had the option on 9/12 that we do now, its within the realm of possiblity that some commander could have felt justified in a nuclear response.

It is more in response to the growing threat of non-nuclear WMDs. You should be more scared of them then nucs. They can be more dangerous, unpredictable, and hard to predict or prevent. I am far more fearful of a substantial bio weapon than a nuclear explosion.

Quote
Biological weapons are among the most dangerous in the world today and can be engineered and disseminated to achieve a more deadly result than a nuclear attack.  Whereas the explosion of a nuclear bomb would cause massive death in a specific location, a biological attack with smallpox could infect multitudes of people across the globe.  With incubation periods of up to 17 days, human disseminators could unwittingly cause widespread exposure before diagnosable symptoms indicate an infection and appropriate quarantine procedures are in place.

Unlike any other type of weapon, bioweapons such as smallpox can replicate and infect a chain of people over an indeterminate amount of time from a single undetectable point of release.  According to science writer and author of The Hot Zone, Richard Preston, "If you took a gram of smallpox, which is highly contagious and lethal, and for which there's no vaccine available globally now, and released it in the air and created about a hundred cases, the chances are excellent that the virus would go global in six weeks as people moved from city to city......the death toll could easily hit the hundreds of millions.....in scale, that's like a nuclear war."[1]   


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/the_threat_of_bioweapons.html
Logged
Lee
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


View Profile
« Reply #159 on: January 19, 2008, 07:08:22 AM »

Yep, you are the expert Unbreakable. Hell I am going to start asking you questions.

We changed the policy to include modern threats after the cold war. The mission is still peace through deterrence. You don't even know what you are posting, you just see key words to get alarmed about. None of these documents are talking about B-52s flying alerts with nukes, ICBMs all pointing at Egypt, or subs just waiting for a call from Bush. They included post cold war threats and made plans to deal with them. You can't be so naive to think they don't plan for everything can you?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.179 seconds with 103 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.048s, 2q)