|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/17/2008 : 14:46:20 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
but I do not in any way hold it against you personally, nor do I think you are stupid or naive, or deficient in any scatologically defined way because you hold a different opinion as to these matters than I do! Please do not become angry!
|
Unlikely.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 17:35:26 [Permalink]
|
Just wait until the terrorist get one of these:
I can imagine them going door to door, "Excuse me, I just moved in across the street, could you spare a little weapons grade plutonium, I don't need a lot.."
The designers site is here. Originally spotted on boing boing
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 17:40:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
You made a mistake in reading my post, Dude. I made a different mistake in not thoroughly editing my post before submitting it. I typed four letters that did not belong! I apologized for my error below. You?
You wrote:| response by the US seems unreasonably far fetched, even if W and Cheney are still in charge. Any nuclear response we would engage in would have to be specific and extremely limited. Like nuking the pakistan/afghanistan border area. |
What I said was:| We would be able to unleash nuclear hell times 1000 on ......whom? And......why? Because with stealth entry of the terrorists into the U.S., and total vaporization of themselves along with their targets, how could we blame a particular nation as the originator of the attack and proceed to vaporize them? |
Which is a statement of complete agreement with what you said above! If you honestly missed that, OK, Dude, even you and I - paragons of perfection that we both be - do make mistakes! Dude, I meant and tried to state that the U.S. would not and could not, with justification, respond to a nuclear terrorist attack with a countering nuclear strike, until we could positively identify the attacking aggressor and the nation or geographical area associated with them!
We would undoubtedly respond with nuclear weapons to a nation that was firmly identified as having hosted, financed, or sponsored such an attack. That identification would be extremely difficult to do! | 100 megaton explosions? So... we have gone from terrorists making crude nuclear weapons with a max possible yield of 25 kilotons (much more likely to end up being 100tons instead) |
No, we have "gone" nowhere, that is my mistake in inadvertantly typing megaton instead of ton! I made a typographical error for which I apologize (for not correcting before posting.) Unlike your apparent perfection in all things, I am imperfect and I made a typographical mistake!
The 100 ton figure came directly from your cited reference of Frank Barnaby who states on page 36, paragraph 3: "A crude nuclear explosive designed and built by terrorists could well explode with a power equivalent to 100 tons of TNT"!| It just isn't possible to engage in this debate of opinion with you if you constantly engage in that kind of ridiculous hyperbole. |
Come on, Dude, I make a four-letter typo and it's constant ridiculous hyperbole? I admitted that my attempts at communication do not match your flawless prose, but I am not going to stoop to portraying failure to edit a typo to be "ridiculous hyperbole," or a failure to read or understand one paragraph to be evidence of literary incompetence on your part. Reign in the raging beast!
Mr. Barnaby goes on to state: "A nuclear explosion equivalent to that of 100 tons of TNT in an urban area would be a catastrophic event.....produce a crater about 30 meters across!..... The area of lethal damage from the blast would be 0.4 square kilometers.....The direct effects of radiation, blast or heat would very probably kill people in the open within 60 meters of the explosion....Many other deaths would occur, particularly from indirect blast effects such such as the collapse of buildings."
My contention is, that if it were exploded in Washington Circle, which is on Pennsylvania Avenue midway between the White House and the Capitol, it would probably totally destroy both the White House, and the many ancillary buildings around it and the entire Capitol complex! If not, two bombs out of your stipulated ten would certainly do the job - toss in a third and you can be assured the Pentagon and Supreme Court would also vanish with everything inside them!
"You asked...| Does a nuke in the hands of terrorists, or 10 nukes, constitute a threat to our very civilization? |
and now you are pulling back to...| The best a terrorist group is likely to manage is a 100 ton ground level explosion. (granting you several points for argument, like the ability of terror group to obtain uranium) The most that such a bomb could do is destroy some buildings and kill a bunch of people. |
You granted in your hypothetical that they obtained the uranium and had ten bombs. I am responding to that hypothetical - they got uranium, they made ten bombs, they exploded one or two or three of them in specific locations in D.C. and destroyed the buildings of the White House, The Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Pentagon and everyone (and every thing) inside all of them - together with a great deal more governmental infrastructure on Capitol Hill and across the Potomac!| Would it disrupt a government that has been planning on how to remain functional through a MAD scenario for 60 years? Not a chance. We have a chain of command, even if the president through the Sec of State were all killed in an instant, we know who is in charge. |
Of course it would disrupt. Seriously disrupt! I did not say destroy, I said disrupt! to throw into disorder or turmoil, to interrupt to the extent of stopping, preventing normal continuance of,| This internet thing we all enjoy so much? Originally designed by DARPA as a distributed communications network to maintain functionality of government in the worst case scenario. |
Although I did not mention the Internet, I have no idea what total destruction of the Pentagon would do to the Internet. If it is your contention that it would not affect it, just tell me where to look it up, and I will form an opinion!
I understand you to say that the simultaneous distruction of the White House, the President and staff, the Congress and most of it's members and staff, the Supreme Court (it's right around the corner from the Capitol), and the Pentagon with everything that's in it, would not DISRUPT the functoning of the government of the United States? My opinion is that it is a particularly virulent form of Ostrich Kool-Aid that you are drinking!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 19:57:38 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
Which is a statement of complete agreement with what you said above! If you honestly missed that, OK, Dude, even you and I - paragons of perfection that we both be - do make mistakes! Dude, I meant and tried to state that the U.S. would not and could not, with justification, respond to a nuclear terrorist attack with a countering nuclear strike, until we could positively identify the attacking aggressor and the nation or geographical area associated with them!
|
Taken with the whole of that post, it seemed as if you were postulating a US reponse (with nukes) that would kick off a larger nuclear exchange with some other nuclear power (Russia or China).
I don't disagree with your clarification though. Our response would have to be measured and targeted only to verifiably respobsible parties.
No, we have "gone" nowhere, that is my mistake in inadvertantly typing megaton instead of ton! I made a typographical error for which I apologize (for not correcting before posting.) Unlike your apparent perfection in all things, I am imperfect and I made a typographical mistake!
|
Fair enough.
Come on, Dude, I make a four-letter typo and it's constant ridiculous hyperbole? I admitted that my attempts at communication do not match your flawless prose, but I am not going to stoop to portraying failure to edit a typo to be "ridiculous hyperbole," or a failure to read or understand one paragraph to be evidence of literary incompetence on your part. Reign in the raging beast!
|
Well, it IS ridiculous hyperbole to sugggest a terrorist group could get 10 100megaton bombs. I accept your correction, but it is still hyperbole to suggest that my arbitrary 10 nukes (of the crude minimal yield variety) scenario could happen. A ridiculous hyperbole at that. Which was why I used it in the first place.
| and now you are pulling back to... |
You are confusing points that I have granted you for arguments sake with my actual position. From 1 to 100 nukes, all scenarios are equally improbable in my opinion. Terrorists don't have access to refined uranium or plutonium.
| You granted in your hypothetical that they obtained the uranium and had ten bombs. I am responding to that hypothetical - they got uranium, they made ten bombs, they exploded one or two or three of them in specific locations in D.C. and destroyed the buildings of the White House, The Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Pentagon and everyone (and every thing) inside all of them - together with a great deal more governmental infrastructure on Capitol Hill and across the Potomac! |
No, I said that neither one bomb, nor ten, would pose a threat to civilization, or even the orderly running of the US gov.
Although I did not mention the Internet, I have no idea what total destruction of the Pentagon would do to the Internet. If it is your contention that it would not affect it, just tell me where to look it up, and I will form an opinion!
|
While the internet wasn't initially intended to fill the role of a distributed communications network, it has certainly been adopted as such. RAND and DARPA were looking into technology that could be used for such an application at the time TCP/IP came about.
| Of course it would disrupt. Seriously disrupt! I did not say destroy, I said disrupt! to throw into disorder or turmoil, to interrupt to the extent of stopping, preventing normal continuance of, |
I disagree. It is part of the normal operation of the US government to ensure its continuing function in crisis. Is it going to be the day to day normal? No. But it will still be within the parameters we have set up.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/17/2008 : 23:27:22 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
| You portrayed USA as "badly disorganised and able only to direct military power toward obvious aggressors". What obvious aggressors? |
Any national identity that emerged after the initial terrorist attack, and was positively identified as as a country or geographical area responsible for the terrorist attack; and any nation not associated with the terrorists but mistakenly thinking that the US was too crippled to retaliate. thus engaging in a nuclear attack on the U.S.! I said...| We would be able to unleash nuclear hell times 1000 on ......whom? And......why? Because with stealth entry of the terrorists into the U.S., and total vaporization of themselves along with their targets, how could we blame a particular nation as the originator of the attack and proceed to vaporize them? |
...meaning that it would be exceedingly difficult to identify who to attack in retaliation for a terrorist strike! And we very probably would not and could not launch such a strike, nuclear or not, until we had positive identification of who the vaporized terrorists were associated with!
Aggressors such as Russia, China, or possibly a Arab consortium would become "obvious" if and when they might unleash nuclear missles against the U.S.! We most certainly would retaliate and a MAD scenario could easily ensue!Originally posted by bngbuck
As to how all of this would affect the Civilization of the World, that would depend on what followed in a period in which the entire US was badly disorganized and able only to direct military power toward obvious aggressors. |
1. "What followed" = Events after the terrorist attack - Positive identification of who the aggressive nation or specific area in any nation (as it was in Afghanistan following 9/11)......or
2. "Obvious aggressors"= The identified aggressors mentioned above or identifiable nations not associated with the terrorists wishing to take advantage of a weakened US - with nuclear missle strikes following the terrorist attack.| Especially in the light of the vapour-cloud that is left of any evidence of the identity of the perpetrators. |
Precisely! It would be extremely difficult to identify the aggressor, so probably no retaliation would take place unless A - a nation or portion of a nation was positively identified, or B - a "nuke club" nation attacked the US to take a mistakenly perceived advantage of a weakened U.S. I have no doubt that we would have and use our nuclear ability to respond to this kind of secondary attack from another nation!
The second possibility would have a high potential of turning into a MAD scenario resulting in true nuclear war. But I don't see it as very probable!
The first possibility could lead to MAD if the attacking terrorists were associated with a nation capable of both producing nukes and delivering them. I see this as highly unlikely, but possible!
But your statement was | Given the current state of American politics and its interference in the affairs of other countries, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off. |
and now you state| That's not what you said in the part I quoted. You said nothing about all out nuclear war in the part I addressed! |
The "part I (you) addressed" had to do with terrorists destroying most of Washington D.C. with one or more fission bombs.
So, am I then to assume from this that you feel that the rest of the world "would be better off" if we (the U.S.) suffered another 9/11-type attack, nuclear in nature, killing possibly hundreds of thousands (re. Hiroshima and Nagasaki); even though no world wide nuclear war ensued? That the deaths and maiming and poisoning of many thousands of Americans would be justified because of the Bush administration's totally failed and abysmally bad and wrong foreign policy?
| now that you have misrepresented my view |
Okay, you feel I have misrepresented your view. Give me your view as you want it represented! Your statement was:| Given the current state of American politics and its interference in the affairs of other countries, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off. |
Not sure the world would be worse off if what happened?
| You haven't done enough, obviously. |
I am neither a politician, a policy maker, or a governing official. I am but another citizen of this highly flawed country! I contribute heavily and do precinct work for the Democratic party. I, as an individual am open to your suggestions as to what more I can do to change the abominable politics of this nation, Doctor! Your suggestions, please!| One would have thought that 9/11 would teach you something, but oh-no... |
It taught me that we needed something far better than what we have had as government policy. Unfortunately, unlike you apparently are, I am not in a position to affect such government policy much except by voting and complaining!| And you are truly getting too senile to argue effectively on this board. |
Well, I appreciate that pleasantry, but I don't feel compelled to make comments about your age, gender, ethnicity, intelligence, or your qualifications or lack thereof to offer your opinions here! So I won't!| bngbuck, your scenario with ten(!) 100Megaton nuclear devices is so totally unrealistic that not even Hollywood would make any movies on it. |
Get your vital signs down a bit, Mabuse, that was a typographical error. I read Dude's recommended reading How to build a Nuclear Bomb, by Frank Barnaby, and this quote was taken from page 36, paragraph three: "A crude nuclear explosive designed and built by terrorists could well explode with a power equivilant to that of 100 tons of TNT." Simply because my mind, senile as it is, was working (creaking and groaning) on several different things at once, I inadvertently wrote "megatons" instead of "tons". That does not embarass me nearly as much as my not catching it when proofreading my post.
(Barnaby, by the way, is pretty damn concerned about the possibikity of terrorists obtaining WMD and using them on various targets in the US. His book is much more concerned with the potential possibility and effects of a terrorist attack than it is with the particualrs of how to build a fission bomb. Dude did his argument no favors in citing that particular book as substantiating his position!)
I apologize to you as I apologized to Dude. I realize that you never make mistakes, Dr. Mabuse, but I make a lot of them and in my terribly impaired old age, I find that I make more every day. So please forgive me and allow me a few more years to revel in the memories of what it was like to be thirty-something and without flaws or knowledge of ever having erred!!
Also, FYI, it was Dude that suggested a hypothetical ten fission bombs in terrorists hands! On 3/16, Dude posted.....| Does a nuke in the hands of terrorists, or 10 nukes, constitute a threat to our very civilization? |
The attendant is calling me now...I have to go back to my room and be locked in so I don't wander off! I will meditate on the sins of senility and the horrors of hyberbole until I doze off and hope to awaken to at least one more day in the sun before going gentle into that good night........ |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 03/17/2008 23:32:52 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 01:15:56 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Also, FYI, it was Dude that suggested a hypothetical ten fission bombs in terrorists hands! |
Ok, you will irritate me if you continue to mischaracterize what I am saying. One more time, in case you really didn't comprehend: No nuclear attack, by terrorists, on the US, of any scale poses a threat to civilization.
I did not suggest a hypothetical ten fission bombs in terrorist hands. I asked how a nuke, or ten, could destroy civilization. You decided to take that and run with it, failing in every way to answer my question and instead engage in a game of hyporbole and unfounded speculation.
| Barnaby, by the way, is pretty damn concerned about the possibikity of terrorists obtaining WMD and using them on various targets in the US. His book is much more concerned with the potential possibility and effects of a terrorist attack than it is with the particualrs of how to build a fission bomb. Dude did his argument no favors in citing that particular book as substantiating his position! |
His book was published in Feb 2004, indicating he wrote in in 2003 or before. So it is at least 5 years old. His fears seem to have not become reality. In 2002/2003 I may have been on the bandwagon with you and Frank, but no longer. The threat of terrorists with nuclear weapons has been over exaggerated, and it seems to me as if they have a smaller and smaller chance of obtaining refined uranium every day.
I begin to suspect that they don't really want to engage in nuclear terrorism. One nuke set off somewhere (anywhere really) by terrorists will set the entire world against them. Every organization labeled as "terrorist" by the US/Israel/UK/German intelligence agencies would be exterminated, and oh-fucking-well if they weren't specifically responsible, and to bad for you if you are a civilian in close proximity to them.
International law enforcement efforts seem to be degrading the ability of terrorist groups to function lately as well. We've gone from the well organized attack on NYC, to smaller bombings in Europe, to some retards setting themselves on fire at an airport...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 05:19:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Mab, your "I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off.
" did come AFTER bng's little absurd scenario rant. I also thought you were commenting on his post-US-apocalypse idea, where a terrorist group manages to invent, deploy, and activate 10 doomsday 100megaton boosted thermonuclear devices on US soil.
|
That was obviously an error on my part. His multiple 100 Megaton attack was so ludicrous I didn't realise he actually meant it would escalate to a Global exchange as anything but the joke it was.
Maybe I should have thought through my response a bit more carefully.
Multiple 100MT detonations would mean an unacceptable loss of life. Even a fizzled Uranium bomb would produce an unacceptable loss of life. But bngbuck doesn't seem to understand that it is unrealistic of him to expect that people won't shove back if they are pushed around too much. At some point, as 9/11 should have taught the American public, people will say enough is enough and get back what ever way they can.
Dude, I think you are over-estimating the effect a crashed American economy will have on the World Economy. When the American dollar is worth only the paper it's printed on, commerce will change currency to Euro, Sterling Pound, Yen, or Chinese Yuan.
In fact, not long ago I heard on economy news that the fixed exchange rate between Yuan and US Dollar was the only thing preventing a major dive on the value of the dollar.
Considering how the Chinese economy is booming, and yesterday's news of the bank crises in America, it's only a matter of time anyway.
I said: "Given the current state of American politics and its interference in the affairs of other countries, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be worse off."
bngbuck in his delusional state interpreted this as "to express a wish for MAD or it's equivilant for the U.S."
My wish is for America to stop strong arming countries around the world and start helping them instead. I want to see a united humanity. I don't condone acts of terrorism, even if I can understand the rationalisations behind them. The neo-con's have manoeuvred America into a position of economic vulnerability. Opposing forces may not have to resort to nuclear strikes to see their goals accomplished.
However, I much prefer to see America rise to become a responsible member of the Global Community. You have the strenth to accomplish more good for humanity than Sweden does, simply because of the difference in size of our respective countries.
Your constitution dictates a secular government. I think if you can return to that, a lot of misery could be avoided.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 12:25:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dr. Mabuse.....
| You portrayed USA as "badly disorganised and able only to direct military power toward obvious aggressors". What obvious aggressors? |
Any national identity that emerged after the initial terrorist attack, and was positively identified as as a country or geographical area responsible for the terrorist attack; and any nation not associated with the terrorists but mistakenly thinking that the US was too crippled to retaliate. thus engaging in a nuclear attack on the U.S.! |
I would have thought that you knew more about American nuclear defence strategies than I. You actually lived through the entire cold war... If any of us have taken the Kool-Aid, it is you who've been taking what the fear-mongers have been serving.
Why would NORAD or any other of the many command centres that scan for incoming nuclear missiles be targeted by terrorist cells who's main goal is to cripple the American economy and politics and spread as much fear as possible in the general public?
Isn't NORAD supposed to be able to withstand a nuclear strike? Especially against a fizzling home-made uranium bomb.
Given the decentralised detection and operation of the nuclear capabilities, ten low yield nukes, even if hitting only military targets, wouldn't cripple Americas ability to launch a counter attack.
If I know this, why shouldn't military commanders in China or Russia understand idiocy of a follow-up attack?
| Aggressors such as Russia, China, or possibly a Arab consortium would become "obvious" if and when they might unleash nuclear missles against the U.S.! We most certainly would retaliate and a MAD scenario could easily ensue! |
So the Evil Red Menace of Commie Russia and Commie China is still very much in play, in your mind?
Here's a news flash for you: The Cold War ended twenty years ago.
You might want to rent the movie "Blast from the Past".
Originally posted by bngbuck
As to how all of this would affect the Civilization of the World, that would depend on what followed in a period in which the entire US was badly disorganized and able only to direct military power toward obvious aggressors. |
1. "What followed" = Events after the terrorist attack - Positive identification of who the aggressive nation or specific area in any nation (as it was in Afghanistan following 9/11)......or |
Hehe... It didn't stop the American President from ordering the invasion of Iraq.
By the way, and this might seem horribly callous to you, but 100'000 dead Americans from a nuclear strike doesn't seem much more horrible that 100'000+ Iraqi civilian casualties from the American invasion. Or perhaps you think one American life is worth 20 Iraqi lives?
| 2. "Obvious aggressors"= The identified aggressors mentioned above or identifiable nations not associated with the terrorists wishing to take advantage of a weakened US - with nuclear missle strikes following the terrorist attack. |
As I've said already, a scenario that requires a Russian or Chinese president being just as stupid as your current sitting president. (How's that for an paradox irony?)
| So, am I then to assume from this that you feel that the rest of the world "would be better off" if we (the U.S.) suffered another 9/11-type attack, nuclear in nature, killing possibly hundreds of thousands (re. Hiroshima and Nagasaki); even though no world wide nuclear war ensued? That the deaths and maiming and poisoning of many thousands of Americans would be justified because of the Bush administration's totally failed and abysmally bad and wrong foreign policy? |
To make this clear to you: USA being unable to bully nations around like it has been doing (destabilising the Middle East for example, or Central America) is what would make the rest of the world better off. How that is accomplished is a completely different matter. I'd rather see a major political change in USA. If else, an economic collapse may do the trick. A disabled military perhaps: without an economy to support the military, it would not last long. A nuke (or several) in USA would be regrettable but unsurprising considering the amount of hatred your country have inspired, especially in the Middle East.
As for American casualties from a nuclear strike... I've addressed that already. American military is responsible for hundreds of thousand civilians world wide since Korea. Is tit-for-tat really so unfair to you?
| One would have thought that 9/11 would teach you something, but oh-no... |
It taught me that we needed something far better than what we have had as government policy. |
Sorry for being unclear. I meant "teach the American public something". Somehow I got the impression that you were a part of the problem, not the solution. Perhaps it's the fear-mongering Kool-Aid you drank that made me think that.
| Unfortunately, unlike you apparently are, I am not in a position to affect such government policy much except by voting and complaining! |
I'm really glad you do work for bettering your country. Unlike the 3/4 of voters (or should have been voters) that are idiots, morons, or too ignorant for the own good health.
| And you are truly getting too senile to argue effectively on this board. |
Well, I appreciate that pleasantry, but I don't feel compelled to make comments about your age, gender, ethnicity, intelligence, or your qualifications or lack thereof to offer your opinions here! |
But you have no problem calling me "callous, naive, arrogant, and totally unrealistic" and "pathological lack of even a shred of human compassion astounds me!" based on your presumption of what I meant. Especially when you realise how your mega- mistake blew your scenario way out of proportion.
You know what? It doesn't strike me as sincere considering what you've already said.
I apologize to you as I apologized to Dude. |
Apology tentatively accepted.
| I realize that you never make mistakes, Dr. Mabuse, but I make a lot of them and in my terribly impaired old age, I find that I make more every day. |
Suddenly your apology doesn't seem sincere.
| So please forgive me and allow me a few more years... <snip> |
Even less so.
(to myself: why I bother?  )
Edited: spelling and strike-outs. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 03/18/2008 12:34:10 |
|
|
|
Baz
New Member
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 18:19:59 [Permalink]
|
Hey gang, I'm new to the joint so bear with me! This post has most certainly been an interesting read, with too many points for me to directly quote. So I'll just put my 2 cents in about various issues raised.
Islamic Militism and Civilization- They may be destructive, they may be disruptive, and they may well kill many, many more people; but I have to side with those who are far more worried about the extremist Christian types...FAR more worried.
Terrorists Building or Obtaining Nukes- I'm far more worried about them obtaining a weapon than building one. Obtaining the requisite amounts of fissile material would be very problematic. There may well be those of an "militant Islamic" bent who could design a HEU gun type weapon (or even an implosion design), but from what I've read the engineering and machining wouldn't be as easy as just slamming two chunks of HEU together.
"Suitcase" Nukes- While a bit of a misnomer, according to the Nuclear Weapons Archive, there are or were at least a few weapons small enough to be man portable in the US inventory (and some designed to be so), The Mk-9/T-4, the W-45 and others for examples http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html I'd speculate that at least the Soviets/Russians would have developed weapons this small at some point (that said, the various reports that have come out since the end of the Cold War about how many and what uses any such weapons the Russkies developed seem to be a bit questionable...though not entirely dismissible)
The N. Korean Test- All the sources I've seen suggest the explosion was between 400 tons-2 KT, though most likely under 1 KT. While we can't rule out a ruse using some sort of modern HE compound, in my less-than-expert-opinion such a chemical based explosion would be extremely difficult to achieve. I'm sure N. Korea was disappointed with the results, but I'm of the opinion they did succesfully detonate a fission weapon. |
| Edited by - Baz on 03/18/2008 18:20:50 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 19:13:50 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Taken with the whole of that post, it seemed as if you were postulating a US reponse (with nukes) that would kick off a larger nuclear exchange with some other nuclear power (Russia or China). |
I was! If terrorist identification with a major nuclear power was firmly established; or Russia or China elected to attack what they saw as a temporarily weakened US, unable to deliver MAD retaliation!
| I don't disagree with your clarification though. Our response would have to be measured and targeted only to verifiably respobsible parties. |
Great neoterism, Dude! Definition: A possible response from a postal box on a stick!
At the urging of you and Mabuse, I am re-aligning both my conjugate and transverse axes to attempt a better congruence with my unforunate superannuation.
I genuinely appreciate your somewhat conciliatory tone. Epithets are as much fun for me as for you, but they really don't add much to understanding, irrespective of what direction they are flying! My intentions in each paragraph above:
Paragraph 1. Simply a re-statement of my position as posted earlier
Paragraph 2. Due to the recent proliferation of typographical errors and misreadings, this is intended as a sly dig at your completely inadvertant typo "respobsible" which I fully recognize as unintentional!
Paragraph 3. As complete a totally obfuscated response that I can muster to various references of "hyperbole" and "senility" that have zipped by my ancient ears recently!
Paragraph 4. I mean it!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 19:40:43 [Permalink]
|
| Accidently hit post button. New post coming up! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 03/18/2008 19:47:25 |
|
|
|
Baz
New Member
USA
4 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 19:46:05 [Permalink]
|
Cool, I've stayed out of the line of fire! So far  (I'll work my way up to individually pissing folks off, bear with me) |
| Edited by - Baz on 03/18/2008 19:47:31 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 19:48:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Baz
Cool, I've stayed out of the line of fire! So far
|
Oh, and welcome to SFN, Baz... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 19:49:46 [Permalink]
|
bng said:Paragraph 2. Due to the recent proliferation of typographical errors and misreadings, this is intended as a sly dig at your completely inadvertant typo "respobsible" which I fully recognize as unintentional!
|
As you should well know, B is next to the N on QWERTY keyboards.
Sue me for not hitting spellcheck! At least my typo didn't radically alter the intent of my sentence....
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2008 : 19:58:26 [Permalink]
|
Baz said:
| While we can't rule out a ruse using some sort of modern HE compound, in my less-than-expert-opinion such a chemical based explosion would be extremely difficult to achieve. |
Really?
Doesn't look all that difficult.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"Muslim jihadists"
