Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 176 of 241 (446175)
01-05-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 1:21 AM


Stop Ignoring Questions
quote:
FIX YOUR EFFING LINKS.
AND ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.
Perhaps, dear immature infant, if you read them you'd learn something.
Furthermore, why should I answer anything you ask when you have gone out of your way to ignore virtually every question I have asked you?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:21 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 4:34 AM obvious Child has replied
 Message 188 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 6:05 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 180 of 241 (446274)
01-05-2008 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 4:34 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
This is pointless. None of my key points have even been acknowledged. Until they do, this is pointless.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 4:34 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 181 of 241 (446276)
01-05-2008 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by jar
01-05-2008 11:00 AM


Re: reality check.
quote:
Yet another strawman. Stop misrepresenting my position.
Can you ever debate honestly?
It's amazing how quickly you people turn on people who don't share a your narrow views. You claimed that our systems of hair trigger have prevented nuclear war, that they 'worked.' That is simply false as the Russians and the US disobeyed standard procedure and ignored these systems numerous times when they would have made us launch nuclear attacks, I've already cited numerous occasions where this happened. Therefore, unless I am mistaken, you are against the removal of hair trigger. Until you clarify, I can only assume that you believe having weapons on hair trigger alert is safer then not having any weapons period.
Hence why I asked you to clarify that position as it appears to be completely insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 11:00 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 2:47 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 183 of 241 (446289)
01-05-2008 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by jar
01-05-2008 2:47 PM


Re: reality check.
Then what is your position then?
You stated in post 166 this:
quote:
The systems worked and the Ruskies did not launch.
End of case.
But the systems DID not work, what worked was the ethics and logic of the various commanding officers who realized it was a computer glitch or not a incoming missile (Mucat 1985 for example). The system of procedures and computers dictated a launch. And even more frightening, there are several instances where this happened on the US side as well.
It's not the end of case. Now seeing how you are not agreeing with me for a removal of hair trigger and seemingly fighting that argument every step, how am I not to reasonably assume you are not for hair trigger alert?
I realize you people do not like being wrong, but think about the situation!
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 2:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 3:02 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 185 of 241 (446298)
01-05-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by jar
01-05-2008 3:02 PM


Re: reality check.
quote:
My position is that we identify where possible anyone who believes in End Time prophecy and try to make sure that they are not in a position of authority.
That is your old position. We are not discussing that. I'm talking about what you said in post 166. But let's regress, and I agree, we shouldn't be electing those people, but that's very difficult to figure out who's faking, who's hiding it and who's real about it, as opposed to simply taking away their toys. A 5 year old can cause some damage. A 5 year old with a hammer can cause a lot more. Therefore we take away their hammer.
quote:
As to nuclear weapons, I think they are pretty much worthless as a Nation State resource.
For the most part. North Korea would be a exception, but you're more or less correct.
quote:
As to being wrong, destroying or decentralizing nuclear weapons is a separate issue to determining the sanity of those in authority.
But isn't the whole goal to reduce or mitigate overall threats to the world? And given the End Times prophecy and your belief on self fulfillment, wouldn't nukes play a part in bringing it about for such a believer? So, what kind of damage could a in power end times believer do without weapons of mass destruction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 3:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 3:20 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 187 of 241 (446308)
01-05-2008 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by jar
01-05-2008 3:20 PM


Re: reality check.
quote:
Use other resources such as chemical, biological, economic or conventional weapons.
Alright, short of biological and a full reliance of big blu-s, the damage the rest can do just pales in comparison. Plus the US has entered into a binding chemical weapons convention, and while the biological weapons convention seriously needs work, it's a start. I realize this example is a cliche, but bear with me. George Lucas's Star wars character of Senator Palpatine who eventually seized power was in the lore, a public character very different from who he turned out to be. He just proves that is may be impossible or extremely difficult to determine who is a threat. Dubya himself was a very different character (aside from financially) as a governor then as a president.
And seeing how the American public is generally a bunch of idiots as evident by the past 2 election's extremely poor choices in candidates, even from the caucuses, it seems evident that we are unable to determine who is such a shadow threat. Therefore, as your solution seems rather unrealistic especially in the context of how Americans view their political system (severe lack of critical thinking), we should therefore rely on something else, such as a removal of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons? It's extremely difficult to cause world wide damage with just conventional weapons.
And economic weapons are usually tempered by opposing factions, even today we see this with China and Russia preventing serious sanctions on Iran.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by jar, posted 01-05-2008 3:20 PM jar has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 189 of 241 (446350)
01-05-2008 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 6:05 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
Okay, Dubya's cheerleader, what is your plan?
Since you are obviously against the removal of hair trigger weapons, what is your realistic plan? Or do you just bitch and have no solutions?
And seeing how you believe the shield will work, why is that every test we conduct is pre-scheduled and hardly represents anything close to a real flight plan from China, NK or Russia?
Plus since you believe the shield is so worthwhile, could you care to explain how it will deal with a thousand mylar balloons?
How do you argue without understanding the subject? Furthermore, do you believe you are even remotely acting like an adult?
A faulty computer chip almost ended the world as we know it and you're against going virtual?
Care to explain your seemingly INSANE position?
And getting back to the crazy religious whackjob, wouldn't REMOVING weapons from active and ready status decrease the damage they could do?
And that's just TWO posts
You won't answer questions for a simple reason: you're here to discuss this subject with yourself. And you didn't ask those questions, thus you won't answer them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 6:05 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 9:23 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 192 of 241 (447300)
01-08-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
quote:
I want to put this "issue" of unanswered questions to rest.
It's dragged on long enough.
Indeed it has dragged on. Furthermore, the long list of issues that I've made that have been deliberately ignored is just as long.
There is no point in listing them all when you refuse to even address a tiny portion.
If a specific handle has a obvious problem answering one question, it is safe to assume that the handle will have a problem answering many questions. Furthermore, numerous deliberate incidents of avoiding questions can only conclude, specifically after such handle has been directly asked to answer specific questions, that such a handle will outright refuse or pretend such questions do not exist. Therefore, on the basis of a long thread of deliberate acts to avoid answering often very simple questions, that it is futile to even bother to fulfill a request.
I do find it amusing that you reported me for doing what you wanted me to do.
Reporting such things to mods is like running to the teacher because someone pushed you down.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 9:23 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by molbiogirl, posted 01-08-2008 10:16 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 194 of 241 (447565)
01-09-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by molbiogirl
01-08-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
I'm not stupid.
I see how you operate. I'm not falling for that trick.
If you cannot answer a single simple question, you will not answer complex questions. Furthermore, as I cited before, in this thread, countless acts of deliberate avoiding even to the point of pretending the questions simply didn't exist are rampant on your part.
This threads holds no value when your handle refuses to answer the most basic of simple questions.
Argue with yourself.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by molbiogirl, posted 01-08-2008 10:16 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by molbiogirl, posted 01-09-2008 8:13 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 196 of 241 (447607)
01-10-2008 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by molbiogirl
01-09-2008 8:13 PM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
*sigh*
You can regurgitate all you want, you haven't shown you understand as evident by a one of the questions you again have ignored:
Why have all of the tests been planned and have no resemblance to an actual flight path from a potential enemy?
You don't understand why this is so central to why Missile Defense is complete bull****.
There's no point in arguing with a dictionary that does not undergo critical thinking.
And despite your claims of "answering" questions, it's obvious you haven't even begun, largely because you don't understand the subject.
For instance, you never answered what was your real plan, you never answered how hair trigger was safer then not-hair trigger, and you never argued how missile defense could easily be confused by cheap measures.
I realize this futile, but whatever. Say North Korea launched a ICBM (not likely, there are easier, more practical ways of nuking us). In that ICBM is one warhead. That warhead is encased in a mylar balloon. The ICBM also carries at least several dozen mylar balloons. These balloons are relatively cheap. Our systems cannot tell which of the balloons has a weapon as opposed to which does not. Our 100 interceptors, spread across the world are instantly overwhelmed. Game over.
Explain to me how TBMs are threats to the homeland. Hahahaha. And what exactly are we going to be shooting down with a Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser? In case you don't know, MRVs and single warheads aren't exactly going to land where you think they are going to land. And have you even bothered to check the Arrow's maximum range?
This is almost comical. And I thought that Republicans were one of the few people who had absolutely no military knowledge....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by molbiogirl, posted 01-09-2008 8:13 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by molbiogirl, posted 01-10-2008 4:36 AM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 199 of 241 (447831)
01-11-2008 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by molbiogirl
01-10-2008 4:36 AM


Re: Stop Ignoring Questions
quote:
If I answer the questions in your latest post and those in Message 174, will you agree to stop with the "you never answer questions" silliness?
That's just the tip if the iceberg. And after your last asinine filled post, I'm not even sure I want you to answer. I'm long past the stage of anger, this is just comedy. Do you know just how many MTHELs we would need to defend the major population centers of the US? It's at least a couple thousand. And they are worthless if the weapon is air bursted.
quote:
And, in the future, if you feel I have left a question unanswered, will you do me the courtesy of mentioning it immediately?
I did. But I don't care anymore. Don't answer whatever you don't want to. It's your life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by molbiogirl, posted 01-10-2008 4:36 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by molbiogirl, posted 01-11-2008 3:18 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 209 of 241 (448223)
01-12-2008 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by molbiogirl
01-11-2008 2:43 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Please stop distorting my posts.
I never claimed that Russia was an immediate threat. What I argued with pre-delegation is that based on the history of the US military and US leadership in not taking chances with the nuclear arsenal. Then I gave a senario which would eliminate the US's capacity to respond. I did not say that was likely, only possible.
Frankly speaking, the US doesn't change rapidly in some departments and there are plenty of generals who still believe Russia is an threat.
And you did not answer the questions as I noted in my earlier posts. Please see the post as to my future requirements for your answering.
Here's what I'm arguing so you can stop distorting it.
1) Get off Hair trigger nuclear alert
2) Go to virtual arsenals, where the weapons are implosion type and all of the shaped charges are destroyed, leaving only the machines to make them
3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge
4) Missile shield is a waste of money as it is cheap to bypass.
On #4, we can barely afford an financial attrition war with Bin Laden. Trying to do so with Iran and North Korea at the same time is not acceptable.
Those alone will make the future of mankind safer. I have yet to see a good argument as for why hair trigger is a good idea in today's world and have been constantly ignored when asked for such a reason. Furthermore, I'd like some answers as to how having fewer nukes is less safe.
Now, I agree with preventing religious crazies from getting into office, but can someone explain how we are to figure out who is, who is not and who is hiding it? Jar never took a shot at that. I'd like to see someone else try.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by molbiogirl, posted 01-11-2008 2:43 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by molbiogirl, posted 01-12-2008 5:19 PM obvious Child has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 210 of 241 (448224)
01-12-2008 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Mespo
01-11-2008 2:15 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
quote:
There isn't going to be a nuclear exchange with Russia or any other nuclear power in the foreseeable future. Period!
Deliberate? No. Accidental? Possibly. There have been at least 20 incidents where an glitch, human error, or just lack of being informed almost lead to an nuclear exchange. Having weapons on hair trigger is the primary cause of this. Getting off of hair trigger, as I noted very early on will make the planet much safer. The threat of deliberate exchange is not a problem here. The threat of accidental exchange is. That is the discussion here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Mespo, posted 01-11-2008 2:15 PM Mespo has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 211 of 241 (448226)
01-12-2008 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Mespo
01-11-2008 3:17 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
quote:
"Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink". Bad drinking water will kill people much faster than any pandemic imaginable.
This can be solved though. At least a couple companies are working on new types of filter or UV powered disinfection kits that run for pretty cheap. Furthermore, if countries lived up to their agreements for aid of .7 of GDP, construction of basic municipal water services that clean water and have areas for where people can go to get clean water would easily be built.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Mespo, posted 01-11-2008 3:17 PM Mespo has not replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 213 of 241 (448259)
01-12-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by molbiogirl
01-12-2008 5:19 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
This is comical. You clearly don't understand the subjects here. All you are asking for is an encyclopedia fight. That's stupid. There is no value in that at all. I see absolutely no critical thinking in your posts.
And you are again distorting what I stated. I never said that Russia was an immediate threat. My post you cited clearly shows that. Only that it is a possible threat and on top of that, Russia was just a tool to show that pre-delegation likely still exists as their raw capabilities are still present, atrophied yes, but still present. I never, repeat, never stated that Russia was indeed going to nuke us. You made that argument, not I. Russia was merely an example to explain why predelegation is likely still around. Please start reading between the lines.
quote:
It makes a warped kind of sense that you chose Russia as your boogeyman. After all, your fantasies involve SLBMs and ICBMs and hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons. Nobody else quite fits the bill, now do they?
Can you define what an literary tool means? Please, could you? And it would take several thousand warheads, which actually constitutes a few hundred or so missiles to cause enough fear to support predelegation. Russia still has many of these weapons. Again, to make it absolutely clear and prevent you from distorting things, I never meant that Russia will nuke us in a fashion that renders succession inoperable, merely that it has the capabilities to do so.
quote:
Any reasonable discussion of "possibility" needs to include likelihood.
Realists work on capabilities. Likelihood has the problem of trying to judge intentions. Hence why Russia and China are very annoyed with the US shield plan. The immediate likelihood of the US using it against them is low, however the capabilities of it mean it could be used against them. It is extremely difficult to judge intentions, hence why realists work on what can be done, not what may be done.
quote:
And that, Obvious, is a question YOU have refused to answer.
I see no reason why I have to when it is obviously clear I work from a realists point of view. True, it has been wrong some times in the case of the Ukraine and other nuclear armed former Soviet states, but it is still an practical approach to life. You made the intention that Russia will nuke is. I was entirely arguing from day one what Russia is capable of.
I see you are still unwilling to discuss hair trigger
quote:
Please provide cites (that we can read -- not your previous pseudo-cites to Amazon) that a virtual arsenal involves dismantling all nuclear weapons and destroying all the charges.
Again, encyclopedia wars are stupid. Do you actually have a response to why destruction of the shaped charges is an bad idea? I enjoy discussions that revolve around discussing ideas. Not throwing encyclopedias at each other. If you do not wish to discuss the issue of how the removal of shaped charges in a virtual arsenal system can make life safer, not only in reducing the threat of terrorists stealing weapons but also in producing good accounting for weapons, as you yourself state is a good idea.
quote:
And I'd like to know how you suggest we destroy all the technical journals that have been printed and distributed in worldwide the last 60 years.
I never suggested that we do that. What I'm suggesting is big powers reduce down to knowledge and machinery. A single nuke, while dangerous is not that big of a threat compared to thousands of nukes on hair trigger. Furthermore, the law of large numbers argues in this context that more nukes = more threat of theft = more nuclear terrorism. And since we'll retain all our knowledge and capacity to build, the threat of the MAD still exists. Not only is this safer, it's cheaper to maintain MAD.
quote:
Cites.
Note: Please address the specific systems I mentioned. And no more woefully out of date links, 'kay? Within the last 5 years will do nicely.
I already addressed this. A single missile carrying mylar balloons can easily confuse the interceptors. The only way around this is to use a nuclear interceptor, which was abandoned during the 60s and 70s as it completely blinds radar to more incoming missiles. Furthermore, the current targets of the missile shield are not going to use a ICBM to hit us for a number of reasons. Their missiles are extremely inaccurate. Second, we'll be instantly able to figure out who hit us. And third, trying to miniaturize a warhead to fit on a warhead is not easy. The Israelis took years to figure out how to make a large yield fit on a harpoon and a few more years to make a fitting that would work. It's no coincidence that this occurred at the same time Iran started getting missiles and the purchase of German built Dolphin attack subs. A state like NK or Iran is going to have an extremely hard time doing this. Furthermore, a key question destroys your argument.
If the missile shield was so successful, we would have had a unplanned launch using a flight plan similar to one from our potential enemies. You never addressed this.
Yes that post does dictate the requirements, or more accurately, that I don't care.
quote:
C'mon. You can do better than a creo, can't you?
What is it? You don't want to do the work?
Not when I already understand this subject.
Point is, if my arguments were false, you would have been able to refute them. Look up anything I've said in this post. Try prove it wrong.
This does bring up a good question. How would the missile shield deal with the following senario:
A enemy launches a nuke, but prematurely explodes it in space, resulting in a huge amount of radiation and static, thereby rendering the radar systems our interceptors require useless. Then they launch a second missile which is virtually free to destroy anything.
And I already addressed your specific systems. Most of them are rendered useless by airbursting. Secondly, the sheer number we'd need to cover a single metropolitan is amazingly large. Third, the range on all of them except the arrow system is pathetic, as are their tracking systems. A incoming missile is going to traveling at massive speeds, well more then a Scud or a short ground to ground missile.
If you could perhaps, actually address any of these points with reasoned arguments of your own, that would be appreciated.
I have yet to see a good argument as for why hair trigger is a good idea in today's world and have been constantly ignored when asked for such a reason. Furthermore, I'd like some answers as to how having fewer nukes is less safe.
I think your biggest problem in this thread is that you assume people cannot come to certain conclusions on their own or take existing ideas and possibly make them better or study something and find out its flaws. You keep harping about citations but you can't address arguments on your own. So what if there is no citation? Does that make an argument false? No.
If you think I'm wrong, make an argument that shows why my arguments are not true. I've done that for you, why can't you do that for me?
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by molbiogirl, posted 01-12-2008 5:19 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by purpledawn, posted 01-12-2008 7:48 PM obvious Child has replied
 Message 216 by molbiogirl, posted 01-13-2008 6:01 AM obvious Child has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024