Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 6:40 PM
35 online now:
Tangle, Tanypteryx (2 members, 33 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,193 Year: 5,230/19,786 Month: 1,352/873 Week: 248/460 Day: 64/29 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Author Topic:   Global Futurism. A discussion of impending issues
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2225 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 yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 212 of 241 (448239)
01-12-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by obvious Child
01-12-2008 4:09 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
I never claimed that Russia was an immediate threat.

You began discussing Russia in Message 151.

In each of your subsequent posts, your nightmare scenarios involved Russia. And only Russia.

Message 154. Message 156. Message 160. Message 161. Message 163. Message 166.
Message 169. Message 170. Message 171.
Message 174. Message 183.

After Message 183, you stopped debating.

You mentioned, only in passing, North Korea and NSAs. And only after I brought them up.

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?

Then I gave a senario (sic) which would eliminate the US's capacity to respond. I did not say that was likely, only possible.

It is possible that quantum tunneling will allow me to walk thru a wall. It's not likely, but it's possible.

Any reasonable discussion of "possibility" needs to include likelihood. Which is why I have asked (repeatedly!) that you provide cites re: the likelihood of Russia launching an all out attack on the U.S.

And that, Obvious, is a question YOU have refused to answer.

So let me ask you again: What is the likelihood of Russia launching an all out attack on the U.S.?

Do not simply offer your opinion. Provide cites.

And do not provide pseudo-cites to Amazon.

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

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.

3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge

Again. Cites.

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.

4) Missile shield is a waste of money as it is cheap to bypass.

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 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.

It's simple really. When a real threat is present, a real defense is necessary.

Furthermore, I'd like some answers as to how having fewer nukes is less safe.

Your "virtual arsenal" is really bad sci fi. Your premise is so far fetched that it's laughable!

Allow me to offer an analogy: I'd like someone to show me that fewer cars is less healthy for the planet.

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.

You mean this requirement? Message 199.

Don't answer whatever you don't want to.

Or this one? Message 192.

There is no point in listing them all when you refuse to even address a tiny portion.

As I pointed out earlier, your dodge is nearly word-for-word identical to one Rat offered in another thread.

Word. For. Word.

Why should I bother, you then would only go on to explain how those people are not well understood, or some bullshit like that.

From Rat, Message 82.

Sound familiar?

There is no point in listing them all when you refuse to even address a tiny portion.

Message 192.

C'mon. You can do better than a creo, can't you?

What is it? You don't want to do the work?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 4:09 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 6:54 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2225 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 responded

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

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1567 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 214 of 241 (448273)
01-12-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by obvious Child
01-12-2008 6:54 PM


Virtual Arsenal
quote:
This is comical.
Yes it is, but you're not the only victim. It's kinda like quicksand.

quote:
'm going to explain how a implosion weapon functions. A implosion weapon worked by taking a small amount of plutonium, and placing curved shaped explosives around it. When the charges explode, they force the plutonium to implode, resulting in a explosion. Now, if you disassembled (i already mentioned this, you just pretended it didn't exist) these weapons and destroyed the shaped charges, they'd have to steal the milling machines to make them. Good luck with that. ONE slight flaw, less then a hair will cause the weapon to fail. If they steal everything except for the charges (since none would exist) they'd have to make it themselves. Without Russian help, it's almost certain they'd give up and make a dirty bomb.

So the idea behind the virtual arsenal is that to attack they wouldn't be building the weapons until war was declared? So countries without the equipment also wouldn't be able to buy the weapons intact. Is that right? I was a bit fuzzy on that part or I've got it all wrong. :)

It has been a bit difficult following this...discussion. I do realize that your mention of Russia was for discussion purposes only, not that you feel attack is imminent.

ABE: I missed Message 209.

Obvious Child writes:

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.

I think this answers my question. I'm sorta on the right track.

Edited by purpledawn, : Added paragraph


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 6:54 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 2:37 AM purpledawn has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 215 of 241 (448351)
01-13-2008 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by purpledawn
01-12-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Virtual Arsenal
quote:
So the idea behind the virtual arsenal is that to attack they wouldn't be building the weapons until war was declared?

No. The idea behind a virtual arsenal revolves around an few ideas. Firstly, without weapons ready to go, no nation can mount an first strike attack. Secondly, without assembled weapons, the threat of terrorists stealing them and using them is rather low depending on how far one takes virtual. In the case of just mere disassembly, the threat is still present, in the case where we destroy key components, or lock them up like Fort Knox, much safer and the ultimate anti-theft is down to machinery, tools and knowledge. You can't steal what does not exist. Third, the threat of MAD still exists as modern nations can build weapons relatively quickly. Japan can make an nuclear weapon system in less then 6 months, as they have the missile technology, nuclear technology and available machinery. The great thing about virtual is that the costs are low, MAD still exists and terror theft is low not to mention de-escalation of tensions. I can't see how this is an bad thing, aside from an alien invasion. But let's not go there.
First of all you have to remember that Nukes are relatively useless in war. The only reason one would rebuild them from a state of virtual arsenal to real is if they got nuked. And with an good global accounting system, and an stronger IAEA, any nation that is reconstituting its weapons program will be quickly detected and measures taken against it. It's not like you can take the parts from hundreds of nukes and make them all operation in a day.

And I forgot about this, one major reason that big powers should be pushing for global virtual arsenals is because it makes their conventional militaries hegemonic. We all saw how Iraq's military was crushed in Desert Storm. Now imagine that forever. I don't agree that should be a reason to do it, but it's out there.

quote:
So countries without the equipment also wouldn't be able to buy the weapons intact.

That too. Without actual weapons in existence, a nation who wants a nuke would have to do what Iran or Pakistan did. And they'd be noticed assuming we could get the nuclear export groups to actually agree to more draconian and stricter export conditions. You can't buy an weapon that doesn't exist and even if you could buy one disassembled, if Russia and the US destroyed the shaped charges necessary for a implosion weapon to function, all states would have would be dirty bombs, remember you cannot make an gun type nuclear weapon with plutonium. The sheer level of sophistication in a shaped charge for a modern implosion bomb is beyond most people's comprehension. If an single charge is off by less then 1/10th of a millimeter, the weapon will not work and you need several of these charges. There is a reason every developing nation that builds its first nuke does so in the gun type.

quote:
It has been a bit difficult following this...discussion. I do realize that your mention of Russia was for discussion purposes only, not that you feel attack is imminent.

This discussion is beyond convoluted. Thanks for realizing that Russia was just a tool for discussion, not an actual nuclear threat. Now Russia is the context of the energy markets is a threat, but that's for a different thread.

And if we only did one thing to help save the future of mankind, it would be to get off hair trigger. Currently both the US and Russia are still on hair trigger but aimed at the ocean. It doesn't take a nuclear scientist to figure out that re-targeting won't take more then a few seconds.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by purpledawn, posted 01-12-2008 7:48 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2008 11:12 AM obvious Child has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 216 of 241 (448366)
01-13-2008 6:01 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by obvious Child
01-12-2008 6:54 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
All you are asking for is an encyclopedia fight.

I am asking for supporting evidence. Standard operating procedure.

Forgive me if I don't accord your opinion the same respect as that of a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Q: Can you define what an literary tool means?

A: Obvious child.

Russia was merely an example to explain why predelegation is likely still around.

The Brookings Institute disagrees.

Realists work on capabilities. Likelihood has the problem of trying to judge intentions.

Dozens of think tanks disagree. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations.

A Nuclear Posture for Today
Foreign Affairs
January/February 2005
Vol 84, Number 1

The forces made up of nuclear-armed submarines, long-range bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles built by the Soviets during the Cold War are declining dramatically in both numbers and quality. Within a decade, experts predict, Russia will have a nuclear arsenal just one-tenth the size of the Soviet Union's at the peak of the superpower rivalry, because of arms control treaties, looming obsolescence and Russia's economic depression.

Obvious writes:

The immediate likelihood of the US using it against them is low, however the capabilities of it mean it could be used against them.

A missile shield is a defensive, not offensive, system. It is not used "against" anybody.

I see no reason why I have to when it is obviously clear I work from a realists point of view.

Ah. Not only do you refuse to provide evidence, you refuse to answer questions.

I see you are still unwilling to discuss hair trigger.

Nope.

From my last post: It's simple really. When a real threat is present, a real defense is necessary.

Do you actually have a response to why destruction of the shaped charges is an bad idea? ... 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.

For a realist, you sure spend a lot of time living in a fantasy world where every nuclear state and every potential nuclear state is willing to completely disarm.

I've done a bit of looking, and no one, absolutely no one, is discussing this as even a remote possibility.

Nuclear Weapons in a Transformed World is a pro-VNA (virtual nuclear arsenal) and available on books.google. All the author suggests is decoupling the weapons from their delivery vehicles and dismantling the weapons.

A la Pakistan, as I mentioned earlier.

I enjoy discussions that revolve around discussing ideas.

I much prefer the informed opinion of -- oh, let's say a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute -- rather than that of a 25 year old who's read one too many Ian Fleming novels.

I never suggested that we do that. What I'm suggesting is big powers reduce down to knowledge and machinery.

I misunderstood #3:

3) Go further then that and go down to machines, blueprints and technical knowledge

I took "go down" to mean "the next level of destruction after weapons and machinery".

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.

Again, for a realist, you spend an awful lot of time in la la land.

A single missile carrying mylar balloons can easily confuse the interceptors.

You have yet to show that mylar decoys are a problem for the systems I highlighted in Message 195.

Don't you get it, Obvious? Your bare assertions mean nothing.

Your opinion is worthless.

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.

Um, is a war "similar enough" for you? Are incoming enemy missiles "unplanned enough" for you?

From Message 195:

Combat effectiveness of newer systems against tactical ballistic missiles are very high, as the Patriot PAC-3 had a 100% success rate in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Obvious writes:

...thereby rendering the radar systems our interceptors require useless.

Nope.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has280010.000/has280010_0.HTM

The detonation of a nuclear explosion outside the atmosphere, even if it were a small nuclear weapon, perhaps a few tens of kilotons, could produce sufficient direct and delayed radiation to degrade or destroy satellites in line of sight of the burst...

Only those within line of sight.

I speak as a weapons designer with specialized knowledge in electromagnetic pulse. Since 1996, I have been the provost for the Postgraduate Nuclear Weapon Design Institute within the laboratory chartered with training the next generation of nuclear weapon designers.

See? A guy who knows what he's talking about.

The issue to be addressed this morning is the impact of a high-altitude nuclear detonation over the United States to the civilian and military infrastructure ... A high-altitude nuclear detonation would produce an electromagnetic pulse ... In such an event, would military equipment deployed within the area of EMP exposure be seriously impaired?

Short answer, no. Military systems are hardened to HEMP/EMP.

Therefore, the rest of your scenario is moot.

And I already addressed your specific systems.

No. You provided two links. Neither of which discussed the systems I mentioned in Message 195.

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.

Again. Your opinion is worthless.

If you could perhaps, actually address any of these points with reasoned arguments of your own, that would be appreciated.

Unlike you, I like to rely on experts and well documented sources.

ABE:

From Message 99. Your response to Buz.

For all your islamaphobia, you could have at least researched it.

Oh no, Obvious. No no no. His uninformed, unresearched opinion is just as valid as your uninformed, unresearched opinion.

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by obvious Child, posted 01-12-2008 6:54 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 4:11 PM molbiogirl has responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1567 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 217 of 241 (448417)
01-13-2008 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by obvious Child
01-13-2008 2:37 AM


Re: Virtual Arsenal
Getting away from hair-trigger would eliminate the problem of a leader going mad or accidental issues.

Would it be possible to ensure that all had complied with the reduction?

I found it interesting that mylar balloons could function as countermeasures. I think many forget that while we are creating weapons, others create countermeasures to thwart our efforts; just as we do to counter their weapons.

As I understand it, the ABL that MBG mentioned in Message 195 is part of the boost phase defense. (My info comes from reading so excuse dumb questions.) Would that still be made ineffective through airbursting? I know you said most in Message 213 and not all, but I'm curious.

If I understand what the ABL is supposed to be doing, it should catch the missiles shortly after launch. So wouldn't it catch the nuke intended for airbursting?

ABE: I'm a little fuzzy on hegemonic.

quote:
And I forgot about this, one major reason that big powers should be pushing for global virtual arsenals is because it makes their conventional militaries hegemonic. We all saw how Iraq's military was crushed in Desert Storm. Now imagine that forever. I don't agree that should be a reason to do it, but it's out there.

I did look up the meaning:

It is used broadly to mean any kind of dominance, and narrowly to refer to specifically cultural and non-military dominance

Who determines that one is dominant when no military is taken into account?

Edited by purpledawn, : hegemonic


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 2:37 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by molbiogirl, posted 01-13-2008 2:15 PM purpledawn has not yet responded
 Message 220 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 4:25 PM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 218 of 241 (448436)
01-13-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by purpledawn
01-13-2008 11:12 AM


Re: Virtual Arsenal
I found it interesting that mylar balloons could function as countermeasures. I think many forget that while we are creating weapons, others create countermeasures to thwart our efforts; just as we do to counter their weapons.

Just a quick note, PD. The systems in Message 195 are not affected by this countermeasure.

Obvious is referring to tests that were performed on a different missile defense system in 2000 and 2001. The tests I mentioned in Message 195 were performed 2005-2008.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2008 11:12 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 219 of 241 (448445)
01-13-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by molbiogirl
01-13-2008 6:01 AM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
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.

quote:
Forgive me if I don't accord your opinion the same respect as that of a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

I suspect you'd require anyone independent of on their job to require that. But the simple fact is, you are unable of actually discussing the subject here. Encyclopedia fights hold no value.

quote:
A: Obvious child.

Obviously not.

quote:
The Brookings Institute disagrees.

The Brookings Institute works from an liberal point of view, where liberal in this context is very different from liberal in political ideas. The liberal idea doesn't exactly have an great track record as it is partially to blame for the failure of Africa to develop.

quote:
Dozens of think tanks disagree. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations.

1/10th is still easily enough to overcome missile defense. 100 missiles each with 12 MRVs is 1,200 nukes. And Russia has always had a good understanding of bypassing missile defense. So in reality, that's more then 8,000 targets, of which 1,200 are viable. Game over for missile shield.

quote:
A missile shield is a defensive, not offensive, system. It is not used "against" anybody.

Now that is comedy. A missile shield prevents an secondary strike. Therefore eliminate MAD and allowing an first strike which is clearly offensive. A missile shield makes formerly unusable nuclear weapons usable. Tell me how that is not offensive instead of just pretending that I never made the comment. Your argument doesn't even make any sense. Here's the point about my comment on your analysis (it doesn't exist). If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US. Purely defensive weapons don't bring up huge outrage. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation on the homeland, the US is largely free to fire weapons as it pleases. Shields are offensive weapons as they shield the attack from attacks that normally would have deterred them. It's actually good thing that the shield is an fraud. The last time we tried to do this it put us several hundred billion in the hole and we got virtually nothing out of it.

quote:
Ah. Not only do you refuse to provide evidence, you refuse to answer questions.

Like yourself. At least I understand this concept. You can't address my points.

quote:
Nope.

From my last post: It's simple really. When a real threat is present, a real defense is necessary.


Therefore you believe that the 20+ incidents that almost lead to accidental exchanges did not occur? Or you'll just pretend I never asked this as you did with the vast majority of questions I no longer care if you answer.

Before you lie and distort what I've said, this isn't about deliberate use, it's about accidental use. In some degree, the US and Russia already acknowledge this will a retargeting of weapons into empty space. However, the threat is still there as all one has to do is retarget with the last known coordinates.

quote:
For a realist, you sure spend a lot of time living in a fantasy world where every nuclear state and every potential nuclear state is willing to completely disarm.

Could you define "completely disarm?"

Because under the shape charged argument, the only piece missing is the charge itself. The weapon is still in reality.

quote:
I've done a bit of looking, and no one, absolutely no one, is discussing this as even a remote possibility.

And no one ever considered the Nunn-Lugar CTR even a remote possibility in the past. Furthermore, everything in history was not even considered an remote possibility at some time. I'll repeat my last comment to you in a prior post as you seem to be unable to get out of it.

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.

Not everything in this world has been thought of or invented, new things, new ideas, new innovation, new modifications are still possible. Unless you think like the French...

quote:
Nuclear Weapons in a Transformed World is a pro-VNA (virtual nuclear arsenal) and available on books.google. All the author suggests is decoupling the weapons from their delivery vehicles and dismantling the weapons.

And I'm taking it an step further.

It's called content creation. Yahoo, Youtube, and others are doing it. Sometimes it's modifying what someone else thought of. Sometimes it's something entirely new.

I'm asking you to argue why it is a bad idea. What you seem intent on doing it just arguing if someone else had thought of it before. That's worthless. Completely worthless.

quote:
A la Pakistan, as I mentioned earlier.

But the problem with Pakistan is that the weapons are still operation if recombined. More weapons = more risk of theft = more terroristic usage.

quote:
I much prefer the informed opinion of -- oh, let's say a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute -- rather than that of a 25 year old who's read one too many Ian Fleming novels.

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.

And if you thought that was really true, you'd be able to disprove me. I'm still waiting.

quote:
Again, for a realist, you spend an awful lot of time in la la land.

I should report you for that. Why would it be true? All you can do is insult me. Not present any reason why that is wrong.

I'm asking you to present an reasoned argument why my idea is bad. You apparently are unwilling to do this. Why?

The US is fully capable of making new weapons quickly. Why wouldn't MAD still exist? If you nuke us, expect to get nuked back. How is that not MAD?

quote:
You have yet to show that mylar decoys are a problem for the systems I highlighted in Message 195.

Don't you get it, Obvious? Your bare assertions mean nothing.

Your opinion is worthless.


Yet you can't even refute anything. I have worthless opinions, but all you can do is throw ad homenins at me. I see how it is. Interceptors work to attack the missile in flight. ICBMs are actually in space. Those weapons you talked about, are not capable of space flight. By the time the weapon is leaving space, it is virtually too late to shoot it down. I already mentioned how the tracking speeds are incapable of hitting that as many of them have problems with much slower targets. Ignoring this does not make it go away, even though you'd love that to be true.

quote:
Um, is a war "similar enough" for you? Are incoming enemy missiles "unplanned enough" for you?

So you want to test the weapon when an nuclear tipped enemy missile is coming? Kind of cocky isn't that? Mind if the target is your city? Not a single test has even resembled what an enemy will do. What kind of test measures the viability of a system when everyone knows when the missile is coming, where it will be and everything about it?

You don't understand this subject!

quote:
Nope.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has280010.000/has280010_0.HTM


NOW THAT IS COMEDY.

That entirely proves my point about you not understanding. There is no EMP issue here. The warhead is not hitting ANYTHING except empty space. The entire point of that senario is to blind radar due to the huge amount of radiation and static left after the weapon is used. Without radar to guide the interceptors, there is no interceptor threat to the second missile!

How can you call my opinion worthless when you can't even understand the points I'm making?

This is comedy.

quote:
Only those within line of sight.

Not a problem. The issue is merely blinding radar due to radiation in the area. You don't have to destroy any radar systems. it is akin to popping a balloon next to someone's ears. They can't hear for a period of time.

quote:
Short answer, no. Military systems are hardened to HEMP/EMP.

Therefore, the rest of your scenario is moot.


Again more comedy. EMP is irrelevant here. Nothing I was discussing was talking about disabling anything. It was just about putting enough static, radiation and noise into the area where the missile would be flying to blind radar so that they could not guide interceptors. You completely missed this point. Hence why I find it amusing since you're so cocky.

quote:
Again. Your opinion is worthless.

But you can't refute any of it. Calling me names does not equate to a good argument. if you have a argument as to why those system will work present it. Don't just rely on ad homeni. That is really all you've done here. Call me names.

quote:
Oh no, Obvious. No no no. His uninformed, unresearched opinion is just as valid as your uninformed, unresearched opinion.

Seriously. You say that but in this thread alone
1) You completely missed the point on numerous issues
2) Relied heavily on name calling
3) And ignored points

You haven't even refuted anything I've said at all!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by molbiogirl, posted 01-13-2008 6:01 AM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by molbiogirl, posted 01-13-2008 7:33 PM obvious Child has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 220 of 241 (448448)
01-13-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by purpledawn
01-13-2008 11:12 AM


Re: Virtual Arsenal
quote:
Getting away from hair-trigger would eliminate the problem of a leader going mad or accidental issues.

I agree. Others don't seem to think so. Others seem intent on not discussing it period. Odd don't you say?

quote:
Would it be possible to ensure that all had complied with the reduction?

It would take work but yes. In the cold war we were able to pin points Russian missiles with 50s technology. I seriously doubt we couldn't do that now. Plus states would have an large financial incentive to do so as maintaining these facilities, manpower and weapons is expensive.

quote:
I found it interesting that mylar balloons could function as countermeasures. I think many forget that while we are creating weapons, others create countermeasures to thwart our efforts; just as we do to counter their weapons.

Many people lack the education in this field. There are an whole host of ways to take down missile defense. Attacking ground based radar with strike teams (heck, the US does this), hitting the silos, merely overwhelming the system with missiles, including duds. If you look at the previous attempt to build missile shields, the countermeasures produced by the Soviets were vastly cheaper and some believe that the Soviets just let us waste billions on something that couldn't work. Reagan put us hundreds of billions in the hole.

The problem with ABLs is that they are easily shot down. For them to work, they need to be relatively close to the target as they only work against short range and tactical ballistic missiles, and the defensive measures of a jumbo jet are pretty pathetic against an jet fighter or simple an SAM. ABLs were never designed to target ICBM. I could see ABLs working against short range missiles. But not ICBMs. It strikes me that ABLs would be best used against Iran, where its missiles are largely tactical in range. Furthermore to cover the country with 747 armed ABLs is not practical. Remember that one of the WWII bombs was airbursted and the damage done was tremendous. And remember that ICBMs are coming in at extremely fast rates, around 7 km/s or around 18,000 mph. And when they eventually figure out how to make course changes in flight, all bets are off.

quote:
Who determines that one is dominant when no military is taken into account?

That would seem to go to economics then.

Plus there's the whole issue of living up to our agreements in the NPT...which we have more or less been flaunting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2008 11:12 AM purpledawn has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 221 of 241 (448489)
01-13-2008 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by obvious Child
01-13-2008 4:11 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Tell me how that is not offensive instead of just pretending that I never made the comment.

I know you're not joking, but seriously, Obvious. A shield as an offensive weapon? Not unless you conk somebody on the head with it.

Offensive weapons: weapons used in the act of attacking.
Defensive weapons: weapons used to defend from or resist attack. Weapons used for protection from harm or danger.

If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US.

Horse apples.

People get pissed off for all kinds of reasons. China says it's pissed off because "global stability" will be disrupted. TRANSLATION: You have one and we don't. Russia has calmed down now that we've offered to let them in under the shield.

The Brookings Institute works from an liberal point of view, where liberal in this context is very different from liberal in political ideas.

Leetle problemo, Obvious.

Liberals are notoriously anti-nuke.

A World without Nukes
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1124_nuclear_weapons_riedel.aspx

Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.

1/10th is still easily enough to overcome missile defense. 100 missiles each with 12 MRVs is 1,200 nukes. And Russia has always had a good understanding of bypassing missile defense. So in reality, that's more then 8,000 targets, of which 1,200 are viable. Game over for missile shield.

Pull some more numbers out your ass, didja?

Your opinion is worthless.

Therefore you believe that the 20+ incidents that almost lead to accidental exchanges did not occur? Or you'll just pretend I never asked this as you did with the vast majority of questions I no longer care if you answer.

Remember, Obvious?

Obvious Message 199 writes:

Don't answer whatever you don't want to.

And I'm taking it an step further.

It's called content creation. Yahoo, Youtube, and others are doing it. Sometimes it's modifying what someone else thought of. Sometimes it's something entirely new.

OMG. I am blessed, truly blessed, to be in your presence, Obvious.

A 25 year old who is going to change nuclear policy via Youtube!

Not everything in this world has been thought of or invented, new things, new ideas, new innovation, new modifications are still possible.

Yes. We are all truly blessed by your presence.

So you want to test the weapon when an nuclear tipped enemy missile is coming?

Missile defense was 100% effective in Iraq.

The other systems, including the MTHEL, have been tested under "field conditions". The METHEL is going to be used in combat conditions in 2008.

There is no EMP issue here.

HEMP/EMP is of grave concern. I brought it up because you ignored it.

The warhead is not hitting ANYTHING except empty space.

Um. Obvious. HEMP (high altitude electromagnetic pulse) travels thru space.

A high-altitude nuclear detonation produces an immediate flux of gamma rays from the nuclear reactions within the device. These photons in turn produce high energy free electrons by Compton scattering at altitudes between (roughly) 20 and 40 km. These electrons are then trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, giving rise to an oscillating electric current. This current is asymmetric in general and gives rise to a rapidly rising radiated electromagnetic field called an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Because the electrons are trapped essentially simultaneously, a very large electromagnetic source radiates coherently.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/emp.htm

HEMP tests conducted in 1962 knocked out the grid in Hawaii.

The pulse can easily span continent-sized areas, and this radiation can affect systems on land, sea, and air. The first recorded EMP incident accompanied a high-altitude nuclear test over the South Pacific and resulted in power system failures as far away as Hawaii. A large device detonated at 400–500 km over Kansas would affect all of CONUS. The signal from such an event extends to the visual horizon as seen from the burst point.

Obvious writes:

Not a problem. The issue is merely blinding radar due to radiation in the area.

Nother leetle problemo, Obvious.

The radar that supports our missile defense does not rely on a single (or even a group of) satellites. Knocking out a few will not cripple the system.

That is really all you've done here. Call me names.

Aw. Did Obvious get his feelings hurt?

Please provide the quote.

But you can't refute any of it. Calling me names does not equate to a good argument. if you have a argument as to why those system will work present it. Don't just rely on ad homeni.

I simply stated a fact. Your opinion is worthless.

The irony, by the way, is delicious. Watchin you get your panties inna bunch when Buz has the AUDACITY to offer his unresearched opinion.

I just have to post that again!

From Re: Buzsaw's Supportive Data (Message 99 of Thread the new and improved obama thread). Your response to Buz.

For all your islamaphobia, you could have at least researched it.

Eee hee hee!

ABE:

An exchange between Dr. A and imageinvisible. Message 69.

Hince an obsevation that seems to support a global flood, that even when we find land animals they are generally buried with water borne creatures.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

Evolutionist claim that the geological column was greated over hundreds of millions of years, however there is a large amount of observational data that indicates otherwise.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

More observable evidence of a recent catostrophic global flood, and the resultant adaptation of surviving species to the new, greatly altered, environment; as well as the subsiquent extinction of those that could not adapt. This same 'bottlekneck' can be found in almost every species alive today, including humans.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

They are proof of an organisms ability to adapt to a particular environment. This process does not add any new genetic information, it can only work with what it has and for the most part results in a loss of genetic divercity/variability.

But this is not true, which is why you have no evidence for it.

You are sounding more like a creo every minute!

See what happens when you just make crap up?

Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by obvious Child, posted 01-13-2008 4:11 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by obvious Child, posted 01-15-2008 4:10 AM molbiogirl has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 12254
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 222 of 241 (448620)
01-14-2008 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Mespo
01-11-2008 3:17 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Mespo writes:

...But the End of Worlders REALLY have to come up with a new boogey man.

Actually, they have the same one they always had. Its called the dark survivalist side of human nature.

A typical end of the world world view maintains that humans are incapable of rising above their petty preprogrammed survivalist mode into an altruistic we can all get along mentality.

We like our comforts. We will send your kids to fight so that we may keep them.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by molbiogirl, posted 01-14-2008 2:29 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 223 of 241 (448636)
01-14-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Phat
01-14-2008 11:38 AM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
A typical end of the world world view maintains that humans are incapable of rising above their petty preprogrammed survivalist mode into an altruistic we can all get along mentality.

Phat, we have an innate altruistic survival mode too. Otherwise, we wouldn't live in social, cooperative groups.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 01-14-2008 11:38 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2225 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 224 of 241 (448761)
01-15-2008 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by molbiogirl
01-13-2008 7:33 PM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
quote:
I know you're not joking, but seriously, Obvious. A shield as an offensive weapon? Not unless you conk somebody on the head with it.

Offensive weapons: weapons used in the act of attacking.
Defensive weapons: weapons used to defend from or resist attack. Weapons used for protection from harm or danger.


Let's try this in a super dumbed down version.

The US does not attack the USSR with nukes because it will be nuked back. With an shield in place, the threat of a 2nd strike no longer exists. Therefore the US is now FREE to ATTACK where it was PREVIOUSLY DETERRED. A missile shield removes the state of MAD, therefore allowing an attack that previously would not have occurred to now occur. This isn't difficult.

Calling me names does not make an good argument.

quote:
People get pissed off for all kinds of reasons. China says it's pissed off because "global stability" will be disrupted. TRANSLATION: You have one and we don't. Russia has calmed down now that we've offered to let them in under the shield.

Do you even underst....nm I know the answer to that. A missile shield, at least in theory if it ever works, removes MAD therefore disrupting global stability. Russia calmed down because they are no longer at risk from the disruption of MAD.

quote:
Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.

You didn't even bother to read your own article did you?

No where in the article does it even discuss pre-delegation!

Seriously! Did you think I wouldn't check?

You've gone from copy-pasting partial relevant issues without understanding them to just posting things hoping I wouldn't read them.

Sad.

quote:
Pull some more numbers out your ass, didja?

Your opinion is worthless.


It's a common fact that ICBMs typically have around 6~12 MRVs. Go look it up. If I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it instead of just calling me names. Furthermore, Russia's weapons were at time after the SALT treaties around 10,000 weapons. 1/10 of that isn't far from what I gave.

quote:
Sometimes it's something entirely new.

OMG. I am blessed, truly blessed, to be in your presence, Obvious.

A 25 year old who is going to change nuclear policy via Youtube!


Your complete and absolute failure to address an single point I have made is far more telling then you relying on childish comments. Say all the immature things you want, it doesn't change the fact that you can't refute anything I've said and that you are exponentially ignoring points. I clearly have the high ground here.

quote:
Missile defense was 100% effective in Iraq.

Against surface to surface. Big difference between that and an 18,000 mph ICBM. You can make all of these comments, but when I keep showing you don't understand, how do you think you can compete?

quote:
The other systems, including the MTHEL, have been tested under "field conditions". The METHEL is going to be used in combat conditions in 2008.

Against an entirely different target. You would not use a .223 round against an Hind, likewise you wouldn't use a METHEL against an ICBM. Different weapons call for different defenses. What we do not have is an defense against the countermeasures in an ICBM.

quote:
HEMP/EMP is of grave concern. I brought it up because you ignored it.

Not really. EMP isn't that important as you have stated military equipment is shielded from direct exposure. What we do not have an solution to is the radiation and static from an space based explosion, your own source even states that. Blinded radar = blinded interceptors. That was my entire point which you seemed to have either pretend not to exist or did not understand.

quote:
The radar that supports our missile defense does not rely on a single (or even a group of) satellites. Knocking out a few will not cripple the system.

Again, it's not about knocking them physically out. It's merely about blinding them for an few minutes. I gave the example about popping a balloon next to someone's head. I suppose an more accurate analogy would be to blast heavy metal and trying to communicate with someone.

quote:
Aw. Did Obvious get his feelings hurt?

Please provide the quote.


You've called my opinion worthless many times, called me a creationist and attacked me on my age. Not to mention stated I spend time in fantasy lands and are delusional. I should report you for all of those as they are clearly breaking the rules, but I don't run to mommy to solve my problems like you did.

quote:
You are sounding more like a creo every minute!

See what happens when you just make crap up?


if you bothered to read my posts on that, you'd notice that when I ask for evidence, it's in a reasoned argument. It's not that there is no evidence for different era organisms in the same layer, it's why there is no evidence for it.

let's go over what you deliberately ignored

Now that is comedy. A missile shield prevents an secondary strike. Therefore eliminate MAD and allowing an first strike which is clearly offensive. A missile shield makes formerly unusable nuclear weapons usable. Tell me how that is not offensive instead of just pretending that I never made the comment. Your argument doesn't even make any sense. Here's the point about my comment on your analysis (it doesn't exist). If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US. Purely defensive weapons don't bring up huge outrage. Without the threat of nuclear retaliation on the homeland, the US is largely free to fire weapons as it pleases. Shields are offensive weapons as they shield the attack from attacks that normally would have deterred them. It's actually good thing that the shield is an fraud. The last time we tried to do this it put us several hundred billion in the hole and we got virtually nothing out of it.

Like yourself. At least I understand this concept. You can't address my points.

Before you lie and distort what I've said, this isn't about deliberate use, it's about accidental use. In some degree, the US and Russia already acknowledge this will a retargeting of weapons into empty space. However, the threat is still there as all one has to do is retarget with the last known coordinates.

Could you define "completely disarm?"

Because under the shape charged argument, the only piece missing is the charge itself. The weapon is still in reality.

And no one ever considered the Nunn-Lugar CTR even a remote possibility in the past. Furthermore, everything in history was not even considered an remote possibility at some time. I'll repeat my last comment to you in a prior post as you seem to be unable to get out of it.

I'm asking you to argue why it is a bad idea. What you seem intent on doing it just arguing if someone else had thought of it before. That's worthless. Completely worthless.

And if you thought that was really true, you'd be able to disprove me. I'm still waiting.

I should report you for that. Why would it be true? All you can do is insult me. Not present any reason why that is wrong.

I'm asking you to present an reasoned argument why my idea is bad. You apparently are unwilling to do this. Why?

The US is fully capable of making new weapons quickly. Why wouldn't MAD still exist? If you nuke us, expect to get nuked back. How is that not MAD?

Yet you can't even refute anything. I have worthless opinions, but all you can do is throw ad homenins at me. I see how it is. Interceptors work to attack the missile in flight. ICBMs are actually in space. Those weapons you talked about, are not capable of space flight. By the time the weapon is leaving space, it is virtually too late to shoot it down. I already mentioned how the tracking speeds are incapable of hitting that as many of them have problems with much slower targets. Ignoring this does not make it go away, even though you'd love that to be true.

So you want to test the weapon when an nuclear tipped enemy missile is coming? Kind of cocky isn't that? Mind if the target is your city? Not a single test has even resembled what an enemy will do. What kind of test measures the viability of a system when everyone knows when the missile is coming, where it will be and everything about it?

You don't understand this subject!

This is funny seeing just how many points you pretend do not exist.

JUST LIKE A CREATIONIST

In this time with you, I've noticed something key. RAZD actually understands the subjects here and can discuss them at length off the top of his head, making complex, reasoned arguments where you just copy paste without an understanding of what you are copy-pasting.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by molbiogirl, posted 01-13-2008 7:33 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by molbiogirl, posted 01-15-2008 4:22 PM obvious Child has responded
 Message 226 by purpledawn, posted 01-16-2008 7:17 AM obvious Child has responded

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 225 of 241 (448901)
01-15-2008 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by obvious Child
01-15-2008 4:10 AM


Re: Can we get off the Nuclear Holocaust Schtick for a while?
Let's try this in a super dumbed down version.

Here is your original quote and my reply:

MBG writes:

The immediate likelihood of the US using it against them is low, however the capabilities of it mean it could be used against them.

A missile shield is a defensive, not offensive, system. It is not used "against" anybody.

And your reply:

A missile shield is a defensive, not offensive, system. It is not used "against" anybody.

Now that is comedy. A missile shield prevents an secondary strike. Therefore eliminate MAD and allowing an first strike which is clearly offensive.

Here is the definition of defensive again:

Intended or appropriate for defending against or deterring aggression or attack; "defensive weapons"; "a defensive stance".

A missile shield is defensive, not offensive.

Do you even underst....nm I know the answer to that. A missile shield, at least in theory if it ever works, removes MAD therefore disrupting global stability. Russia calmed down because they are no longer at risk from the disruption of MAD.

You didn't answer the question.

You have a penchant for going off on tangents, did you know that?

You said:

Message 213 writes:

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.

Message 219 writes:

If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off at the US. Purely defensive weapons don't bring up huge outrage.

As a realist, I know you were hesitant to "judge the intentions" of China and Russia (aka If the missile shield was defensive, then China and Russia wouldn't be pissed off...); however, since you did judge their intentions (wants/fears/etc.), I responded:

MBG writes:

People get pissed off for all kinds of reasons. China says it's pissed off because "global stability" will be disrupted. TRANSLATION: You have one and we don't. Russia has calmed down now that we've offered to let them in under the shield.

Two things:

The missile shield is defensive.

Because it is defensive (offers protection against attack), Russia and China got PO'ed.

You didn't even bother to read your own article did you?

No where in the article does it even discuss pre-delegation!

Seriously! Did you think I wouldn't check?

Again. You didn't answer the question.

Here is your original quote:

Message 219 writes:

The Brookings Institute works from an liberal point of view, where liberal in this context is very different from liberal in political ideas. The liberal idea doesn't exactly have an great track record as it is partially to blame for the failure of Africa to develop.

I addressed the "liberal" question here:

Message 221 writes:

Liberals are notoriously anti-nuke.

A World without Nukes
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1124_nuclear_weapons_riedel.aspx

Thus, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute arguing that pre-delegation DOES NOT exist is more credible, not less.

I had previously posted the Brookings Institute's position on pre-delegation:

Message 155 writes:

The Brookings Institute disagrees with you. Bruce G. Blair, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and former U.S. Air Force nuclear launch officer, is an expert on nuclear policy and he thinks predelegation was revoked in the 1980s.

"Having spent a lot of my professional career investigating issues of nuclear control -- and having interviewed people who had been given delegated authority (to issue an order for nuclear retaliation) -- I believe that the Eisenhower precedent ended with the Reagan administration," Blair said.

David A. Rosenberg of Temple University, said the fact that the government was willing to release any predelegation documents suggested that with the end of the Cold War the policy was no longer in effect.

The biggest threat, as I've stated before and NO ONE seems to be able to argue against this, is merely the existence of the weapons themselves.

You need to address how "the liberal Brooking Institute" somehow is anti-nuke and therefore anti-pre-delegation, as that was your original contention.

You've gone from copy-pasting partial relevant issues without understanding them to just posting things hoping I wouldn't read them.

No. You've a short memory.

It's a common fact that ICBMs typically have around 6~12 MRVs. Go look it up. ... Furthermore, Russia's weapons were at time after the SALT treaties around 10,000 weapons. 1/10 of that isn't far from what I gave.

You get to make a bare assertions. Yet I must provide support for my positions? Oh, I don't think so!

Your dictate:

Message 199 writes:

Don't answer whatever you don't want to.

What we do not have an solution to is the radiation and static from an space based explosion, your own source even states that. Blinded radar = blinded interceptors. That was my entire point which you seemed to have either pretend not to exist or did not understand.

As I stated previously, our satellite system is global. A local outage will not interfere with the missile shield's radar. The radar used to track incoming missiles is a series of low-earth orbit and high earth orbit STSS (space tracking and surveillance satellites) for the detection and tracking of ballistic missiles.

Again, it's not about knocking them physically out. It's merely about blinding them for an few minutes.

They are knocked out (blinded) LOCALLY.

Big difference between that and an 18,000 mph ICBM.

ICBMs are:

1. Slow moving, fragile targets.

2. Easy to spot (bright exhaust plumes).

3. A unitary target.

The ABL can be deployed against ICBMs for boost phase intercept.

You've called my opinion worthless many times, called me a creationist and attacked me on my age.

Your opinion is worthless. You have no credibility whatsoever. That's a fact, not a "name".

You are 25. That's a fact.

I compared your methods to those of creos. I did not say: "You creo you!".

if you bothered to read my posts on that, you'd notice that when I ask for evidence, it's in a reasoned argument.

And yet you steadfastly refuse to provide evidence. You are a hypocrite. And, yes, that's me calling you a name.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by obvious Child, posted 01-15-2008 4:10 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by obvious Child, posted 01-16-2008 4:19 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
121314
15
1617Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019