Obsession: Islam's War Against The West

[Astronuc]

Point taken. And that only took 100 hours.

Had Saddam taken on Iran or other regional military at the time, it would have been a protracted affair. The US enjoys an unparalleled military superiority with advanced surveillance/reconnaisance systems and advanced weapons systems. Against US air power, the Iraqi pilots fled, apparently some to Iran and perhaps Syria.

Unfortunately most of Saddam's army were conscripts forced into military service or else. The Republican Guard were held in reserve and those units that went to Kuwait were allowed to retreat. That was a key mistake during the first war. Then Bush suggested the Kurds and Shiites rise up and overthrow Saddam, which they attempted to do. However, they only had light weapons and perhaps a few old pieces of armor and artillery. They did not have aircraft. Norman Schwarzkopf allowed Saddam's military to use helicopters in the north and south 'no-fly zones'. Hussein's military with air support slaughtered thousands of Kurds and Shiites (inlcuding use of chemical weapons) as US forces sat nearby and watched (chemical weapons were not used near US forces AFAIK). They were under orders not to get involved. That was the second error in the first Gulf War, and set the path the where we are now.

Saddam's military was a threat to Iraqis, and perhaps people of neighboring countries, not the US.

BTW, Thomas Rick's Fiasco is an interesting read. Again, it states the exceedingly obvious that the Bush administration, particularly Cheney and Rumsfeld, fabricated (falsified) the cause for war.

 

[Yonoz]

It is THE rule for all superpowers. However, for now, we are the only one. And there can be no real threat to US power for some time to come; perhaps for decades to come.

What about China?

 

[Cyrus]

What do you think china has said if we meddle with Taiwan?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We wouldn't want to fight a conventional war with China as they certainly have a formidable military. It may well be that we could handle China in a conventional conflict...I don't recall seeing a recent analysis, but in an all-out conflict they would lose. Even a billion people are no match for hundreds or thousands of high yield nuclear weapons. However, I do expect China to be the next true superpower. Then we are back to MAD.

Something else that I meant to mention as a bit of perspective for those who don't know. The nukes that countries like N. Korea are trying to develop amount to nothing more than the igniters for our really big bombs - literally!

 

[Anttech]

Ivan, get a grip, your government wouldn't use any high yield nucs, and if you did, *you* would be bombarded back to the dark ages by your 'so-called' 'friends.' For your government to even think of doing that would be mass suicide for your country, and in fact most of the globe.

This aggressive gun hoe talk is exactly the sort of thing that is counter-productive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, get a grip, your government wouldn't use any high yield nucs, and if you did, *you* would be bombarded back to the dark ages by your 'so-called' 'friends.' For your government to even think of doing that would be mass suicide for your country, and in fact most of the globe.

This aggressive gun hoe talk is exactly the sort of thing that is counter-productive.

It is not gun hoe talk. It is a simple matter of fact. And even it we assume for a moment that our allies would try to do us in [and who would be forced to choose sides...not a good bet on your part], we have lived with the threat of total annihalation for decades. In some of our many schemes for WWIII, we take numbers like 10% survivability a victory. Welcome to the real world.

Edit: What is dangerous is the naive view that the US is weak and won't use its real power under any circumstances.

 

[Anttech]

I disagree, What is naive, is attempting to bend others will with the use of aggressive behaviour, tactics, and shows of force.

History tells us time and time again, it doesn't work.

Your Government is not willing to sacrifice 90% of your population, its absurd. If they are then I wonder who the 'real' axis of evil are in this world.

 

[Astronuc]

Your Government is not willing to sacrifice 90% of your population, its absurd. If they are then I wonder who the 'real' axis of evil are in this world.

Back in the 1970's I remember a discussion about the survival of the US government. During the cold war, there was a plan to evacuate the President, VP, cabinet, Congress and Supreme Court in the event of a nuclear war. There was no plan for the rest of the population - which would have faired like the people in New Orleans after Katrina. The important consideration was - 'the survival of the government' - which meant the US would still survive although with a much reduced population. Dr. Stranglove was not far off the mark.

 

[devil-fire]

i still don't understand why it would be desirable for the usa to use a mass nuclear attack. I am reading that the loss of a chunk of new york directly translates to a nuclear reprisal that would likely translate to MAD in action and that 10% survival would be victory? the alternative is to make sure the people being nuked are at least the guys who were involved with the original attack and something in the order of at least several hundred million lives would be saved but for some reason this is not an option? what gives?

 

[Anttech]

i still don't understand why it would be desirable for the usa to use a mass nuclear attack. I am reading that the loss of a chunk of new york directly translates to a nuclear reprisal that would likely translate to MAD in action and that 10% survival would be victory?

Well yeah, doesn't make much seance does it? Considering that the government main priority is protect its citizens not kill them off.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

i still don't understand why it would be desirable for the usa to use a mass nuclear attack. I am reading that the loss of a chunk of new york directly translates to a nuclear reprisal that would likely translate to MAD in action and that 10% survival would be victory? the alternative is to make sure the people being nuked are at least the guys who were involved with the original attack and something in the order of at least several hundred million lives would be saved but for some reason this is not an option? what gives?

I'm not saying that I know where the line between a non-nuclear and a nuclear option would lie, and there are certainly many levels of response before we end up in an all-out attack with high yield weapons, [for example, Carter was ready to use tactical nukes] but it is a reality that Americans have lived with since the 50's. And the proof lies in our defense budget, the many videos of fission and fusion bomb detonations, and the tens of thousands of personnel [or maybe millions] who have taken part in the non-stop practice for WWIII that we have continued every day for over fifty years. [btw, there is no MAD when there is only one superpower. In that case it is just AD, which is the point here]

I have a friend who was a button pusher - one of the guys who would actually launch the high yield nuclear missiles. He says there were many times when they thought the birds were really going to fly. They practice in isolation, every day, never knowing if THIS might be the real thing. I knew another guy who went insane due to his job of calculating the outcome of various nuclear scenarios. [We've been doing the math for fifty years as well]

For those of us who grew up with the cold war, this is common knowledge. It is how we have lived since WWII.

Here is another aspect of all of this that Astronuc alluded to: We too are at the mercy of our government. We are a democracy in the long term, but we can't stop what happens from one day to the next. We are all considered sacrificial lambs in a worst case.

You might say that Americans are the ultimate suicide bombers.

 

[Anttech]

[btw, there is no MAD when there is only one superpower. In that case it is just AD, which is the point here]

What do you class as a superpower? I believe most Nuclear Powers have enough arsenal to wipe out the majority of your citizens. So its always going to be MAD when you nuke a Nuclear power.

 

[BobG]

Back in the 1970's I remember a discussion about the survival of the US government. During the cold war, there was a plan to evacuate the President, VP, cabinet, Congress and Supreme Court in the event of a nuclear war. There was no plan for the rest of the population - which would have faired like the people in New Orleans after Katrina. The important consideration was - 'the survival of the government' - which meant the US would still survive although with a much reduced population. Dr. Stranglove was not far off the mark.

That should probably be put into context.

If the government was willing to start a nuclear war that would result in massive death among the general populace while protecting the government, it would imply the government had little regard for its citizens.

If the government realized there was no way to protect the general populace from a nuclear attack initiated by another country, it implies something completely different. In the second case, the only protection from nuclear attack is to make sure the consequences to the attacking country would be so severe that no other country would initiate the attack. Protecting government officials so there was someone to make the decision to retaliate would make perfect sense.

It would also mean there was someone to coordinate whatever remnants of emergency response might be left. I have my doubts about how effective the government would have been in doing much for the general populace in the aftermath of a nuclear war (especially in light of Katrina), but having a central government still in place should at least be more effective than nothing. After all, eventually the government did provide some emergency help to the gulf coast.

 

[devil-fire]

And the proof lies in our defense budget, the many videos of fission and fusion bomb detonations, and the tens of thousands of personnel [or maybe millions] who have taken part in the non-stop practice for WWIII that we have continued every day for over fifty years. [btw, there is no MAD when there is only one superpower. In that case it is just AD, which is the point here]

the defense budget, the war scenarios that involve nuclear weapons and the people who practice for WWIII over the last 50 years have all been aimed at a State as the opposition. to think that executing a plan for WWIII designed around an enemy of nations will be effective or act as a deterrent against non-state actors is just ignoring reality. it would be like trying to use an anti-tank missile to protect someone from bees

if the USA starting arbitrarily nuking (this is vary different then using precision guided munitions to destroy iraq's infrastructure) cities and countries, you can expect other nations such as russia, china, france, south africa, india, pakistan and many others to position themselves with a MAD protection system vary quickly, and quite likely attack preemptively since such misguided attacks would show a total insanity of leadership in control of ICBMs.

however. if iran sponsors terrorism (many intelligence agencies believe iran does) and iran is trying to construct a nuclear weapons program (all signs point to yes) and there is good reason to think iran would use these weapons in a terrorist attack (it may come to that someday) then iran should be dealt with using measured force.

claiming that someday, for some reason, the usa will go berserk unexpectedly and destroy the rest of the world belongs in science fiction.

 

[Anttech]

however. if iran sponsors terrorism (many intelligence agencies believe iran does) and iran is trying to construct a nuclear weapons program (all signs point to yes) and there is good reason to think iran would use these weapons in a terrorist attack (it may come to that someday) then iran should be dealt with using measured force.

Like what?

Iran sponsors terrorists, in as much as the British have done, and the Americans. They feed and prop up (Like the Americans did with the talaban)Groups that are sympathetic to their Ideals.

Bar that I aggree with what you are saying. Except, I would also expect the UK to also to go MAD if it came to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is a superpower? Perhaps someone can provide some information as to the current numbers and yields of fission and fusion bombs possesed by each member of the nuclear club.

claiming that someday, for some reason, the usa will go berserk unexpectedly and destroy the rest of the world belongs in science fiction.

I never said that. I said that if we are attacked or feel sufficiently threatened, we would retaliate - if the attack or threat is of sufficient magnitude, we would use nuclear weapons. It is a matter of policy and there is no match for our arsenal - not even close.

Next, we know who our enemies are. This child's game of cat and mouse won't work if things get serious. If the people who run these scenarios calculate that in a given situation we have to take out the entire ME, we would. It is part of our MADness.

Finally, you can be sure that we have run these very simulations many times and considered every possible outcome. In the eyes of our military's computers, we have all died a million deaths already. Once it starts, the computers will decide who lives and who dies. Heck, it is all that we could do as a people to stop the military computers from gaining full launch control capability with no human interventions whatsoever. It was argued by the 10% that with the next generation of missiles, there was no time for humans to make these decisions. And we don't know for a fact that these systems never did go into place.. that was a huge issue not that long ago. Either way, once it starts - once the nuclear genie is let out - there will be a precisely calculated strategy for total victory implemented that has no regard for human life or the magnitude of the loss.

 

[Astronuc]

That should probably be put into context.

If the government was willing to start a nuclear war that would result in massive death among the general populace while protecting the government, it would imply the government had little regard for its citizens.

Well, it is my experience and observation that the US government - or at least the highest levels (particularly the current administration) - has little regard for the majority of citizens. Bush et al are concerned about themselves - not the country.

If the government realized there was no way to protect the general populace from a nuclear attack initiated by another country, it implies something completely different. In the second case, the only protection from nuclear attack is to make sure the consequences to the attacking country would be so severe that no other country would initiate the attack. Protecting government officials so there was someone to make the decision to retaliate would make perfect sense.

Unless the missile silos received a direct hit, they are free to lauch if the US was attacked. The boomers are sent out somewhere in the ocean where they are undetected, so in theory, they are assured survivability and can launch their missiles at whomever.

It would also mean there was someone to coordinate whatever remnants of emergency response might be left. I have my doubts about how effective the government would have been in doing much for the general populace in the aftermath of a nuclear war (especially in light of Katrina), but having a central government still in place should at least be more effective than nothing. After all, eventually the government did provide some emergency help to the gulf coast.

Not only Katrina. Consider also, the loss of the electrical grid - i.e. no electrical supply. That would prevent access to food, water and medical care. There was not viable plan for the US in a post-nuclear world, just as there was no viable plan for the recovery of Iraq after the invasion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, it is my experience and observation that the US government - or at least the highest levels (particularly the current administration) - has little regard for the majority of citizens. Bush et al are concerned about themselves - not the country.

Also, in worst case scenarios, it may not even be a disregard for life. If it is determined that the only possible victory may lie in some small percent survivability, we have to take it. This is preferable to absolute destruction.

Unless the missile silos received a direct hit, they are free to lauch if the US was attacked. The boomers are sent out somewhere in the ocean where they are undetected, so in theory, they are assured survivability and can launch their missiles at whomever.

Yes, the subs gaurantee a second strike capability even if the entire US land based missile fleet is destroyed by a surprise first strike. Also, I know that the land based silos are designed to withstand a nearby strike, so it would take a direct hit on every installation to completely disable the land fleet. Finally, the air fleet completed the triad, but AFAIK, less the B2s, to a large extent that leg is now obsolete. Of course the anti-missile ABL will probably remain in flight much as the old B52s loaded with nukes once did.

There was not viable plan for the US in a post-nuclear world, just as there was no viable plan for the recovery of Iraq after the invasion.

Sure there was: You're on your own.

Edit: Actually the plan was to crouch under your desk, cover your head with your arms, and don't look at the flash. [that way you'll never see it coming. ]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Astronuc mentioned Dr. Strangelove - a uniquely American satire. By chance...

 

[loseyourname]

Finally, you can be sure that we have run these very simulations many times and considered every possible outcome. In the eyes of our military's computers, we have all died a million deaths already. Once it starts, the computers will decide who lives and who dies. Heck, it is all that we could do as a people to stop the military computers from gaining full launch control capability with no human interventions whatsoever. It was argued by the 10% that with the next generation of missiles, there was no time for humans to make these decisions. And we don't know for a fact that these systems never did go into place.. that was a huge issue not that long ago. Either way, once it starts - once the nuclear genie is let out - there will be a precisely calculated strategy for total victory implemented that has no regard for human life or the magnitude of the loss.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have to point out the irony in your citing of a fear that was played out to a T in the Terminator movies in the service of rebuking the claim that this fear constitutes science fiction.

 

[Yonoz]

Astronuc mentioned Dr. Strangelove - a uniquely American satire. By chance...

(Off topic)
That is one of my favourite movies. Peter Sellers was a true artist.

 

[navneet1990]

hehehehehe
isnt this topic funny
i mean you people actually think that US did something great by attacking iraq
from where we look at it from our part of the world
we sit laughing everyday at the fact that THE US looks like one constipated freak trying to find a way out of the mess it has gt itself into by attacking iraq
and always history has shown that
the US wants all countries to surrender to it by giving some reasons such as nuclear weapons and all
but its always been that the US has been the first and the only to use such weapons
and now that every asian country wants to develop its own weapons the Uncles scared that his ass is the target for all these weapons
and now he's running franctically up and down signing contracts with India and all which is only making indias life better as now we can use the french technology by the way of the treaty and grow stronger
everything reaches its peak and the falls eventually
the time has come for US too
its only time till the war begins
the US will destroy many of that i don't not argue
but it will perish too and is such a way that it can never again build

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, since many Americans oppose Bush and his policies and have from the start, you clearly have little to no understanding of what happens here. Also, with a fifty year head start, good luck catching up with the US. But the really important point is that if we don't prevent WWIII from ever happening, there probably won't be enough survivors to matter who won. This is a fact that Americans have understood for decades. You should learn this as well.

You already started to learn the lessons of MAD in your stand-off with Pakistan.

At the same time, we have been ready to fight this war for fifty years. We don't want it, but if given no choice, the missiles will fly and we won't have any old enemies left. And much of the world would probably be uninhabitable.

 

[navneet1990]

stand off with pakistan
oh yes
if it wasnt for you americans we would have probably excreated them out by 1960 or 70
well all that happens happens for its own good
now does it

so what you mean to say is that you'll just go all guns blazing at whatever you feel like
huh
how intelligent is that

but from what I've seen
whenever the US battles physically like land wars where they can't use anything other than guns and tanks and all they've been screwed badly
i mean during an exercise with the indian pilots and all they got battered
it was like yu got 7 of us and we got 11 of your and that was also on some old rusted planes
what i mean is you have no skill only technology

your able to sustain only because of technology but now i don't think that's going to go on for long
you see
its only the initial force which is required to set a body in motion
after that the body moves fast depending on the force applied
i do believe that the force applied isn't enough
but hey
ARE WE IN WAR??

 

[grant9076]

but from what I've seen
whenever the US battles physically like land wars where they can't use anything other than guns and tanks and all they've been screwed badly
i mean during an exercise with the indian pilots and all they got battered
it was like yu got 7 of us and we got 11 of your and that was also on some old rusted planes
what i mean is you have no skill only technology

Actually, in exercises we are adamant about keeping our wartime tactics classified when we train with other countries. That way we find out more about others' tactics without "tipping our hand". That is why many countries think that they are more than a match for us...until they actually face us in real combat.

Also, on the ground (i.e. desert storm), our tank formations have been known to totally destroy enemy tank formations that out number us by as much as 3 to 1.

 

[Gokul43201]

hehehehehe
isnt this topic funny

Not to anyone but you, so far!

i mean you people actually think that US did something great by attacking iraq

Who specifically are you addressing, and where did these people state this opinion?

from where we look at it from our part of the world
we sit laughing everyday at the fact that THE US looks like one constipated freak trying to find a way out of the mess it has gt itself into by attacking iraq

If the political, economic, and humanitarian troubles in Iraq are a source of your amusement, that might explain why you find this amusing. Most of us, however, get no pleasure out of a situation where thousands of innocent people have been blown up by bombs and missiles.

stand off with pakistan
oh yes
if it wasnt for you americans we would have probably excreated them out by 1960 or 70
...
so what you mean to say is that you'll just go all guns blazing at whatever you feel like
huh
how intelligent is that

And if India "excreated" Pakistan, perhaps that would be intelligent?

i mean during an exercise with the indian pilots and all they got battered
it was like yu got 7 of us and we got 11 of your and that was also on some old rusted planes

Ahem! The Su-30 MKIs are not "old rusted planes"! They're the best the IAF has. Or are you calling the F-16 old and rusted? That may be closer to the truth. In any case, the exercise was designed to the strengths of the IAF (all engagements within sighting distance). You're not going to have that opportunity all too often in the real world.

what i mean is you have no skill only technology

And naturally, there's no skill involved in developing the technology!

your able to sustain only because of technology but now i don't think that's going to go on for long
you see
its only the initial force which is required to set a body in motion
after that the body moves fast depending on the force applied
i do believe that the force applied isn't enough
but hey
ARE WE IN WAR??

Is this supposed to be poetry? It is just vague and unsubstantiated rambling that does not nearly conform to the standards of this subforum. If you wish to participate in this forum, please make clear, relevant and verifiable arguments. If you want to wax poetic on whatever comes to mind, please first take a lesson in poetry.

 

[Werg22]

This thread is full of completely erroneous claims. Believing that terrorists are actually threatening us interiorly is as ridiculous as the communism phobia that plagued the country more than 40 years ago. Interestingly, today's neoconservatives use the same methods than their predecessors used during the cold war era - that is inducing fear of being attacked in the population in order to gain support. 9/11 is not an attack, its retaliation. Failing to make a distinction is fatal to our relationships with the Middle-East. I believe we have been arrogant in the way we deal with them. How can we hope to gain their sympathy when we're so obviously biased and unfair in the Israeli-Palestinian problem, possibly the major source of anti-Americanism in the region and the Islamic world?

 

[devil-fire]

Believing that terrorists are actually threatening us interiorly is as ridiculous as the communism phobia that plagued the country more than 40 years ago

this is vary true.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/enemywithin/view/

the FBI publicly claimed they found a sleeper terrorist cell in lodi but it turns out the investigation by the FBI in this case was eager to make conclusions without investigating the validity of evidence

 

[TuviaDaCat]

i really can't see why some people here repeat the american force...
it has nothing to to with the islam. the islamic "wars" this day are all about guerilla and terror attacks world wide.
the only way to fight a guerilla with the full force mentioned here, is to mass massacure of whole towns. which is absolutly unacceptable, I am sure you will agree.

when using force, the best way is to use a lot of intelegence, and focused attack.
but it can only delay, or prevent bad things from happening in the short timespan. as long as the islamic folk will not oppose terror, there is nothing you can do about it, they rise and fall, rise and fall, it has no end, look at israel and its neighbors.

another thing is that the more dangerous organisations need sponsers to exist, and iran is a such. if they are prevented one way or another, from buying weapory and supplies many organizations will fall...

though things might just happen naturally as time pass, for the power of the islam lies with the oil, as it dries out so will the money of those currpted lears...ah, one last thing, i must say that its quite funny that the fighters in afganistan fought americans with american weapons =)
i gues that the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is only valid for one war.

 

[Yonoz]

http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=214&ar=1335wmv&ak=null"

The difference between Europe and the Islamic world is in quality, not in degree. What I mean is that the Christian view of the world is not political, but humanistic. It is human beings who are the basis for politics. A Christian person has great liberty to separate his religious faith from his political activity.
...
In our case, political rule was based... Ever since the struggle over who would inherit Prophet Muhammad's place, political rule was essentially based on religion.
...
The tribal and sectarian structure has not disintegrated, and has not melted down into the new structure of democracy and the democratic option.

 

[LightbulbSun]

That wasn't the point. The point is that if "terrorists" manage to sneak a nuke or biological weapon into the US and detonate it, the entire world will be brought to its knees. I just think people should know that. I'm not saying that I support the use of nukes or those who might use them, but we have them, and if cornered we will use them. Of that you can be sure. And it won't just be a nuke or two like the terrorists hope to achieve, it may well be hundreds or thousands of them if all hell breaks loose. There was a time when we were ready to launch something like 20,000 nuclear warheads.

The difference between the knuckleheads that we are fighting today and the Soviets is that the Soviets were smart enough to know just how dangerous we really are.

Hundreds or thousands of nukes? I think after dropping ten our entire species would be extinct. That's operation abort our species right there.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Beautiful speech, but time and time again in history it has been proven that war is typically what solves a problems and introduces progression.

That is true in the short term that wars get rid of obstructions, but it's not good at creating anything. Didn't our Founding Fathers say after the Revolutionary War that this country will never wage war again? Well here we are 200+ years later still fighting wars.


Progress (to me at least)= The obsoletism of wars, using more of our cerebral cortex instead of the territorial aspects of our brain that was used back by our predecessors who were much more unevolved than us. NOT perpetual warfare.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hawking: Nuclear war is still probably the greatest threat to humanity, at the present time. Even after the end of the Cold War, there are still enough nuclear weapons stockpiled to kill us all several times over, and new nuclear nations will add to the instability. With time, the nuclear threat may decrease, but other threats will develop, so we must remain on our guard.

Vargas: Do you think it is possible that the human race will go extinct in the near future?

Hawking: There is a possibility that the human race could go extinct, but it is not inevitable.

This is not a prophesy of doom, but a wake-up call.[continued]

ABC News interview with Stephen Hawking
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2319559&page=1

 

[Hurkyl]

I think after dropping ten our entire species would be extinct. That's operation abort our species right there.

Do you have a reason to think that, or are you just fearmongering?

 

[Anttech]

Do you have a reason to think that, or are you just fearmongering?

10 wouldn't kill *us* all, but it could wipeout a large number, a very large number depending on where they were targeted. 10 fairly 'small' ones, ie <10 megaton, could wipeout the majority of American/European Civilisation. Europe by targeting all important cities in Europe

But there would never just be *10* set off... It would escalate most probably