PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on March 08, 2016, 03:06:30 PM
-
Is it treason for DOD "officials" to release this kind of information, or is it Obama's lame attempt to sound tough?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/05/us-sending-nuclear-capable-b-52-bombers-to-isis-fight.html
I can't fathom how this disclosure helps us kill more of the enemy.
-
Is it treason for DOD "officials" to release this kind of information, or is it Obama's lame attempt to sound tough?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/03/05/us-sending-nuclear-capable-b-52-bombers-to-isis-fight.html
I can't fathom how this disclosure helps us kill more of the enemy.
President Obama probably plans to give those bombers to the Muslim Brotherhood.
-
Well for one, that's sensationalism in media. Yes the B-52 is nuclear capable, but it doesn't guarantee that it will be carrying nukes.
And that's not what BUFF stands for- LoL
-
This doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Releasing the platform they're using doesn't bother me so much as if they were to release the actual targets.
-
Well for one, that's sensationalism in media. Yes the B-52 is nuclear capable, but it doesn't guarantee that it will be carrying nukes.
And that's not what BUFF stands for- LoL
I never implied that the "secret" was it's nuclear capability. I think the entire globe knows that it is our best saturation bomber. The secret was telling the enemy that it will be in a theater near you come April.
And what did I say that implied what BUFF stands for? I know what it stands for. I tried to get a bomber slot in 1982. EDIT: OK, I retread the article. Yes, your right, that's not what it stands for. Except maybe in the kinder, gentler, gender-neutral military, we can't say such things any longer.
-
I never implied that the "secret" was it's nuclear capability. I think the entire globe knows that it is our best saturation bomber. The secret was telling the enemy that it will be in a theater near you come April.
And what did I say that implied what BUFF stands for? I know what it stands for. I tried to get a bomber slot in 1982. EDIT: OK, I retread the article. Yes, your right, that's not what it stands for. Except maybe in the kinder, gentler, gender-neutral military, we can't say such things any longer.
I was commenting on the article not your comments. But I suppose you know that now. Carry on.
-
Well for one, that's sensationalism in media. Yes the B-52 is nuclear capable, but it doesn't guarantee that it will be carrying nukes.
And that's not what BUFF stands for- LoL
I think everyone knows that "Fellow" is a "cleaned up for polite society" to refer to the common colloquialism.
-
That's a great idea. Just start carpet bombing civilians again. We sure know how to win hearts and minds around the world.
Why is it that Americans crave warfare so much?? We just can't get enough of blowing people up and now that we can get bomb site footage on the nightly news, we're just giddy with joy. I swear, if ISIS didn't exist, we have to create them just to have somebody to bomb. Oh wait... we did pretty much create ISIS.
-
That's a great idea. Just start carpet bombing civilians again. We sure know how to win hearts and minds around the world.
Why is it that Americans crave warfare so much?? We just can't get enough of blowing people up and now that we can get bomb site footage on the nightly news, we're just giddy with joy. I swear, if ISIS didn't exist, we have to create them just to have somebody to bomb. Oh wait... we did pretty much create ISIS.
good grief. The USA is responsible for everything evil in the world?
what a load of happy horse manure.
-
good grief. The USA is responsible for everything evil in the world?
what a load of happy horse manure.
No, not everything, but we do have a hand in ISIS.
-
That's a great idea. Just start carpet bombing civilians again. We sure know how to win hearts and minds around the world.
Why is it that Americans crave warfare so much?? We just can't get enough of blowing people up and now that we can get bomb site footage on the nightly news, we're just giddy with joy. I swear, if ISIS didn't exist, we have to create them just to have somebody to bomb. Oh wait... we did pretty much create ISIS.
No. Americans crave winning wars and ending hostilities promptly and decisively, thereby reducing the chance that we need to do it again. Unfortunately we haven't tried that for 70 years.
-
No, not everything, but we do have a hand in ISIS.
I bet you blame the rape victim for walking down the street at night.
-
No. Americans crave winning wars and ending hostilities promptly and decisively, thereby reducing the chance that we need to do it again. Unfortunately we haven't tried that for 70 years.
So if we are so into ending hostilities, why do we either keep starting them, or participating in them?? With the exception of Afghanistan, since WWII, we have opted fight "conflicts", or "policing actions", or wars all around the globe. Since WWII, when where we ever attacked by a foreign country??
BTW, The war in Iraq was the most decisive and prompt military victory in modern history. The speed at which we took over that country the world has never seen. How did that work out for us?
Americans really need to get over the concept of trying to mold the world's people into what we want them to be with military might. It might just be that they have the right to be who they want to be, govern how they want to govern and do whatever they please in their countries. Only if they actually attack us should we pound them into submission. It seems this is a concept that America doesn't really grasp. We naturally feel compelled to force the world beyond our borders to be what we find beneficial to us.
-
No, not everything, but we do have a hand in ISIS.
Perhaps.
But there's no guarantee that had the US chosen a different strategy, the outcome might not have been equally disastrous, or even worse.
-
Americans really need to get over the concept of trying to mold the world's people into what we want them to be with military might. It might just be that they have the right to be who they want to be, govern how they want to govern and do whatever they please in their countries. Only if they actually attack us should we pound them into submission. It seems this is a concept that America doesn't really grasp. We naturally feel compelled to force the world beyond our borders to be what we find beneficial to us.
So if somebody goes around chanting "Death to America" and actively pursues nuclear weapons and has a megalomaniacal death-cult world-wide Caliphate goal, we should just wait for them to shoot missiles at us.
-
No, not everything, but we do have a hand in ISIS.
Please explain why you think "we" created ISIS. And please be specific as to who "we" is, because I don't think I had much of a hand in it.
-
Please explain why you think "we" created ISIS. And please be specific as to who "we" is, because I don't think I had much of a hand in it.
WE the people have exactly the government WE deserve.
-
That's a great idea. Just start carpet bombing civilians again. We sure know how to win hearts and minds around the world.
Why do you assume the BUFF implies we will be "carpet bombing civilians"? Is that what you really think is happening in 2017, or are you just channeling your inner hippie Vietnam war protester?
-
WE the people have exactly the government WE deserve.
not all of us.
-
Perhaps.
But there's no guarantee that had the US chosen a different strategy, the outcome might not have been equally disastrous, or even worse.
Who knows, right? However I strongly suspect that ISIS would never have come about if we either, never invaded Iraq, or if we had a viable plan for after the invasion that didn't include sacking all of Saddam's police and military apparatus. Idle hands is the devil's workshop so they say and those unemployed soldiers found that workshop and built an evil caliphate.
-
Who knows, right? However I strongly suspect that ISIS would never have come about if we either, never invaded Iraq, or if we had a viable plan for after the invasion that didn't include sacking all of Saddam's police and military apparatus. Idle hands is the devil's workshop so they say and those unemployed soldiers found that workshop and built an evil caliphate.
riiiiiiiiight. Because all was sunshine and unicorns in that area of the world before the US.
-
So if somebody goes around chanting "Death to America" and actively pursues nuclear weapons and has a megalomaniacal death-cult world-wide Caliphate goal, we should just wait for them to shoot missiles at us.
- Why do they chant "Death to America!" in the first place?? How is pursuing more of the exact same failed policies going to make this right? Seriously, why does the Middle East hate us so much? Please don't say this idiot "They hate our freedom" crap I hear.
- Who in the Middle East has the ability to hit the US with a missile? I think ISIS is pretty far off from that goal. How close is ISIS to obtaining a nuclear weapon and how in the world does it get to us? Again, an ISIS wet dream, but not a reality.
- We once fought Saddam Hussein and he actually had lots of missiles and they didn't bother us much. If ISIS were to actually hit the US with a missile, then we would have good reason to go over there and screw around in the sand. Until that day, ISIS is an Arab problem, not ours.
-
Why do you assume the BUFF implies we will be "carpet bombing civilians"? Is that what you really think is happening in 2017, or are you just channeling your inner hippie Vietnam war protester?
Why would you need a delivery system that big if you just wanted to drop a couple of bombs? True, I doubt they are planning to drop hundreds of dumb bombs like they did in Vietnam, so "carpet bombing" is likely hyperbole, I don't know their plans. Do you? One thing is absolutely certain. Civilians will die. The real reason for this stepped up bombing campaign is election year posturing. Obama can now look like he's doing something and getting tough on ISIS to the swing voters, because Americans just can't support a president that isn't threatening to bomb somebody somewhere.
-
riiiiiiiiight. Because all was sunshine and unicorns in that area of the world before the US.
No, it has always been kind of a shit hole, but if you come across an angry hornets nest, what do you do? Do you walk around it and avoid it, or do you give it a good solid kick?
-
No, it has always been kind of a shit hole, but if you come across an angry hornets nest, what do you do? Do you walk around it and avoid it, or do you give it a good solid kick?
neither. On my property I bomb it from a distance. If it's on my neighbor's property, I ask them to bomb it.
Of course, people aren't hornets.
-
- Why do they chant "Death to America!" in the first place?? How is pursuing more of the exact same failed policies going to make this right? Seriously, why does the Middle East hate us so much? Please don't say this idiot "They hate our freedom" crap I hear.
- Who in the Middle East has the ability to hit the US with a missile? I think ISIS is pretty far off from that goal. How close is ISIS to obtaining a nuclear weapon and how in the world does it get to us? Again, an ISIS wet dream, but not a reality.
- We once fought Saddam Hussein and he actually had lots of missiles and they didn't bother us much. If ISIS were to actually hit the US with a missile, then we would have good reason to go over there and screw around in the sand. Until that day, ISIS is an Arab problem, not ours.
1. Mostly because we are an ally to that tiny strip of sand known as "Israel."
2. Is a missile the only way to deliver a nuclear device, dirty bomb, or weapon of mass destruction to the United States?
3. Are you willing to bet your life on the fact of ISIS staying in the ME like good little Muslim terrorists, and not invading the very nations with which they are sworn enemies?
-
1. Mostly because we are an ally to that tiny strip of sand known as "Israel."
Why the quote marks?
I assume they're there to connote something, but I can't discern exactly what.
-
If a country cannot exist peaceably in a community of nations, it must be resisted and isolated, and it must expect military action if it engages in violent acts.
-
(http://i68.tinypic.com/nyxxn5.jpg)
-
1. Mostly because we are an ally to that tiny strip of sand known as "Israel."
That is a component of the hatred, but it is far more about what we have actually done and continue to do, rather than just support for Israel. Our actions there since WWII have been very transparent. We want their oil and we don't care what it takes to get it.
2. Is a missile the only way to deliver a nuclear device, dirty bomb, or weapon of mass destruction to the United States?
No, but somebody brought up missiles. The other traditional methods of boat or airplane, we got covered. The unconventional route of shipping container we are actively working that and it's still not likely they will get through. Where is ISIS supposed to get this bomb ??!! Who is going to give them this tech, or do you believe they will cook it up themselves when actual countries like North Korea have been working on it for decades? This idea of an ISIS mushroom cloud is paranoid fantasy.
3. Are you willing to bet your life on the fact of ISIS staying in the ME like good little Muslim terrorists, and not invading the very nations with which they are sworn enemies?
I won't take that bet because they are here now. Their invasion strategy is not by means of some sort of invasion landing craft on the shores of New Jersey, Or even platoons sneaking across the Mexican border. Their invasion is done by the internet. They just have to convert a number of Muslims, or folks leaning towards Islam to their cause. The ISIS shock troops are here now. We saw them in San Bernardino, CA. I think we can handle it.
If you mean the other Middle Eastern countries they are sworn enemies with like, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, etc, then I am sure they will try. They may even have some success if the countries over there don't get it together, but it doesn't need to be our problem. It's their problem.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again, you can't kill an idea with a bomb. You could unload a trillion bombs from B52s on the ISIS "caliphate" and kill everybody there and ISIS, or some new incarnation with a different name will pop up somewhere else. In fact that would send new ISIS recruit numbers through the roof. It would absolutely confirm that America actually is the Devil. This "total war" in the Middle East that people seem to have a thirst for, would really be an unending total war all around the globe including here at home, that we can't even come close to affording.
-
(http://i68.tinypic.com/nyxxn5.jpg)
How many troops do you estimate it would take to invade Iran and then hold and secure it? How long would we have to be there? How would we pay for it?
Sanctions don't work and will not stop them from getting bomb, so... ??
It's kind of like firearms. If everybody has a bomb, the world would suddenly become very polite and respectful. This is why messed up countries are trying to get the bomb and Pakistan is doing what they can to help them. They want to be on an even footing with the "world powers".
-
We have our own oil and natural gas. We don't need the Middle East anymore,
-
We want their oil and we don't care what it takes to get it.
Hogwash.
We have more domestic oil reserves than all the countries over there combined. It just takes the will to extract it, and drill, baby, drill.
Which Obama has done his best to prevent.
Not to mention his war on coal.
-
It's kind of like firearms. If everybody has a bomb, the world would suddenly become very polite and respectful.
the fallacy is assuming everyone has the same morality... at least wrt WMDs
-
the fallacy is assuming everyone has the same morality... at least wrt WMDs
Exactly. We're safe if everybody has guns, and then we go ahead and issue a gun to the recently released inmates of the Joliet State Penitentiary, you know, just to be fair.
-
Hogwash.
We have more domestic oil reserves than all the countries over there combined. It just takes the will to extract it, and drill, baby, drill.
Which Obama has done his best to prevent.
Not to mention his war on coal.
That is the situation now. Historically that has not been the case. Also I will add that even though we have a lot of "reserves" those reserves are difficult and expensive to extract. Middle Eastern oil is the cheapest easiest oil to get on the planet. We still prefer cheap and easy.
The fact that we now can provide our own oil if need be is exactly why I advocate extracting ourselves from the Middle East, not charging right back in. When can we get back to the old conservative ideals of not wanting to participate in foreign wars??
-
Exactly. We're safe if everybody has guns, and then we go ahead and issue a gun to the recently released inmates of the Joliet State Penitentiary, you know, just to be fair.
So, ten guys are in room and all have guns. One of them is a whack job and pulls his gun and tries to kill the other nine. What happens next? Same applies in the "nuclear neighborhood". Iran, or North Korea tries something and no more Iran, or North Korea.
-
So, ten guys are in room and all have guns. One of them is a whack job and pulls his gun and tries to kill the other nine. What happens next? Same applies in the "nuclear neighborhood". Iran, or North Korea tries something and no more Iran, or North Korea.
Probably not before some damage has been done, which would t have happened if the each job had not been given access to his weapon in the first place.
-
So, ten guys are in room and all have guns. One of them is a whack job and pulls his gun and tries to kill the other nine. What happens next? Same applies in the "nuclear neighborhood". Iran, or North Korea tries something and no more Iran, or North Korea.
hardly the same.
one whack job pulls a gun. Assuming the others manage to kill the whack job (eventually), the survivors can go on with life much the same.
Iran or NK detonating a nuke somewhere will have environmental consequences for most of the world (even if Iran or NK were taken out without using WMDs).
-
hardly the same.
one whack job pulls a gun. Assuming the others manage to kill the whack job (eventually), the survivors can go on with life much the same.
Iran or NK detonating a nuke somewhere will have environmental consequences for most of the world (even if Iran or NK were taken out without using WMDs).
I remember when nuke tests were common.
(http://www.wedlok.com/uploads/mushroomcloud2.jpg)
-
I remember when nuke tests were common.
so do I.
Do you remember when they were moved underground? and why?
-
so do I.
Do you remember when they were moved underground? and why?
They were moved underground to prevent the release of radio-active materials.
I pointed out that tests used to be common because you had said "Iran or NK detonating a nuke somewhere will have environmental consequences for most of the world". It seems to me it would take far more than 'a nuke' to have that result given the many former tests didn't.
-
Probably not before some damage has been done, which would t have happened if the each job had not been given access to his weapon in the first place.
Hmmm... starting to sound like a liberal.
-
Hmmm... starting to sound like a liberal.
Yep. No difference between a gun and an WMD. Move along. Nothing to see here.
-
Yep. No difference between a gun and an WMD. Move along. Nothing to see here.
The concept of mutually assured destruction is the same. The problem with weapons in general is that people that have them can feel emboldened to attack people that don't have them. This makes the people that don't have them really, really want them bad. Once the weapon has been invented, there is no putting that genie back in the bottle. There is no going back.
So what to do? Even if all the established nuclear powers agreed to do the right thing and destroy their entire stockpile of weapons and the facilities to make them, there would likely be enough mistrust and paranoia to where they would likely try to retain a certain amount of nuclear capability covertly. Additionally, non nuclear countries would likely try to take advantage of the situation and gain nuclear capability. For these reasons, we have given up on the dream of all nukes being destroyed.
The NRA says that the best way to defend against mass shootings is for more and more people to be armed. The father of the atomic bomb in Pakistan, Abdul Qadeer Khan, thinks the same thing and that is why he and colleagues have attempted to spread this forbidden knowledge to others. The idea being, the best way to keep nuclear powers from invading your country, was to have nukes yourself. It seems to have worked pretty well. Those that have the atom bomb have not been invaded.
So what to do about Iran and North Korea? We tried sanctions and isolation and it didn't work, they pressed on even harder. What then? Yet another invasion? The solution to me seems two fold- One, accept it, they have the bomb, but advertise widely in no uncertain terms which cities, facilities, etc. would be destroyed with certainty should one of their bombs go off, or be discovered in another country. Let the leaders and the citizens know, they are now saddled with the burden and consequences of being a nuclear power. Two, stop invading other countries un provoked. Stop trying to fix the world with military power. If we could be trusted, that would greatly reduce the desire for other countries to seek out the bomb.