Printable View
So, Bush has signed an act which would appear to allow weapons in space, against the agreement of most of the rest of the world.
I have to say, that I kinda agree with him. What is so sacrisant about outer space? We have spy satellites etc. up there already, although they are not physical weapons, they are still part of the whole process. Why should the US (and China and Russia and Europe) limit their military options to just terrestrial activities?
I dunno; I'm sort of torn about this. If mankind cannot stop itself from having wars, let's at least keep the wars on Earth and not take them off the planet. Also, we'd be spending billions of dollars on space weaponry when there are tens of millions of Americans without health insurance. It's a stupid project when you think about how that money could benefit people.
It seems like a waste of money, if recent stories about the Chinese using lasers to blind US spy satellites are correct. I mean what are the comparitive cost/benefits. The satellite must cost a fortune to get up and running compared to the laser.
If there was an open militarisation of space would it create another arms race. I don't know much about how satellites orbit but I imagine that have to be at a certain distance so that they neither crash nor drift away. If this is the case then there is only so much room up there, will traffic lights be installed?
True. Both good points.
Just to clarify. I'm against sticking nuclear weapons into orbit. Not for any other reason than at present the number of failed launches is way to high to risk having to destruct a nuclear missile at high altitude because the launch was aborted. Once they're up there they should be pretty safe (as WMD can be), but my problem would be with actually getting them up there in the first place.
But as for satellites which can take out other satellites, why not? As DeadEyes pointed out, China already has anti satellite technology. The fact of wether it is space based or ground based seems academic. It also wouldn't require much to mount an anti satellite system. Balistics in outer space is obviously very easy. The trickiest part would be the tracking system. Most spy satellites are in a polar orbit (i.e. they go north-south over the two poles so that they can cover all of the worlds surface at various points in time). So all you need is a satelite going the other direction in a similar orbit. Your closure speed would be massive. When it comes time to "take out" the other satellite, the attacker would only need to fire a stream of ball bearings across the path of the oncoming satellite, timed by the tracking system so that it will run into them. This distance could be miles away, if the attacker has a sufficient lock on the enemy satellite. Of course, the attacking satellite would be easily tracked by the enemy, so they could introduce counter measures and maybe counter attacks.
To show how easy it is to track spy satellites, might I suggest an excellent website. www.heavens-above.com Type in your location and they will show you what satellites, space junk, shuttle and International Space Station sightings there will be over your area each evening.
Over the summer when we are sitting out, I usually see the Space Station and it's very cool when the shuttle is docking and undocking from the ISS (although I missed it last time) as it looks like two bright stars chasing each other across the night sky. The website shows you when and where to look, along with a write up as to what each satellite is.
The spy satellites invariably have polar orbits.
There's much more to the revised policy than simply allowing weapons in space. Whether or not other nations agree with it is irrelevant. I haven't read enough about this to consider myself well informed, but what I have seen I have no problems with at all.
Sounds good to me. Developing weapons to make sure the above quote can happen seems logical. I'd rather have US death stars floating around then Chinese or Russian.Quote:
“Space has become a place that is increasingly used by a host of nations, consortia, businesses, and entrepreneurs,” the space policy states. “In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not.”
By the way, great site, FB.
Thank you, it's a good way to while away an evening on the deck.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
As for the space weapons, yeah, I don't see any difference from space being kept weapons free as from the oceans being kept weapons free. It would be nice if we could wave the magic wand and all come to an agreement to fight the next war with inflatable mallets, but unfortunately we cannot. Therefore space becomes as viable a battlefield as land, air and the sea (both on and under) and even the invisible battlefield of world economy.
I'm not sure that the human race can be trusted to not use space as a battlefield, therefore it seems logical that we be open and honest about it, before someone else does it in secrecy. Are we honestly saying that in war, a military listening post on land, manned by people, is a legitimate target, yet an orbiting satellite which can film your every move is not? Or are we saying that we can attack satellites, as long as we do it from earth (ala China?).
I think space warfare is going to become a fact in the next century whether by legal means or not, and if we don't accept it as a problem, and develop methods to enforce and counteract it, then we could well be caught with our pants down. So much of our technology relies on satellites (Communications, GPS, weather, spy etc.) that we have to be cognicent of their vulnerablities.
Uhm China, Isn't building lasers a bit overkill to blind a spy satelite? wouldn't It be much more cost effective to just fly from spy satelite to spy satelite and tape a picture of Kim Jong Il's arse on the camera lenses? :confused:
.... or shoot them down with futon torpedoes.....
Futons aren't very aerodynamic....Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
http://www.artesaniasymuebles.com.mx...2%20Grande.jpg
And that is exactly why they would never suspect them!Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
www.heavens-above.com
Just out of interest, now that the shuttle is up at the space station, if you check this web site you should be able to see both together (they will look like two dots as the shuttle joins and seperates, and one bright dot when the shuttle is docked).Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Just thought I'd mention it.
Wouldn't they be at more of a security risk in space? A radio jammer from a neighbouring satellite could affect it quite easily.
Also what happens if the onboard systems malfunction? Can't exactly nip down there and fix it, you have to get up into space which could take weeks at the least...by which time the malfunction could cause a missile to be fired by accident.
Not good
You know what they say "Every war has two losers" fight on earth of elsewhere ...
Bush is nothing more than child and a hypocrite. I see he is eager about obtaining stability and neutralising all threats of WMD and that he has no issues asking other countries like Iraq, Iran and China to relinquish their WMD. If we ask Bush to relinquish his WMD then he will claim that america needs them for protection. So I take it the Americans are the only country who have a right to defend them selves.
If bush is so eager to establish stability and “peace” then what will building weapons in space accomplish, why do we need them. He is causing more trouble in the world, if bush does build this thing then the russians and the chinese will want to build them, then bush will say they can't because it is a threat. Bush is just a tyrant and a power hungry maniac.
It would more than likely be a station that sits in orbit and will recieve maintanence from engineers on the station. Radio Waves from other sattelites shouldn't be that much of an issue they can be blocked, i'm sure the americans can come up with something like that.Quote:
Also what happens if the onboard systems malfunction? Can't exactly nip down there and fix it, you have to get up into space which could take weeks at the least...by which time the malfunction could cause a missile to be fired by accident.
Not good
Did you bother to research the topic at all? If you did, you'd realize there's more to it than "weapons in space". But, I guess it's easier to bash Bush than to actually educate yourself.
What are you people going to do in a couple of years? Where will you direct all that hatred?
I hope you're not truly that ignorant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenova
Iran's leader: 'Zionist regime will soon be wiped out'
Not trying to mix it up, but when I read that news story this morning, the first thing to pop into my head was Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech..... you gotta admit, you can see why the majority of the world thinks of the US as the biggest war monger/rouge nation on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
As for who the rest of the world will hate in the next few years, we will probably go on hating all of the rouge nations of the world (and I include Iran, North Korea, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. in those nations) - I hope that America will no longer be among them and will be welcomed back into the world community....
Be very aware though that there is a difference between hating a countries regime and hating a countries people. I have nothing at all against Americans, on the whole I think they are very nice people who are badly misrepresented in the media (mainly through shows like Cops and "singers" like Toby Keith). I do sympathise with the average US joe who is unaware of this monsterous effect their president is having on world stability.
How do you get that from that article?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Sorry, my mistake, it wasn't the "Evil Empire" speech, I meant the one that startedQuote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you that I have signed legislation to outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
It just struck a note in my head that you could see the Iranian President saying ""My fellow Iranians, I am pleased to tell you that I have signed legislation to outlaw the Zionist Regime forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." My minds a bit unbalanced like that :)
Ex-FB.. that wasn't in a speech by Ronald Regan, where do you get your facts???
Regan was asked to speak into a mic to do a mic test BEFORE a speech, and being that is what he said into it, which was nothing more than a joke when Russia bombing the US, or the US bombing Russia was very possible on a day to day basis..
That is nothing like the leader of Iran making public statements at a "holocaust didn't happen" rally that he plans to wipe out Israel...
Yip! I know, it was just one of those things that popped into my head when I read the story. I think that both instances are very unfortunate. I wasn't really making much of a point, but just alluding to the fact that we are (rightly) condeming the Iranian leader for saying that he wants Israel destroyed, but it does seem a bit strange that we leap up full of righteous indignation when the situation suits us. Where was this righteous indignation when Israel was bombing Lebanon back to the stone age? It's just like I said in the other thread, either we treat everyone the same, or we admit that we are bigots. When it's Jews attacking Muslims is that okay? Yet Muslims threatening Jews isn't? (Don't get me wrong - I think both sides are completely out to lunch on this one). But to be honest, Israel has pretty much shown itself to be a terrorist state.
*As a side note. Growing up in Europe during the cold war and being in fairly frequent contact with Russians, we were actually far more concerned with Reagan starting World War III. He scared the living daylights out of all of us.
Israel was attacked by Hezbollah when their members came across into Israeli territory and attacked and kidnapped Israeli troops. Israel had every right to retaliate. If you ask me their response was too tame because they didn’t bomb Lebanon back to the “stone age” as you put it but instead used targeted bombing to kill Hezbollah terrorists that were firing rockets into civilian areas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
I remember the Reagan years as well and I can remember the leftist howling with discontent about how he was confronting the Soviet Union. History has show that confronting the Soviets was the correct thing to do so it looks as if your fear was unfounded back then. Somehow I don’t think you have changed and again if we look at history, your history, you were wrong back then, its likely your wrong today as well.
X
I'm not going to touch the first paragraph :ehh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
As for the second, what is with this leftist label that you bandy about. Back "then", I was a British soldier, and although had no great love of Margaret Thatcher, thought she was much a much better choice than the idiot in charge of the labour party. So, as you can see, hardly a "lefty".
I haven't changed much, and history has proven my point. The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West. Kinda funny, but hey that's the way your average soviet looked at it. Individually we got along a fine. When I was home on leave I used to regularly go drinking with the Russian fishermen, they were/are a very decent people (a little bit mad, but on the whole decent). Reagan on the other hand seemed to have a dubious grasp on sanity at times. Not so bad when your grandfather only has the remote control for the telly, but not so good when he has his finger on nuclear armageddon.
So, I stand by what I say, "We were more scared of Reagan starting world war III than the Soviets." But apparently, I have an inaccurate memory of this part of my life, as you claim that I am wrong, and I obviously wasn't more scared of Reagan starting World War III. Somehow you have this "insight" into my memories of the time and can actually disagree with the way I remember my feelings. Wow. :)
So they developed first strike nuclear weapon systems in the 50's - 60s because they were generally nice guys who were misunderstood and scared of Reagan. :rolleyes: Gotta love how spaghetti western movies drove one of the most powerfull nations in the world into a nuclear arms race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
I will. The soliders were captured near Aitaa al-Chaab. Guess which country that's in, I'll give you a hint it's not Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Nah - I never said that. All I said was that during the cold war I figured that Reagan was more likely to push the button than the Soviets. Draw whatever conclusions you want about good vs. evil, that's not what I'm discussing. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
no you saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
"We were more scared of Reagan starting world war III than the Soviets."
not I
and "The Soviets where never really an active threat, they were far more concerned with defending themselves from the West"
So do you categorize first strike nuclear weapons and defensive? The Soviets were an active threat to the US as was the US to the Soviets. and that old grandfather figure you painted put enough pressure on the soviets to break them. Did you ever consider that thinking Reagan would be the one to push the button had something to do with that? Do you think we would be here with the ability to argue about it if the other side broke first?
Correct. So if I can come up with one other person who felt the same way, then I am correct? If you really wish to find such a person I'm staring across my desk at one. Do you wish him to log in and confirm this, or will you conceed the point? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
What is the difference between a first strike nuclear missile and any other type of nucelar missile? (I honestly don't know). I fear you are trying to draw me into an argument that does not exist. Quite simply, I stated that we were more scared of Reagan pushing the button than the Russians. That is a fact. Nobody can deny that we felt that way. So what would your point be? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
No, He's probably a canadian. :lol: I will not take another canadian seriously until they revoke the 5 foot rule. Any way, I may have misread, Taken in context it appeared to me that you were voicing the opinion for the entire british army, and vodka filled fishermen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
Exactly what it says it is. If you were a british soldier in the 1980's then you should know what the difference between a first strike weapon and a retaliatory weapon is. The simple run down is, one is designed to withstand a nuclear attack and then fire back (Underground ICBM Silos and the like) and one is designed to get to a target quickly "first".(Subs or rocket launchers in cuba). Both sides had both types and to say that The soviets only intention was to protect themselvs from the big bad boogyman(West) is being naive.Quote:
What is the difference between a first strike nuclear missile and any other type of nucelar missile? (I honestly don't know). I fear you are trying to draw me into an argument that does not exist. Quite simply, I stated that we were more scared of Reagan pushing the button than the Russians. That is a fact. Nobody can deny that we felt that way. So what would your point be? :)
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
My understanding of the subject is very limited, but I would say both are dual use. A missile in a silo can be used for first strike (especially from Montana/UK), and a missile in a sub is most definetly capable of being used as a retaliatory weapon (due to the difficulty of traking the aforementioned vessel). But like I say, what I know about nuclear missiles counld be written on the back of a packet of Marlborough.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
As for first strike, I cannot invisage a scenario where an attacker would use a massive nuclear strike as their opening gambit. I can only see it as a last ditch, enemy at the gates sort of weapon. After all, what use would a radioactive country be. So, I do believe mutually assured destruction did keep the (tense) peace for a long while, and continues to do so. Because of this, I honestly do believe that the Soviets had no intention of using it as an offensive weapon. I also believe that almost every US president before and after had/has no intention of using it as an offensive weapon (though I won't rule out Bush just yet). But Reagan always scared me because he seemed, how can I put this politely.... a bit mad.
Not frothing at the mouth mad, but mad in the way nice old uncles go when they start to smell of cabbage and give you 5 pence and ask you to buy a loaf of bread and a packet of woodbines. My kids would argue that I am halfway there already.... but the most devestation I can do is leave the telly tuned on to the discovery channel after I fall asleep in the afternoon. I suspect Reagan would have been great fun to go the pub with, but it didn't make the thought of him being in charge any the less scary. :)
Celine Dion drinks the blood of school children. :afrog:
I wasn’t calling you a leftist, I was referring (in general) to how the left felt back when Reagan was confronting the Soviet Union. But if the label fits, wear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
You seem to formulate or at least try to reinforce your opinion about the Soviet Union by saying, “Hey I went drinking with some Russian fisherman and they seemed like ok fellows”. Its kind of like saying hey I went to Germany in 1939 and went drinking with these German fisherman, they were great guys so that Hitler fellow and those Nazi’s must be ok too.
The Soviet ruling class was anything but “ok”. You could have probably walked around Russia during the Cold War and met a lot of nice people but that doesn’t mean their government reflects the hospitality of the small amount of people you met.
I am glad you were scared, because that means the Russians were scared too. Like I said this approach seemed to work, as the Soviet Union fell apart shortly after.
However I have to say I do feel a little sorry for you. Not sure why you were scared that US was going to start a nuclear exchange with the Soviets, most people feared the opposite due to the fact after WWII the Soviets seized control of Eastern Europe and feared they were going to do the same with Western Europe (just to point out this is the opposite of what the US did, they left Western Europe to govern itself and provided money to get Western Europe back on its feet again).
X
The problem isn't how we can stop first strike, the problem is dealing with it once it launches. We can't stop anybody from launching a nuke at us. All we can do is take care of it as early as possible. Orbital-based weapons are not as practical as you might think unless the orbits are veeeery carefully arranged. Even then, as we've already determined, it's not hard to blind a satellite from another satellite. So, let's toss the orbital idea out the window. Great for spying, not so much for attacking.
So, we're stuck with land or sea-based weapons. They launch, great. Now what? There are private researchers going nuts about laser technology. In fact, right now, they have the power to knock out mortars in-flight. Great. A mortar is a lot weaker than a nuke. However, if the last estimates I heard were correct, then by 2015 they should be powerful enough AND small enough to mount on stripped-out DC-10's. Aerial missile defense. And they're claiming to have ranges of several hundred miles. Imagine: We see a nuke launch from a satellite, we turn a plane in that direction, get there fast enough to disable the guidance systems before it hits the ocean. Now what? The country who launched it has an armed nuclear weapon falling back down on them. The ramifications of such technology are incredible.
As I said, that's only from the last word I heard, which is a few months old at this point. But the technology remains. Space-based weaponry isn't practical because of how easy (relatively) it is to mess with it. Air- or space-based defense, on the other hand, is much more practical, and being looked at, as well.
Fair enough. I thought you were calling me a leftie (which is one of my pet peeves - classifying people into left or right wing as if the world is so simple). But you weren't, so sorry, I misunderstood you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Nah - It's based more on the way they view the west and what they would have to gain from starting a nuclear war (i.e. very little).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
This isn't a good thing. It's like living in a street next to a gun weilding nutter on one side and a drug dealer on the other, and saying that it's good to be scared he'll start a shooting match one day with your kids in the middle. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
In general it was really just Reagan starting it that scared us. As I said, he seemed a little bit barking at times :) Only a madman would start a nuclear war....... oh hang on, look over there, there's one with his finger on the button :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
I guess that's one of the reasons I don't like Bush, he doesn't seem able to foresee the consequences of his actions. Thankfully, I don't think he would start a nuclear war, but I do think that he is forcing parts of the world to get nuclear weapons of their own, so that they too can be a part of the MAD crowd.
I think there are always going to be people who feel the way you do. History is full of people that never wish to use confrontation as a way of dealing with problems. It’s perfectly understandable, and human, that people want to talk through problems, sign peace treaties, and non-aggression packs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex-FB
The problem comes when talking no longer is a viable option anymore. This is when the “peace crowd” fails to see military action is necessary and tend to put off dealing with a problem until it is too late. Winston Churchill considered himself a failure after WWII because as he said he failed to convince enough people about the growing problem of the Nazi’s inside of Germany. By the time Europe decided to deal with the Nazi problem it cost millions of lives and the destruction of most of the infrastructure of Europe.
Now we have Iran who has decided to push ahead with its nuclear program. If you take the time and actually listen to the current leader of Iran you will see he is consistently calling for the destruction of Israel and the West. My fear is history is going to repeat itself and once again we will do nothing and wait until there is a mushroom cloud over some city before we wake up. Somehow I think we are doomed to repeating the same mistakes over and over.
X
Your example has one fatal flaw: Churchill had the advantage of hindsight. He warned about the growing theat of the Nazi party....and history proved him right. Aside from being argument by anecdote, and the problem that you have a case of n=1, that argument is bizarre. How many people warn us about various threats? Some of them are right!!! Gee, that's a surprise. Does this prove anything about the general case? No. Does it give us any information at all about the general case? No. So, of what value is it? Well, it allows people to make arguments like that one.
However, consider, if you will, the consequence of that action. Assume that all people saw the world with the clarity you assert. Radical Islam is not attacking us just because they are bored. They weren't sitting around reading comics one day and decide "Let's go attack somebody." Instead, they had a plan. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the plan was. It doesn't matter if they thought things through logically, if they threw dice on the subject, or if they were completely insane.
What matters is that they looked at the world, and whether rational, crazy, or random, they decided that group x was a threat to their beliefs, just like we can reasonably say that they are a threat to our beliefs.
Some people say that "Appeasement doesn't work" based on Chamberlain. As long as you can assume that you are always right, then this policy is valid, because everybody who opposes you is wrong by definition. However, the bulk of us realize that we have just an oppinion, which is not divine in nature. If you approach the question from that vantage, then saying "Appeasment doesn't work" has to hold true not just for you, but for anybody who disagrees with you. There is no scenario short of divinity in which you can rationally assert "I must not appease, but my opponents must all appease". If instead you assert "I must not appease, and my opponents must also not appease", then you must go to war over EVERY disagreement, because only capitulation is an alternative.
Now, if you've followed that rambling explanation so far, you may have noticed that this is closely linked to the game theory problem known as "The Prisoner's Dilemma". Cooperate for a shared minor good, or hold out. The payoff is somewhat inverted over the classical case, but the various options have the same relative weights. You lose most if you appease, and your opponent does not (Nazi Germany). You gain most if you don't appease and your opponent does. You both gain at a lower level if you both appease (negotiate).
This puzzle has been tested exhaustively. Douglas Hofstader (might have that spelled wrong, best known for Godel, Escher, Bach), or Dennett, or both, described a contest where computer programs were pitted against each other to see which strategy won. The "Do Not Appease" strategy was submitted as one of the contestants (by somebody who shares my last name, though I don't know him). That strategy did fairly well, but was not the winner. The winner was a strategy known as Tit for Tat. You'd have to hunt down the book for a more thorough review. I also heard that a later test used more sophisticated strategies, and Tit for Tat was beaten by Tit for Two Tats.
Thus, I disagree with your argument. You can only know when talking is no longer viable in hindsight, and relying on "Appeasement Never Works" is not supported.
Excellent post by Shaggy Hiker.
Actually, I have failed to portray my views properly, I in no way feel the way you describe. I am a great believer that war solves lots of problems. I was an avid supporter of the first gulf war, and thought that it was excellently executed. Likewise, there have been plenty of other times when violence has been the correct response to a political situation. My problem with the second gulf war was that it was the wrong answer to the political situation. It was a very poorly thought out move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
So I would argue that, just as it is wrong to say that never going to war is a bad strategy for a leader, also, going to war every time talks break down is also an equally bad strategy. If you have to go to war, at the very least the war should be decisive, seen by the world as just and leave your country in a better state than it started. The choice of attacking Iraq achieved none of these goals and has only served to villanise the US in the eyes of the world.
Now, in the good old days it would have been far easier. You would just have stomped all over Iraq, and then either left the country to bleed to death or installed a colonial government with strict punishments for those who didn't toe the line.
Alas, now a days we have to be a bit more compassionate. So you are left in the ridiculous position of spending $10,000 to blow up a building, then spending another $50,000 to rebuild it a few weeks later. Meanwhile, your soldiers are being killed left right and centre, with no easily identifiable enemy. (Actually this is where I blame Blair most - Britain has plenty of experience fighting terrorists in Northern Ireland - they should have known the consequences of occupying a country with such militant religous extremists). So, this was a situation where deciding to go to war was a really poor choice.
Am I right in thinking that even Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf (a man I admire greatly) came out and said that he didn't think the second gulf war was a good move? Now he's hardly a pacifist.
So, being against the second gulf war does not neccessarily mean that someone is "peace at any cost", and it is dangerous to label people so simply as being either "pacifist" or "warmonger". I know very few smart people who fall into either category. I do know a number of "pacifists", but they tend to be social scientists who I struggle to muster any respect for, and I know (quite a few) "warmongers", but they are almost all red-neck Canadians with very little grasp of the political situation.
Now to qualify that: Just as being against the war does not make one a pacifist, being for the war does not make someone a "warmonger", I believe there are plenty of smart people who think that the war was a good move. That is there right. It just makes me laugh that people tend to get classified so easily because of one point of view.
I believe Shaggy-Hiker made much the same point, but he was far more elegant.
Yeah - Lucky for the Brits that the US acted decisively and attacked Hitler as soon as he began to threaten his neighbours. Those silly Europeans should have attacked Hitler the moment he invaded Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
Frankly, I expect the war would have gone about the same if Chamberlain hadn't negotiated with Hitler. France had the biggest and best equipt army on the continent when Germany crushed it. Britain was never more prepared....to get lifted out of Dunkirk, and, as it was, Germany went through France with the training tanks it had been using to try out the British strategy which came to be known as Blitzkrieg.
The main reason Britain could hold out longer was because we were an island. Germany could come at France from dozens of directions at once but to attack Britain (especially given the limited reach of aircraft then) was much more difficult
Aren't you still an island? :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
I think Shaggy put the whole 'Appeasement never works' point really well. There's a problem with taking a look at one (admittedly high-profile) example of appeasement failing and applying it to all subsequent decisions. Indeed I can probably think of more examples where a failure to negotiate has been disasterous than when appeasement has. The most obvious being the Crown's refusal to allow full representation to the American colonists despite an increasing tax burden. It's entirely possible that, if the Georgey Boy had given you guys a level of representation comparable with the British homelands, you would still be British colonists to the this day (or at least, you would have been until the next idiot politician came along and treated you unfairly).
Some other examples where it was disasterous would be our failure to engage with the Indian separatist movements in the 20's, our decision to take on the boars (we eventually won but at huge cost), our failure to engage with Russia in the build up to WW2 (a decision which arguably drove them into the arms of Germany, a regime whose politics they were diametrically opposed to), America's failure to negotiate with Japan over their commercial interests in China pre-world war 2 (again, drove them into an alliance with Germany and, ultimately, into attacking Pearl Harbour) or how about the REAL biggy: The readiness of the major European powers to go to war instead of talk in 1914.
Not if Tony get's his way :rolleyes:Quote:
Aren't you still an island?
I propose that Europe is really an island off the coast of England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suzzi
What's always bothered me is why Europe gets to be a continent.
I blame the Irish. :mad:
First off I am not saying that appeasement doesn’t work (in some cases it might be a perfectly viable strategy). What I am attempting to get across is that you must recognize and understand your enemy before deciding what strategy is best used against it. What better way to understand your enemy than to listen to what they are saying to their people then look at their deeds and actions. Just as pre-WWII if you listened to Hitler and his words it was quite easy to understand that signing peace treaties (talking too) and attempting to appease him would not have worked. Hitler had an agenda and his words as well as his deeds (military build up) all pointed to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I am making the same parallel with radical Islam and the state of Iran. Listen to the words spoken by the leader of Iran to his people. Listen to Iran’s leader when he talks of wiping Israel out, taking down the US and the west, his belief in an Islamic super state that controls the world, and the goals of radical Islam. Then look at his deeds, his continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and non-cooperation with the rest of the world, his support of terrorism and terrorists, and Iran’s attempted influence on Iraq and Lebanon.
I disagree with your logic in attempting to show that you cannot know when talking is no longer an option. I believe that you can fully understand your enemy and their intentions before conflict arises without hindsight. All you need to do is to listen to your enemy, understand their intentions, and judge their actions. I do believe that this is what Churchill used to sound the alarm bells against the growing threat that was Nazi Germany in the 1930’s.
You are right it’s not as simplistic as “appeasement doesn’t work”; every situation is different and requires analysis and understanding. My argument is about recognizing when you are wasting your time talking when all the signs point to war and conflict, and then waiting until something “bad” happens before doing anything about it. While you might feel that this is impossible I disagree with your assertion and put it to you that understanding and listening to your enemy goes a long way in finding out their intentions ahead of time.
X
when it comes down to it, you have to ask yourself this question:
any nation that successfully develops a nuclear weapon, and decides to use it either Israel, or the US will obviously be destroyed as well in a counter attack.
However, is that something that the leader of one of these nations is willing to do?
Unfortunatly, I think the answer to that is Yes.
In WWII, when the US used a nuclear bomb on Japan, we were the only ones who had one. It was a quick end to the war, and there was no risk of them simply using one back on us. That was the last time that notion was possible though.
If the radicals that run these Islamic states think that destroying the US and Israel at the risk of themselves being wiped out, that may be something they are willing to do because of course they go to heaven for it.
Even though the vast vast majority of the civilians in these states are just like us, and want peace and to make a buck, they don't have any say in what happens, just like we don't have any say in many things our Govt does.
Absolutely. But, given that the US government is the only one to have a track record of using nuclear (or atomic) weapons on it's enemies populace, which group of powerless people do you think should be more concerned, US citizens or Iranians?Quote:
Even though the vast vast majority of the civilians in these states are just like us, and want peace and to make a buck, they don't have any say in what happens, just like we don't have any say in many things our Govt does.
Both sides are rattling sabres and feeding the fire because it suits their political ends. Hatred and fear are a REAL easy sell politically and help keep the powers that be in power (even dictatorships are concerned with popularity BTW, it makes governing so much easier). So given that the US and UK governments were busy telling us that Hussein was a direct threat (hey, apparently he had weapons of mas destruction that he could use against the British mainland in 20 minutes, yeah right), largely to suit their political and idealogical purposes, and are now busy telling us that Iran are an imminent nuclear threat (despite the fact that they're clearly years away from the level of enrichment they need) why are you surprised when the Iranian authorities do the same and tell their people that the US is the great Satan and a threat to their way of life - it's exactly the same message - and it's being delivered for exactly the same reasons.
the thing is though that the US was not starting a nuclear war in WWII.
While I don't condone the use of the nuke at that point either, it will never be known what would have happened if we didn't drop it. Perhaps we would all be speaking Japanese right now.
If and when a nuke is used against another nuke possessing nation (regardless of who starts it), it will most likely result in all out nuclear war, and no side will be able to claim victory. pointing nukes at each other is a deterant yes, but if used, its a lose/lose situation.
Kleinma makes an excellent point that the nukes used on Japan were used at a time before mutally assured destruction was a deterant. Thus it was the only situation in which they could concievably be used.
However, Iran is in the same position. Without nuclear weapons, there is little to stop the US from over-running their country.
Iran would have to be mad to not be pursuing nuclear weapons. They have been labelled as part of the axis of evil by Bush, and he has already invaded two Islamic countries, and is saber rattling with the Iranians. It doesn't take a genius to work out that if he wasn't bogged down in Iraq, he would probably be using WMD as an excuse to invade Iran as well. Bush is/was also pushing for the development of battlefield nuclear weapons. If you have no intention of using them, why would you build them?
No, Iran must pursue nuclear weapons if they are to stand any chance of stopping the US attacking.
Note: I don't like the fact that they are going after weapons, infact I think it's a nightmare, but I can also see that it is the only course of action left open to them at this point. We cannot preach nuclear non-proliferation and then continue to develop them for use against our enemies.
And we cannot preach non-proliferation when we are constantly spoiling for a fight. It is the equivelant of a full grown man fighting a child. If they both have guns you suddenly level the playing field. So the man turns around and says "Well, you don't need a gun, 'cause I wont use mine against you....... but I'll leave it over here, as a last resort incase you start to win."...... Why would the child think that is a good idea. Without the gun, the guy is going to beat him to death. He needs a gun to survive. If the guy wasn't so beligerant, then he wouldn't need the gun, but look, he keeps beating other neighbourhood kids to death..... what's to stop him pounding on this kid?
Well the fact that the Iraq war went (still is going) SOOO badly, there is NO WAY that the US will enter another war unless there is no other choice. That means the next war would also have to have very large multinational support, and not just in terms of picking sides.. I mean an all out multinational group telling whatever country (N Korea, Iran, whoever) to chill out or there will be force.
The US just can't do that alone again, we have already isolated ourselves enough.
So Iran making nukes for the purpose of protection against an invasion by US forces is unlikely, since the main reason we would invade them is because they are making nukes. No nukes, no reason to go to war. (I know it's not as simple as that, but thats the main idea)
I obviously can't speak for them, but I bet a lot of Iranian civilians wouldn't mind having a different government in place, just not at the expense of western occupation.
Most of the people there our age really love the west. They like our movies, our rock and roll music, and our way of life.
Ultimately, what would the Iranians be able to do with a handful of nuclear weapons against the US, Israel or any of the other Western nations? It wouldn't stop any attack - they don't have battlefield nuclear weapons. The best Iran could do would be to stick them on rockets and send them off in the direction of Tel Aviv, I don't think they have rockets capable of reaching much of Europe and certainly not the US.
So why don't we want them to have nukes? Two reasons:
1) As kleinma said, it gives you a lot more leverage with people who don't have them and who are in range. That means the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and all the other Islamic states around there who are considerably less fundamentalist than Iran.
2) Sooner or later somebody will smuggle one to Europe or the US, and it'll be a dirty bomb rather than a warhead. Its a lot less easy to point the finger when there isn't a missile to show you who sent it. There is not a lot of doubt that Iran engages in sponsorship of terrorism, particularly regionally.
Admittedly we don't know how Ahmadinejad would react at crunch time, but nobody wants to trust to the whims of a potentially unstable dictator (and say what you like about Dubya, he still has people to answer to) who is known to fraternise with terrorists, has publicly advocated genocide and has a penchant for spreading his own violent and fundamentalist brand of religion.
And on this line, now that they have been used which group of countries have not used them in any of the conflicts in which they've been involved for the past 60 years? In contrast, which group of countries seem determined to get their hands on them despite (or perhaps because of) seeing the damage they can do?Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I'm afraid the evidence is fairly conclusive on this one.
In a rational world I would agree with you. However the outcome in Iraq was foreseen long before the invasion, and it didn't stop people supporting it wholeheartedly. And we're not talking some hippy saying "war is bad! Don't do it man!", we had generals and analysts repeating that there is no exit strategy from Iraq. Anyone who has had any dealings with the British Army in Northern Ireland can tell you that fighting native terrorists in an urban landscape is an impossible task. So, I fail to see what is different once the US gets out of Iraq, licks it's wounds and then looks around for another country to attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
That approach didn't exactly work for Saddam did it. No WMD, repeated analysis stating that there was no evidence of WMD, and still he gets attacked.Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Don't get me wrong on any of this. I think that Iran getting the bomb is a really bad move, just as I think that Isreal having the bomb is a really bad move (and don't even get me started on Pakistan having it). But the people running these country's are smart people. I can see how all of them would feel that they absolutely must have the bomb. All of them face overwhelming threats local to them, that can only be countered by WMD. If we were serious about non-nuclear prolifferation, then we would have to do the following.
a ) Use our influence to persuade Isreal to disarm.
b ) Sign a non-aggression pact with the countires that fear us most, or at least stop using the threat of war as a solution to diplomatic problems.
well thats my point.. The fact that Iraq did turn out to be such a mess will force decision makers (from all countries) to think harder about any future conflict...
Here is a good article about Iran and how the people of the country don't exactly represent what the administration is saying (much like we don't all believe in what Bush is saying/doing)
http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...0.html?cnn=yes
You could argue that they want them for defence along the lines of, say the US troops amassed in Qatar ready for the invasion of Iraq. If Saddam had nuclear weapons then Qatar might think twice about being a launching pad for the invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Of course, yes they will also come in handy for leverage with your neighbours, but only until they get them... so what's the natural outcome? Everyone will end up with nuclear weapons unless we somehow stop them.
I don't think anyone here is in disagreement as to whether we want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The problem really is, how do you stop them? This is another situation where I think the only way to stop them would be to somehow regain their trust that they don't need them. Can we do that? I doubt it. I think the cats out of the bag. They saw how willing the US was to go to war with their neighbour. They have the opportunity now to develop the weapons before the US get's out of Iraq and licks it's wounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by zaza
Also, the condemnation in the US government of Isreal's nuclear weapons program is deafening by it's silence. Maybe a little attempt at pretending to be fair about this might go some way towards allaying their fears, but like I said, I think things are too far gone now.
We should just be honest about the situation. We like the Isreali's and it's okay for them to get nukes, because they live on the other side of the world and the only people they are likely to use them on are Arabs. We don't want the Iranians to get nukes because then we will have no way to threaten them when they start to get uppety and we need to slap them down. Also, they're far more likely to give them to terrorists and the terrorists will use them against the west.
Thank you. That is a most interesting article. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
perhaps finding better ways to produce energy that don't require things like enriching uranium at all.. We have this giant ball of constant nuclear power called the Sun, and we are just now trying to figure out how to harness substantial amounts of power from it...
If there was no need for civilian nucear power, then it could no longer be a guise for making weapons. It would also make all those nations totally dirt poor as the need for oil would go away. (not saying that is a good thing, but usually its the govt and upper class that gets any oil money anyway)
An excellent point. ( and also touches upon one of the reason's I am 100% sure that their civilian nuclear program is a front for a weapons program). I can see other power-poor countries requiring nuclear power as a constant source of energy, but with the amount of Oil they have, I find it very strange that they are so eager for nuclear power. Maybe they are concerned about the environment..... ?Quote:
Originally Posted by kleinma
Solar or thermal would be another natural choice for a middle eastern country.
Even if the were only building civilian reactors (which I doubt) it would still more or less bring them through the entire process of making weapons. Sort of like a "legal dry run" where they gain all the experience and utilities needed to then put it into full illegal weapons production.
North Korea is no better. Unfortunatly, if we really want to put blame anywhere, it should be on Pakistan and more so on A.Q. Kahn. He developed the nuclear weapons program that N Korea and Iran are using. He sold it on the black market along with Chinese bomb diagrams. (Libya was also part of this whole thing until they got busted, they have since decided to give up nuclear weapons)
Abdul Qadeer Kahn
Pakistan and Nukes