freeflir29 0 #26 August 22, 2002 QuoteAnd, now that we know what to expect, we can stop it before it gets here. You are either ignorant of the facts or you just have WAAAAAAAYYY more confidence in our ability to track EVERY single piece of cargo brought in to the country by both legal and illegal means. Yeah.....just like drugs.....I really don't think we could stop a single nuclear weapon from coming into this country. So, I guess you are willing to gamble with MILLIONS of American lives? It's not a bet I want to make...Thanks anyway... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #27 August 22, 2002 QuoteFortunately, one strike of any sort would not kill the US. We have survived attacks much worse than anything Iraq could reasonably do to us. And, now that we know what to expect, we can stop it before it gets here. I hope you are right.. But learning from 9/11 dictates that we take PREVENTATIVE measures. Call it preventative maint if you will.. Saddham will do much worse than 9/11 if he isn't removed from power. It is my belief that we have no choice other than to get him out of the throne in Iraq. We MIGHT be able to stop it before it gets here. He is a known financier of terrorists. How many of the 1,000 different terrorist cells that he sends our way do you think we will stop? If we kill him? Maybe that number will be reduced or eliminated. We can't afford not to take action. We should have removed him from power last time we kicked his ass.. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #28 August 22, 2002 QuoteYou are either ignorant of the facts or you just have WAAAAAAAYYY more confidence in our ability to track EVERY single piece of cargo brought in to the country by both legal and illegal means. I agree. I was talking about this with someone the other day. It would be sickeningly easy to bring something into the US. And since I live fairly close to Washington, DC, I may as well have a big kick-me sign painted on my back. My only realistic hope is that nobody wants to kick me badly enough. Becuase if they want to, they could. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #29 August 22, 2002 QuoteBecuase if they want to, they could. No doubt...just like airport security, it only works on "honest" people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #30 August 22, 2002 QuoteI agree it seems that president Bush has already decided to invade, but why? Ever see Wag the Dog, or how about Canadian Bacon? Bush was getting slammed for constantly being on vacation, not getting any real work done, putting through a bogus tax rebate that did nothing to stimulate the economy, etc. Then 9/11...approval rating through the roof, everyone rallies around the pres (as I think they should at such a time). But things are cooling off now, we didn't get Bin Laden, there still isn't airport security, the homeland security initiative is a joke (anyone remember which color means what...uh oh, orange alert, quick...um..do something, I guess?....at least it got that nitwit Ridge out of PA gov't). Bush's approval rating is dropping, gee, how could he get people to rally around him again.....WAR. That's how. I can almost guarantee there is some kind of action taken agains Iraq if another target isn't found. Most likely it won't happen until next summer though, when the 2004 campaigning starts kicking into gear. I'll make sure to bookmark this thread and bring it back up top next September when we're engaged in some kind of conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sebazz1 2 #31 August 22, 2002 Two Bush's to only serve one term!!!!! Ludicrous Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasterfaller 0 #32 August 22, 2002 I say we kick the shit out of Iraq and do it now . We need to blow their nice new reactor into a million pieces before they can do anything with it . When we get done with them the only thing they have to defend themselves with are sticks and stones . They are radical scum and need to be stopped . They are our enemy and want nothing more than to kill the evil west . They thumb their nose at the world and make all kinds of threats . It's time for this bully to get his fucking ass kicked big time . Bomb them back into the stone age . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #33 August 22, 2002 Interesting topic...and yes, I tried to stay out of it...but...Here's a thought, and a likely scenario. With all the mishegos which is happening in the Middle East, an attack on Israel by Iraq will undoubtedly create an incredibly divisive situation there...Israel has indicated it will defend itself strongly, and will use its airforce against the attacker (in this scenario, Iraq, but it could be one of the other outlying countries which see Israel as a target, and supported by Iraq). If Israel is attacked, then we have a direct reason for involvement, in a similar situation as Kuwait was "attacked" (alright, invaded, but they had no way to resist the invasion). There will be no coalition as there was in '91...and we (the USA) will likely have to handle it ourselves. Which can be good and bad. Saddam Hussein has, at this point, no reason to NOT attack - he has the unspoken and spoken support of the majority of the middle east countries. We have declared we want his head, and will get it if given the chance; and he will go out a martyr if he is able to strike a blow to our only actual allie in the neighborhood. SH is in a corner, and is, imo, a rabid dog. No telling what he'll do once he decides he can't come out of the corner alive...nukes, buggies and chemicals are all in his arsenal... As to a direct attack on him, I suspect there is plenty evidence that we, the general public, is not getting. The leaks, which are fascinating, are diametrically opposed, in time, date, and actual way - Kurds backing? Invasion from Turkey? Invasion from the southern areas? Hmmm...which way is the enemy coming? Wonderful way to keep them guessing, as well as us...a little disinformation, a little information, and no-one in Iraq knows jack about what's really going to go on. Keep 'em guessing, and rachet up the paranoia...force their hand, as it were. I suspect there will be an event which comes (likely in October - November -December; I have a bet which says by the end of the year) that will be used as the instigation of an invasion. What will be interesting to see is how long it takes for the USA (and whomever is allying themselves with us) to move...1 month or a matter of days? We knew it was coming and had plans and forces ready (my thought...). 4 months? We had no idea, and it took us by surprise (not terribly likely). Just my .02 - watch where the leaders go, unannounced (not like the India/Pak thing a while ago). Watch what happens immediately after the election in November. And listen to your military buddies...they tend to know more earlier, if they can talk...and if they can't, their silence is just as telling. We won't even go into the terrorism situation... As always, I reserve the right to be wrong. I am, about as often as I am right. And I hope that I am wrong in this situation, that negotiations work, and that we can all live happily ever after....but I don't think so... Ciels and Pinks- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SBS 0 #34 August 22, 2002 Bomb them back into the stone age . --------------- (the following is not an original thought) Yeah, cause they're so advanced now... The only thing that bombing them would do would be to introduce them to what is known as gravel. Interviewer: "What happened here sir?" Interviewee: "I heard these planes, and saw big bombs flying towards my home...my entire family was killed...but damn, have you seen how good my driveway looks?" :)_____________ I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #35 August 22, 2002 QuoteI suspect there will be an event which comes (likely in October - November -December; I have a bet which says by the end of the year) that will be used as the instigation of an invasion. What will be interesting to see is how long it takes for the USA (and whomever is allying themselves with us) to move...1 month or a matter of days? We knew it was coming and had plans and forces ready (my thought...). 4 months? We had no idea, and it took us by surprise (not terribly likely). I want in on that action, you have pay pal? I'm not sure when the event will happen to kick it off. But, I'll bet we engage an "enemy" in September or October of 2003. What kind of odds are we talking about? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiveMonkey 0 #36 August 22, 2002 The best thing that ever happened to Bush was 11th Sept.____________________ Say no to subliminal messages Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #37 August 22, 2002 QuoteI want in on that action, you have pay pal? [Wink] I'm not sure when the event will happen to kick it off. But, I'll bet we engage an "enemy" in September or October of 2003. What kind of odds are we talking about? no, no paypal... the bet was between friends, because I am poor....odds? Well, they only matter if you're giving a payout, rather than a "you were right".... I am not sure about the Spetember October 2003, because it would be far too close to the national election, although I understand your thought about Wag the Dog - who changes Presidents in the middle of a war? I honestly don't think it's as you describe...perhaps I am naive (been called worse), or perhaps you're cynical (not poking, mind you...). Either way, there's war in the air, and I don't like it on a personal level, and I understand why on a national/international level. interesting conundrum, eh? Just another passing thought: if Iraq has the capabilities to manufacture a nuclear reactor, then it is passing strange if they have not made dirty nukes, suitcase nukes, and whatnot. From what I understand, it is generally is far easier to make those than an ICBM capable nuke.... Ciels and Pinks- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #38 August 22, 2002 Yes. Bomb the hell out of them.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deuce 1 #39 August 22, 2002 Ah, Bill, you're paraphrasing me out of context and creating confrontations/analogies different from the one's I presented. Beer and peanuts and we'd be right on common ground I suspect. Up here we just jailed a community college student for having pipe bombs in his room, and a declaration that he wanted to take them to school and "do a Columbine". I just think I might move a half-beat faster to kick the sh*t out of him than you, but that may just be a result of having had the sh*t kicked out of me more often than you have. We should "do a Japan" on Iraq. Beat them into an unconditional submission and install a SECULAR, democratic, constitutional government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #40 August 22, 2002 >So, I guess you are willing to gamble with MILLIONS of American > lives? You are watching too many James Bond movies if you think Iraq could manufacture a multi-megaton thermonuclear weapon and deliver it to a place where it could cause millions of American deaths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #41 August 22, 2002 >We need to blow their nice new reactor into a million pieces before >they can do anything with it . Too late - we just shipped two nice new reactors to North Korea, a country we proclaimed to be Iraq's ally in the axis of terror. Should we blow them up, or should we wait until we finish installing them? >They are our enemy and want nothing more than to kill the evil west. Just like us, except we want to kill _them._ >They are radical scum and need to be stopped . They are people under an evil dictator. >It's time for this bully to get his fucking ass kicked big time . Al Quaeda apparently thought the same about us. Were they as "right" as we will be? We can keep this cycle going forever - they blow us up, we blow them up. Do you really want to leave that legacy to your kids? Really want them to be in the Sears Tower when Al Quaeda II takes it out? If not, we should stop the cycle of violence that will lead to that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #42 August 22, 2002 Quote *** >So, I guess you are willing to gamble with MILLIONS of American > lives? You are watching too many James Bond movies if you think Iraq could manufacture a multi-megaton thermonuclear weapon and deliver it to a place where it could cause millions of American deaths. How many people live in New York City? Isn't that kind of close to a harbor of some sort? Just thinking out loud here, but do you think Iraq could finance a yacht capable of crossing the Atlantic ocean and explode it under the Brooklin Bridge? I don't think it would need to be more than a simple fission device in order to inflict millions of deaths, but maybe I'm missing something. Oh, one more thing, again it doesn't have to be a nuke. Biological or chemical weapons would work just fine wouldn't they?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #43 August 22, 2002 >How many people live in New York City? Isn't that kind of close to a > harbor of some sort? It _is_ a harbor. >Just thinking out loud here, but do you think Iraq could finance a > yacht capable of crossing the Atlantic ocean and explode it under >the Brooklin Bridge? I don't think it would need to be more than a >simple fission device in order to inflict millions of deaths, but maybe > I'm missing something. The US once tried its level best to kill as many civilians as possible with _two_ atomic bombs. The bombs were delivered by air to try to maximize damage. Total death toll - 350,000 for both weapons. An Iraqi nuclear weapon (say, gun-type, the easiest to construct) would have an explosive force of around 10 kilotons. There have been several accidents that rival that amount of explosive power, generally in ships being loaded with explosives. In Texas City in 1947, a ship containing about 3 kilotons of explosives blew up. It killed 576 people in the busy port town. A 5 kiloton explosion killed 320 in Sacramento in 1944. In 1917, a 7 kiloton explosion in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia, killed 1200. In the USSR, a 10 kiloton explosion on a rail line (a place one is quite likely to find a cargo container) killed about 300. So IF the Iraquis manage to build a bomb that works the first time with no testing, and IF they manage to find a smuggling route that will allow a two ton container from Iraq (one that is very noticeably radioactive) to make it to the US, and IF they manage to get it placed in, say, a port in downtown Manhattan, and IF they manage to detonate it at the right time, I could see a claim that you could kill thousands, maybe even ten thousand. "Millions" is a bit of propaganda nonsense. So a very unlikely chain of events could result in ten thousand American deaths. I would suggest we spend our efforts making sure that we stop such a weapon, rather than spend all our efforts trying to assassinate the leader of a foreign country. Anyone can try the same thing, and honestly a dirty bomb would be as bad in terms of the panic it would cause (and could potentially be a lot worse in terms of the six months after the explosion.) >Oh, one more thing, again it doesn't have to be a nuke. Biological or > chemical weapons would work just fine wouldn't they? Correct; even a dirty bomb would cause a panic in Manhattan. Are we going to invade every country that doesn't like us (or has terrorist groups) that has the ability to make a dirty bomb? That's an awful lot of countries. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #44 August 22, 2002 Quote***How many people live in New York City? Isn't that kind of close to a harbor of some sort? It _is_ a harbor. Guess I forgot to add in the little smilie face so you didn't quite get the ironic tone. QuoteThe US once tried its level best to kill as many civilians as possible with _two_ atomic bombs. The bombs were delivered by air to try to maximize damage. Total death toll - 350,000 for both weapons. Now, now, if the goal was really to kill as many civilians as possible, wouldn't we have choosen different targets? Tokyo perhaps?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #45 August 22, 2002 Aren't people STILL dieing from the radiation from Chernobyl? How about Japan? How many people die years later. How many birth defects. Nobody has any idea...do they? How about the fact that something like New York City or LA now has a large uninhabitable area? What about that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #46 August 22, 2002 >Now, now, if the goal was really to kill as many civilians as possible, > wouldn't we have choosen different targets? Tokyo perhaps? We'd already pounded the hell out of Tokyo with conventional weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bivar 0 #47 August 22, 2002 I'm with Billvon on this one. But Then again, I'm an european, and I guess you all know what we are thinking about attaccing Iraq. BI---------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JeanJeanie 0 #48 August 22, 2002 Maybe we should also be asking these questions....... Why is the Middle Eastern World so Anti-American, ANTI-WESTERN? Could some places possibly interpret some of our actions as "acts of terrorism"? The events of the recent and not-so-recent past are absolutely horrific, on all sides. But no one is talking about, or questions our foriegn policies. Maybe? Gee, could we possibly have pissed a few people off. There is so much ego involved. Finish Daddy's unfinished business. Don't back down, even though very few countries support such action. We can't back down because we said we would do it. And then the propoganda involved, mustering fear and support. Warning us, but not encouraging us to be proactive in the event of a calamity. So, we just turn on the TV, the Internet to find out what will happen next. Horrified and frightened at the images that come streaming at us from all directions, ignoring the issues and internal problems of child abuse, hunger, violence, illiteracy of our own 'great nation.' Oh great leader, tell us what to do. What is frightening is that (from what media tells us) we do it for freedom, democracy and ??? They do it for religion......... Who is more dedicated in the trenches? Why can't we spend a small percentage of this money doing some good? Oh hell, if we kill 'em we don't have to feed 'em........... Don't get me started I may start ranting about the middle-lower class tax and interest paying debt society that has been and is being created in the world......................but that is another story, for another day Fukit, I'm gonna go the the furthest corner of the world where I can take care of my mutant children in peace....... I want to live in a world that places a higher value on human life, than it does on money. JeanJeanie ******************** We look forward to the time when the power of love will replace the love of power. Then will our world know the blessing of peace. - William Ewart Gladstone~~We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly~~MLK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,118 #49 August 22, 2002 >Aren't people STILL dieing from the radiation from Chernobyl? Not any more; the immediate area's been evacuated, and the heavy metals have pretty much collected in "stable" areas like riverbeds. In fact, the local environment is doing just great - better than it was before the accident. Sadly, this is because people are a lot worse for the environment than radiation. In any case, the few hundred pounds of uranium in a bomb really doesn't compare to the few thousand tons of fuel released from Chernobyl. >How about Japan? How many people die years later. 120,000 died immediately, 230,000 died within a few years from the radiation, flash burns, fires, etc. >How many birth defects. Nobody has any idea...do they? Well, as Hiroshima is now a very prosperous city, with only memorials to remind them of the bombs we once dropped, I'd say they have a pretty good idea that it's not very lethal 20-30 years afterwards. Coal power plants in the US release hundreds of tons of uranium 238, uranium 235 and thorium into the air every year around big cities; a gun-type fission bomb, containing a few hundred pounds of U-235, wouldn't even show up on the graph. While the immediate (.25 mile radius or so) area would certainly be irradiated, outside that area you're a lot more likely to die from uranium from a coal plant than from a bomb. > How about >the fact that something like New York City or LA now has a large > uninhabitable area? What about that? I agree that panic would result in a huge uninhabitable area, but we have a lot more to worry about with a dirty bomb than an atomic bomb from that angle. Dirty bombs are a lot easier to make, and since they don't need to use purified uranium, they can use much nastier stuff - and put much more of it in the air. Strontium, cesium, plutonium, you name it. None of the above should be construed as claiming that an atomic bomb being detonated in the US isn't a bad thing - quite to the contrary, it's something we should seek to avoid at all costs. However, when you look at the bombs Iraq _might_ be capable of making, it becomes clear that a) if you're bent on terror, there are better and easier options, b) most of the fear of nuclear weapons vs conventional weapons isn't even rational. Look at your response, someone who knows far more than most about the potential of nuclear weapons - you thought a small nuke could kill millions. The man on the street imagines that a "briefcase nuke" could take out NYC and most of NJ in a single stroke, kill tens of millions - and that just ain't the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JeanJeanie 0 #50 August 22, 2002 Price of Gasoline goes up................. Conflict (not war) Price of gasoline goes down (but never quite as low as it was before) Approval rating for the Pres and the 'conflict' goes up......... huummmmmmmmm jeans~~We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly~~MLK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
