Skyrad 0 #101 December 2, 2008 Ann Widacam is a virgin. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #102 December 2, 2008 QuoteIf the whole 70 virgin thing was such a good deal... But it's not. Imagine: "Can't we talk about our relationship? You don't care about my feelings" multiplied 70 times. Fuck that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #103 December 2, 2008 QuoteQuote Once nukes fall in the hands of a terrorist organization game over. Do you really think those people give a shit about mutually assured destruction? Do you know many 'terrorist' LEADERS who don't care about their own lives, and therefore don't fear the inevitable response from their actions? Did Osama fly the planes? No, he sent dumb followers to do that dirty work. The whole basis of MAD is fear of retaliation in kind. But if we're talking about terrorists with nukes you have to ask: "Who do you retaliate against?" Bin Laden doesn't represent a country per se. Of course, we could always do the Iraq thing and pick some relatively arbitrary place to express our anger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
humanflite 0 #104 December 2, 2008 I can see how this went down...and I bet the terrorists werent 'that well trained' India and efficient security dont go together well. Their 'special forces' still ride around in rice carts ffs Had the first hotel been hit in London or NY, the whole bunch of them would have been dead within a short time. Nobody even fired at 3 of them massacring unarmed people in the train station??? talk about soft targets Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #105 December 2, 2008 Quote The whole basis of MAD is fear of retaliation in kind. But if we're talking about terrorists with nukes you have to ask: "Who do you retaliate against?" Bin Laden doesn't represent a country per se. Of course, we could always do the Iraq thing and pick some relatively arbitrary place to express our anger. you answered your own argument. You might also recall what happened to the Taliban. Nationless groups still have fear of retribution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #106 December 2, 2008 Quote I can see how this went down...and I bet the terrorists werent 'that well trained' India and efficient security dont go together well. Their 'special forces' still ride around in rice carts ffs Had the first hotel been hit in London or NY, the whole bunch of them would have been dead within a short time. Nobody even fired at 3 of them massacring unarmed people in the train station??? talk about soft targets The police were hiding, even though they were armed and citizens were begging them to fight back. article here Quote But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." Quote The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #107 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote The whole basis of MAD is fear of retaliation in kind. But if we're talking about terrorists with nukes you have to ask: "Who do you retaliate against?" Bin Laden doesn't represent a country per se. Of course, we could always do the Iraq thing and pick some relatively arbitrary place to express our anger. you answered your own argument. You might also recall what happened to the Taliban. Nationless groups still have fear of retribution. The Mumbai attacks seem to indicate otherwise. So do all the Al Qaeda attacks over the years. BTW, when the terrorists detonate a nuke or dirty bomb in a populated area, where do you retaliate in kind exactly? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #108 December 3, 2008 Quote The Mumbai attacks seem to indicate otherwise. So do all the Al Qaeda attacks over the years. BTW, when the terrorists detonate a nuke or dirty bomb in a populated area, where do you retaliate in kind exactly? I wasn't aware that the Mumbai attackers used tactical nukes, or any kind at all. Same for Al Queda. So nothing relevant to the discussion is indicated. Resolve that fallacy if you want to continue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #109 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote The Mumbai attacks seem to indicate otherwise. So do all the Al Qaeda attacks over the years. BTW, when the terrorists detonate a nuke or dirty bomb in a populated area, where do you retaliate in kind exactly? I wasn't aware that the Mumbai attackers used tactical nukes, or any kind at all. Same for Al Queda. So nothing relevant to the discussion is indicated. Resolve that fallacy if you want to continue. Nice way to snip context. You said that terrorists fear retribution. You didn't qualify it as "they only fear retribution if it's nuclear". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #110 December 3, 2008 Quote Nice way to snip context. You said that terrorists fear retribution. You didn't qualify it as "they only fear retribution if it's nuclear". Dude, you're talking about Mutually Assured Destruction. Unless you're clueless or can't remember the past 30 seconds of a conversation, it's a given that it's a nuclear discussion. Better yet, look out in the world. Without any real linkage to 9/11, Americans were happy to take out all of Iraq in retribution, and that was for an attack that isn't remotely close to a nuclear attack. Squeak is right - this is a waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #111 December 3, 2008 Quote I can see how this went down...and I bet the terrorists werent 'that well trained' India and efficient security dont go together well. Their 'special forces' still ride around in rice carts ffs Had the first hotel been hit in London or NY, the whole bunch of them would have been dead within a short time. Nobody even fired at 3 of them massacring unarmed people in the train station??? talk about soft targets I suspect that the terrorists were trained in basic tactics and weapon handling. I agree about the Indian armed forces. 12 Hours after landing on the roof and entering the Jewish building they brought it to a close. They clearly were not trained for this, as one 'black cat commando' (Do me a favour) commented 'no one knew what was going on'...and it was different from his 9 years of fighting Kashmiri millitants in the woods where there were one or two who used shoot and scoot tactics. They were using 40mm grenades inside the jewish building, I saw one 'black cat commando' discharging his H&K with it held at arms length abouve his head like a west African street fighter, fucking pathetic. Then they have the barefaced audacity to declare that they found the 5 hostages dead when they got to them! I'd like to see a full forensic investigation on the bodies of the hostages to determine just how they died. Two press reporters were shot because the outer cordon was in clear line of fire and a stones throw away from the hotel. The terrorists were watching the on going operation on the internet using blackberries. The whole thing was a total cluster fuck and the Indian security forces were shown to be ineffective.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #112 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Nice way to snip context. You said that terrorists fear retribution. You didn't qualify it as "they only fear retribution if it's nuclear". Dude, you're talking about Mutually Assured Destruction. Unless you're clueless or can't remember the past 30 seconds of a conversation, it's a given that it's a nuclear discussion. Better yet, look out in the world. Without any real linkage to 9/11, Americans were happy to take out all of Iraq in retribution, and that was for an attack that isn't remotely close to a nuclear attack. Right, and US action in Iraq effectively distracted us from the real fight against Al Qaeda. In other words, it was an ineffective example of retribution. Are you now saying that the war in Iraq should strike fear in the hearts of terrorists and that will deter them from a nuclear strike? Give me a break. If you really believe that terrorists will be deterred from using nukes because they fear retribution, God bless you. Because the only way you can believe that is with a healthy dose of religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 December 3, 2008 I actually understand how deterrence works, so yes, I'm not nearly as worried about it as you. The false fear over Saddam using nukes some day was, of course, the other rallying call for the invasion of Iraq. This was despite the fact that he never would, as proven by his neutered Scud missiles launched at Israel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #114 December 3, 2008 QuoteI actually understand how deterrence works, so yes, I'm not nearly as worried about it as you. The false fear over Saddam using nukes some day was, of course, the other rallying call for the invasion of Iraq. This was despite the fact that he never would, as proven by his neutered Scud missiles launched at Israel. Scuds weren't the problem. That was what he had available at the time. Iraq wasn't there, but it was going there. Google "Dr Gerald Bull" and "Iraq Supergun". Interesting read. The skinny version is this: It was a 300ft long barrel, probably 30in in diameter. Designed by Bull when he did work for the CIA years ago, as a possible replacement method to put satellites in orbit. It could put a telephone-booth-sized object weighing 300lbs up 85km. Reusable in 7 days. Not high enough for use, so the project was abandoned. The British built the "tubes" to be assembled in Iraq. They were seized at the last moment before shipment. Ask yourself, was Iraq interested in: Starting a space program? A satellite launch program? A small weight nuke delivery system that reaches near-Earth orbit long enough to drop something anywhere in the ME? As far as India, two months ago we signed a bill into law that allows the US to sell nuclear material to India. Even though India is one of 4 non-signers to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. India has tested nukes in the past, but promises not to do it again, per the terms of the sale. This is the best part QuoteH.R. 7081 United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act To approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and for other purposes. Whaaa? "...and other purposes" ? It says "peaceful uses of nuclear energy" and "other purposes". What are the "other purposes" that do not fall into the "peaceful" category? Like "virginity" and all the other "non-virginity" stuff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #115 December 3, 2008 QuoteThe British built the "tubes" to be assembled in Iraq. Wrong.. A company in Britain may have made them.. Stating that Britain made them appears to imply a lot more. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #116 December 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteThe British built the "tubes" to be assembled in Iraq. Wrong.. A company in Britain may have made them.. Stating that Britain made them appears to imply a lot more. True. When paired with the following line that followed, it explained why the tubes did not make it to Iraq. That was the point, to explain why the Supergun was never actually built. If people write that Iraq did not have nuclear plans/intentions, that is not true. It was in the process. Pointing out the difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #117 December 3, 2008 Quote Scuds weren't the problem. That was what he had available at the time. Iraq wasn't there, but it was going there. Scuds worked just fine. But while he threatened to put chemical munitions on them as part of his bluster, he wisely did not actually do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #118 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Scuds weren't the problem. That was what he had available at the time. Iraq wasn't there, but it was going there. Scuds worked just fine. But while he threatened to put chemical munitions on them as part of his bluster, he wisely did not actually do so. Scuds were a side-topic of the discussion. I was responding to your statement: QuoteThe false fear over Saddam using nukes some day was, of course, the other rallying call for the invasion of Iraq. This was despite the fact that he never would, as proven by his neutered Scud missiles launched at Israel. "he never would" Wikipedia - Project Babylon QuoteProject Babylon was a project allegedly commissioned by the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein during the Iran–Iraq War to build a series of superguns. The design was based on research from the 60s Project HARP led by the Canadian artillery expert Gerald Bull. Although the details are sketchy, it appears that there were four different devices in total included in the program. QuoteIt was supposedly intended to shoot projectiles into orbit, a theme of Bull's work since Project HARP. Neither of these devices could be elevated or trained, making them relatively useless for direct military purposes, unless some form of terminal guidance could be used to direct the fired projectile onto its intended target. Small gun being test fired - QuoteBaby Babylon was completed, and test shots were fired from it... Big gun being built - QuoteMost of the barrel sections for Big Babylon were delivered, and it was assembled on a site excavated out of the side of a hill, after calculations showed that the support framework would be insufficiently rigid. However, it was never fully completed. Test firing of the small gun and parts being assembled on the big one. That sounds like plans were moving forward. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,217 #119 December 4, 2008 Quote Project Babylon was a project allegedly commissioned ... Forgive my skepticism. Lots of ALLEGED WMDs failed to pass the reality test.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #120 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote Project Babylon was a project allegedly commissioned ... Forgive my skepticism. Lots of ALLEGED WMDs failed to pass the reality test. From the link (and supported by many other sources, including several books) : QuoteAll of the required metal tubes for the barrels and gun cradles were purchased from firms in the United Kingdom, including Sheffield Forgemasters, South Yorkshire. Other components such as breeches and recoil mechanisms were ordered from firms in Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and Italy. Baby Babylon was completed, and test shots were fired from it, revealing problems with the seals between the barrel segments. QuoteMost of the barrel sections for Big Babylon were delivered, and it was assembled on a site excavated out of the side of a hill, after calculations showed that the support framework would be insufficiently rigid. However, it was never fully completed. QuoteOther components, such as slide bearings for Big Babylon, were seized at manufacturers in Spain and Switzerland. QuoteFinally, in the wake of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the Iraqis admitted the existence of Project Babylon, and allowed U.N. inspectors to destroy all of the hardware in Iraq as part of the disarmament process after the war. Several of the barrel sections seized by UK customs officers are currently on display at the Royal Armouries Fort Nelson, Portsmouth site. Another section is on display at Firepower - The Royal Artillery Museum in Woolwich, London. All the pieces were manufactured, shipped, built, and test fired for the smaller gun. Test firing the phase-1 gun is way more than an "alleged" project. The pieces for the larger gun were being shipped to Iraq and some of the parts were being installed. The Iraqis admitted it. They had some engineering obstacles that Bull would have overcome if he hadn't been assassinated in Paris. Bull was a world-recognized expert on the subject. In other literature, it goes into his work for the French, South Africans, Canadians, the US, and Israelis. His specialty was artillery and tank barrels. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #121 December 4, 2008 The existence of a delivery platform says nothing about willingness/intent to use nuclear weapons. How many different planes, and missiles have we had in the US? Only one was ever used, a primitive passive drop from aircraft. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #122 December 4, 2008 I was pretty shocked to read today that Pakistan will not turn these guys over to India. They want to try them in their own courts. These ISI guys sound like some bad apples, who are outside the control of govt.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #123 December 4, 2008 Quote The existence of a delivery platform says nothing about willingness/intent to use nuclear weapons. How many different planes, and missiles have we had in the US? Only one was ever used, a primitive passive drop from aircraft. You are speaking of the "willingness/intent" of Iraq and then you compare it to the choices that the US has made? The options that Iraq chooses have nothing to do with the decisions that the US has made. Using that logic, the US didn't choose to invade Kuwait, so why did Iraq? Iraq does what it wishes. That is a ridiculous parallel. If you want to discuss the "willingness" of Iraq to use any weapon at its disposal, you proved the point with this statement. You said: Quote This was despite the fact that he never would, as proven by his neutered Scud missiles launched at Israel. All he had, at the time, was Scuds. While I am sure that he was disappointed about that, and their accuracy, he did launch them. He was launching or shooting everything that he had. Also, he was launching them at Israel? You get a feeling for the intention there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #124 December 4, 2008 QuoteHow many different planes, and missiles have we had in the US? Only one was ever used, a primitive passive drop from aircraft. pssst. It was two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #125 December 4, 2008 QuoteI actually understand how deterrence works, so yes, I'm not nearly as worried about it as you. The false fear over Saddam using nukes some day was, of course, the other rallying call for the invasion of Iraq. This was despite the fact that he never would, as proven by his neutered Scud missiles launched at Israel. But you're just proving my point. MAD works against states, for example, Iraq. It does not have the same power against "nationless groups" to use your own terminology. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
