nerdgirl 0 #126 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteI 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. 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. I would argue it's not an issue of can terrorists groups be deterred but how to do it. There are some who argue that terrorists can’t be deterred. Others like Paul Kapur (Naval War College), Lew Dunn (SAIC) & me argue that it can. The methods of the Cold War against a peer competitor or other states are not the model, imo. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #127 December 4, 2008 Quote He was launching or shooting everything that he had. Also, he was launching them at Israel? You get a feeling for the intention there. He certainly did not use everything he had. If so, those scuds would have had chemical munitions on them. But if he did that, Tel Aviv would have sent nukes to Bagdad. He knew that. Deterrence works. This thread is one of the dumbest in a long time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #128 December 4, 2008 Quote 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. Many, I dare say a majority, disagree with that statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #129 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteHow 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. Nope, one. The B-29 bomber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #130 December 4, 2008 Want to tell us where the superguns were aimed by chance??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #131 December 4, 2008 Quote Quote Quote 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. 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. I would argue it's not an issue of can terrorists groups be deterred but how to do it. There are some who argue that terrorists can’t be deterred. Others like Paul Kapur (Naval War College), Lew Dunn (SAIC) & me argue that it can. The methods of the Cold War against a peer competitor or other states are not the model, imo. VR/Marg Man, that's a first. A nerdgirl post without a hyperlink. How about one, Marg? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #132 December 4, 2008 Quote Quote I would argue it's not an issue of can terrorists groups be deterred but how to do it. There are some who argue that terrorists can’t be deterred. Others like Paul Kapur (Naval War College), Lew Dunn (SAIC) & me argue that it can. The methods of the Cold War against a peer competitor or other states are not the model, imo. Man, that's a first. A nerdgirl post without a hyperlink. How about one, Marg? Just for you: "Deterrence and Dissuasion for the 21st Century." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #133 December 4, 2008 QuoteWant to tell us where the superguns were aimed by chance??? At the Iranian photoshop lab. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,217 #134 December 4, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Project Babylon was a project allegedly commissioned ... Forgive my skepticism. Lots of ALLEGED WMDs failed to pass the reality test. ... 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. Ahem! The word "alleged" came from the article YOU cited. I didn't make it up. But it makes a good story. Rather like the pilotless planes that were to deliver WMDs to the US, that Bush told us about in 2002.... 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
nerdgirl 0 #135 December 4, 2008 Quote Quote Want to tell us where the superguns were aimed by chance??? At the Iranian photoshop lab. Iraq's supergun was also dismantled and destroyed in 1991. Bull was assassinated in 1990, some suspect by Mossad. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #136 December 4, 2008 QuoteAs 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. The title of HR 7081 is “United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act.” The phrase “and for other purposes” is convention in the body-text of the law regarding the Session of Congress under which the legislation was approved. It doesn’t refer to the specific bill. There's nothing insidious in the specific langauge. E.g., -- HR 7080 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7080 To eliminate certain provisions of law providing benefits to trial lawyers, and for other purposes. -- HR 7082 EH AN ACT One Hundred Tenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and eight An Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permit the Secretary of the Treasury to disclose certain prisoner return information to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and for other purposes. -- HR 7088 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7088 To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize funding for emergency management performance grants to provide for domestic preparedness and collective response to catastrophic incidents, and for other purposes. -- HR 7092 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7092 To amend title 31, United States Code, to end speculation on the current cost of multilingual services provided by the Government, and for other purposes. -- HR 7095 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7095 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a deduction for qualified long-term care insurance premiums, a credit for individuals who care for those with long-term care needs, and for other purposes. -- HR 7097 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H. R. 7097 To promote biogas production, and for other purposes. ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ There are lots of non-partisan reasons to object to or be concerned with the US-India nuclear deal, those four words are not among them. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #137 December 4, 2008 Time tells all.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
Skyrad 0 #138 December 4, 2008 Quote Quote He was launching or shooting everything that he had. Also, he was launching them at Israel? You get a feeling for the intention there. He certainly did not use everything he had. If so, those scuds would have had chemical munitions on them. But if he did that, Tel Aviv would have sent nukes to Bagdad. He knew that. Deterrence works. This thread is one of the dumbest in a long time. So feel free to start your ownWhen 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 #139 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteHow 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. Nope, one. The B-29 bomber. [pedantics] Aha. You said "a primitive passive drop". However, ( "a" + "drop" ) = singular. But there was not a single drop; there were two drops. [/pedantics] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #140 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHow 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. Nope, one. The B-29 bomber. [pedantics] Aha. You said "a primitive passive drop". However, ( "a" + "drop" ) = singular. But there was not a single drop; there were two drops. [/pedantics] Yes, pedantics. The discussion was about delivery systems, and how Iraq having one doesn't mean they'll necessarily use it, given the large number of ones the US has. The same system was used on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #141 December 4, 2008 Quote The same system was used on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually, they were two completely different systems. Hiroshima was a gun-type design using uranium. Nagasaki was an implosion design using plutonium. Very big difference in the two.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #142 December 4, 2008 QuoteQuote The same system was used on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Actually, they were two completely different systems. Hiroshima was a gun-type design using uranium. Nagasaki was an implosion design using plutonium. Very big difference in the two. DELIVERY SYSTEM. Bunch of illiterates here this week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,171 #143 December 4, 2008 > Hiroshima was a gun-type design using uranium. No argument there. But I also agree with Kelp when he said "The discussion was about delivery systems. . . The same system was used on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #144 December 4, 2008 so let's go back to the main subject. Will this attack have an impact on outsourcing? It appears that more minor attacks have been going on constantly for a long while, successfully kept quiet by the Indian government. But a few of these incidents and companies will choose other locations. My company wanted to build a big presence in KL, but decided Malaysia is not ready yet, so instead Singapore gets built up, nevermind the ridiculous costs there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,217 #145 December 4, 2008 Quote> Hiroshima was a gun-type design using uranium. No argument there. But I also agree with Kelp when he said "The discussion was about delivery systems. . . The same system was used on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Well, if you really want to pick nits, the B29 had to be slightly differently modified for the Little Boy than it did for the Fat Man, on account of Little Boy's slimness (2ft diameter) and Fat Man's girth (5ft diameter). The British Type G single-point attachments and Type F releases were used since the American designs caused problems during testing..... 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
kelpdiver 2 #146 December 5, 2008 that's a good nit. Is that why two separate B-29s were used, as opposed to limited exposure or mental fatigue on the crew? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #147 December 7, 2008 QuoteI 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. Pakistan raids camp of group blamed for Mumbai http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20081207/tpl-uk-india-mumbai-81f3b62.htmlWhen 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
