Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Now that's scary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Now that's scary

    Read this story in the Washington Post and see what you think
    Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
    (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

  • #2
    I betcha mine is scarier than yours!!!!


    http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qn...get=ISRAEL.HTM

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh that's just great. It's lucky I've already got a nuclear bunker or I'd start digging one tonight.

      Dr. S.
      Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

      www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

      www.tabletown.co.uk

      Comment


      • #4
        Well I know what I 'm doing this weekend. Looks like I'm gonna need a big hole in the back yard and lots of concrete. This could turn ugly. And I do think that RetPara's is scarier...

        Comment


        • #5
          Actually I rather have these nukes sitting on Israeli subs than in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah.
          http://canadiangenealogyandresearch.ca

          Soviet and Canadian medal collector!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Doctor Sinister
            Oh that's just great. It's lucky I've already got a nuclear bunker or I'd start digging one tonight.

            Dr. S.
            Maybe that's why none of your minions wanted any part of the Middle East.
            Lance W.

            Peace through superior firepower.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by RetPara
              I betcha mine is scarier than yours!!!!


              http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qn...get=ISRAEL.HTM
              Definitely a scary prospect, RetPara, though this will be much more difficult and risky than the raid on Osirak in 1981. Since Israel has no friends in the Persian Gulf area, no carriers, and no other option. It seems all but impossible. It is difficult to predict what Jordan will do when their airspace is violated - certainly there will some response, however effective it may be. As for Iraq, our inaction will be yet another poison pill to our relations with Arab/Muslim nations. We must not allow the IAF aircraft pass through untouched. Iran, with an obsolescent air force, will not have an easy time challenging the IAF, but this presupposes that they will make it this far. The range of the F-16 without refuelling is about 2000 miles. The targets will range from about 1200 miles and up. While they may be refueled, by converted 707s, the question remains - where? Where may the IAF tankers orbit while waiting to refuel the F-16s. Again, they could do so over Iraq, but this opens up a can of worms for the US. The abuse scandal will pale in comparison to our active or passive support of an Israeli raid into Iran. In my personal opinion, we must oppose Israeli overflight of Iraq for such a raid. Iran cannot be said to pose a distinct threat to Israel and, while Israel is right to have some concern, this threat is not nearly so ominous as what they faced in 1981.
              Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
              (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

              Comment


              • #8
                Just the thought of any nation under stress of direct attack with nukes is scary. The US, Russia (and CIS states), UK, France and China are not likely to face an opponent bent on overrunning their countries anytime in the forseeable future (well, maybe...). South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Japan... same thing, theres not much danger of really needing nukes as a deterrent to anything. Pakistan, India, Iran, Israel, North Korea... it's just plain scary given their geo-polticial contexts and histories that they possess, are rumord to possess, or are developing nukes. Self-defense...deterrent...whatever, it's still scary wondering if any one of them will feel threatened enough to attmept a first strike or what they will do if a war breaks out and they get cornered and are losing.
                If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What the hell is so scary about this. any one who thins Israel is going to attack us is an idiot. with out the US they won't exist anymore. besides i think turing the rest of the middle east into a pile of glowing glass sounds fun.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Grew up in the duck and cover days of the cold war, I ain't gonna start digging holes now!
                    "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
                    General William "Uncle Billy" Sherman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Brad Ritter
                      Grew up in the duck and cover days of the cold war, I ain't gonna start digging holes now!
                      I'll send you the keys to one of my Bunkers local to you.

                      Dr. S.
                      Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

                      www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

                      www.tabletown.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        What the hell is so scary about this. any one who thins Israel is going to attack us is an idiot. with out the US they won't exist anymore. besides i think turing the rest of the middle east into a pile of glowing glass sounds fun.
                        Your attachment to human life is awe-inspiring.
                        To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Overseer
                          Your attachment to human life is awe-inspiring.
                          Yeah, I thought I was the genocidal insane one?

                          Dr. S.
                          Imagine a ball of iron, the size of the sun. And once a year a tiny sparrow brushes its surface with the tip of its wing. And when that ball of iron, the size of the sun, is worn away to nothing, your punishment will barely have begun.

                          www.sinisterincorporated.co.uk

                          www.tabletown.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Grew up in the duck and cover days of the cold war, I ain't gonna start digging holes now!
                            I sorry Ritter but your wrong. Hogdriver will even back me up here. The threat of a nuclear confrontation is even greater now than it ever has been. The dissension in the ranks of the former Soviet Unions military grows with each day from private to Marshal. The US's newest nuclear missile is over 20 years old. Russias newest nuclear missile is less than 8 (Topol M) and im sorry to say that ours require a s**t load of maintenance to retain thier firing capaibility (MAD no longer exists).

                            The cold war im sorry to say brought stability to the idea of nuclear war. That no longer exists.

                            The Concept insists that Russia must reestablish its ability to play a leading role in defence of the CIS, and also to play a security role in "various strategically important parts of the world." It goes on to explicitly link Russia's military strength to the country's ability to be an active participant in international decision-making. This is the National Security Concept's sharpest departure from the 1993 Doctrine, which, as noted above, was primarily concerned with internal security.

                            Nuclear armaments remain a key element in the Concept. This is consistent with the 1993 Doctrine, which tacitly acknowledged that, given Russia's economic crisis and the consequent decline in its ability to field effective conventional forces, nuclear armaments were its only real option. However, unlike in the 1993 Doctrine, the National Security Concept identifies the role of Russia's nuclear arsenal as deterring external "nuclear weapons attacks against Russia and her allies." The Concept speaks of deterring aggression from "coalitions of states," a clear reference to NATO, which is the only external threat to Russia explicitly identified in the Concept.

                            Among the Concept's most ominous measures is the lowering of Russia's threshold for use of nuclear weapons. Russia's 1997 Security Doctrine permitted nuclear use only "in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation," but the new Concept permits nuclear use to "repulse armed aggression, if all other means of resolving crisis have been exhausted." This is a reaction to the weakening of Russia's conventional forces vis--vis NATO. Russian military exercises in June 1999, which simulated a NATO conventional attack on Kaliningrad, showed Russian forces to be unable to repulse such an attack without resorting to nuclear weapons. The new Concept permits such a nuclear strategy.


                            http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/arms/ru...on05-en.asp?#4


                            Semper Fi

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yeah, what's odd is that the world , as a ehole, was more stable with the bi-polar world we had. Luckily, neither sides' leadership was willing to risk trying to wipe the other out militarily knowing the likely consequences of even attempting to do so.

                              In the post-Cold War multi-polar period, there are no blocs opposing each other that are assured of MAD, so lesser actors crop into the picture that aren't as afraid of being wiped off the face of the Earth because they know we're not going to be dropping ICBMs on anyone, so there's a chance they will survive after getting a cheap shot in. It doesn't mean anyone's going to 'beat' the US at anything or 'win' any conflict, it just means more are willing to take chances and risk confrontation because the results aren't as completely devastating as they once were.

                              Then there's always the whack job who puts together enough resources to take a nuke from someone and uses it knowing full-well there will either a) be a response in anger that won't be pretty for anyone or b) knows we'd be paralyzed to react (since there's no 'target' and there will be no all encompassing response, and they get away with it... at least for the time being... and we go to be a total police state in response... in which case they've 'won' since our way of life would have been 'destroyed'.
                              If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X