Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Alan Watts on modern warfare

Page 6 of 10 [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

20 Oct 2010, 7:47 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
About meat-shields and the uselessness of starting a nuclear war with a nation that already USED the most powerful weapon known to man against another nation?


Well, one of the most important points you made was that it wasn't the suicide bombers who need worry about the use of nuclear weapons, but instead the chain of people who provide the materials to make a Do-it-yourself nuclear device or even a finished product. However, all a nation like Pakistan, Iran, etc would need to do this is have a fair amount of plausible deniability. The ability to claim ignorance of the loss of materials would also serve as a pretext for increasing their national security and standing armies.


I think you might find that the CIA et al would get VERY investigative were someone to remove..say Washington..from the map. It also seems likely that they would not be so very concerned about such irrelevancies as "plausible deniability." After all, Military Intelligence in the west doesn't appear to be concerned with such matters as "the truth" when engaging in its work. Merely standing nearby to someone who might have been involved would be enough. To follow through the process.. were Washington to be struck by a nuclear device, America would quite happily use the fact that Pakistan currently appears to be harbouring Osama Bin Laden in some comfort with the collusion of Pakistani officials as a pretext to strike back against "the enemy."

Actually its quite likely that America will start a shooting war with Pakistan long before any theoretical nukes get set off if it turns out to be the case that Osama IS in Hotel Islamabad. Assuming that the fact its called "ISLAMabad" isn't already enough.

More on subject, possibly the greatest defence against total thermonuclear obliteration of the entire human race would be the continued research into a) anti-radiation techniques b) anti-missile systems and c) EMP shielding techniques. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a few better thought out post-strike plans than "duck and cover." as well.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

20 Oct 2010, 8:13 pm

Macbeth wrote:
b) anti-missile systems


As for this aspect, I think that the Airborne Laser program shows some promise:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-dEXaSJWME[/youtube]



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

21 Oct 2010, 3:34 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
b) anti-missile systems


As for this aspect, I think that the Airborne Laser program shows some promise:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-dEXaSJWME[/youtube]


As technically amusing a high flying laser ray gun may be there are several factors involved in a nuclear missile attack that make it not particularly useful.
If the bomb is concealed in a vehicle or a shipping container an anti-missile system is of no use. If there is a concerted missile attack with several hundred missile plus a mass of decoys all traveling at speeds out of orbital velocities it is likely a laser can take out a few but a very small number of successful targeting is only necessary to create immense devastation.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

22 Oct 2010, 7:26 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
b) anti-missile systems


As for this aspect, I think that the Airborne Laser program shows some promise:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-dEXaSJWME[/youtube]


As technically amusing a high flying laser ray gun may be there are several factors involved in a nuclear missile attack that make it not particularly useful.
If the bomb is concealed in a vehicle or a shipping container an anti-missile system is of no use. If there is a concerted missile attack with several hundred missile plus a mass of decoys all traveling at speeds out of orbital velocities it is likely a laser can take out a few but a very small number of successful targeting is only necessary to create immense devastation.


A bomb in a crate isn't a "missile attack" by definition, and like all systems I doubt this is supposed to exist in a vacuum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11591213

Of course when Americans do things like THIS ^ then it all becomes a bit academic what sort of systems they have in place...


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

26 Oct 2010, 8:20 am

Jacoby wrote:
Nukes are the only reason we're not on World War VIII right now. They've saved millions of lives.


We wouldnt be in World War Three "right now".

But, yes its qite likely that the existence of nukes did prevent a third world war from breaking out sometime between 1947 and 1989- that is- nukes kiept the fourty plus year Cold War from turning hot.

Maybe.

The Soviets and Americans would sponsor client states to fight the other power's client states ( ie Arabs and Isrealis), and sometimes each superpower would actually fight the other guys client states with it own forces ( Vietnam,Afganistan), but both powers shied from actually directly fighting the other superpower, in part because both feared that the fight would go nuclear.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Oct 2010, 9:25 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Nukes are the only reason we're not on World War VIII right now. They've saved millions of lives.


We wouldnt be in World War Three "right now".

But, yes its qite likely that the existence of nukes did prevent a third world war from breaking out sometime between 1947 and 1989- that is- nukes kiept the fourty plus year Cold War from turning hot.

Maybe.

The Soviets and Americans would sponsor client states to fight the other power's client states ( ie Arabs and Isrealis), and sometimes each superpower would actually fight the other guys client states with it own forces ( Vietnam,Afganistan), but both powers shied from actually directly fighting the other superpower, in part because both feared that the fight would go nuclear.


The conditions that prevailed when the nuclear weapons were controlled by nations are totally different from those that work with small terrorist groups. For one thing a bomb set off from a shipping crate not indicating the source leaves no target for counterattack. When an IBM comes in the source can be traced. Not so with a terrorist weapon. And even a nation could disguise the source by indicating it was a terrorist group or some other innocent nation known to possess nuclear weapons. MAD doesn't work anymore.

Take a theoretical case where, Israel, which has approximately 200 nuclear bombs, wanted to start a nuclear bombing of Iran. The Israelis are very technically competent and might be able to lob an atomic bomb into some US city with the indication by some kind of fabricated evidence that the bomb originated in Iran. Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes. The whole WMD scenario with Bush indicated that the USA can be gulled into military action by false evidence. And Israel would be quite happy to severely incapacitate Iran.
Whether any other nuclear power - say Pakistan, would consider this a war against Muslims is hard to say and what the response might be is an open question.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Oct 2010, 10:30 am

Sand wrote:
Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes.


So, during the war with all the other nations around them and accidentally misidentifying an American ship as an enemy target and attacking it, how did the USA respond?



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

26 Oct 2010, 10:44 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Besides, the THREAT of the weapon is the true power of the weapon. There is no point actually USING them.


Not completely true, since in the hands of fanatics who are willing enough to sacrifice their own lives as suicide bombers a nuclear weapon would be ideal for usage. The threat of a weapon is only effective against an enemy which is afraid of harm from that weapon.


I dunno. There are a lot of usages for nukes in their "deterrent" capabilities. Bury a properly-contained but live nuke in your backyard and watch your property values soar, maybe even that of your neighbors. It could also increase the voting power you have with your local city counsel and tax assessor such that taxes won't rise with property value. Haven't gotten along with a neighbor in the past? You will now!

Problems with kids rolling your yard and vandalizing your house? Strategically placed nuclear "by-products" will ensure that never happens again.

And that's just keeping one around for "security" purposes. Actually USING them has significant benefits. For example, nukes are proven effective for eliminating facial blemishes FOREVER.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Oct 2010, 10:54 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes.


So, during the war with all the other nations around them and accidentally misidentifying an American ship as an enemy target and attacking it, how did the USA respond?


Since you are so hot on research you can easily discover that the Israeli forces not only recognized the Liberty as an American ship with clearly identified marking but the senior Israeli pilot at the attack recognized the ship as a US vessel and refused to attack. He was arrested when he returned to base.

See http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... berty.html



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Oct 2010, 11:12 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes.


So, during the war with all the other nations around them and accidentally misidentifying an American ship as an enemy target and attacking it, how did the USA respond?


Since you are so hot on research you can easily discover that the Israeli forces not only recognized the Liberty as an American ship with clearly identified marking but the senior Israeli pilot at the attack recognized the ship as a US vessel and refused to attack. He was arrested when he returned to base.

See http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... berty.html


So, the senior pilot was arrested for refusing to follow orders or for refusing to destroy an American ship?

Also, the link you gave did indicate that the ship was thought to be Egyptian and not American. At the altitude of a spy plane the Liberty would look near identical to the Egyptian vessel it was thought to be, although the photograph on the link you provided shows them from a couple hundred yards distance where, even then, they are similar in appearance. The military intelligence was wrong but insisted that they must be right, do you know how often that has happened throughout this era of modern warfare?



waltur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

26 Oct 2010, 4:59 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Fear of getting turned into a glassy plain is what stops Pakistan starting a nuclear war, same as everybody else. All I'm saying is that its a bit daft to simply disregard them as "showing responsibility" because they have had nuclear weapons for quite a while and not used them. Political situations change, often drastically.

Iran would most likely NOT ship nukes to Gaza because they already get enough grief for shipping all the other weapons there. Were a major nuclear power to determine that the nuke that destroyed a sizable chunk of Israel came from Iran, Iran KNOWS that it has no real defence against absolute annihilation.

Besides, the THREAT of the weapon is the true power of the weapon. There is no point actually USING them.



nuclear weapons are (metaphorically) a genie that isn't likely to be put back in the lamp. an alarming number of religious extremists in iran (and elsewhere) believe that we are quickly approaching (sickeningly not metaphorically) the end of the world and that this is a good thing. the implied threat of "you glass them, we glass you" doesn't work when they're ok with that.

not to imply that i have any workable solution to that.

maybe someday, the fate of the world won't rest on the decisions of people who believe in magic.


_________________
Waltur the Walrus Slayer,
Militant Asantist.
"BLASPHEMER!! !! !! !!" (according to AngelRho)


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

26 Oct 2010, 5:31 pm

waltur wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Fear of getting turned into a glassy plain is what stops Pakistan starting a nuclear war, same as everybody else. All I'm saying is that its a bit daft to simply disregard them as "showing responsibility" because they have had nuclear weapons for quite a while and not used them. Political situations change, often drastically.

Iran would most likely NOT ship nukes to Gaza because they already get enough grief for shipping all the other weapons there. Were a major nuclear power to determine that the nuke that destroyed a sizable chunk of Israel came from Iran, Iran KNOWS that it has no real defence against absolute annihilation.

Besides, the THREAT of the weapon is the true power of the weapon. There is no point actually USING them.



nuclear weapons are (metaphorically) a genie that isn't likely to be put back in the lamp. an alarming number of religious extremists in iran (and elsewhere) believe that we are quickly approaching (sickeningly not metaphorically) the end of the world and that this is a good thing. the implied threat of "you glass them, we glass you" doesn't work when they're ok with that.

not to imply that i have any workable solution to that.

maybe someday, the fate of the world won't rest on the decisions of people who believe in magic.


Extremists themselves may invite the end of the world, but its a fair bet that their suppliers and paymasters in Tehran and Islamabad are slightly less inclined to see their worldly domains made as dust. It seems unlikely that they would support the deployment of a nuclear explosive unless they were very confident they would not be on the receiving end of any retaliation.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Oct 2010, 7:01 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes.


So, during the war with all the other nations around them and accidentally misidentifying an American ship as an enemy target and attacking it, how did the USA respond?


Since you are so hot on research you can easily discover that the Israeli forces not only recognized the Liberty as an American ship with clearly identified marking but the senior Israeli pilot at the attack recognized the ship as a US vessel and refused to attack. He was arrested when he returned to base.

See http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... berty.html


So, the senior pilot was arrested for refusing to follow orders or for refusing to destroy an American ship?

Also, the link you gave did indicate that the ship was thought to be Egyptian and not American. At the altitude of a spy plane the Liberty would look near identical to the Egyptian vessel it was thought to be, although the photograph on the link you provided shows them from a couple hundred yards distance where, even then, they are similar in appearance. The military intelligence was wrong but insisted that they must be right, do you know how often that has happened throughout this era of modern warfare?


A sucker for a 6000 year old universe is quite appropriate for a sucker for Israeli BS.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Oct 2010, 7:34 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes.


So, during the war with all the other nations around them and accidentally misidentifying an American ship as an enemy target and attacking it, how did the USA respond?


Since you are so hot on research you can easily discover that the Israeli forces not only recognized the Liberty as an American ship with clearly identified marking but the senior Israeli pilot at the attack recognized the ship as a US vessel and refused to attack. He was arrested when he returned to base.

See http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... berty.html


So, the senior pilot was arrested for refusing to follow orders or for refusing to destroy an American ship?

Also, the link you gave did indicate that the ship was thought to be Egyptian and not American. At the altitude of a spy plane the Liberty would look near identical to the Egyptian vessel it was thought to be, although the photograph on the link you provided shows them from a couple hundred yards distance where, even then, they are similar in appearance. The military intelligence was wrong but insisted that they must be right, do you know how often that has happened throughout this era of modern warfare?


A sucker for a 6000 year old universe is quite appropriate for a sucker for Israeli BS.


A sucker for abiogenesis is quite appropriate for a sucker for liberal bullcrap.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Oct 2010, 9:49 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Doubtlessly the US would respond in kind with a much greater nuclear force. The USS Liberty incident is a clear indication that Israel has no qualms about killing Americans if it serves their purposes.


So, during the war with all the other nations around them and accidentally misidentifying an American ship as an enemy target and attacking it, how did the USA respond?


Since you are so hot on research you can easily discover that the Israeli forces not only recognized the Liberty as an American ship with clearly identified marking but the senior Israeli pilot at the attack recognized the ship as a US vessel and refused to attack. He was arrested when he returned to base.

See http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... berty.html


So, the senior pilot was arrested for refusing to follow orders or for refusing to destroy an American ship?

Also, the link you gave did indicate that the ship was thought to be Egyptian and not American. At the altitude of a spy plane the Liberty would look near identical to the Egyptian vessel it was thought to be, although the photograph on the link you provided shows them from a couple hundred yards distance where, even then, they are similar in appearance. The military intelligence was wrong but insisted that they must be right, do you know how often that has happened throughout this era of modern warfare?


A sucker for a 6000 year old universe is quite appropriate for a sucker for Israeli BS.


A sucker for abiogenesis is quite appropriate for a sucker for liberal bullcrap.


Either abiogenesis or life existed forever. It had to happen and not by magic. By accepting your error you might be able to change it. Otherwise you are condemned forever to arrogance and ignorance.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Oct 2010, 6:47 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
A sucker for a 6000 year old universe is quite appropriate for a sucker for Israeli BS.


A sucker for abiogenesis is quite appropriate for a sucker for liberal bullcrap.


Either abiogenesis or life existed forever. It had to happen and not by magic. By accepting your error you might be able to change it. Otherwise you are condemned forever to arrogance and ignorance.


Arrogance, fine. "Ignorance", fine. Life did not, by any means, have to happen. That life exists at all is not a requirement of chemistry nor ought it to be blindly expected. This particular planet is teeming with life to the degree that everywhere we look there is some form of life, but to consider the plenitude of life at one singular location to be indicative of it to be also ubiquitous is truly ignorance and not merely the form of "ignorance" which ignorant people accuse others of having.