Barack O'bomb

[P_Marlowe]

So we stay and die to remove mines for 20 months? At least this is an explanation.

 

Look, If there is something you want to do that takes 20 months say it as here, but they say we cannot win and we cannot stabilize the country in 20 months.

I dont believe that you cant stabilize the country

in 20 month, ... you can.

But maybe not the Americans, they usually dont look

into the past trying to detect errors they have done.

Sometimes this is a good strategy, it speeds up

the decision process, sometimes it is not, fast decisions

are not always the best decision.

 

As a matter of fact, I believe that the only way to solve

the issue is to hold course, permanently correcting errors,

because in the end, peoble become tired of fighting.

 

And maybe the financial problems the US household will

face in the near future or already faces will help that they

learn to spend the money they have better.

Something similar happened in Germany, after the wall

came down, Westgermans believed they were able to

pay anything, but time proved their pockets were finite.

Currently we are consolidating, and thanks to crisis in the

financial sector they will keep going, lets see how long they

will stay the course.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

Just a question: What are the American troops DOING in Germany (except for complaining that their salary is in $ and the cost of living in €)?

1) We wonder the same thing, I heard it is cheaper and more strategic in the long run to preposition troops overseas.

2) They acted as a trip wire during the cold war and I guess they still do?

 

AGain this is a geninue polite question, "what is the reason the German government gives all these years to its own people ?"

#1 The reason they stayed until 1990 are clear?

#2 The numbers are decreasing.

#3 If the Americans leave, unemployment in certain rural areas will

raise, i.e. large areas in Germany want that the soldiers stay (*).

And to prevent this, or at least to prevent an fast explosion of the

unemployment rate, you need time, lots of time.

I am pretty certain that German tax payer pays some of the

money needed for paying bill cause by the American soldiers.

One example would be German soldiers / members of police taking

over the responsibilty to guard what ever, I believe I remember

about this.

 

(*) Similar discussion arise, if it comes to reduction the number of

German soldiers / closing army bases.

This became necessary, because the total numbers of the armed forces

got reduce, as well as the length of the period male persons were

forced to be a soldier.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

So we stay and die to remove mines for 20 months? At least this is an explanation.

 

Look, If there is something you want to do that takes 20 months say it as here, but they say we cannot win and we cannot stabilize the country in 20 months.

I dont believe that you cant stabilize the country

in 20 month, ... you can.

But maybe not the Americans, they usually dont look

into the past trying to detect errors they have done.

Sometimes this is a good strategy, it speeds up

the decision process, sometimes it is not, fast decisions

are not always the best decision.

 

As a matter of fact, I believe that the only way to solve

the issue is to hold course, permanently correcting errors,

because in the end, peoble become tired of fighting.

 

And maybe the financial problems the US household will

face in the near future or already faces will help that they

learn to spend the money they have better.

Something similar happened in Germany, after the wall

came down, Westgermans believed they were able to

pay anything, but time proved their pockets were finite.

Currently we are consolidating, and thanks to crisis in the

financial sector they will keep going, lets see how long they

will stay the course.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Marlowe the Democrats say the war is lost and we cannot stabize the country in 20 months and maybe not in 20 years. The Republicans say we need to stay for as long as it takes.........to win or something.....you fill in the blank....

 

 

 

 

No one is saying we can stabilize( win) and go home in 20 months. But you may be correct, ty for polite reply.

[mike777]

Just a question: What are the American troops DOING in Germany (except for complaining that their salary is in $ and the cost of living in €)?

1) We wonder the same thing, I heard it is cheaper and more strategic in the long run to preposition troops overseas.

2) They acted as a trip wire during the cold war and I guess they still do?

 

AGain this is a geninue polite question, "what is the reason the German government gives all these years to its own people ?"

#1 The reason they stayed until 1990 are clear?

#2 The numbers are decreasing.

#3 If the Americans leave, unemployment in certain rural areas will

raise, i.e. large areas in Germany want that the soldiers stay.

And to prevent this, or at least to prevent an fast explosion of the

unemployment rate, you need time, lots of time.

I am pretty certain that German tax payer pays some of the

money needed for paying bill cause by the American soldiers.

One example would be German soldiers / members of police taking

over the responsibilty to guard what ever, I believe I remember

about this.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

Marlowe, again this is a real question. Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio? :)

[P_Marlowe]

Marlowe, again this is a real question. Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio? :)

Would western Europe stop what?

[mike777]

Marlowe, again this is a real question.  Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio? :)

Would western Europe stop what?

 

Russia invading Europe. I asked this since Gerben brought up America having troops in Germany, today.

 

Are you concerned that Russia would use its military against parts of Europe, would western Europe send in its young men and women to stop it? Would you expect Americans to send in its young men and women to stop it?

 

Along other lines we have Mrs Clinton telling Iran she would wipe them off the map if they nuke Israel. Mrs. Clinton seems certain that Iran is 100% trying to get nukes and this is a terrible thing. I am not sure what evidence she has.

 

 

I ask this since the other day Mrs. Clinton stated if she was President and Iran nuked Israel she would wipe Iran off the map with nukes. Yet Congress has not approved this and we have no treaty with Israel.

[hrothgar]

Marlowe, again this is a real question.  Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio? :)

Would western Europe stop what?

 

Russia invading Europe.

 

Are you concerned that Russia would use its military against parts of Europe, would western Europe send in its young men and women to stop it? Would you expect Americans to send in its young men and women to stop it?

I think that the entire theme is ludicrous....

 

You haven't mentioned the word "NATO" in your hypothetical. I can't imagine a credible scenario in which the Russians would consider attacking a member of NATO. Russia is far too economically integrated with Western Europe to consider any kind of military conflict with a NATO member. On the one hand, Europe trade boycotts would harm Russia immensely. Equally significant, Russia's enormous natural resources gives it a much more cost effective weapon that its tank battalions. I suspect that the threat of a natural gas / oil boycotts will be Russia's main leverage over Western Europe for years to come.

 

Russia might very well use military force against a non NATO member in Europe. The Russians certainly intervened in Chechnya, though its hard to say whether this should be considered "invading Europe"...

[P_Marlowe]

Marlowe, again this is a real question.  Europe has no fear of Russia invading Europe. Of course by Europe I include the far eastern part of Europe. OF course parts of this used to be the USSR. Would western Europe stop this or do nothing or is this just an impossible scenerio? :)

Would western Europe stop what?

 

Russia invading Europe.

 

Are you concerned that Russia would use its military against parts of Europe, would western Europe send in its young men and women to stop it? Would you expect Americans to send in its young men and women to stop it?

 

Along other lines we have Mrs Clinton telling Iran she would wipe them off the map if they nuke Israel.

 

 

I ask this since the other day Mrs. Clinton stated if she was President and Iran nuked Israel she would wipe Iran off the map with nukes. Yet Congress has not approved this and we have no treaty with Israel.

No, this wont happen, because their are other ways for

Russia to "conquer" (western) europe, one way is oil.

 

Regarding nuking the world / the star wars program (SDI)

(what do they currently calling it?):

What I find depressing is, that all the idots forget one basic

thing, we live in one world.

If Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran, nukes get fired

against the US and get destroyed by SDI, what do you think

the result wll be with regards to nuclear pollution of the

atmosphere?

 

And the water pollute will raise in europe to sky and fall down

in the US (and the other way round).

 

As it is, it is a futil / stupid discussion.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[mike777]

"Russia might very well use military force against a non NATO member in Europe. The Russians certainly intervened in Chechnya,"

 

 

"No, this wont happen, because their are other ways for

Russia to "conquer" (western) europe, one way is oil."

 

Marlowe I spoke about eastern europe, far eastern europe please see my OP. ty.

I only brought it up because Gerben mentioned US troops in Germany and the German border is not that far from Eastern Europe.

 

 

 

This is exactly the theme I presented. I do not say attack a Nato member.....I pointed out far eastern europe on purpose..sigh.......and I asked if this was simply an impossible scenerio. I assume eastern europe part of europe....sigh. :)

[Al_U_Card]

Since we are more on the "Bomb" aspect of the thread......just ask "who benefits" from continued military presence around the world?

 

The american people? Too many spent taxes and dead soldiers for that.

 

The world? They would just as soon see the US leave, the quicker the better (except for the profiteers and sycophantic allies that benefit from the military presence.)

 

The defense contractors, oil companies etc. etc. ? BINGO!

[P_Marlowe]

Russia might very well use military force against a non NATO member in Europe.  The Russians certainly intervened in Chechnya, though its hard to say whether this should be considered "invading Europe"...

And Russia may well got called for help by the goverment

in Chechnya, or they had soldiers already in the country for

historic reasons.

Or Russia may have said, that they wanted to stop terrorist

attacks from Chechnyas soil, taking certain US action as

a blueprint how to deal with certain things.

I dont have the history of the conflict available, and I am

well aware, that the goverment may be a russian marionette.

 

More general, one should keep one thing in mind:

Foreigners living in Russia will quite often tell you, that the news

coverage in the western press is heavily biased, and that lots

of thing will come across wrong.

One famous example is Michail Chodorkowskijs, according to

news coverage you may believe he is a hero fighting for liberal

ideas and so on.

The simple statement was: What he did, would have sent him to

jail even in Western Europe.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[luke warm]

Regarding nuking the world / the star wars program (SDI)

(what do they currently calling it?):

What I find depressing is, that all the idots forget one basic

thing, we live in one world.

If Iran nukes Israel, America nukes Iran, nukes get fired

against the US and get destroyed by SDI, what do you think

the result wll be with regards to nuclear pollution of the

atmosphere?

 

And the water pollute will raise in europe to sky and fall down

in the US (and the other way round).

who are you calling "idiots" and why?

As it is, it is a futil / stupid discussion.

i find it amazing that you can say this, as if you've examined all aspects of a nuclear attack on the usa and have determined that one course of action is better than others... what is it you know about SDI that makes you dislike it so much?

[hrothgar]

what is it you know about SDI that makes you dislike it so much?

The words "Maginot Line" come to mind... Great defensive system, unless - of course - the Germans decide to walk around it. (Actually, this is probably unfair to the Maginot Line since it successfully resisted attack while the SDI system's test history is dubious at best)

 

The Strategic Defense Initiative is extremely expensive, its of very limited utility, and its inherently destabilizing.

 

1. The SDI system could never protect against any kind of "real" attack. It's orders of magnitude cheaper to deploy counter measures designed to spoof the SDI system than it is to shoot down incoming missiles. There are all sorts of ways to beat the SDI system (decoys being by far the most popular).

 

2. The SDI system also doesn't provide any kind of effective defense against rogue states or terrorist groups with a nuke. If the US suffers a deliberate nuclear attack the nuke won't be delivered by anythign as obvious as an ICBM. It will be smuggled in a cargo ship, concealed in a drug shipment, or come in on a small plane.

 

3. SDI might be able to defend against an accidental launch, assuming of course that you were lucky enough to have a guilded missile cruiser sitting in just the right location when said accidental took place. The problem with the accidental launch scenario is that this type of thing is inherently random. Its hard to predict and hard to defend against. Don't get me wrong, I sure as hell don't cherish the idea of losing a city to an accidental launch. However, I don't think that SDI is the most cost effective way to protect the US against nuclear threats. I'd prefer to see the money that is being wasted on the SDI invested in securing uranium and plutonium stores.

 

That enough for now? I can go on...

[Gerben42]

"No, this wont happen, because their are other ways for

Russia to "conquer" (western) europe, one way is oil."

 

And we're allowing them, at least the German government is as long as they don't want to build any power plants (no coal power plants, no nuclear power plants, let's just buy energy abroad). Russia must be laughing behind our back. The loser in the end is the consumer.

 

You know from other threads where I work so you can take it any way you like, but I can't help saying that shutting down nuclear power plants at this point in time is a BAD idea.

 

There may be a time where we can support all our needs with only wind, hydro and solar power and such things. But that's decades away. Maybe even more.

[Al_U_Card]

BUT, its greatest effect is to seriously enrich the hi-tech military-industrial complex. Methods and venues change but the people that exploit them remain, unfortunately, the same.

[PassedOut]

2.  The SDI system also doesn't provide any kind of effective defense against rogue states or terrorist groups with a nuke.  If the US suffers a deliberate nuclear attack the nuke won't be delivered by anythign as obvious as an ICBM.

And of course this applies to any government that wants to attack in the future, not just the current "rogue states." Your Maginot Line analogy is right on the mark.

[PassedOut]

You know from other threads where I work so you can take it any way you like, but I can't help saying that shutting down nuclear power plants at this point in time is a BAD idea.

I agree. We need to resolve waste and safety issues, but we really need the energy.

[luke warm]

That enough for now? I can go on...

maybe everything you say is true, i just have a feeling our defenses are further along than you think they are... you can't always defend against every possible threat, it's true

[Al_U_Card]

Certainly couldn't defend against four airplanes....or so it appeared.

[luke warm]

illogical, al

[Al_U_Card]

ahhhh, so it wasn't a threat, it was a promise?

[onoway]

It is amazing to me that anyone anywhere with any sense of imagination whatsoever can conceive that the idea of nuclear strikes could possibly be anything but catastrophic, pretty much anywhere you want to say they happen.

 

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

 

Some time ago I took part in a simulation run by a Political Science class. After it was over the prof told us quietly that no matter how many times he ran it and no matter if he used real countries' names or made up ones...the simulation invariably ended up with nuclear war..

 

It used to be that in most wars there was supposed to be a winner and a loser..there is no way anyone anywhere comes out ahead in a nuclear war, including the people who had nothing to do with it..but the longer it is discussed as a rational possibility the larger the possibility becomes. The future is beginning to look very frightening.

[mike777]

It is amazing to me that anyone anywhere with any sense of imagination whatsoever can conceive that the idea of nuclear strikes could possibly be anything but catastrophic, pretty much anywhere you want to say they happen.

 

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

 

Some time ago I took part in a simulation run by a Political Science class. After it was over the prof told us quietly that no matter how many times he ran it and no matter if he used real countries' names or made up ones...the simulation invariably ended up with nuclear war..

 

It used to be that in most wars there was supposed to be a winner and a loser..there is no way anyone anywhere comes out ahead in a nuclear war, including the people who had nothing to do with it..but the longer it is discussed as a rational possibility the larger the possibility becomes.  The future is beginning to look very frightening.

I agree using nuclear weapons is catastrophic. Keep in mind using 1940's nonnuclear bombs in one single raid caused more deaths and wounded than the atomic bomb did. So using nonnuclear bombs is catastrophic.

 

Given all of that I do not understand your logic here:

 

"It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance"

 

If discussing using nukes is never rational any under circumstances why not argue to disarm and get rid of them now! Get rid of all catastrophic weapons now! It seems silly to not discuss this issue but keep these horrible weapons anyway.

 

The problem is not one person running for President in 60 years has advocated unilaterally getting rid of these things. No top leader in Russia, china, france, UK, India or Pakistan advocates this.

 

I think if you are not going discuss using them or if not going to bother, then disarm these nukes and nonnukes that are catastrophic weapons.

 

Keep in mind the USA has used atomic and nonatomic catastrophic weapons in our families lifetime, used them often. Even the other day Mrs. Clinton promised to use them. If using them is nonrational under any circumstance, the USA should get rid of all of them, now!

[luke warm]

It is also frightening that this is something which people discuss as though it could in any way be a rational thing to do under any circumstance.

i can understand your fear as it pertains to the use of nuclear weapons, i think we all feel the same... i don't understand your use of the word rational, especially when you say "... under any circumstance"

[onoway]

Such little things that go wrong...there were only a FEW bees that got loose in South America ....there were only a FEW rabbits which got loose in Australia..both examples of little mistakes or miscalculations which got out of control with results far more devastating than the people responsible had ever anticipated. Some things, like nuclear war, we don't as a species have the luxury of making any mistakes or miscalculations at ALL.

 

The concept of suicide bombers is alien to me, though I suppose anyone in the business end of war has similar dedication, they just have better odds of surviving if they are in the usual sort of army. Starting a nuclear war is running the risk of being the biggest suicide bomber possible, because there cannot be a winner, all there can be is the questionable satisfaction of taking everyone with you when you go..some quickly some not so quickly...and saying oh my god I didn't REALIZE.. I'm so SORRY....isn't going to cut it.

 

If you believe the prospect of possibly causing nuclear winter is a rational choice to consider, under any circumstances, then you have a different understanding of the word than I do.