Vegas Free-for-All - Head in the SAND, or World Events

nmterlv

Mar 7, 2012
6:08pm

Quote

Originally posted by: jatki99
8500th nuk-ler thing? When in the world was this written?,early 80's? Excepting china(and i doubt,wouldn't be surprised),i don't think ANY country in world has that many nukes anymore.Can you provide a REF. to this olease,i'd sure like to read it. I guess i should add,IF, the US has a whole shitbucket of nukes,don't think they're making anymore.

Suppose i will say,is that isreal has had nukes ,have for a while now and if they start nuking each other and the dreaded MAD situation(remember that acrynom folks?Reagan era quote,Mutually Assured Destruction) doen't occur AND the US hasn't gotten involved yet,which i doubt,AND iran has any nukes left,AND they so much as sneeze this way,i'm afraid its scorched earth time for iran,nothing left but a bunch of oil wells flaming away(along with everybody within a great distance,AND then i think every arab in the world is now REALLY pissed at the west along with who ever else.WWIII.

Remember the quote,can't think of his name,the first WW will be fought with sticks and stones,the second WW will be fought with guns and the third WW will be fought with nuclear weapons and the fourth WW will be fought with sticks and stones again. This is some form of a quote i remember from a loooong time ago,so may not be technically correct but you get the meaning.

From there and thinking about that,my head is firmly planted in sand as this one makes no sense at all to worry about,it won't matter to git PIAW over it.

I was discouraged today while we were enjoying a really enjoyable vietnamese lunch on the way home,they had CNN on and i saw a little news line scrolling across the bottom that something like"US has declared an iranian general a drug trafficker". As tony the tiger would say,thhhts GRRReat!. Yippee,whattaya know,the first excuse for the US to take some kind of military action.

J

Quote
Originally posted by: cowboydan
Iran's postion on this here nuklear thing:

"TEHRAN—Amidst mounting geopolitical tensions, Iranian officials said Wednesday they were increasingly concerned about the United States of America's uranium-enrichment program, fearing the Western nation may soon be capable of producing its 8,500th nuclear weapon.

"Our intelligence estimates indicate that, if it is allowed to progress with its aggressive nuclear program, the United States may soon possess its 8,500th atomic weapon capable of reaching Iran," said Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, adding that Americans have the fuel, the facilities, and "everything they need" to manufacture even more weapons-grade fissile material.

"Obviously, the prospect of this happening is very distressing to Iran and all countries like Iran. After all, the United States is a volatile nation that's proven it needs little provocation to attack anyone anywhere in the world whom it perceives to be a threat." Iranian intelligence experts also warned of the very real, and very frightening, possibility of the U.S. providing weapons and resources to a rogue third-party state such as Israel."

OK, this is going to be a qoute within a qoute within a qoute..

I cannot follow what all this is saying anymore, except...

We need not be concerned or....

Nuclear Weapons have no real power ..

Or what... is all of the above about?

Don

Mar 7, 2012
10:12pm

Block User

Quote

Hmm, . . . somehow the article quoted by cowboydan didn't seem quite right to poor old DonDiego either.

It turns out the article is brand new.
And, having discovered a novel research tool called Google, DonDiego can provide a reference:
The Onion, America's Finest News Source

"The Onion is an American news satire organization. It is an entertainment newspaper and a website featuring satirical articles reporting on international, national, and local news."
Ref: Wikipedia

Don

Mar 7, 2012
10:37pm

Block User

Regarding the figure of 8500 nuclear weapons, . . .
The U.S. number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003. The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of September 1, 2011 the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each.
The Obama administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100,. . . 700 to 800, . . . or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer.
Ref: Business Week

Some folks think 300 is too few for adequate deterrence by/defense of the United States.

In other defense news, . . .
"The Obama administration disclosed on Tuesday that it is considering sharing some classified U.S. data as part of an effort to allay Russian concerns about a controversial antimissile shield."
Ref: Reuters

Awwwww, . . . sharing is such a nice word. See, . . . if a potential combatant fears one, one should share one's war plans and defense technology so he no longer fears one. Be nice, . . . eh.

nmterlv

Mar 7, 2012
11:16pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Regarding the figure of 8500 nuclear weapons, . . .
The U.S. number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003. The U.S. already is on track to reduce to 1,550 deployed strategic nuclear warheads by 2018, as required by New START. As of September 1, 2011 the United States had 1,790 warheads and Russia had 1,566, according to treaty-mandated reports by each.
The Obama administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100,. . . 700 to 800, . . . or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer.
Ref: Business Week

Some folks think 300 is too few for adequate deterrence by/defense of the United States.

In other defense news, . . .
"The Obama administration disclosed on Tuesday that it is considering sharing some classified U.S. data as part of an effort to allay Russian concerns about a controversial antimissile shield."
Ref: Reuters

Awwwww, . . . sharing is such a nice word. See, . . . if a potential combatant fears one, one should share one's war plans and defense technology so he no longer fears one. Be nice, . . . eh.

And that is why we as a species are insane, for we (insane Leaders, Kings, or whatever) lie, lie, lie as adults in the worst of ways. But we say to our children, do not LIE! Ok, then we need to be more like children, but we can't, for we are (fill in the blank for an answer of your own liking).

I am glad to see some effort is being made on face value to end the insanity, but that is about all it is.

Take 1500 warheads, and lets just say, take 1/2 half of them away, malfunction, and never get off the ground, just to say.....

Now lets take another half of that, just to say, are duds, just to say...

And now lets take one half of that, just to say... for whatever... so now were at at 187, and just to make it interesting, lets just bring that number down to 100, lets just say...

Now.......

Take out a map of the USA and a marker.

Really, try to do this, you will find it is impossible to do.

Starting with the largets cities and working your way backwards, mark the first ten largest cities, and then mark the next 10 largest, and then another 10.

I bet you can't get to 100 before it's all gone.....and with what is left, there is no place to hide from the fallout.... That is why it is insanity..... So 1500 (IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THE ADULTS ARE NOT LYING TO EACH OTHER.. yea right) warheads you talk about is a nice step in the right direction, but is still insanity as a species.

So when the GOVERNMENTS of the world say they are reducing, it is a wonderful thing to see and hear, but until it gets down to NOTHING, that is the reality we have, just smoke and mirrors.

And when IRAN says it is willing to risk it all, to ensure the final destruction of Israel, and the world takes no action, then there my friends is the end of the insanity that has only one outcome...

snidely333

Mar 7, 2012
11:37pm

Block User

Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).

Don

Mar 8, 2012
12:05am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
Mutual Assured Destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two opposing sides would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment, and implicit menace of use, of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the same weapons against oneself. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome).

By the way, the "Nash Equilibrium" which snidely quotes is named after John Forbes Nash, the subject of the Hollywood movie A Beautiful Mind (2001).

As depicted in the motion picture Dr. Nash experienced significant mental illness and suffered incapacitating delusions. He wrote of this in his autobiography: "Then gradually I began to intellectually reject some of the delusionally influenced lines of thinking which had been characteristic of my orientation. This began, most recognizably, with the rejection of politically-oriented thinking as essentially a hopeless waste of intellectual effort."

Something for everyone to think about.

* * * EDITED TO ADD * * *
"The strategy (MAD) is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive either to initiate a conflict or to disarm (presuming neither side considers self-destruction an acceptable outcome)."

This is why a nuclear-armed Iran is a bad thing.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has already prepared a “throne” for the Mahdi, the Shiite Islamic messiah figure, in the Jamkaran mosque on the outskirts of the city of Qom. He believes that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could trigger the kind of global conflagration which would set the stage for the end of the world, . . . and that this is a good thing.

odysseus55

Mar 8, 2012
1:02am

Block User

Does this smell like a political thread to you?

snidely333

Mar 8, 2012
1:17am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: odysseus55
Does this smell like a political thread to you?

Smells like victory.

Don

Mar 8, 2012
1:21am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: odysseus55
Does this smell like a political thread to you?

DonDiego suggests odysseus55 make a qualitative judgement before a precipitate deletion of any thread.

If one presents an issue to inform the LVA readers and encourage discussion of the issue, and discourse, or even debate, ensues that is a good thing. Such conversation may well involve introduction of policy decisions or news events which involve political figures.

DonDiego makes an effort to initiate discussions starting with the issue. He never resorts to senseless name-calling, . . . never. He will take a position, . . . and encourage others to take a position.

It's all good. Even if/when a reader is moved by the debate to, f'rinstance, refer to a political person as a "dingleberry" or "pooh-pooh head", this is more a reflection of the character and intellect of the poster than the targeted person.

A truly "political thread" suggests partisan politics extolling the virtues of one official or candidate or party and demonizing the character of those in another party, or movement.

So far this thread seems sufficiently civil to justify its continued existence.

So DonDiego counsels odysseus to leave it be, do not be a pooh-pooh head.

mrmarcus12LVA

Mar 8, 2012
1:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: nmterlv Israel will NUKE first and soon right before they have that capacity...

Problem is, Iran capacity is believed from NOW to June 2012, by best estiamtes.

But who knows... Yet time has run out......

To be honest, I'm planning on a LV trip in September, but I'm not confident I'll get the chance to see it.

It is that bad. sorry. Lets just hope we can get the chance to see what happens on Dec 21 2012.

Dude, you need new meds. N. Korea has the bomb, Pakistan has the bomb, India has the bomb, Israel has the bomb. Iran won't be allowed to have one. Any extended war in that region will be kept non-nuclear, because the disincentives for Israel are so strong. The President of the US has indicated his willingness to use military force against Iran. He will be reelected in the fall. Iran will be bombed sooner or later, perhaps repeatedly over an extended period of time, until they get the message. This may require martial law within the USA, but widespread destruction or death is highly unlikely.

«‹5 ›

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now