quadraphonics, et al, (COMMENT) In the case of Iran, we don't know when the Russians might see it in their interest to cooperate. I don't think there is any way to determine when the Iranian government may pose a threat to Russia. (COMMENT) We will have to agree to disagree. But ever since Joint Service CPX Positive Leap (1979), there simply is no real scenario that would permit the US Force Structure to successfully move boots on the ground without unacceptable losses. From a practical view, it takes an extremely strong economy to support a Military Expedition into a country like Iran - relative to an invasion. It is terrible terrain, making mechanized and low level combat air ops highly vulnerable. (COMMENT) The US had several Field Armies - complete with constabulary units, and the indigenous population was much different in its ability to understand the circumstance and rebuild. In the case of Germany, much of the country was devastated. In the case of Japan, atomic weapons were employed. No real modern day regional Arab or Persian population has demonstrated the ability to engage in self sustaining nation building activities. While the abilities of the Persian (Iranian) seem much more advanced, their abilities in commercial production have not shown any competitive advantage; except in the oil arena. (COMMENT) The 6-inch Rule has not been applied by any modern day, technically competent force in over half a century. Since that time, the Rule of Law has evolved greatly, changing the political dynamics in an unprecedented way. The generally accepted practices of the Rome Statues has moved land warfare and post-war practices to a new level. Yes, there is the ability for the US to moved the societal understanding of war back to the mid-20th Century; but normally, retrograde societal action is taken by countries in social and economic decline. (COMMENT) There were many causes for the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in Iraq, the principle sources of the cascade failure was the lack of a coherent Phase IV Post-Combat plan.; and a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics driving fanatical feuds between population segments. (COMMENT) While you might consider this "racist" - I consider it a very tame description of the Regional Culture that anyone could have directly observed, on a daily basis in Baghdad or elsewhere. You can look at any Tehran News Paper of the 1979 time period and look at the gruesome pictures of the tortured and executed on the front page. And a quarter century later, watch the bodies float the Tigris River near daily. You can just put your ear to the ground and hear the talk on the relative merits of Sharia Law - across the region. Not a day goes by that some terrorist attack happens somewhere - a region where supporting terrorist actions and leaders like Assad are routine activities. In Iraq, the the VP is a fugitive in hiding and the former prime minister (Ayad Allawi) describes Iraq as a “emerging dictatorship.” The "racist" generally refers to the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others. I don't believe this to be based on race at all. I have stated, it is cultural and societal, and in some cases, motivated by the interpretation of certain religious constructs. (COMMENT) OK, but just a few: Libya 20 June 2012: Recent tribal clashes in western Libya left 105 people dead and some 500 injured, the government has said. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18529139 REUTERS, 21/06: In a stark reminder of the lawlessness that prevails in Libya eight months after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, the gunmen never told Ruhuma why they abducted him. He says it stems from a family issue – a relative wanted revenge, so he called on the help of an armed brigade. http://www.euronews.com/newswires/1561136-snatched-and-detained-libyas-jungle-law/ 3 June 2012: Members of an elite unit set up by the Libyan government to rein in the country's rival militia forces have been accused of kidnapping and severely beating one of the country's foremost surgeons. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/03/libya-security-force-kidnapping-surgeon?newsfeed=true Egypt Jun 21, 2012: Included in the delegation of Egyptian lawmakers was Hani Nour Eldin, who, in addition to being a newly elected member of parliament, is a member of the Gamaa Islamiya, or the Egyptian Islamic Group—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...egyptian-terror-group-goes-to-washington.html June 15, 2012: CAIRO — Egypt’s military rulers moved to consolidate power Friday on the eve of the presidential runoff election, shutting down the Islamist-led Parliament, locking out lawmakers and seizing the sole right to issue laws even after a new head of state takes office. 22 June 2012: Egyptian women's rights activists have only bad options in the current power crisis. If the Islamists in parliament hold power, they could erase years of legal gains for women. But if the military has its way, a police state could re-emerge. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-N...en-a-rock-and-a-hard-place/WEN-9491340398596/ (EPILOG) I did not intend to create an argument, but merely put forth my ideas on the topic. It is assumed that discussion participants with varying experiences will hold opinion that vary just as much. My experiences are based on have set boots on the ground in the region. I've been to just a couple of the garden spots, including Afghanistan, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, and most recently Yemen. While I am not a big fan of US foreign policy, and believe we should adopt a more hands-off approach, I do believe that we should stop sugar coating the evaluation of the regional dynamics. Most Respectfully, R
If your position is that this question is just plain unknowable, then why are we even discussing it? You've used a lot of terminology there, but haven't presented any discernable argument in the process. So destroy the country via nuclear bombardment, then go in and mop up what's left. Sure, that's politically unacceptable, but that was my whole point. Right - if you devastate the target country sufficiently, they'll be unable and unwilling to resist your occupation. Seems like you're sweeping a lot under the "self-sustained" qualifier there. So what? Yeah, I know - that was exactly my point. That political constraints are what prevents this kind of thing, not any physical, material constraint. Again, you are phrasing that as if you aren't just repeating my point back to me in wordier terms. Exactly - they planned it as if it would be like the occupation of Japan, except they ignored the part where Japan was beaten down into the dirt ahead of that. Like I just said. I do, and I'm objectively correct in doing so. Because it is, in fact, racist - and you do not even dispute that designation, other than putting it in scare quotes, but simply go on to argue that your racism is accurate and justified. It's not difficult to find gruesome photos of people tortured and killed by Western forces in that same region, a lot more recently than 1979. No shortage of theocrats in the USA, either. And that has what to do with "cultural" characteristics, exactly? Except that a bunch of such leaders just got forced out of office by popular uprisings, in recent times. Yet you give no credit to the Arab culture for those acts of bravery, do you? That's because you're racist. So what? Are you even going to try to connect these political events to any kidn of causes, or just cite them as if they are clear, unequivocable evidence of racial inferiority? Given that the cultures and societies in question are co-terminous with the race in question, you are making a semantic distinction without a difference. Would you feel better about it if I called you a cultural supremacist or an Orientalist or a Western Imperialist instead? So what? Post-despot phases are always chaotic, what is this supposed to prove about anyone's "culture?" So what? Plenty of people in the Middle East designate various of our government officials as terrorists - does that mean that we have a nasty, barbarous culture and society? Certainly, we've killed a lot more Arabs and Persians, than they have Westerners. There are still dictators in Europe, dude - these plays are all straight out of the book we wrote over the last several generations. Likewise, the religious right in the USA continues to wage a coordinated war on women's rights, right here. What else is new? All you're citing there is rank speculation and fear-mongering: what might happen if certain factions succeed in coming to power. Meanwhile, the USA has the world's highest incarceration rate, by far. Your ideas are offensive and wrong, so if you plan to defend them then you have an argument on your hands. Welcome to SciForums. And, specifically, that certain of those opinions will be ill-founded and morally reprehensible. Nothing in that statement requires that you aren't basically ignorant of the issues under discussion. And it's certainly not as if there isn't a lot of very nasty racism of exactly the sort your display endemic amongst those of your experience. Also, you aren't the only one here with such a background, so don't expect it to cow anyone. One can perfectly well be perfectly candid about "regional dynamics" without falling into the trap of imputing negative elements of that to the culture or societies involved. You can aknowledge the political problems there, and their dynamics, without being a racist.
quadraphonics, et al, (COMMENT) In every invasion, there is an "occupation." You cannot move forward unless the rear area is secure. Otherwise, stay-behind forces come into play. (COMMENT) Yes, emotionally charged issues have an impact on the decision making process. Just as fear (spawned by paranoia) have an impact on the decision making process. It doesn't mean that Georgia, or any other country cannot act in a sound and valid manner given the perceptions they hold. (COMMENT) When have two nuclear powers gone to war? (Pakistan-India) What is the imperial evidence do you have to hold this position? (COMMENT) Yes, this is possible. (COMMENT) Is there anything said here that is incorrect from the Chinese Perspective? Is there something incorrect in this observation at all? I'm a retired Counterintelligence Agent, I'm anything but a communist! No, I just recommend that we understand who we are and how others perceive us. And perception is a tricky thing. (COMMENT) Yes, but this doesn't change the fact that, for now, Pakistan is a rational player and not intentionally self-destructive. (COMMENT) The devision between Pakistan and India dates back to the time of Ghandi. It is rooted, in among other things, religion; but also a power struggle. (COMMENT) Strange, yes. "Irrational" --- depends on the justification and motivation. No country's foreign policy is perfected executed. But it doesn't mean that the country is irrational. War is merely an outcome of failed diplomacy. (COMMENT) In the case of the USSR, the economy caused a meltdown and lead to a rust bucket of an armed force. Yes, there are times that a weaker economy can defeat a superior economy; but it doesn't happen very often. (COMMENT) Yes, this leaves me vulnerable, but, there are other emerging economies that are becoming as influential as the American Hegemony. And as the economy declines in America, the revenue choices will become increasing more difficult. (COMMENT) Certainly, to act rationally, one would have to do the Risk Assessment. (COMMENT) Yes, agreed. Most Respectfully, R
RoccoR and quadraphonics, you guys appear to be in quite a disagreement. I was wondering if you could just, in a nutshell, each give your own opinions as to why nuclear war is or isn't a threat today, how likely it is in the future, etc.
Hey areasys, today we're seeing more statesman from countries all over the world, Most noteably in my opinion Henry Kissinger, work towards creating a planet free of nuclear weapons. So long as this trend continues and world stockpiles continue to be reduced, things will get better.
Calling facts “propaganda” does not make them less true. If you think any part of RoccoR´s post is false, identify it by quoting it and then explain why his statement(s) are wrong. I would like to add one more "critical area" to Roccor´s five. His are mainly actions based or taken in China. Externally China is securing several decades of essential resources it will need via long-term paid up front delivery contracts, some of 30 years duration. The one I know best is the 10 billion dollars the Chinese gave Brazil´s PetroBras for the average daily delivery of 200,000 barrels of oil for 20 years. It is however smaller than many others for minerals and out right buying of fertile farm lands where it can. There is no need for China to have any war of conventional (or nuclear) nature with the US as they are winning the economic war. So one might ask why are they planning four aircraft carriers? IMHO, they will be used, if needed, to make sure the deliveries, especially the African deliveries, promised under these long term contracts are made. That is why China is building a "blue water" navy. Near China itself they want to be strong so have many times as many warships as the US does, about three times more submarines, at least 100 mobile shore based missile systems with range to hit Taiwan (but never will see that use as Taiwan is being slowing pulled into the mainland´s economy by peaceful means). There will be no US / Chinese war in the South China Sea, but China will exploit its resources, probably sharing some with others like Vietnam with whom China increasingly trades. US based oil companies are already helping China take these resources and have refused to help the Philippines do so Adding the Philippines take resources China claims belong to it would anger China and "Black-List" that oil company from any participation in development of China´s main land energy resources. - A clear example of how China wins economically what it wants without need to use military force. Same way / reasons why the RMB is gaining use for international trade, while many countries no longer use the dollar for their mutual trade. Eventually without firing a shot, the appreciating RMB, not the declining dollar, will be the world´s main reserve currency. Then, Americans will need to produce real goods and services to pay for their imports, instead of buy them with printed green paper.
I lived in China for two years, taught a lot of business men English. China ironically has more capitalist insentives for its people (in the right regions) than any other country that I know of. I do believe that soon China's contributions to world wealth, including china, will outperform the US. Notice how Britain has developed a huge banking sector, as will the States to advance the wealth they do have into the future.
areasys, et al, Currently, there are ten (10) states with a nuclear weapons capability or weapon in development (Nuclear Weapons States or NWSs): America (Thousands) China (Couple Hundred) France, (Several Hundred) India (Approx 100 > 200) Iran (In Development ???) Israel (Couple Hundred) Pakistan (Approx 100 > 200) North Korea (In Development ??? Possible 2 prototypes) Russia (Thousands) UK (Several Hundred) To start, this gives 45 possible engagements. Subtracting North Korea and Iran (no deployable weapon system) form the equation, we have 34 possible engagements between nuclear powers in the "near-term." For the time being, we will eliminate interstate confrontations between the US-UK-France-Israel as highly unlikely in the "near term." This presents a total of 29 possible engagements between the remaining NWSs. China’s top 5 trading partners are European Union, USA, Japan, ASEAN and Hong Kong. For the "near term," interstate confrontations between China and the US, France, and the UK will be considered highly unlikely. This presents a total of 26 possible engagements between the remaining NWSs. At the outset, this means the most probable nuclear confrontations the US has to contend with in the near-term will involved: India Israel Pakistan Russia UK This list includes mutual defense and security agreements by states and region for which the US might become entangled. At the current time, all the state actors in this list are considered rational, in that they recognize that to deploy and use nuclear weapons as a first strike capacity is suicidal; the belligerents will be so weakened that they will not recover for many decades and that any objective or goal they may have had would become unattainable for generations. For the moment, I will avoid discussing the implication of non-state actors and engagements between NWSs versus non-NWSs. Nuclear terrorism is a separate issue with difficult predictive outcomes. (EVAL) SHORT - NEAR TERM For the time being, the greatest probability for a nuclear exchange exists between Pakistan and its neighbors; up to a distance of 2000 miles. The most probable engagements would be: India China Russia This is highly unlikely in the near term. Any target they might select has the ability to retaliate and devastate Pakistan to the point that it would no longer be a state, but fall into occupation with little to - no sympathy. India is the first most probable target and often referred to as a flashpoint. India, while wounded, would overcome Pakistan and annex it as a hostile province. The next most likely target would be China. Again, this would be a suicidal act on the part of Pakistan. As long as Pakistan is acting rationally, it would not initiate an nuclear confrontation with China. DISTANT FUTURE TERM The two most critical developing threats to nuclear security are (currently) Iran and North Korea. While Iran is considered a rational state, the same cannot be said, with any confidence, for North Korea. Yet, North Korea seems to be acting in a rational manner. Iran has several goal and objectives. It wants parity with Israel, and Israel is what we refer to as a "Nuclear Ambiguous" state. Israel neither confirms or denies its nuclear capacity. Unlike Iran, it is not an NPT state. Thus, it has never run afoul of the IAEA. Iran can only achieve this through exercising Article X Termination Protocols of the NPT. But even that is not a sure thing, as the UN has already initiated economic sanctions. Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic State that wants to be the regional protector of the Persian Gulf; eventually displacing the American Military Regional Hegemony. It wants to be the leader and voice of the greater community of the Muslims that is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) today. It wants to be a major player on the world stage and eventually the comptroller for energy production and distribution; displacing the petro-dollar. North Korea seems to want some very specific things from the US. First, NK wants agreements that will outlast a changes in the Administration. Second, NK wants negotiations on the mutual nuclear arms reductions (arms control); but not about denuclearization. but about arms control. KN wants the NPT to accomodate NK in much the same way as the US rewrote to NPT for India. Third, NK wants assurances from the US that it will not allow the regime to collapse during a reform process. It does not want the US to enter into deliberate actions that will force Regime Change during the reform process. While the general consensus is that Nuclear War is more probable than most people think, it may actually be an ever lessing probability. It is a matter of cooperation, compromise and (as for the US) a change in policy to a less interventionist nation. Russia is a re-emerging nation. It is becoming less militaristic and more focused on production and trade. We are not sure how long it will take for Russia to be a Gordon Gekko focus capitalistic state like the US; but certainly, the criminal elements have become very greedy, almost as greedy as Wall Street and the US Financial Industry. Change may come from this most unlikely of partners, the criminal element and its behind the curtain influence it exerts on the government that protects its interests. As private interests in Russia maximize profits, the less likely they will support a conflict that will upset the income flow. Most Respectfully, R
Sorry if I sound paranoid, but when you read articles like this one, it's hard not to. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/nikolai-makarov-russia-nuclear-conflict_n_1100100.html
areasys, people have breathed the fear of nuclear war for nearly 67 years. They're fine, you'll be fine, the paranoia will pass.
RoccoR Nice post above, never thought about the amount of exchanges that could take place. question, what does 'et al' stand for? is it old English or something?
areasys, et al, Yes, this is hard to ignore. (ANALYSIS) This is a two part objection by GEN Makarov. First: The Anti-Ballistic Missile Issue. I think the real issue is the Russian Perception that the new Missile Shield, for however else it may be justified, also may be effective against Russian ICMBs. This is also a balance of power issue. After all, the original purpose behind NATO (alla 1949) was to confront the potential for Russian (Soviet) aggression. The Russians still believe in the concept of MAD; with or without the ABM Treaty. They don't believe that Iran poses a threat that is critical enough for Russia to jeopardize the Nuclear Weapons balance of power. To them, America is the threat and the tripwire to war. Ref: http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/web/page/953/sectionid/557/pagelevel/4/interior.aspx Second: The expansion of NATO into republics of the former Soviet Union. I think that you understand the Makarov Objections. In the first case, GEN Makarov believes that the US and NATO are expanding the ABM shield and has probably read the Contract Documents and the Phased Planning. I think we are talking about the European Interceptor Sites (EISs), controlling a two-stage version of the existing three-stage Ground Based Interceptor (GBI), with an Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV). Reference: http://www.missiledefenseadvocacy.org/web/page/953/sectionid/557/pagelevel/4/interior.aspx A-- NAGround Based Interceptor (GBI) missile complex in Europe Solicitation Number: HQ0147-06-0004 Agency: Other Defense Agencies Office: Missile Defense Agency Location: MDA-DACD REF: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportu...21800c36b2bdc18296acebb3911&tab=core&_cview=1 Current Status GBIs are deployed at Fort Greely, Alaska (22) and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California (3). Ground-Based Midcourse Defense fire control centers have been established in Colorado and Alaska. Several existing early warning radars located around the world, including one on Shemya Island in the Alaskan Aleutian chain, have been upgraded to support flight tests and to provide tracking information in the event of a hostile missile attack. Plans to deploy two-stage GBIs to Poland and accompanying radar systems to the Czech Republic were cancelled. Boeing introduced concept models for a two-stage interceptor that would be capable of deployment within 24 hours in August 2009 in response to political constraints to fixed GBI deployment. Up to 30 GBIs are scheduled to be deployed by the end of 2010. I think we are also talking about the process of enlarging NATO to incorporate Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and into Georgia (a former Soviet State). This is being pushed by Congress.(COMMENT) The tention between the US and the Russian Federation is more to do with poor US Diplomacy, and the exceptionally bad handling of Iran. The tension can be relived at any time by the US. The GBI/Interceptor is billed as an anti-Iranian missile countermeasure. It only needs the Russian Federation to take responsibility for Iran, through diplomatic negotiation. Rusia, of course, will not want that, and will come to some mediation measure. The NATO Expansion into Georgia is pressure by the US Congress and an intentional attempt by Congress to aggravate Russia. It can alter the tention through mediation and negotiation. Congress believes that the US can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants; without consequence; without regard for the national security concerns of any other nation (in this case Russia). US Foreign Policy is based on that assumption. REF: http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=10&aid=672&dir=2012/June/Friday1 The nuclear threat is manageable. In both cases, it is based on the extension of the US Military Hegemony. While it may sound worrisome, that is only for public consumption. In actuality, it is not that hard to contain; given the US actually wants to contain it. But the defense industry lobby appreciates the hardline rhetoric by the Russians. This only further justifies additional defense allocations. Most Respectfully, R
And shouting doesn't make you sound more authoritative. It just makes you sound unhinged and rude. I think what I said: that his post reads like CCP propaganda, just like the lion's share of your output. If I want to be more specific, I will. If I don't, I won't. Either way, I'll thank you to refrain from giving me orders. I don't take orders from you. In fact, in this case, I am going to go so far as to outright refuse to legitimate your perspective by treating it as a good-faith, scientific output that is subject solely to factual criticism. Your output is credulous repetition of propaganda, and so does not bear my spending time dissecting in detail. Like I said: CCP propaganda. Note that you do not source any of your claims, nor do you put them in any real context. Nor, for that matter, do you display the slightest skepticism about even the most gaspingly expansive visions of Chinese power. Instead you treat the issue with total credulity. Everyone here has known that this is your pet fantasy for a long time.
By the way, I should point out that the president of Georgia is promising his people that Georgia will be a NATO member by 2014. Also, you should read this. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...edvedev-says/2011/11/23/gIQAT4ZKoN_story.html
Billy T had said: "... Externally China is securing several decades of essential resources it will need via long-term paid up front delivery contracts, some of 30 years duration. The one I know best is the 10 billion dollars the Chinese gave Brazil's PetroBras for the average daily delivery of 200,000 barrels of oil for 20 years. ..." No, it could be Chinese propaganda only if these reports of Chinese buying via paid-up-front, long-term delivery contracts came from China. Few if any do as China seems to like to keep quite about the deals it makes. I read the details of the 10 billion given to PetroBrazil in my local Brazilian newspaper. Most of the others I have mentioned over the years mainly come from Bloomberg. Even if China did or does acknowledge these deals, that does not convert FACTS into "propaganda." When I read of a new deal China has made, I usually post that information in the BRIC+ thread and almost always tell my source. I note that you are avoiding specifically telling where RoccoR's post has any error by saying I cannot order you around. Normally when a poster asks another to support his claims, that is not considered to be "ordering him around." One can only conclude you have no bases for saying RoccoR's post "sounds like propaganda" when it too was 100% correct facts. Your excuse for not supporting your claim, is at least original, new form of "ducking and weaving." BTW, my post tend to be too long so I often make the main points (the "punch lines") at least bold or in larger type for the convenience of those who just skim my long posts.
An ignorant stance on the power underlying the universe is not for man to hold the power. A knowledgeable understanding of the universe grants you permission to hold such powers. Grants permission for us all to hold the power. I'm glad people of this day know their ignorance by the fear of such a great power. They call it knowing the consequences, I call it knowing the outcome... As if the outcome by itself determines everything about the action. What about freedom? What about the slight inexplicable events surrounding such disasters as we have seen in the past... Fear controls you all and you do not even see it. I can see it... Every last person on this earth lives in fear and doubt over the power the universe already gives them. I feel it too, but I also feel something greater. The power to change this ever-present present future. But sadly I can't. I empathize with all people. So as long as they feel fear, I am forced to as well.
Well, NietzscheHimself I've got to be honest, I'm not sure if I entirely understand your post. But, I do have this to write, I would say it is because of man’s fear that he holds the underlying power of the universe to be used in a destructive way. I didn't really know by your post if this is what you were suggesting, or if it was the opposite, your posts can be a bit cryptic
