Skyrad 0 #176 January 22, 2008 Quote Our lagomorphs are guardians of that materiel. They are distinguishable from UK lagomorphs, as those from the US have superior teeth. You shall never take our weapons or our lagomorphs. When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #177 January 22, 2008 Quote I predict we will destroy the nukes ... by dropping them all on the fucking middle east as a reaction the strikes by the Jihadists here in this country. You've been watching 24 again haven't you. Series six President Palmer goes into a coma and the VP decides to Nuke the midle east in revenge..... YOU ARE SOOOO BUSTED!!!When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #178 January 22, 2008 I say we drop our Lagomorphs into the Middle East and let them take care of the Jihadis. Our Lagomorphs shall reign supreme and install Dippin-Dots franchises in all Middle Eastern cities' bazaars... All hail the Lagomorphs!Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #179 January 22, 2008 QuoteOur lagomorphs are guardians of that materiel. They are distinguishable from UK lagomorphs, as those from the US have superior teeth. You shall never take our weapons or our lagomorphs. So much for your lagomorphsWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #180 January 22, 2008 But in real life... I bet the destruct switch will NOT be pushed....I hope God does not run out of Virgins...cause there will be a whole lot of martyrs there all at once... thinking with their radioactive little heads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #181 January 22, 2008 QuoteQuoteOur lagomorphs are guardians of that materiel. They are distinguishable from UK lagomorphs, as those from the US have superior teeth. You shall never take our weapons or our lagomorphs. So much for your lagomorphs That's a Canadian Lagomorph. Can't you see the Toque it's wearing?Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #182 January 22, 2008 You're behind the times, its grapes their mad for these days. Virgins was so last year.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #183 January 22, 2008 Quote and for the record I like this t-shirt. Cuz I sure can't cook. Boyfriend gave me this one last year. Love to wear it around home, but I’m not inclined to wear in public (too tight if one is more well-endowed than the model – just doesn’t project the look I want to convey).* * Possible exception for Couch Freaks. Thanks for the link. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #184 January 22, 2008 QuoteI say we drop our Lagomorphs into the Middle East and let them take care of the Jihadis. Our Lagomorphs shall reign supreme and install Dippin-Dots franchises in all Middle Eastern cities' bazaars... All hail the Lagomorphs! Bad idea. The US has already tried using lagomorph Special forces units in Afghanistan. The first lagomorph was captured while on a recce of a Taliban position and held captive for 15 days. The Pentagon sent in a lagomorph SF unit to rescue him and had to retreat having taken heavy fire and many casulties. The hostage lagomorph was found by a road side three days later (see below)When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Croc 0 #185 January 22, 2008 In your profile you list shooting as one of your interests. What do you shoot, if not guns?"Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so." Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #186 January 22, 2008 Quote Quote and for the record I like this t-shirt. Cuz I sure can't cook. Boyfriend gave me this one last year. Love to wear it around home, but I’m not inclined to wear in public (too tight if one is more well-endowed than the model – just doesn’t project the look I want to convey Nothing wrong with the Lara Croft look. (the video game, not the actress version) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #187 January 23, 2008 Quote In your profile you list shooting as one of your interests. What do you shoot, if not guns? 'Fraid its a case of do as I say Old boy, not as I doWhen an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeatlast 0 #188 January 23, 2008 Jamile - what a start to 2008! You truly are the MASTER at "Crank a Yank" ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #189 January 23, 2008 Quote Jamile - what a start to 2008! You truly are the MASTER at "Crank a Yank" ... Scruttocks!Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Croc 0 #190 January 23, 2008 Figured as much."Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so." Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #191 January 23, 2008 >Anyway, fuck all you Euro trash. Your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #192 January 23, 2008 Quote the US does not derive its power from its nuclear arsenal. If someone wants to argue the point in the opposite, I'm interested to hear it. Per official US policy, yes, we do (from 2002 Nuclear Posture Review): “Nuclear weapons play a critical role in the defense capabilities of the United States, its allies and friends. They provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats, including WMD and large-scale conventional military force. These nuclear capabilities possess unique properties that give the United States options to hold at risk classes of targets important to achieve strategic and political objectives.” “Hard” power is derived from nuclear capabilities along with conventional forces. Blatantly stealing from Clausewitz, the ultimate aim of military superiority is the ability to force an adversary “to do our will,” i.e., power. Per US policy, nuclear retaliation against state and non-state actors is a viable option. We gave up BW & CW because we had nukes … other normative and operational reasons were at play, sure; but nukes were never off the table. (Per NPT Article VI, nuclear weapons states indicate they will work toward disarmament; when signed, the NPT was a 25-year trial, in 1997 became indefinite.) ~~~~~ I would ask something of the inversion of your assertion: in our changing, globalized post-Cold War world is there too much emphasis on power derived from nuclear weapons? Is the current nuclear proliferation upswing a result of over-emphasis on security power derived from nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era? Also depends on how you want to define power? I could build an argument that the US derives its power from its scientific, engineering, and technical achievements & innovation, which enabled détente & “peace through superior firepower” [military/security power, MAD as part of traditional “hard” power, along with conventional forces] and enables(ed) our form of entrepreneurial capitalism [economic power, another part of “hard” power]. American entrepreneurial capitalism is fundamentally different that the state-guided capitalism of most of Europe, India, & China; and the oligarchic capitalism of Russia. ~~~~~ Concur w/Bill Von’s assertion w/r/t deterrence … historically. (And gently remind my European friends & colleagues that a significant number of them took great solace in being under our nuclear umbrella throughout the Cold War. Norway is concerned w/r/t/ fissile material being transported across the E105 at Storskog and along the rest of the shared Russian border. NATO was a security-driven compact not economic.) There was substantial discussion as to whether the 2002 NPR represented a (fundamental) lowering of the barriers to offensive or retaliatory response with nuclear weapons (to non-nuclear attack). Who is America’s major adversary? State or non-state actors? As we’ve discussed before, there are limitations to nuclear response against terrorists (sub- or non-state actors). What is the (appropriate) response if a state or state-supported terrorist group executes a mass effect biological or chemical attack on US troops or civilians? I.e., a real mass-effect attack: >10,000 fatalities or >100,000 casualties (a “Vitko”); not something like the 5 fatalities of the fall 2001 Amerithrax incident or 12 fatalities of March 1995 Aum Shinrikyo sarin nerve agent attack). A nuclear response very much remains on the proverbial table. Official US policy per the National Strategy to Combat WMD: “The United States will continue to make it clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force – including through resort to all of our options – to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.” (p.3, under deterrence). Remember the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), aka “bunker busters,” foray that Congress halted in 2005? And the latest proposals for tactical “mini-nukes”? (For anyone so inclined: technically-grounded & peer-reviewed () discussion on why RNEPs wouldn’t work by Mike May {emeritus prof Stanford & former director Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory} & Zach Haldeman, “Effectiveness of Nuclear Weapons Against Buried Biological Agents,” Science & Global Security, 2004, vol 12, pp. 91-114.) There’s a legitimate question in the OP and threaded throughout the responses, what is the role of the US nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons globally in the 21st Century? Best unclassified estimates are that there are ~27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. >95% of those are divided btw US & Russia. In 1985, the US began eliminating its chemical weapons stockpile (31,495 metric tons declared). As of 7 Jan 08, the Army has overseen the demilitarization of just over 50% of the Cold War era stockpile. Official OSD projection is 2022 for complete demilitarization. I wouldn’t bet on seeing the stockpile eliminate before 2030 (earliest). Forty-five years. Btw: Russia declared 42,000 metric ton CW stockpile (many speculate some/much remains undeclared), of which it is estimated (generously) that 90% of world’s declared CW stockpiles. Even *if* the US were to initiate complete nuclear disarmament & verification - w/r/t Russian disarmament & verification, again, would my European friends and colleagues exert some positive influence here, please? - it would take longer than CW stockpile elimination. Period. Decreasing the nuclear stockpile, ratifying the CTBT (US already signed it), extending START verification, de-alerting the estimated ~1000 nuclear weapons on high-alert every day (i.e., ready to launch in VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #193 January 23, 2008 QuoteQuote What about low yeild tactilcal battlefield nukes? Are they ever used? Lots of talk, but aside from the DU rounds, seems like FUD. DU != Nuke .... FUD, indeed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #194 January 23, 2008 Quote (too tight if one is more well-endowed than the model – just doesn’t project the look I want to convey) I think photographic proof is needed!!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #195 January 23, 2008 Cheers Bro. But I'm deadly serious this time, its time Americans learnt their place in this world is not running the world and they're only one country and not even the biggest or best.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #196 January 23, 2008 Two further thoughts on this (for now … always reserve right for more thinking Has the erosion of US’s ‘soft power’ – primarily as the US became the sole hyperpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union and to some lesser but still very significant extent as a result of Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, and the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal – and lessening or increased interdependence of non-military ‘hard power’ economically as the world has globalized, resulted in a push to prominence of the remaining form of ‘hard power’ superiority? couple that with … High level discussions among NATO to re-emphasize the role of pre-emptive nuclear weapons has recently been made public: yesterday’s UK’s Guardian “Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told.” “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction.” Edited to add: And from UK's Telegraph "Nato 'must prepare to launch nuclear attack'," which quotes UK's Lord Inge ""To tie our hands on first use or no first use removes a huge plank of deterrence." Who is disarming or arming whom here? Wonkish world is speculating everything from last gasps of Fulda gap mentality Generals to hawkish strategy against Iran (out of frustration that the civil community has not been effective) to re-vitalization of Clinton-era trans-Atlantic link & keeping NATO meaningful (which circles back to the first speculation). Full text of the recommendations: “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership,” The recommendation states categorically, with no references or other corroboration, that “at present, 25 countries possess WMD. Of these, 17 possess active offensive chemical weapons capabilities and 12 possess offensive biological weapons. Around 70 countries possess missiles with a range of over 1,500 km, and around 12 nations export such weapons.” (p. 46). The asserted value of 17 for CW seems whacked to me (to put it less than diplomatically). I can squint my way to 9 or 10 suspected states (including a couple w/declared stockpiles they’re supposed to be eliminating). And the 12 BW? As a friend & colleague from UK wrote to me: “It’s easy to paint a dire picture of the future when you simply pluck numbers out of the air with no evidence to back them up.” The section on “Loss of the Rational” (pp. 38-41) is intellectually provocative (!) and deserves its own threads – shades of Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations,” Tom Barnett’s core vs non-integrating gap thesis (from _Pentagon’s New Map_) and Al Gore’s _The Assault on Reason_ (w/r/t rise of religiosity, specifically radical Islam, over rule of law). Interesting set of authors: Gen. John Shalikashvili, the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. Klaus Naumann, former Chief of Defense Staff & General Inspector, Germany; Gen. Henk van den Breemen, former Dutch military Chief of Staff; Adm. Jacques Lanxade, former French military Chief of Staff; and Lord Inge, Field Marshal and ex-chief of the Britain's Ministry of Defense. Former SecDef Perry & Gen Shalikashvili are both active part of the Preventive Defense Project (joint Stanford-Harvard). What’s going on the dynamics in consideration of the Wall Street Journal editorials & “Hoover Projects"? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #197 January 23, 2008 Then please kindly ask the "rest of the world" to stop asking for our help! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #198 January 23, 2008 QuoteThen please kindly ask the "rest of the world" to stop asking for our help! Here, here!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #199 January 23, 2008 QuoteThen please kindly ask the "rest of the world" to stop asking for our help! Devils advocate: Do we pay out more or get more from the rest of the world? US public debt to foreign states is $2.31T! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #200 January 23, 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KittenIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
