backtop


Print 269 comment(s) - last by Luke212.. on May 9 at 7:24 PM


Trident missile launch
Number of warheads is traditionally a closely held secret

For decades the exact number of nuclear warheads in the arsenal of the U.S. was a closely held secret. The U.S. didn’t want to tip its nuclear hand or possibly give enemies a way to better neutralize its nuclear arsenal. This week the U.S. for the first time has officially announced how many nuclear weapons are in its arsenal.

According to the Pentagon, the U.S. today has a total of 5,113 nuclear warheads stockpiled as of the end of September. That number is an 84% reduction in the number of warheads at the peak of the cold war in 1967 when America had 31,225 nuclear warheads. In 1989 America has 22,217 warheads in its arsenal.

The reason for revealing these numbers is to show that the U.S. is complying and doing its part in the non-proliferation of nuclear arms treaty worked for so hard by the U.S. government and foreign governments.

A senior U.S. defense official said, "The United States is showing that it is being increasingly transparent. It's part of our commitment ... to set the stage for strength in non-proliferation and for further arms control."

Analysts fear that the announcement could have potential negative impact as well. The announcement could cause dismay in some countries when they learn that the U.S. has such an enormous stockpile so many years after the end of the Cold War. 

The numbers released for the nuclear stockpile of America includes all warheads that are deployed, kept in active reserve, and held in inactive storage.

However, the number does not include several thousand warheads that are awaiting dismantlement. An exact number of warheads waiting to be dismantled was not offered with officials saying that  more analysis was needed before announcing that number to be sure such an announcement would not affect national security.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Can I have one?
By killerclick on 5/4/2010 12:52:47 PM , Rating: 1
Can I have one? I need to cave in a volcano...




RE: Can I have one?
By Smartless on 5/4/2010 3:29:21 PM , Rating: 5
I'd try to get the sharks with laser beams on their heads first.


RE: Can I have one?
By ekv on 5/4/2010 6:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
Really? Volcano has a bit more energy than a nuke.

Perhaps you prefer the mushroom cloud headed towards Europe instead?


RE: Can I have one?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/5/2010 9:54:45 AM , Rating: 2
OK, so he needs 5 or 6 nukes to put out that volcano. Still leave plenty in the pile to make a mess somewhere else if needed.

As for Europe... I suggest you move or take a vacation outside of Europe if he carries out his plan. I have the feeling taking 5 or 6 nukes to a volcano will have the same effect as squeezing real hard on a big fat zit. Good luck with that...


RE: Can I have one?
By ekv on 5/5/2010 1:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't live in Europe. A vacation would be nice, but I don't live there. Yeah, I don't want to find out what nukes would do to an active volcano. I can't see anything good coming from it...


RE: Can I have one?
By SPOOFE on 5/5/2010 10:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be silly. What we've learned from Hollywood - and it's an indisputable fact that the movies are always 100% accurate - is that nukes solve all sorts of problems, from deadly Earth-impacting asteroids to the dying of our sun.


RE: Can I have one?
By PrinceGaz on 5/6/2010 10:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know what would actually happen if we detonated a few nukes in that Icelandic volcano called Ewiuoghriouhburw (I just pressed a few random keys there as that is near enough to its real name) which is continuing to cause some air-travel disruption here in Britain and Ireland.

If a few nukes could stop the volcano it would be worth trying. What's the worst that could happen? :)


RE: Can I have one?
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 11:17:20 AM , Rating: 2
In theory you could close the vent (though you might wind up only widening it further). But even if you did that, the pressure still exists...it would simply mean the neighboring volcano -- or one somewhere else entirely -- would just erupt that much sooner.


WTF
By RaulF on 5/4/2010 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
Why do we have to tell anyone about this???? Wow.




RE: WTF
By Micronite on 5/4/2010 7:23:12 PM , Rating: 4
I bet Russia isn't going to "show us theirs".


RE: WTF
By thurston on 5/4/2010 10:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think they told the truth?


RE: WTF
By Chaosforce on 5/5/2010 2:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
Why are we? cause who the hell cares, we still have plenty to blow up the world so who cares how many extra times we can do it. This is simply and no more and no less a way to shut up people going "omfg we are defenseless cause obama is cutting our nukes" (even though Reagen did the same thing).


RE: WTF
By thepalinator on 5/5/2010 6:33:35 AM , Rating: 2
You really can't be that stupid. Reagan "did the same thing"? Reagan embarked on the biggest military R&D, new weapon systems, and force strength increases in the last 50 years. Obama, on the other hand, has already cut several high profile weapons systems and is talking about cutting much more. Reagan also never gave away our exact force figures, to let an enemy do precise planning against us.

Oh and you're also so far wrong it isn't funny about how we can "blow up the world many times over". Read some of the other posts here to see why.


RE: WTF
By mcnabney on 5/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: WTF
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 11:20:33 AM , Rating: 5
I seriously hope you were joking with this post.

"Reagan is known for pushing three things strategically - the MX missile, B1 bomber, and Trident submarine..."

Did you forget about the Strategic Defense Initiative, by far what he is best known for here? Carter reduced defense R&D, Reagan doubled defense R&D:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trdef09p.pdf

Reagan's SDI funding paid near-immediate dividends during the first Gulf war when, despite countless gloomy pronouncements from media pundits, US military technology decimated Iraq's Soviet-built equipment nearly overnight, with US soldiers in a "war" in which they were safer than they would be back home walking the streets of Chicago at night.

"...all of which were designed under CARTER. "

The MX and B1 programs began under Nixon. Carter cancelled the B1 bomber program, Reagan restored it.

As for Trident subs, the design work here also began under Nixon. Carter actually signaled the end of the program in 1979, in favor of a "smaller, cheaper" SSBN-X program, but after his defeat, Reagan authorized additional funding and, the first sub actually capable of launching Tridents was launched five years after Reagan took office -- the USS Tennessee.

Carter refused to supply the UK with Trident missiles. Reagan approved it. Carter wanted to eliminate all bomber-carried nuclear weapons and most ICBM-carried ones, relying only on the submarine leg of the nuclear triad. Reagan expanded all three branches of the triad.

Do I really need to go on with this? Trying to give Carter credit for any of these programs is the most bald-faced utter tripe I've read in ages.


Living up to an agreement
By Makius777 on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Living up to an agreement
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 2:19:55 PM , Rating: 5
You are sadly misinformed. The NPT never required nuclear weapon states to make public the size of their stockpiles.


RE: Living up to an agreement
By Makius777 on 5/6/2010 12:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm... well without actually looking up the treaty and reading it myself I'll have to take your word for it. But if disclosing this information isn't required by the treaty then I can't see why the U.S. would want to disclose it freely. Kinda seems like the sort of information you would want to keep to yourself.

Either way, I can't say that I care too much. But interesting none the less. And thank you for the clarification.


By fluxcapacitorMB on 5/7/2010 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kinda seems like the sort of information you would want to keep to yourself.


At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Bill Clinton said something like, "We should lead by the power of our example, not ONLY by the example of our power."

I think that certainly applies here.


nothing
By penisopolis on 5/4/2010 8:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
well if one in 200 men revealed his penos size there would sure be a sword war




RE: nothing
By bigdawg1988 on 5/4/2010 8:38:50 PM , Rating: 4
Unless one of them was Mandingo...
war over!


Samuel Jackson
By Bioniccrackmonk on 5/5/2010 4:01:58 PM , Rating: 2
YES THEY DESERVE TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!!!!

This is the first thing that came to mind when I read the article.




opinion
By Luke212 on 5/9/2010 7:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problem here is that people think anyone outside the USA are enemies.

The vast majority are not your enemy and are just trying to live their lives. You watch too much Fox TV if you think they are out to get you. And Obama's increased transparency is showing he understands this and would rather make friends than enemies. This is the only way to avoid an arms race.




Extinction
By Mithan on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Extinction
By SPOOFE on 5/5/10, Rating: 0
Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By CheesePoofs on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By stirfry213 on 5/4/2010 2:24:08 PM , Rating: 5
There are slightly less than 200 countries in this world. If every country got the same nuclear weapons dropped on them (which they wouldn't), they would still get hit with 25 bombs each! 25 PER COUNTRY!

Considering that using even ONE nuclear weapon in todays global society would create a world of issues (and in worse case scenario, retaliation) for America, I don't see how showing this # makes any difference what so ever.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Smilin on 5/4/2010 3:19:49 PM , Rating: 5
Yes it's such a weakness to say...we have FIVE THOUSAND NUKES.

Honestly short of firing some off I'm not sure how much better you could demonstrate strength.


RE: Lost for words...
By lightfoot on 5/4/2010 5:09:25 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe we should show them where they all are and how big they are. Maybe have guided tours of the missile silos. That would really show our military might. Nobody would dare attack us then!

Unless they figured out how to neutralize our deterrent because they knew exactly where and how many weapons we had... That might suck.

At least the way Obama is playing it they only know how many we have. It should take our enemies months of playing Where's Waldo on Google earth before they feel confidant that they've found them all.


RE: Lost for words...
By Treckin on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/5/2010 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
No, no, no... you do not show them where they are located. You invite someone like the President of Iran over for a visit (take 4 or 5 "problem" leaders at a time). Bring them to one station/silo to show off a nuke. Take them by RV so can not look out the windows but can have nice comfy ride and "talk". Then the next stop would be central command. From here you can show them were all the nukes are POINTED ... Do an individual count for each leader and give them the number of nukes per square mile. Then when all is done, let them know what they can do to have less nukes pointing at their country.
If this does not draw some interest then do not fill their planes tank with gas... That is do not fill it all the way... if they run out of gas over the ocean, well that just happens sometimes... :)


RE: Lost for words...
By Justin Time on 5/4/2010 6:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, this has long been suggested.

Every 10 years, gather together all of the world leaders and military brass, to witness an above-ground test of a large nuke.

The idea being, to leave everyone in absolutely no doubt about the almost unimaginable destructive power of even a single modern TN weapon.

Unfortunately, very few (if any) have the slightest idea what one of these things is capable of, or understand that even a handful of them could lay waste to a nation, either directly or by aftermath.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:11:12 PM , Rating: 4
"a handful of them could lay waste to a nation, either directly or by aftermath."

If you watch enough Hollywood movies, you'll believe that. The reality is quite a bit different. You have to remember that destructive power only goes up as the cube root of yield. That means a 300KT nuke may have 30,000 the yield of a "MOAB" conventional bomb, but only some 30-35 times the destructive power.


RE: Lost for words...
By Calin on 5/5/2010 9:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Nuclear weapons are terrifying weapons - however, they are not as terrifying as they are portrayed in movies.
After one conventional nuke (a small one, though), both Hiroshima and Nagasaki remained habitable (keep in mind that thermonuclear weapons have a small nuclear "explosion" as the first step, and the second step (the fusion of hydrogen/helium/lithium/whatever) is the second step and doesn't create much of a radiation hazard.


RE: Lost for words...
By mcnabney on 5/5/2010 9:53:52 AM , Rating: 1
You are comparing two tiny (14-17kt) atomic blasts to modern TN weapons?

And radiation is far more effected by 'where' it detonates. Ground detonations create far, far more fallout than airbursts.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 11:24:19 AM , Rating: 3
"You are comparing two tiny (14-17kt) atomic blasts to modern TN weapons?"

Yes he is...because modern TN weapons use a tiny (14-17KT) atomic blast to ignite fusion, the second stage of which generates nearly no additional long-term radiation.

In any case, we actually have very few TN weapons in our arsenal. Most are technically what's known as "boosted fission" weapons which again generate little radiation beyond what the trigger itself does.


RE: Lost for words...
By callmeroy on 5/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By callmeroy on 5/5/2010 11:49:39 AM , Rating: 3
Oh let's add two more Nukes just because Hollywood irritates me...

A nuke hits Malibu (home to MANY famous actors/actresses)...

and

A nuke hits the White House...since I said one hits the pentagon.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 12:05:16 PM , Rating: 2
"The US military high command is done, washington, DC is in ruins....and NYC is wiped off the map."

Please read some of the posts before repeating this drivel. You don't "wipe NYC off the map" with a single 500KT nuke. One wouldn't even take out Manhattan. It'd take 20 just to wipe out the majority of the five boroughs, and more than that to destroy the entire metropolitan area.

As for wiping out the "military high command", the loss of the Pentagon would not seriously impede our military capability. Did you forget about Cheyenne Mountain and other hardened sites, built specifically for this purpose?


RE: Lost for words...
By callmeroy on 5/5/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/2010 3:22:48 PM , Rating: 1
Please. If you are refering to Iran, Obama just put the spotlight right back on them, throwing Imanutjobs arguments for a loop, and putting him on the defensive.

Obamas policy is clear on Iran: Considering how weak the regeim is, and how bad Irans economy is doing (25% inflation, 15% unemployment), simply don't energize the radical and let the house fall. If Obama pushs too hard on Iran, he plays into Imanutjobs hands, "prooving" everything he ever said about the US trying to undermine the country true.

As for NK, with the leaders health failing, Obama is waiting to see how the cards fall before making a decisive move. Wait for a new leader to step into a country with a ton of problems, then take the appropriate action.

Nice to see some tact back in forign policy.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/4/2010 6:58:03 PM , Rating: 3
Pft.

Iran has been weak for how long now? Same with N. Korea. How do they keep on going?

If you think either economy will fail, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that needs some repair....

Just wait. Btw, do you think Iran is relying on you to wait?


RE: Lost for words...
By thepalinator on 5/5/2010 6:38:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for NK, with the leaders health failing, Obama is waiting to see how the cards fall before making a decisive move. Wait for a new leader to step into a country with a ton of problems, then take the appropriate action.
In other words, Obama hasn't got a clue what to do but we'll put a good spin on things anyway. North Korea just attacked and blew up a South Korean naval ship, the worst act since the Korean War itself.

What did Obama see fit to do? Not a goddamn thing....not even issue a warning. If you think that's "tactful" and good foreign policy, you're a bigger idiot than your posts make you out to be.


RE: Lost for words...
By mcnabney on 5/5/2010 9:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
You do know that nobody even knows what happened to that ROK corvette yet. But you would start a war based upon a bad feeling. It was most likely a mine and could have been unintentional. It wasn't that long ago when one of our cruisers in the Persian Gulf shot down an Iranian passenger plane that the radar thought was an F14.

And FYI, a war in Korea would open up with the ROK captial, Seoul, being completely destroyed since the city is in range of many of NKs 15k artillery pieces.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 11:28:19 AM , Rating: 4
"You do know that nobody even knows what happened to that ROK corvette yet"

Unsurprisingly, you're out of date. South Korean and US intelligence believes a North Korean torpedo sank the ship:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63L08W201004...

"FYI, a war in Korea would open up with the ROK captial"

Who said anything about a war? But no response at all -- not even a verbal chiding -- merely emboldens the North Koreans (and others around the globe) to future attacks.


RE: Lost for words...
By Lerianis on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:15:38 PM , Rating: 5
"It's becoming consensus that nuclear weapons and having them are the sign of asshats who wish to force THEIR ideals on the rest of the world."

Right...that's why the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council -- the 5 members with ultimate veto power-- were the first five nations with nuclear weapons.

As for our "trying to dictate" what nations can't develop nukes, people like you will be the first ones crying foul when nations like North Korea and Iran beginning selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. The US has **already** prevented North Korea from exporting much of its ballistic missile technology abroad...technology that ultimately will wind up killing millions of people.


RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 3:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
25 per country is not particularly many. Any proper strike on a city involves multiple devices initiated in each city to hit various strategic targets, some of which need multiple devices to ensure successful destruction. The US has enough to maintain a good deterrent against two nuclear powers, much more than that and we veer into British style Moscow Criterion stuff, which isn't nearly as good a deterrent for as big a country as the US. Still, it's important to remember that real life nuclear weapons do not behave as the ones in the popular media do, because if they did behave like Hollywood nukes, then 5100 would be quite excessive.


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/2010 3:52:42 PM , Rating: 2
Lets assume we continue to follow the "Obama Docterine", and use nukes only against other nuke capable nations. [Lets just assume 10 nuke nations and 5000 nukes to keep the math simple].

Thats 500 per nation if every other nuke nation went to war with us at the same time. So assuming half of those side with us, that brings us to 1000 nukes per nation.

Is that a big enough deterrent to prevent war between nuclear powers? If not, then what number would satisfy you? Nukes ONLY military purpose is as a deterent, so what number is satisfactory?


RE: Lost for words...
By ughtas on 5/4/2010 4:19:51 PM , Rating: 1
You are presuming that we magically can deliver each warhead directly to the target successfully.

100% launch success isn't realistic, nor is delivery. Especially as other nations (China and maybe Russia) develop space technology, our ability to hit a target depends on flooding any defenses they may develop.

I'd be much happier with the older 40000+ warheads we had. It would be nice to be assured that we'd win any nuclear war we might be pushed into.


RE: Lost for words...
By lightfoot on 5/4/2010 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It would be nice to be assured that we'd win any nuclear war we might be pushed into.

That should be "It would be nice to be assured that they'd lose any nuclear war we might be pushed into."

In a full scale nuclear war, nobody wins.


RE: Lost for words...
By Lerianis on 5/4/2010 7:46:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
In a full scale nuclear war, nobody wins.


Exactly right! The fact is that nuclear weapons are keeping the world peaceful, but at the same time if an insane person gets ahold of them, we are in a shitload of trouble.

That's why we should be DECREASING the amount we have, while increasing their power so we still have the capability for 'MAD'.


RE: Lost for words...
By inighthawki on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By lightfoot on 5/4/2010 5:14:20 PM , Rating: 3
10 nukes would do just enough damage to Russia, China or the US to really piss them off. It's kind of like throwing rocks at a grizzly bear.


RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 5:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
even if we go with a 1% success rate which would be fairly abysmal, that's still 10 nukes per nation, and 10 nukes can do quite a bit of damage, even for a fairly large city ...


There, fixed that for you. You are aware that the Moscow Criterion required 300 devices and there's more ABM systems floating around now?


RE: Lost for words...
By inighthawki on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 5:14:12 PM , Rating: 2
Enough to properly fight a counter-strategic nuclear exchange would be good, so it really varies a lot with the reliability of our nuclear weapons, their delivery systems and how many our potential enemies have and not be vulnerable to a first strike. Also, having enough so that when their targeteers decide to see what we can do to them, they immediately vomit is a pretty good thing, that's a lot of why Mao calmed down in a huge way after China got nukes (point of reference, the targeteer puking after he saw what the US could do was Chinese). I'm not sure how many would be necessary, I'm not a nuke targeteer. However, I'm not too sure that 625 per country (not counting the UK, France and Israel for obvious reasons) is actually all that many, especially considering Russia's ICBM dispersal is about as good as ours and that not all of those 5100 are actually able to be fired, and that an actual nuclear targeteer says there's 3-5,000 priority targets in Russia.

Whatever, I'll let you read my sources, the author well and truly knows what he's talking about even if they are reposted emails.

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warf...
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warf...
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warf...


RE: Lost for words...
By invidious on 5/4/2010 5:16:03 PM , Rating: 3
All of these pro-disarmament pro-disclosure comments are extremely naive and show little understanding of war strategy. You have to assume they strike first, you have to assume some of the launches fail, you have to assume some of the missle get shot down, and you have to assume some of the missles miss their targets. Not every nuke is an ICBM. Many are short range, many can only be launched from the sea, many are only suitable for certain targets. A nuclear power would not surrender after two strikes like Japan did, we whould have to strike at miliary targets and there are far more than 1000 per nation.

You need to have an excessive amount as a deterant. Your enemy should know with absolute certainty that attacking the united states means their complete and utter destruction without a doubt. Anything less than that is weakness.


RE: Lost for words...
By seraphim1982 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 5
25 nukes is about enough to piss off a country. Blast radius for an average device (W88 @ 475 kt) would be approximately 3.3 times that of little boy (I'm taking the upper bound on the destruction a W88 would cause so, I'm assuming Little Boy output 13 instead of 13-18 kt), which had one of one mile, that gives a touch less than 35 square miles of destruction. For comparison, Detroit has an area of 143 square miles of city proper and 1295 square miles of urban area. You sir, are the one who has no idea what he's talking about.(For those checking my work, remember that blast intensity varies with the inverse of the cube of the radius). And extrapolating the experiences from Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the fallout deaths is totally invalid, those devices were tremendously dirty compared to modern devices.

The projections for a 1 megaton device initiated over the center of London are that 95 percent of assets and 80 percent of people would survive. Real nuclear devices are not Hollywood nuclear bombs. Plus, there's tons of important strategic targets around the countryside, to the order of 50k separate targets in Russia (grouping the ones that can be hit with one device drops this number to 3-5k).


RE: Lost for words...
By Alexstarfire on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 6:30:01 PM , Rating: 5
Less than a WWII design? Definitely would be. The fallout from an air burst in WWII was mostly wasted yield, and the designs are much better. The fallout from a ground burst wouldn't be as comparatively weak due to the higher yield (the main source of fallout is earth getting irradiated in the blast and then dispersed by the heat effects), and I don't have any references for that, but there aren't many urban targets that would warrant one. So yes, the fallout would be considerably less than from a WWII device.


RE: Lost for words...
By BurnItDwn on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 6:01:48 PM , Rating: 5
Convincing somebody to surrender when they're about to be invaded by overwhelming force, their merchant marine has been crippled so badly that civilians are starving by the thousands, your cities are so badly firebombed that the casualties in the capitol from it are as bad as the ones from the nukes were, your navy is incapable of further action, and you're arming civilians with farming implements is a touch easier than making it so that they don't even consider more than a limited war.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:21:22 PM , Rating: 5
"2 "tiny" nukes was enough to convince Japan to surrender in WW2."

Actually, the nukes didn't convince Japan to surrender...the Soviet declaration of war on Japan did more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And even then, Hirohito had to overrule the War Council and make a personal appeal to the nation to surrender...and a group of military officers rebelled, stormed the Imperial Palace, trying to prevent the surrender from being read.

"5000, MUCH bigger and more powerful warheads is more than enough to wipe out all of our "dangerous" military targets many times over."

First of all, those weapons are not "much" bigger. The average yield is 300KT, which (though 15X the yield) is only about 2.5 as destructive as the bombs dropped on Hiroshima.

5100 warheads is enough to allow two third of them to be destroyed by a first strike by Russia, and still have enough for a credible deterrent. In fact, the number is chosen around just that basis.


RE: Lost for words...
By thurston on 5/4/2010 10:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
only about 2.5 as destructive


You make it sound so nice.


RE: Lost for words...
By callmeroy on 5/5/2010 12:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
MIRVs ....much of our arsenal are MIRVs nowadays. Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles. In short you launch a single missile, but many warheads come down. This design increases the destruction capability of a single missile because it spreads out the damage.

You could well kill tens--even hundreds of thousands with a single MIRV style missile of a few hundred kilotons.

Anyone that thinks that's hollywood is really ignorant. Though I will give them that the movie version of one nuke practically wiping out the entire east or west coast is a bit far fetched, even if you think of our most potent nukes today.

Again its not just about the power of the weapon but the target area you are hitting with it. In our major cities you have many many people in a relatively small space. How many million are crammed on Manhattan on any given business day of the week? In the Philadelphia metro area (where I live) depending on what site you trust for census data there is anywhere from 6-8 million people in such a small area.

You strike the major power plants, water filtration stations, processing plants, military bases....you can do this with FAR FAR less than 5000 nukes....millions will be dead and the rest of us still alive will not only be terrified, but plunged into the chaos that will surely follow....


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 12:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
"You could well kill tens--even hundreds of thousands with a single MIRV style missile of a few hundred kilotons."

Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about here. A Trident II missile, for instance, packs 8 warheads yes -- but the 5,100 figure is a warhead count, not a missile count.

A single Ohio class sub carries 24 Tridents, but 192 total warheads...at least until the SORT treaty.


RE: Lost for words...
By RedRoss on 5/5/2010 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 1
I agree with the poster above, the amount of arms is unbelievably high.
What's more:
I am amazed by the stupidity of the human race. Instead of focusing on research (the same Orion Project) we are discussing how to PROTECT OUR SELVES from THEM ?? Whose them ??? I see no other enemy except highly advanced bad tempered aliens..
Science can make a heaven on earth for some decades now, but it's not politically convenient for some.

Ashamed of the human race... :/


RE: Lost for words...
By Kurz on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By homebredcorgi on 5/4/2010 12:36:39 PM , Rating: 5
Giving away our hand? As if other countries didn't have reasonable estimates in the first place? Is the difference between a few hundred nuclear weapons and a few thousand that big? Once you have a few hundred of these (let alone the ability to launch a few hundred at the same time from damn near anywhere in the world), what does it matter?

This is about not looking like complete hypocrites on the international stage when we tell other countries not to pursue nuclear weapons.


RE: Lost for words...
By Kurz on 5/4/2010 12:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well... they should persue their own weapons.
They should have their own weapons.

Its their right as a country to defend themselves.
Knowing in hindsight they do attack with Nukes they'll recieve whats coming to them.

This is how we have had relative peace in the world.


RE: Lost for words...
By blueeyesm on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 1:05:27 PM , Rating: 1
The cost of war isn't in dollars, it is lives. This is what ultimately takes its toll. You can have all the money and equipment you want, if you have no lives to man it though, you're useless. Unfortunately, to preserve those lives you must spend money on top of the line equipment. Thus, the paradox of warfare.

It ultimately boils down to a very simple principle: Maintain the most powerful, dangerous army that you can (without excessive manpower as that is very detrimental to a nation's GDP) to scare your opposition into not picking a fight. Passive aggression--that is why there has not been as much war.

Our tax dollars have obviously been well spent keeping the peace.


RE: Lost for words...
By markitect on 5/4/2010 3:58:04 PM , Rating: 1
Actually each soldier costs about 1 million dollars to replace, after life insurance payout, and training a new one.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/2010 10:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, because we haven't used our military during the "Pax Americana" or whatever you call it.

And you will respond with "it isn't on our soil"

WTC '93 and 9-11 were...and the attitude of many Americans, sitting on their couch saying "well whatever, the wars I am funding and supporting aren't HERE" are exactly what give terrorist acts against us support from even countries who aren't Muslim


RE: Lost for words...
By Kurz on 5/4/2010 1:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
Not as expansive as the entitlements we have promissed to Social security and Medicare.

Not even close... It makes up less than 5%
Only ~30 billion dollars. 665 Billion a year overall on the defence budget.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/12/opinion/oe...

http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?Relea...

Its relatively cheap to maintain, and it gives us so much security.


RE: Lost for words...
By Kurz on 5/4/2010 1:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
Opps I meant 54 billion.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/2010 4:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Nice try.

The articles you cite say 52.4 billion per year for nukes (most of which is under the Department of Energy, not defense)

And the 665 billion does not include large amounts of war spending, the nukes part of the DOE, the VA, and many other pieces. A more accurate measure of our spending would be from 850-950 billion, including all of the above.

And all of this means nothing. There is no "winning" a nuclear war. It won't mean shit if we drop 2 or 200 bombs on our "enemies" (funny how France, the UK are both are allies, India and Pakistan are close in many ways, Israel...)

There is no protection from having anything more than 500-1000 deployed nukes, because even with a 10% hit rate (which is so low it is laughable) we still will be able to hit 50-100 targets. And the only way that would not be enough is if we were at NUCLEAR war with the ENTIRE world---I'm gonna go with that being a time to maybe stop being so militaristic and brash

Not to mention, instead of spending money maintaining nukes, we could reduce the deficit (trade and fiscal) by using 4000 or so or our and Russia's nukes to drive down uranium prices and reduce the chance of rouge or loose nukes.

But no, someone wants to spend tens of billions of dollars on nukes to nowhere


RE: Lost for words...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/4/2010 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There is no "winning" a nuclear war.


In a 1980's style "War Games" mutually assured destruction scenario, no there isn't. But things have changed. You're still stuck on ICBM's which, for all intents and purposes, are impracticable, vulnerable, unwieldy, and too slow to deliver on target. In other words, obsolete.

We can park a submarine right off your coast and lob low trajectory missiles and nuclear tipped ground hugging cruise missiles with little to no warning at all. And there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

Also there are these things called stealth bombers.


RE: Lost for words...
By Xavi3n on 5/4/2010 9:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
The "enemy" wouldn't know the location of the nuclear sites, so sure they could fire off nukes without warning, but the attacked country would find out who did it and launch their entire arsenal of nukes, their allies would also do so (not entire but some).

The allies of the country that nuked the first would launch their nukes at the countries that launched theirs, the allies of the attacked country would launch all theirs to counter them being attacked and voila Global Thermonuclear War.

You cannot win a nuclear war, you can try various stratagems but the end result is always the same, everyone launches their nukes, world gets irradiated, humans struggle to survive or just die out due to lack of food.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 9:22:14 PM , Rating: 4
"the attacked country would find out who did it and launch their entire arsenal of nukes, their allies would also do so"

Nuclear strategy is far more complex than you suppose. You cannot sum it up in a few sentences...or even a few books (trust me, I have several on the subject).

For instance, say China attacks Taiwan, and the US uses a couple tactical nukes on the Chinese fleet. Would China retaliate with all-out launch of their strategic nuclear forces on the US mainland? Almost certainly not (though its of primary importance to make your opponents believe you would do so).

Furthermore, if they did in fact do so, what Chinese allies would "join in" to attack the US with nuclear weapons? None whatsoever.

Further still, in a very few years, the US will have the ability to nearly neutralize, via ABM, a nuclear strike as large as China could muster (assuming China doesn't massively grow their arsenal, and Obama doesn't do something stupid).

The idea that nuclear war, in all its multitudinous variants, would be "unwinnable" is dovish fantasy. Some scenarios are, some are not.

"everyone launches their nukes, world gets irradiated, humans struggle to survive or just die out due to lack of food."

Welcome to Hollywood, circa 1969. Sorry, but I saw the sequel.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 10:30:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Use "tactical" nukes on fleet targets...close enough the cause fallout if the winds change in the country we are trying to defend?
If you learn a little more about nuclear weapons than you get from a Hollywood film, you'll understand how nonsensical this is. An airburst causes very little fallout even for large 500KT+ devices. Using a tactical "dial-a-yield" warhead, there would essentially be no fallout whatsoever.

Your other theories are equally sophomoric. A limited tactical usage of nuclear weapons might in some cases lead to an all-out strategic escalation. In others it most certainly would not.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By whiskerwill on 5/4/2010 10:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really stupid enough to think 70 nukes would take out Russia AND China? There are over 5,000 priority targets in Russia alone. It would take several hundred nukes to even dent their military capability.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/2010 10:30:11 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, because all those targets are hardened against everything but nukes. And our entire conventional forces would have just evaporated. And that victory requires the elimination of every priority target. And the chaos after a nuclear strike near population centers (ie Hainan Island) wouldn't change the complexion of the conflict at all.


RE: Lost for words...
By Ammohunt on 5/4/2010 1:40:04 PM , Rating: 1
The problem is what they(The Obama Administration) seeks to achieve the extremely naive thought that if we show them ours countries like china will magically get a conscious and reveal their numbers; Obama is a child!


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By god dammit on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Ammohunt on 5/4/2010 2:22:26 PM , Rating: 3
May the ignorance of above post serve as a reminder to all those that love freedom as to why America is in the dire situation it is in today!


RE: Lost for words...
By Flahrydog on 5/4/2010 2:55:57 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
all the republicans opposing things like health care reform


I love when people blame republicans for stalling health care for so long, when the democrats had a super majority for Obama's first year. They couldn't get anything done because they can't even agree within themselves, plain and simple.


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/4/2010 7:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
If the Dem's only resorted to 8 filibusters then the Rep's obviously were not pushing hard enough. Perhaps why they were voted out. That not only ought to change henceforth, to get rid of that evil monstrosity of a student-loan bill, they MUST push for true reform.

Can you tell me why USSR is no longer a superpower? Hint: the answer is related to economics.


RE: Lost for words...
By mcnabney on 5/5/2010 10:18:10 AM , Rating: 2
Russia's GDP is less than Great Britain. What point were you trying to make?


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 12:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
and yet USSR was a superpower.

Not much chance of our GDP being less than Great Britain ... or is there?


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 3:51:49 PM , Rating: 4
I love how you make an assumption about my political preferences. I happen to side with out first president, George Washington, who believed that political parties are dangerous. I tend to agree more with Republican ideas, but I will NEVER call myself one. I am, however; a God fearing, law abiding, constitution preserving US American citizen.
quote:
Name me one Socalist thing Obama has done.

um... how about redistributing my taxes to hand out free health care to people who don't deserve it? And by "deserve" I mean the ones that do harmful things to their bodies, (drugs, and other unhealthy lifestyles). Ever heard of "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; But TEACH a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime"? http://obamaism.blogspot.com/ here is a small list of what you are asking for....
quote:
If anyone gives one example of Socalism, I'll leave anand forever.

Goodbye! :)

quote:
Oh noes; North Korea took their rowboats across the Pacific and are attacking with bayoneets because they don't have ammo (much less automatic weapons). WE ARE DOOMED!!!

That much right there shows that you are a COMPLETE IGNORANT FOOL when it comes to knowledge of this subject matter. North Korea has a lot more than you think.


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
What free healthcare?

I can safely say that you have no idea what is actually in the health care bill.
quote:
The government isn't offering anything that wasn't already offered pre-Obama.

Remind me again, what was the penalty for not buying the government plan during previous administrations? That's what I thought.

Your whole rant about NK still shows how little you know about world superpowers and world economics.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 3:59:01 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
How about stop fillabustering and VOTE? Dems fillabustered 8 times 2004-2006, and each time we did, Republicans cried about abuse of power. They did it over 200 times last year alone. Hypocritical much?
Why do you feel the need to tell lies to garner points? There have been a total of 40 cloture votes in all of 2009 and the first half of 2010.

There were 112 total cloture votes in the 2007-08 Congress, and 54 in the 2005-2006 Congress.

quote:
Name me one Socalist thing Obama has done. Just one."
You mean besides buying Government Motors?


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 4:10:39 PM , Rating: 4
and $100 says that he won't "leave" as we were promised.


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 4:28:18 PM , Rating: 3
So... taking my money to give to a dying company isn't socialistic in any way? In a free market economy, dying companies often die. Ford didn't need or accept any money from the American people! I guess they run a tight ship while following the trends...


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
"Funny; GM already paid back the first $8 Billion in loans"

Err, GM got a total of $50B in support. So far it "paid back" $5.8B (not $8B) -- but it did so by dipping into a separate pot of bailout funds, essentially paying us pack with our own money. This, according to TARP Inspector General Neil Barofsky.


RE: Lost for words...
By ZachDontScare on 5/4/2010 4:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, um, Einstein, it 'paid back' its bailout with other bailout funds.


RE: Lost for words...
By lightfoot on 5/4/2010 5:02:43 PM , Rating: 3
Socialism is not issuing loans, it is taking ownership of private enterprise. Yes, GM paid back the loans. The Federal government still owns 60% of General Motors. It is a textbook definition of socialism.

For wealth redistribution you need to look no further than the "Making Work Pay" $400 refundable tax credit. Although this particular policy is far more like Communism than Socialism. Although other good examples include the health care reform bill in which health care will be fully subsidized for the poor and lower-middle classes while significantly increasing the tax burden on the middle and upper middle classes.


RE: Lost for words...
By QuantumPion on 5/5/2010 4:22:24 PM , Rating: 1
Except that GM repaid the loan using TARP money. And the government -confiscated- their share of GM from legitimate shareholders to begin with.

It would be as if I stole your car and your wallet. And then I repaid you for your car using your own credit card. But since I'm such a nice guy, I sold you your car back with your own money for half price (while I kept the rest), so you made a profit! Right?


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/2010 4:12:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why do you feel the need to tell lies to garner points? There have been a total of 40 cloture votes in all of 2009 and the first half of 2010.


Missed this part. Oftentimes, the threat of a fillabuster is enough to stop action without even bothering with a vote. You're counting actual votes; I'm coutning how many times a fillabuster has been used, independent on weahter or not the party in power has attempted to overturn it. Through 2010, Republicans have used the fillabuster over 200 times.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 4:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm coutning how many times a fillabuster has been used"

A) You're lying. The Senate isn't in session anywhere near 200 days a year. For 2010, the year you claim this happened, we've only had 53 days in session so far. Most filibusters last well over 24 hours of debate (that's the only reason they're effective, in fact), so how in the world could we be averaging 4 filibusters each and every day?

B) I don't normally correct spelling errors, but as you've repeatedly misspelled this as "fillabuster" across several different posts, you may want to correct it.


RE: Lost for words...
By ZachDontScare on 5/4/2010 4:36:11 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Name me one Socalist thing Obama has done. Just one. And give specifics, not


Well, Socialism is often defined as the government ownership of the means of production.

So please tell us... who owns the majority of GM?

(or AIG, etc)


RE: Lost for words...
By mcnabney on 5/5/2010 10:27:16 AM , Rating: 1
Non-voting shares.

wiki:
Socialism is a political philosophy that encompasses various theories of economic organization based on either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources.[


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 11:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try, but the US government is already setting executive bonus caps and making other administrative decisions for GM and other firms which received bailout funds. GM also has to have certain actions first approved by the federal government. Claiming the government isn't exerting any administrative influence is very wrong indeed.


RE: Lost for words...
By KCjoker on 5/4/2010 6:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of Americans didn't want the Health Care Bill passed and now want it repealed. We do want reform but not this bill in it's form. Heck they didn't even know what all was in the bill when they passed it. Pelosi said something to the effect of " we have to pass the bill so you know what's in it". Yea that's real leadership by Obama and the DemocRAT leadership.


RE: Lost for words...
By god dammit on 5/5/2010 2:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
What we need is a European style health care system but oh no, all of those people with government run Medicare don't want the government messing with people's health care. You can get better health care in a third world country like Cuba. That's how bad the USA's health care is. To those of you that aren't rich, answer this. Do you want government run socialist health care or no health care? Get your heads out of your ass.


RE: Lost for words...
By ClownPuncher on 5/5/2010 4:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Cuba? Really? I watched "Sicko" too, but you want to know a secret? Some of it was bullshyte. Cuba doesn't have enough doctors in the country to care for all of their citizens, many of them are touring the world helping out in other countries. Many have left the country so they can get paid for their services.


RE: Lost for words...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/4/2010 2:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is about not looking like complete hypocrites on the international stage when we tell other countries not to pursue nuclear weapons.


Except, we aren't those other countries. We aren't ran by crazy dictators or religious zealots who can pop off nukes with no checks and balances etc etc. And if you think, just because we have nukes, that we should approach other countries as if we were equals then you and I have nothing more to say to eachother.

This is about Obama using the same muddleheaded approach to global diplomacy that 12 year old's and liberal disasters before him have tried. It DOES NOT WORK.

Peace through force and strength works. Hello, Ronald Reagan?? Look it up idiots.


RE: Lost for words...
By Phoque on 5/4/2010 7:20:32 PM , Rating: 1
"Peace through force and strength works. Hello, Ronald Reagan?? Look it up idiots."

War in Iraq is a magnificent example.


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/4/2010 7:34:08 PM , Rating: 2
Seems to me the war is over there, not here.

Seems to me Iraqi's now vote. Name one other country in the Middle East that votes. I dare you 8)

For a region that doesn't even know what voting rights are, we haven't done too bad. Not to mention getting generational enemies to semi-cooperate let alone live together in that bastard of a country.

Btw, just to be politically INcorrect, it is a war on Terrorism, which has been perpetrated by Muslim Islamofascists, not a war on Iraq. [Damn, you gotta love it, I used the T word and the M word in one sentence].


RE: Lost for words...
By Phoque on 5/4/2010 7:53:12 PM , Rating: 1
"Name one other country in the Middle East that votes."

[Damn, you'll love me, I'll name you 3 in one sentence].

Following the traditional definition of the Middle-East: Israel, Lebanon, Turkey.

I wonder if you are one of these americans who do not know where the US sits on a world map.


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 2:30:57 AM , Rating: 2
Let's start with Turkey. US ally (ostensibly). Fairly stable economy and leadership. In fact, I believe Turkey is still involved with the NATO nuclear weapons sharing, whereby the US stores nukes over there.

Lebanon is the most interesting case. Despite Hezbollah and other terrorist groups having a foothold in the country they appear to be stable at the moment and have some economic momentum. Their prospects for autonomy improve incrementally, even getting rid of Syrian troops (via the Cedar revolution).

Which leaves Israel. US ally. They don't send too many terrorists our way. They have a responsible attitude towards nukes: neither confirm nor deny. You could say they understand and practice peace-through-strength 8)


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/5/2010 10:55:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not many terrorists, just spies :)


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/6/2010 3:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
Spies, yes. There are trade-offs in life. If that's the trade-off at least you kind of know what to expect. [Even Jesus Christ had Judas Iscariot 8]

Similarly, we can expect muslims to marry American women in order to become naturalized citizens, then they can go over-seas to terrorist training camps. Faisal Shahzad [the most recent New York terrorist] did exactly this. Others include...

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/michelle-malkin/2010...

Israel: stability, creativity, ally. Iran: destabilizing influence. Pick your poison, no?


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 2:41:11 AM , Rating: 2
Btw, sorry you didn't get the joke. Comrade BHO has declared the T word and the M word verboten. Or should I say interdisaient?

As if not using these words is going to improve their self-esteem.

capisci?


RE: Lost for words...
By Phoque on 5/4/2010 8:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, just to make it clear to you, under Saddam Hussein dictatorship regime, Iraq was terrorism neutral towards the US. With the civil war now in place in Iraq, US have created a haven for terrorism to grow, with Al-Qaeda now firmly established.

Yes, it does divert temporarily terrorists attention from the US. But don't worry, they are a very patient kind with a long memory.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:41:25 PM , Rating: 4
"With the civil war now in place in Iraq..."

Anyone who considers the moderate level of sectarian violence a "civil war" doesn't know what the term means. Even during the height of violence in 2006-07 (a far more serious situation than exists today), the situation never rose to the level of a true civil war, though some analysts claimed it had "elements of" one.


RE: Lost for words...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By Phoque on 5/4/2010 10:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps in terms of death toll, but I have a hard time comparing kamikazes and car bombing killing targeted innocents to the kind of killing that occurs in the US in general. And I doubt the numbers are as accurately accounted for as they are in the US.

But yeah, maybe we can't talk about civil war anymore. I was referring to wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_civil_war ).


RE: Lost for words...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/5/2010 3:03:25 PM , Rating: 1
Oh come on. -1 for that? Speak up cowards, I dare you to argue that point and make it rational without resorting to "bigot" or other lame tactics.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/5/2010 5:29:22 PM , Rating: 2
Meh... nothing to compare and what's being bigoted have to do with it?
Crime and sheer acts of Terror have little in common except for the fact that violence is involved.


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 3:02:40 AM , Rating: 3
I hardly call hosting terrorist training camps as terrorism neutral.

The various surges in Iraq have been quite effective. A strong presence seems to deter Al-Qaeda. Retreat by US appears to help Al-Qaeda.

Yes, the Beirut Barracks attack had US retreat. 9/11 brought the message home though. You can be the 90-lb weakling getting sand kicked in your face or you can take a stand. Your statement about patience simply highlights the fact that these Islamofascists hide behind women's skirts because they are cowards.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/2010 10:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
" Name one other country in the Middle East that votes. I dare you 8)"

Depending on how you define the Middle East, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Kuwait, Iran (well, until around the time that they helped us in Afghanistan, then Bush went off and talked about the Axis of Evil, thereby empowering the militant wing of the conservatives and pushing out Khatami)...

And don't try to argue that because none of them are democracies with full freedom of press, security, tribalism etc arguement, because a lot of that could be said about Iraq


RE: Lost for words...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/4/2010 10:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well if by "vote" you mean people voting for whoever the radicals tell them to, in fear for their lives, then I guess most on that list qualify....


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 3:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
See the post above for comments on Turkey, Lebanon, Israel.

Hmm, Palestine. Are you serious? Palestine is a territory, not a country. I would agree with you though that Palestinians belong in Syria and Jordan, per UN directive(s).

Jordan and Kuwait are rather pro-Western regimes. And don't have much in the way of military, let alone nukes.

Which leaves Iran. Jackpot, pal! Yeah, lets make sure Iran gets nukes so they can blow the f'ing hell out the Little Satan and the Great Satan. Good f'ing idea.

And btw, how did that last vote in Iran go? gee, weren't there allegations of voting fraud. Gee, I guess the American President really helped out those people who were rioting in defiance of the Iranian regime. [N0T!]. You know, the moderates that wanted a straight up election. Are you seriously going to argue that it's Bush's fault? Really? But then again, I suppose you're one of the dumbbells that thinks Bush caused hurricane Katrina.

Peace through strength. Iran can be prevented from getting nuclear weapons. It is a question of political will-power, as opposed to naivete.


RE: Lost for words...
By Phoque on 5/5/2010 7:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
"And btw, how did that last vote in Iran go? gee, weren't there allegations of voting fraud."

It may not have had the scale of Iran alleged voting fraud, but this happens in the US too, remember Bush Jr re-election? And no matter the scale, it resulted in the re-election of Bush, so much for democracy that time around.


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 12:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
Are you comparing Bush's re-election to Ahmadinejad's? Really?

First, how many times was there a re-count? 13? which is about your age. The only way Bush wouldn't have won that vote is if they used his rules. Gore and his team of lawyers prevailed in determining the re-count rules ... and because he won the battle, lost the war.

Second, the only button you have to push is "it's Bush's fault." Guess what? In case you haven't quite kept up with the news, he's no longer president. Shocking, yes, I know, but true.

I gather you don't like democracy but it has proven time and again to create more wealth, health and prosperity to those who practice it than any other form of government. We have nukes, Iran doesn't and it is a safer world because of it. I prefer to keep it that way.

Lastly, since you're such a smart guy, how many people were killed protesting after the Bush re-election vs. Ahmadinejad's? what, can't count the bodies in Iran? why not?


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/4/2010 7:07:33 PM , Rating: 2
"better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt" -- Woodrow Wilson. Also a founder of the failed League of Nations.


RE: Lost for words...
By raumkrieger on 5/4/2010 4:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say this is more like playing 5 Card Stud and showing 2 or 3 of your cards.
There's no way in heaven or hell that 5100 is all we have.
If I had nukes, I sure wouldn't reveal the actual number and I don't expect the government to act any differently.


RE: Lost for words...
By Orchunter on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By MozeeToby on 5/4/2010 12:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
311 nukes is no where near enough to 'destroy the world' even once. It is enough to seriously damage every major city and destroy every military base in any country that were to attack us(probably several countries) but it isn't enough to, for example, turn the middle east into a glass crater.

Likewise, 300 nukes would be enough to alter the climate, but only by about as much as the recent volcano in Iceland did. Fallout would be an issue, but assuming that the nukes are airburst (for maximum damage) such fallout is actually relatively minor. Considering that 1962 saw more than 150 nuclear tests, I don't think the effects would be very devastating.


RE: Lost for words...
By geddarkstorm on 5/4/2010 2:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind that when Mt. St. Helen's blew, it was the equivalent of several THOUSAND atomic bombs.

Nuclear weapons make pretty impressive and flashy mushroom clouds, but they are nothing compared to the power of nature right under our feet. Need to get a sense of scale back in people's heads.


RE: Lost for words...
By GaryJohnson on 5/5/2010 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
Not all nukes are created equal.

St Helen's was the equivalent of 1600 of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima or 24 megatons, but the biggest atomic bomb, the Tsar Bomba, was 50 megatons.

The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa was estimated to be around 200 megatons.

You could definately create a life ending nuclear winter with 300x Tsar Bombas.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 1:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, it doesn't work like that. A single 50MT detonation doesn't create anywhere near 50 times the aerosol/particulate pollution as do 50 1MT blasts. Nor does the US have more than a tiny handful (if any at all) nukes in the megaton range -- most are 100-475KT.

In any case, as has already been discussed in the thread, the 'nuclear winter' hypothesis has long since been discredited. It was never more than wishful thinking from anti-nuclear advocates in any case.


RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
311 nuclear warheads is a sick joke. That's barely enough to fulfill the Moscow Criterion, let alone mount a proper deterrent, especially with ABMs being more prevalent. And calling 5100 devices enough to destroy the world several times over is very dependent on a bunch of considerations (mainly their yields and whether they're used in air or ground bursts). It would screw up civilization quite a bit though, but the sheer scale of destruction it could cause is a lot more deterrent with thousands of devices rather than a few hundred. Frankly, the main danger of nuclear devices is the possibility of a rogue state or even worse, a non country entity like a terrorist group, because they may not worry about the consequences.


RE: Lost for words...
By Lerianis on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 8:14:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
One new nuke could take out a city 50 times the size of Hiroshima and leave NOTHING standing.


Like this only backwards. A 1 MT device initated over central London would destroy 5% of the city's assets and 20% of the city's population. Do your research before calling anybody idiot lest you make it obvious who the idiot is. Fun fact: The US doesn't have active nukes more powerful than 1.2 MT. I think your problem is either that you've been watching too many movies or that you think blast pressure scales linearly with radius instead of with the inverse of the cube of the radius. That 1.2 MT device only has 4.5 times the radius of Little Boy.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:46:24 PM , Rating: 1
"That 1.2 MT device only has 4.5 times the radius of Little Boy."

Right..which is why we don't build massive thermonuclear warheads any longer. You waste too much of the blast.

BTW, the vast majority of the US arsenal is in the 100KT (W76) to 475KT (W88) range....devices that average only about 3X as destructive as Hiroshima.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:50:06 PM , Rating: 1
" Do your research before calling anybody idiot lest you make it obvious who the idiot is."

What's even more humorous is that, not only did he totally misstate the effects, but he also believes none of these devices have ever been tested. The US alone has conducted over one thousand nuclear tests in the years since 1945.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By Iaiken on 5/4/2010 12:35:35 PM , Rating: 2
America gaining street cred in the international community?

SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!


RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 1:00:35 PM , Rating: 5
The key thing that Bush understood (don't get me wrong, he was a numbnuts overall) is that it doesn't matter what other countries think about our country--they'll still hate us as long as we're ahead. Hate us... until they run into problems and then call for our help. All of a sudden, we'll become their best friend again... for a little while.

I don't care if we give credibility to our country or not on an international scale. The _only_ thing I care about is if our own citizens can live peacefully within our borders and have fruitful, prosperous lives. That is all our Government should really care about, actually.

We pay for them to serve us--not other nations interests. Obama, the fool he is, fails to cope with this and instead, would rather give our nation away after he was bought with the nobel prize. We pay for our government to serve us, not others. Why is this hard to realize?

I like other countries, I think they are great--and I like them even better when they work hard to better themselves instead of expecting us to do it for them.

The true issue is other countries have no business knowing how many weapons we have. It isn't their right to know, as they are our own business. We have proven to be _very_ responsible with our arsenal over the last several decades, only being used twice to prevent millions more people from dying that would have if they weren't used.

There are other countries, however, that have proved that they are unstable and will allow such weapons to fall in the wrong hands. It isn't that we do not want other nations to have these weapons--we don't, contrary to foreign belief, want to rule over the whole world and exert our influence on everyone. No, we'd rather live peacfully on our own Continent (shared by our wonderful Canandian and Mexican neighbors) that have to contend with world affairs. Unfortunately, we have to contest these nations who wish to acquire these arms due to them possibly using them in a less than responsible manner. That is why we make them our business--to protect our own citizens.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 3:23:00 PM , Rating: 1
Can I recommend you listen to this, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8 Its called, confessions of an economic hitman. Its well worth a listen.

The dislike of America from other countries is not from jealousy, a lot of other nations don't want the 'American Dream.' Its Americas influence and control of resources outwith its 'own continent' which causes security issue on its own continent. We learned this problem with the British Empire.


RE: Lost for words...
By SlyNine on 5/4/2010 3:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
What a load of crap. Your comments are filled so full of unsubstantiated non-information. Then you go on to compare it to the British empire.

When you have to bend words to make them fit something else, like the word empire. Then your argument is just an emotional appeal.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 4:30:45 PM , Rating: 1
I take it that you never listened to the link about the economic hit man?

What unsubstantiated non-information do you need clarified?

How am I bending words? Britain went about conquering an empire, and then on the most part it turned on Britain. In the link I gave, it mentioned America replacing anti-American governments with pro-American, either way they still then have influence offer the country and its resources. Which the quite often the natives don't like.



RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/4/2010 7:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
a lot of other nations don't want the 'American Dream.' Its Americas influence and control of resources
So true. You don't know how right you are! Islam considers Israel the little Satan, and the US "the Great Satan." If Israel is to be wiped off the map, what are they planning for US?

Seriously, though, the US is experiencing a cultural decline. The continued flaming liberal emanations from Hollywood don't help. I believe if the President were serious about having dialog with Islam then curtailing Hollywood's flamboyance would have to be a top priority. Throw them back to Father Knows Best would be a good start, for example. Then the President could think about making a decision on curtailing some defense spending, but not until.

After all the lobbying money he's taken from the Hollywood elite ... do you think he'd tell them to clean it up? or return the money? hahahahaha


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 9:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
" Some radical Islam elements considers Israel the little Satan, and the US "the Great Satan."

Corrected that for you.


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 1:38:25 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks. Granted I ought to be more specific. The statement was started by Iranian Ruhollah Khomeini. Radical Islam has said nothing against the statement hence I assume it is a 'universal' sentiment. Come to think of it, have you heard any muslim speak against this sentiment?


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 6:25:01 AM , Rating: 3
"Come to think of it, have you heard any muslim speak against this sentiment?"

Countless times, yes. Spend five minutes googling and you'll see endless references. Remember that what the media deems newsworthy is not a representative sample of a society.


RE: Lost for words...
By ekv on 5/5/2010 4:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't recommend Google ... tired of having my IP tracked.

For an instant there I thought you were going to talk about how you attended a mosque or you subscribe to Al Jazeera TV. I've listened to muslims denounce terrorism in general, since nobody supports terrorism (except maybe zionists 8), but it seemed so half-hearted, like it was merely lip-service to the party-line, as it were.

I try to keep an open mind, though it's difficult to draw-the-line when you run into the mindset where "It is written in the Koran. I believe it. That's it."


RE: Lost for words...
By cruisin3style on 5/4/2010 3:29:12 PM , Rating: 1
I think the key here is YOU don't care about our international credibility. Perhaps our troops, and our allies' troops, who are trying to win the populace of Afghanistan's "hearts & minds" instead of having them employed by, and therefore fight for, the Taliban would differ with you on that one.


RE: Lost for words...
By SlyNine on 5/4/2010 4:01:53 PM , Rating: 1
The only credibility we need is, if you fuck with us we will fuck your ass up. That's the kind of credibility you need over they, the only kind they respect.


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/2010 4:18:37 PM , Rating: 1
And thats exactly why other nations are continuing to pull out of Afghanistan, why Afghans are looking to the Taliban rather then us, and why we can't exert any consistent pressure on Iran or North Korea.

Bush era diplomacy has weakend the US by a significant amount, as our allies are no longer willing to send troops to aid our cause. And frankly, our military is too small to cover multiple fronts at one time, and our equipment is getting on. [An old joke is you can tell how old an F-16 is by looking to see how many times the paneling has been replaced on the body.]

The first Bush did it right; build a consensus, move in, and leave the allies the bill. He also knew to quit while ahead, and not to push his luck. Too bad his own son didn't learn that lesson...


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By Adonlude on 5/4/2010 1:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
You are right about that. Obama is giving us a little international credibility. This is becuase international general public opinion is held by the general public, most of which have no idea why they like him or what exactly he is doing differently than Bush. Your general public is placated by the fact that he is NOT bush, is left wing, and black.


RE: Lost for words...
By Flunk on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By Spookster on 5/4/2010 1:30:23 PM , Rating: 1
Unfortunately big business including the healthcare industry own all of our politicians so that will never happen.


RE: Lost for words...
By Ammohunt on 5/4/2010 1:43:23 PM , Rating: 3
Far ahead? or closer to becoming Greece?


RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 2:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever thought that some of US don't like social reform? Socialism, as it is called here, is not something that subscribes _at all_ towards what the framers of our constitution had in mind. If anything, Socialism destroys what our fathers intended as it corrupts and violates the very concept of freedom.


RE: Lost for words...
By Ammohunt on 5/4/2010 2:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
You are wasting your time trying to talk freedom to a Modern Euro they don't even have a basic understanding of it. Those that do are called Americans now.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/2010 2:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
Most people do not understand what this health care bill is all about - it's a power grab by an administration that does not believe in the American system, nor the ideals of the founding fathers. It's a post-american president, a president that views socialism as better system, a president that views the might of the US military as a burden...

No matter, I trust the American people. As Winston Churchill once said "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else", but at least they do it. Obama is a one time president and the upcoming elections to the house of representatives is the first major nail in this administrations coffin. Godspeed!


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 3:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
All I care about are very simple things:

1. I want to be able to chose what path I take in life _without_ my Government telling me what I am qualified to do and not do.

2. I want to be able to own my own land, free and clear.

3. I want to be free to speak my mind, whatever it is, whenever and wherever I want.

4. I want to be able to keep the majority of what I earn, in my own pocket.

5. I want to be rewarded for working harder and be able to earn substantially more than others if I do.

6. I want to be able to own guns, lots of them if I want to, legally, and be able to defend myself if I feel threatened--from both enemies, criminals, crook... and my own Government .

7. I want to be able to practice whatever religion I want to.

8. I want my Government to _not_ be run by the church.

9. I want my home to be free of warrantless searches and seizures.

10. I want a fair, equitable due process of law that can not throw me away and hide me in a cell until they decide it is time to release me or give me time to explain my case.

and, last of all,

11. I want to be able to stuff my face with a cheeseburger and fries, gulp them down with a Coke and then eat a fudge bar or bowl of ice cream if I want to--and not have the nutrition police bang down the doors of my home and call it illegal.

These are simple liberties. Things that all people should have. Things that people in Marxist regimes... do not have. If you've lived without them your whole life, I can not expect you to understand them unless you experience them first hand for a length of time.

Oh, and your state funded education--we have here, guess who pays for it? We do! From our own property taxes. Nothing is free in Socialism.

Women's and racial rights don't cost a dime. They also make the country a better place.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 3:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
Here's my answer once more and it is very clear about where I stand:

quote:
Women's and racial rights don't cost a dime. They also make the country a better place.


I don't think I need to elaborate further.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 4:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Nahh that all that I'm looking for, that social reforms do benefits the country.

Obviously if you pay more tax that you gain in benefits you feel the burden.


RE: Lost for words...
By xthetenth on 5/4/2010 4:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
I highly doubt that. A well paid worker is a motivated worker. Much more likely if those rights were to disappear is that women would leave the business sector in large numbers, lowering the number of workers and hurting the country, and if you think that slaves are a viable source of factory or skilled labor, you're deluded, there's far too many opportunities for subpar labor to radically lower the value of the finished product. I also think you're gettng Marxism and the US Declaration of Independence confused here, Marxism is all about class struggle and the forcible nationalization of the means of production and eviction of its owners. Not really a conducive environment for economic growth. Socialism does not have a monopoly on equality.


RE: Lost for words...
By gamerk2 on 5/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 3:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
The Government will _never_ do what is in YOUR best interests. How come so few people actually get this that are for socialism? The Government, if you give them the control, will ultimately become corrupt and abuse their powers and a few people will live fat off the hog.

The only way to control this is to keep the government lean and trim. Socialism can not exist if this is the case.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 3:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Well said. Some people are just too stupid to realize the dangers of not having a free society republic.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/2010 4:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
First, it's ISRAEL, not Isriel you ignorant d*mb-as*.

Second, WTF do you mean "right down to the lack of womens rights in Isriel..."?
In ISRAEL, women have all the rights men have AND MORE!

Third, a "communist democracy"?! you mean something like a "Liberal Third Reich"? or "Tolerant Sharia"? Is that what you mean?... I am just curious.


RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 4:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hehe you made me chuckle. Tolerant Sharia--good example. :)

As for women's rights in Israel, I think he's crazy. Judaism by nature is _all_ about womens rights--it might be based on tradition, but the women are for sure treasured and treated fairly.

I think he needs to look on the other side of the wall in Israel, towards the Gaza Strip and all those oppressed Muslim women. If he were to look long enough, he might actually begin to see the true atrocity towards women.


RE: Lost for words...
By hashish2020 on 5/4/2010 4:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Judiasm is all about women's rights. Down to them covering their heads, just like radical Muslims, splitting women and men, and prohibitions on women reading the Torah

And if you think Palestinians and Lebanese are "oppressed Muslim women" you really don't know much about the Middle East...they in many ways are better off than women in, say, Christian countries in Africa, or South America


RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 5:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Down to them covering their heads, just like radical Muslims, splitting women and men, and prohibitions on women reading the Torah


This is hysterical. I know several Jewish women _right now_ who can both a. Read the Torah and b. Wear whatever they want.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/2010 5:54:33 PM , Rating: 1
I think we should leave him be, he is probably an arab as "Hashish" (part of his nickname) is an arab word for "Grass" (of the cannabis kind)...

Lebanese & Palestinian women.... Pfffffff..... LMAO


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 8:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is hysterical. I know several Jewish women _right now_ who can both a. Read the Torah and b. Wear whatever they want.
He is more right than you know. Orthodox Judaism isn't very widespread in the US, but in Israel and certain parts of Europe, its a different story. Among the Haredi in particular, women's dress and roles are as constrained as they are in strict Muslim nations.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/5/2010 12:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry Porkpie, I must disagree here.
Though by normal western standards Haredim women may look odd, the reality is that it's not even close to the miserable life of women in strict muslim societies.

First, in strict muslim communities women are not allowed out of the house without the consent of the man. If she is allowed to go out of the house, a male member of the family must accompany her. This is not the behavior of the Haredim (at least in Israel).

Second, strict muslim women dress with the full hijab or burka that has no true parallel in the Haredim culture. Some Haredi women may go out with a head scarf or strangely enough with a wig... I never understood that last part myself.

Thrid, in strict muslim cultures, women can be traded. Haredim do not trade their women.

Fourth, Islam allows the beating of women. Rape is also allowed in case the man is not sexually satisfied. No Haredi sect allows such things by law, though unfortunately you will find cases of men beating their women - just like in any other group of human beings.

I think you get the idea.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 1:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Islam allows the beating of women...No Haredi sect allows such things by law"

My one trip to Israel, a female friend of mine strayed into an ultra-orthodox Haredi enclave. For wearing shorts, she was pelted with rocks and hospitalized overnight. The initial policeman I talked to about the incident considered it her own fault for antagonizing them; such incidents are apparently not uncommon.

While you are certainly correct that there are Muslim sects that treat women considerably worse, the role of women among the Haredi is as constrained as it is in a Muslim nation such as Malaysia, Egypt, or even Iran.

As for rape, remember that in most US states, a man could not be convicted of raping his own wife until the 1940s or so.


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/5/2010 2:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to hear about your friend. Must have been a grim trip... :\

I know what you are talking about, in their own neighborhoods, Haredim can become violent if they consider something to be offensive. Knowing how they are, the reaction doesn't surprise me - as sad as it is.

One can't really compare an entire nation like Iran or Egypt to the Haredim. Both of these nations have several layers of society - from the ultra radical islamists to the liberal seculars. It would be better to compare their strict muslim communities to the Haredim - you know, nut cakes Vs. nut cakes... :D

Here is something I bet you are not aware of: in most Haredim families, it is the women that go out to work and as such are much more integrated into Israeli society then their men. The reason is that the men are expected to immerse themselves in the study of Gmara and Torah. If we compare it to strict muslim communities in which women are not allowed to get out of the house without the permission of their men + male escort, one can understand that the status of Haredi women is very different.

Anyway, as a Secular Israeli, I must say that I am not happy with the Haredim at all.
We have a lot of complaints as to their way of life, especially towards their men. The majority of them do not serve in the army, a lot of them do not work, they fail to integrate into modern Israeli society and they have a tendency towards violence when they encounter a situation they do not like.

As for in-marriage rape laws in the US, I am not shocked. After all, the segregation of black people in southern states went well into the 1960s. But at least both issues have been addressed. American society improved itself.

Let's see the strict muslims of this world make the same adjustments... day dreaming anyone? :)


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/5/2010 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
"Must have been a grim trip... :\"

We actually enjoyed the trip, other than that one incident. And it was some 15-odd years ago...but I don't believe things have changed much. Just a year or two ago, I remember reading about a woman beaten by Haredi for refusing to sit in the back of a bus.

You're certainly correct that I was't making an apples-to-apples comparison. My only point was to illustrate that Judaism and Christianity both have a wide range of sects, just as does Islam. I believe the average US citizen would find much more in common with a secular Muslim than, say, a Coptic Christian.

"Here is something I bet you are not aware of: in most Haredim families, it is the women that go out to work"

I did know that actually, but I wouldn't put it as a mark in their favor. Forcing the women out in a snood to support their men is about the same as keeping them at home under a hijab.

One thing I'm less aware of -- don't the men also get some form of payment from the Israel government, for staying home to study the Torah?


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/5/2010 3:53:49 PM , Rating: 2
As I live among both muslims and Haredim I am very aware of the striking differences. But never mind, your points are pretty fair.

As to being supported by the state of Israel - the answer is a big ugly YES. Which drives the seculars (like me) mad. The vast majority of Israelis do not mind supporting a few hundred or even several thousand men/women that will learn to be experts in Torah and Gmara and will continue to push it forward, advance and adapt through the ages - you know, an elite group of talents. The problem is that the Haredim's appetite grew big over the decades and now we have a situation in which many TENS OF THOUSANDS of them are supported! This costs our state a fortune. The secular majority will change it eventually and taking into account the mood among us lately, the Haredim are going to get their asses whooped in the next election or so.

Last but not least, I am happy you enjoyed your visit after all :)


RE: Lost for words...
By NanoTube1 on 5/4/2010 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 1
LOL, you are smoking too much hashish.

What's funny is that you compared lebanese women to african women... why not compare them to women in Holland? or Denmark? or the US? Canada anyone? Israel?

I've been in Lebanon, served there for a year and a half - I saw them first hand... "free" my ass. Maybe in Beirut, definitely not in the south.

Last but not least, when dealing with women, islam should run in shame and hide in the toilet when compared to Jewish orthodox groups of the society. In Judaism, women are considered to be in a higher state of spirituality then men and as such are treated with the utmost respect. In true islam, women are precious commodity in the best case and plain garbage that can be physically and mentally abused in the worst case.


RE: Lost for words...
By QuantumPion on 5/5/2010 4:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
There's quite a big difference between Orthodox Jewish women whom cover their hair on Sabbath at Temple voluntarily because it is part of their culture, and religious law mandating that women must be covered at all times under the penalty of death.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
There are so many things wrong with your collective thoughts. Since when does it say that "the government" should provide ANYTHING? What US Constitution are you reading from?! It seems like the farther this country goes along, the more "entitlement" people come to expect.

Are you entitled to health care? Or should you work hard and earn it? I'm NEVER going to apologize for not wanting to pay the medical bills of drug addicts (that means alcohol and smokers too) that have more children then they can support.

quote:
lets take back rights for women, re-enslave black people,

You are an idiot. Name one person who thinks anyone should be a slave or unequal. It's un-Americana and un-Christian like.
quote:
stop unemployment benefit

Or how about we REFORM it so that only people that NEED the help get it (and only for a limited time, not a permanent vacation)... not lazy degenerate assholes of society.
quote:
remove state funded education.

Actually... Let's remove state CONTROLLED education... That would be a marvelous idea!
quote:
Stop all subsides, and universal healthcare.

Subsides(difficult and complex subject), but getting rid of universal handout, oops, I mean healthcare?! SURE! THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!
quote:
There all examples of 'socialist' reforms, do you really stand against them just for an ideology?

I'm against the government dictating what I should do with my life from the time I'm born to the time that I die. You are a part of a growing percentage of the populations that thinks "the government" is some magical entity that has mounds of money stashed around. I really doubt you know one single thing about what kinds of principals this country was founded on. Most of your beliefs would have you exiled from this country back during the early stages of this nation.

Keep on using that Barack-Bendy straw to suck down that Kool-aid!


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 3:53:52 PM , Rating: 1
I really don't think you get me.

This list I gave was 'socialist' principals, which America has, which helps make America so great. Without them I doubt your country would be where it is today.

I'm not American, so I'm not part of that growing percentage of the population that thinks the government is magical. I might not know the 'kinds of principals [your] country was founded on' but I believe one of them was freedom of speech, so I probably won't be exiled.

I'm British, so I don't really know what you think our political stance is. We are a liberal nation, but I'm pretty sure you'll think we're communists.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 4:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
You were making statements (ones that I read) that alluded to you being an American.
quote:
This list I gave was 'socialist' principals, which America has, which helps make America so great. Without them I doubt your country would be where it is today.

So you are saying that slavery and disparate treatment made this a great nation? LOL! No... I think the abolishment of slavery, and the social rights movements MADE THIS A GREAT NATION. Mind you, this is coming from a southern 21 year old Christian. Sorry if I think you are an idiot for confusing a socialist government with one that has a few socialism (by definition only) programs. Our welfare programs are socialist... I hate them.

I love helping others, but what I DONT LOVE is throwing away my money towards lowlifes that:

Refuse to get an honest job.
Have children that they can't support.
Commit crime.
leech off of others.
Do harmful things to their bodies and turn around and EXPECT people to pay for their healthcare.

Do you know that ~50% of the people in this nation do not pay income taxes? In fact, the majority of those people get tax refunds too! Since you can't put two and two together, I'll simplify it for you: "People in this nation get paid to not pay taxes." Seem fair? I think not.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 5:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes what I said was that abolishing slavery and giving people rights and benefits, which are social reforms (Which the previous person called 'socialist' reforms) Its these social reforms that is what America great. Which you agreed with.

For a christian you have very unchristian views. A lot of these 'low-lives' are products of their environment. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying they are not to blame. I'm just saying a 5 year old doesn't dream of being a drug addict, alchoalic or permanently unemployed. Also what about all the hard working people that work multiple jobs that still can afford health care insurance.

In the UK we have the NHS, 'free' health care for everyone, from the rich to the poor. They pay for anything bandaging up and cut knee, to a heart transplant. I would say that the NHS is one of the greatest things about Britain. We have to pay quite a bit of tax for it, income tax is:

20% for £0-£37,400
40% for £37,401-£150,000
50% for £150,000

Also we pay a 17.5% tax on any 'luxury' goods.

I don't think there is any political of any significance that wants to get rid of it, yet we have a party that wants to get rid of any non-natives from Britain.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 5:14:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For a christian you have very unchristian views.

And you can back that up with?? My Bible teaches that you should help those who actually need (and want) help, but leave those who can't receive help alone.
quote:
I'm just saying a 5 year old doesn't dream of being a drug addict, alchoalic or permanently unemployed.

Nope. But there damn sure is a time in their life where they learn the difference between right and wrong! From then on, all the decision made fall completely on them. If this was not true, you wouldn't hear about people who grew up around drugs and crime, but made something of themselves after they got away from it.

You are the type that never holds anyone accountable for their actions and decision. You always find someone else to blame. "Poor Mr. (insert lowlife's name here) grew up in a bad neighborhood, so lets give him free stuff!


RE: Lost for words...
By mcnabney on 5/5/2010 10:30:40 AM , Rating: 2
Please read the Gospels again. Jesus was a commie.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/5/2010 6:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why make this ridiculous and false claim with nothing to back it up?


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/4/2010 3:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
What sort of brainless twit equates a hatred for socialism with a love for slave labor?

Come now, 'fess up. Is someone paying you to make socialists look bad? I seriously don't believe anyone could post such nonsense on their own.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 6:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the illogical twit that equates keeping people healthy to socialism?

I was pointing out the 'socialist' social reforms are beneficial to America.

Yes I am being paid to make socialism look bad, and I wouldn't have posted had I not. OOhhh I see what you done there! Very witty!


RE: Lost for words...
By Smilin on 5/4/2010 3:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If anything, Socialism destroys what our fathers intended as it corrupts and violates the very concept of freedom.


You don't understand socialism and yes, some of us here in the US DO want social reform.


RE: Lost for words...
By MrBlastman on 5/4/2010 3:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well you, along with everyone else that does can freely leave our country in a boat and go live in Europe where they already have it.


RE: Lost for words...
By Smilin on 5/6/2010 10:45:50 AM , Rating: 2
Nope. I'll just continue to voice my opinion at the ballot box. My wishes will be balanced against the wishes of others until a consensus is reached. If the consensus goes against my wishes I'm fine with that. It's more important that the democracy I love thrive.

You on the other hand... If you hate living in a democracy where people have opinions that differ from yours then maybe you should be the one to leave.

This isn't your country dickhead. It belongs to all of us.


RE: Lost for words...
By porkpie on 5/6/2010 11:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
" I'm fine with that. It's more important that the democracy I love thrive."

You've memorized the Constitution, yet you believe we live in a democracy? How many words in that document did you fail to understand?


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 4:13:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't understand socialism and yes, some of us here in the US DO want social reform.

I want sooo badly to take you on a field trip to Washing DC so that we can read all of the documents of our Founding Fathers! I'll pack you a sandwhich, an apple, and a juicy-juice too! Which flavor do you like?


RE: Lost for words...
By Smilin on 5/6/2010 10:48:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure which doc you refer to but most likely I've read it and depending on the doc, memorized.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/6/2010 11:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
mmk... So you have memorized:

The Declaration of Independence?
The US Constitution and all of it's amendments?
Bill of rights?

I doubt that. I also doubt very seriously you have read a single one of them completely.


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 4:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
I like the way he never started two wars, that has cost the lifes of many in America and other nations.

I like the fact he has invested in Science and removed some of the barricades, that saw a lot of scientists to leave to other countries to conduct their research, and threatened the future of American R&D.

I like the fact that his election help stabilizes the American economy which in turn help to stabilize other, which has lead to signs of our economy recovering.

I like that he portrays a strong and confident America, where your previous president just portrayed a political puppet.

His political affiliation is relative, I'm sure that there is left wingers that think he is liberal or right wing, just as there is right wing individuals like yourself that think he a left winger.

His colour and creed have very little bearing on my opinion, but granted there will be racists etc that dislike him simply because of the encoding of a small section of gnome, and others will like him because of it.


RE: Lost for words...
By Quadrillity on 5/4/2010 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I like the way he never started two wars, that has cost the lifes of many in America and other nations.

So Bush and his trusty band of Terrorists crashed into the WTC and then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason? Good one. You should be a national security administrator!
quote:
I like the fact he has invested in Science and removed some of the barricades, that saw a lot of scientists to leave to other countries to conduct their research, and threatened the future of American R&D.

Bush stood against what many people believe to be unethical research. Science has no limitations or code of conduct huh?
quote:
I like the fact that his election help stabilizes the American economy which in turn help to stabilize other, which has lead to signs of our economy recovering.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *Forest Gump* And that's all I have to say about that.
quote:
I like that he portrays a strong and confident America, where your previous president just portrayed a political puppet.

Now you have completely left reality and floated away to lala land. Google "Obama apology tour". He has done nothing but trashed talked this entire nation and while making us look like a Fisher-Price governing country.
quote:
His political affiliation is relative, I'm sure that there is left wingers that think he is liberal or right wing, just as there is right wing individuals like yourself that think he a left winger.

If he is anything other than ultra-liberal, I will gladly eat the keyboard in front of me... uncooked...
quote:
His colour and creed have very little bearing on my opinion, but granted there will be racists etc that dislike him simply because of the encoding of a small section of gnome, and others will like him because of it.

And now we get to the "since you don't like him, you are now a racist" part. I knew it was coming. :)

BTW, is English your primary language? Just wondering...


RE: Lost for words...
By alanore on 5/4/2010 5:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So Bush and his trusty band of Terrorists crashed into the WTC and then invaded Iraq and Afghanistan for no reason? Good one. You should be a national security administrator!


It was Al Qaeda that attacked America, not Afghanistan. So you invade afganistan to stop terrorism, even though Al Qaeda is not limited to Afghanistan, and even still Al Qaeda is still operating a terrorist network. Shame your lack of political knowledge and history doesn't cover Afghanistan, then you would have known about Al Qaeda and the Mujahideen, which the US funded.

quote:
Bush stood against what many people believe to be unethical research. Science has no limitations or code of conduct huh?


What so thinks like transplants, surgery etc never had ethical and moral objections, so they should never be allowed them. Bush pulled the handbrake on a lot of important research putting America behind many other countries in terms of cutting edge research.

quote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. *Forest Gump* And that's all I have to say about that.


Yes you would say that, because I studied economics at university and you can not counter my argument, as such you have to use an ad hominem argument.

quote:
Now you have completely left reality and floated away to lala land. Google "Obama apology tour". He has done nothing but trashed talked this entire nation and while making us look like a Fisher-Price governing country.


Yes your internal-external opinion carries more weighting than my purely external view of other countries view Obama. If you need a video to show what most British people my age think of Bush watch fahrenheit 911, or google Bush quotes.

quote:
And now we get to the "since you don't like him, you are now a racist" part. I knew it was coming. :)


Thanks for putting words in my mouth, and then inventing a quote. I never accused you of being a racist. I merely stated that Obama's race may polarize opinion.

Yes English is my primary language, last time we checked we created it. Ohh I see your trying to slag me because I have dyslexia, I also have Hypoglycemia if you need further ammo.