I have a serious question...

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by HummBebe

No, we have the Pakistan and India threat, the Iran and Isreal threat, the Syrians, the Saudi's...the east/middle east is where we were with russia in the 80's.

In contrast to these threats, the US no longer has airplanes orbiting 24/7 waiting to give a "launch the nuclear arsenal" in response to a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack i.e. the 1980's.

[Big Dad]

I disagree, I think it's totally a different bucket of $hit. Just not so bad as "global nuclear annihilation."

[Big Dad]

Are you of the "duck and cover" generation?

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

Are you of the "duck and cover" generation?

Yep

[Big Dad]

Global nuclear threat had been around for quite some time. Economically we as a country are in a much better position than we used to be. I don't think there is much in the way of valid arguments against that. There is poverty in our country and there is the have and have-nots but what are we to compare it with? We are the free market economy.

[HummBebe]

That is a true statement. And, we do constantly end up in the "world police" position.

We are constantly coming to the defense and aid of the Underdogs. And I don't disagree with that, but it always keeps us in the middle of everything. As it also makes us a target.

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

In contrast to these threats, the US no longer has airplanes orbiting 24/7 waiting to give a "launch the nuclear arsenal" in response to a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack i.e. the 1980's.

That we know of

[Big Dad]

Originally Posted by HummBebe

That we know of

I used to fly with the big white whale aka my avatar the (Doomsday machine) E-4 aircraft. Things have changed since the days of having to find a landing spot somewhere on the planet after a nuclear attack.

[Big Dad]

In this day and age I think that people have become more altruistic than ever before. I think that things are much better for many reasons and wish I had time to hang here. It's my 3 day weekend and I have to take-off. Maybe later. Have a good weekend.

[HummBebe]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

I used to fly with the big white whale aka my avatar the (Doomsday machine) E-4 aircraft. Things have changed since the days of having to find a landing spot somewhere on the planet after a nuclear attack.

Only because technology has afforded us a better warning system.

[HummBebe]

Oh and thank you for your service and sacrifice BD.

[ROX]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

I used to fly with the big white whale aka my avatar the (Doomsday machine) E-4 aircraft. Things have changed since the days of having to find a landing spot somewhere on the planet after a nuclear attack.

I hope Iran doesn't have an opportunity to change that statement.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by Big Dad

In contrast to these threats, the US no longer has airplanes orbiting 24/7 waiting to give a "launch the nuclear arsenal" in response to a Russian or Chinese nuclear attack i.e. the 1980's.

Right. The big difference from past foes is the asymetrical character of the order of battle now. By way of comparison, it took all the might of the U.S., Russia, France, and Britain and 20 million dead to take down the Kaiser in 1918--though Russia collapsed and we entered late.

It took all the might of most of the world's industrialized powers, minus the Krauts, Wops, and Japs, to take down the Axis in WWII at a cost of 55 million dead (we lost about 400,000 dead).

During the 45-year Cold War, we faced the constant threat of immediate attack by thousands of ICBMs containing tens of thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives--possibly enough to kill every living thing in North America (even the Canadians; note that they are very hardy creatures, much like the cockroaches who survived the great meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, but even the Canadians might not survive a full ICBM strike by the Kremlin).

We still have the possibility of a a nuclear strike, but on a much, much smaller scale. Much of the Russian arsenal is out of action (it costs many $billions to keep a large arsenal maintained and functional; only we can, and do, afford that). India and Pakistan don't have any reliable way to deliver nukes to Omaha. China can deliver some accross the Pacific, but not like the thousands the USSR could. North Korea is not a nuclear threat at this time. Trust me.

Keep in mind that, unlike the foes we have faced in the past, who it us took years and hundreds of thousands of American dead died to defeat (it would have cost many millions of American lives taking down the USSR militarily), with our nuclear arsenal, we can kill every living creature in the Middle East in a few minutes with the push of a few buttons.

Never forget that. The menace we face is annoying and threatening. It has harrassed us and knocked some buildings down. It must be dealt with. But it can't threaten us with annihilation like past foes could. If they blow up something big here, we know, and they know, we can kill every one of them in short order. We didn't have that option with Germany (twice) or with the USSR. China may be a military threat in a couple of decades, but they're still quite a ways off in that regard.

[3Hummer]

everything goes in a cycle of up and down, every country has been that way, and continue to be that way.

[BlueTJCO]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Right. The big difference from past foes is the asymetrical character of the order of battle now. By way of comparison, it took all the might of the U.S., Russia, France, and Britain and 20 million dead to take down the Kaiser in 1918--though Russia collapsed and we entered late.

It took all the might of most of the world's industrialized powers, minus the Krauts, Wops, and Japs, to take down the Axis in WWII at a cost of 55 million dead (we lost about 400,000 dead).

During the 45-year Cold War, we faced the constant threat of immediate attack by thousands of ICBMs containing tens of thousands of megatons of nuclear explosives--possibly enough to kill every living thing in North America (even the Canadians; note that they are very hardy creatures, much like the cockroaches who survived the great meteor impact that destroyed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago, but even the Canadians might not survive a full ICBM strike by the Kremlin).

We still have the possibility of a a nuclear strike, but on a much, much smaller scale. Much of the Russian arsenal is out of action (it costs many $billions to keep a large arsenal maintained and functional; only we can, and do, afford that). India and Pakistan don't have any reliable way to deliver nukes to Omaha. China can deliver some accross the Pacific, but not like the thousands the USSR could. North Korea is not a nuclear threat at this time. Trust me.

Keep in mind that, unlike the foes we have faced in the past, who it us took years and hundreds of thousands of American dead died to defeat (it would have cost many millions of American lives taking down the USSR militarily), with our nuclear arsenal, we can kill every living creature in the Middle East in a few minutes with the push of a few buttons.

Never forget that. The menace we face is annoying and threatening. It has harrassed us and knocked some buildings down. It must be dealt with. But it can't threaten us with annihilation like past foes could. If they blow up something big here, we know, and they know, we can kill every one of them in short order. We didn't have that option with Germany (twice) or with the USSR. China may be a military threat in a couple of decades, but they're still quite a ways off in that regard.

[DennisAJC]

When the shit hits the fan, it's not going to be about nukes.

It's going to be targeting fragile infrastructures like power grids, water supplies and crashing and controlling the internet. Terrorist cells who are almost certainly embedded in our flock will hit at once.

Freezing society in fear and starving a country by stopping the economy is how it will happen.

This is the new world we live in. You can't kill the source of the infection by bombing the other country when the infection has terminally spread in your own back yard.

All this talk about military might really doesn't bring any comfort.






Mark my words. This is how the end will begin. I had a dream about it.

But it won't happen until March 22, 2022 Noon Pacific time.

My name is DennisAJC.........H2 Wheelin Prophet

[bparker]

MarineHawk, I really enjoy reading your insights and opinions.

[DennisAJC]

Originally Posted by bparker

MarineHawk, I really enjoy reading your insights and opinions.

He scares me. He knows things. Things I'm afraid to ask why he knows.



He knows things.

[bparker]

I agree 100% it will happen this way. You can cripple a country and never have to fire a shot and at the same time cause mass panic and hysteria which will lead to economic failure.

Originally Posted by DennisAJC

When the **** hits the fan, it's not going to be about nukes.

It's going to be targeting fragile infrastructures like power grids, water supplies and crashing and controlling the internet. Terrorist cells who are almost certainly embedded in our flock will hit at once.

Freezing society in fear and starving a country by stopping the economy is how it will happen.

This is the new world we live in. You can't kill the source of the infection by bombing the other country when the infection has terminally spread in your own back yard.

[MarineHawk]

Not one country has ever been crippled by a terrorist group trying to knock out a power grid. there's a reason for that. If it could be done, it already would have. Al Qaeda might someday again be able to kill a decent number of Americans in isolated attacks (they haven't been able to kill one American over here in seven years, and no, it's not because they aren't trying, we keep finding them out and rounding them up, and, here's a novel thought, we're killing them by the tens of thousands in the central battlefield, where they keep focusing their attention, because they know they must get the Dems to hel them kick us of out of Iraq or they will be f*cked), but their not going to shut down the country and bring us to our knees. The Nazis bombed the British cities into submission, but it did not stop the British. We bombed Germany off the face of the earth and yet, they fought to the last man, and their wartime production actually peaked in late 1944. If a country could just make another country collapse like that, we would have sent a bunch of Kraut talking guys into Berlin and done it. If you say our 2007 infrastructure technology actually makes us more vulnerable, I don't believe it. When a modern country is wrecked by a bunch of ignorant, extremist f*cks knowing out their power lines, I'll believe it. If it could be done it would have been done. With all the resources of our $13T economy, why didn't we just do that to Hussein if it was possible. In 1991, we (me included) had to go in and physically kick those bastiges out of Kuwait, even though we decimated their infrastructure far greater than any raghead power-grid terror team could. We actually blew up their infrastructure. Why don't we just send some CIA guys into Iran or N. Korea or Canada and shut their power grid down? Not that easy. Further, if they ever really did something fairly harmful (they can't possibly have nukes for the maintenance reasons i mentioned earlier, but pretend they do, could have), and they took out a quarter of Chicago. Not gong to happen, but, if it did, we would find every arab/muslim person in the country and isolate them (lke the Japanese in 1941, only worse). PC would die overnight. We'd blow up the country that sponsored them. It would never happen again. It won't happen in the first place anyway. When any country in the world, much less the USA, is brought to its knees by this mythical infrastructure terror, I'll believe it.

Just my $0.03