Taliban and Pakistan Nukes

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Star Wars kind of stuff is the way to go in the long run.

Star Wars stuff is all about the U.S. enabling itself to use nuclear weapons offensively, pre-emptively, as a first strike option - all without (in theory) any danger of retalliation.

Star Wars stuff basically ensures that nuclear weapons will be used, again, by the U.S. again, against a nation unable to defend itself, again.

Maybe you are right: Star Wars is the way that the U.S. will go in the long run. But it's the road to certain nuclear holocaust.

And Star Wars cannot shoot down briefcases. So maybe the military-industrial complex in the U.S. needs to ask for $1,200,000,000,000 upfront to start investigating an anti-briefcase shield (ABS) too.

Cue ever-so-serious but grimly positive techno-puff pieces in the U.S. media.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The thing is, as Tom Clancy pointed out in one of his books, if nobody had nukes, then it would be to a nation's tremendous advantage to build nukes.

ABM technology and Star Wars kind of stuff is the way to go in the long run.

Oh god you just opened up a can of worms, just look at FMF's reply. Sounds like America must be the most evil country in the world.

I'm staying away from this forum a lot now because it's so aggravating.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Oh god you just opened up a can of worms, just look at FMF's reply. Sounds like America must be the most evil country in the world.

Well you obviously did not understand what I was saying then.

And nobody posts here in an effort to engage Sam The Sham in a debate about bigger issues.

Do you really think Star Wars is about there never being nuclear weapons use again?

Second thoughts: just forget it.

I'm staying away from this forum a lot now because it's so aggravating.

This will be welcomed by most people here.

Originally posted by FMF
Well you obviously did not understand what I was saying then.

And nobody posts here in an effort to engage Sam The Sham in a debate about bigger issues.

Do you really think Star Wars is about there never being nuclear weapons use again?

Second thoughts: just forget it.

[b]I'm staying away from this forum a lot now because it's so aggravating.

This will be welcomed by most people here.[/b]

Star Wars was conceived as purely defensive. Imagine the nerve of America wanting to protect itself against the Soviet Union's first strike capability at the time.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Star Wars was conceived as purely defensive. Imagine the nerve of America wanting to protect itself against the Soviet Union's first strike capability at the time.

I understand your belief. Do you at least admit that you understand the analysis I put forward?

Surely MAD is preferrable to a USA that could and would use its nuclear arsenal without fear of nuclear retalliation?

The USA was unable to use its nuclear weapons during the Soviet era. Nor was the USSR.

Why would the world be better if the USA was able to use its nuclear weaponry? Because it surely would use it. Just as it used it in 1945 when no one could retalliate.

MAD has given us 64 years without another nuclear strike by the USA.

Star Wars almost guarantees more nuclear strikes by the USA on nuclear and non-nuclear powers around the world, perceived military threats-of-the-future, and countries that present an economic threat.

Do you really believe that "Star Wars was conceived as purely defensive"? Do you at least understand how Star Wars might be used as an enabler of risk free nuclear first strikes?

Do you actually understand this point of view?

Do you really think the planners at the Pentagon are unaware of this view and of the free hand that Star Wars would give them?

Do you honestly think the people in the Pentagon conceive that "Star Wars [is] purely defensive"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't really see the danger. Why would the Taliban, should they get access to nukes, suddenly start throwing them around?

The real danger might be that a city may be nuked as a false flag operation so the taliban would then get the blame. The govt would get a lot more mileage out of this than 911.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So how do you do over there when finding the top-ten in your FBI list? http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/fugitives.htm
Go and bomb cities? No, you do your homework from your police academy. Then you grab them. Right?

What the Swedish army do? I don't know, it's a secret. 😛

Which "Police Academy"? There are about 8 follow-ups to the first one.

Originally posted by dystoniac
Which "Police Academy"? There are about 8 follow-ups to the first one.

I don't know much about the FBI organization. "Police Academy", you know the place where FBI agents are learning this and that? What's is the proper name for that school?

I think bin Ladin is possible to catch. With ordinary foot work. Bombing every cave in the area is not the proper method. They (Americans) failed in the Afgani war, they didn't catch bin Ladin. They should use more intelligence.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't know much about the FBI organization. "Police Academy", you know the place where FBI agents are learning this and that? What's is the proper name for that school?

I think bin Ladin is possible to catch. With ordinary foot work. Bombing every cave in the area is not the proper method. They (Americans) failed in the Afgani war, they didn't catch bin Ladin. They should use more intelligence.

LOL...I thought you were talking about the movies "Police Academy"....my bad...🙄

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't know much about the FBI organization. "Police Academy", you know the place where FBI agents are learning this and that? What's is the proper name for that school?

I think bin Ladin is possible to catch. With ordinary foot work. Bombing every cave in the area is not the proper method. They (Americans) failed in the Afgani war, they didn't catch bin Ladin. They should use more intelligence.

Um...what kind of "intelligence" do you recommend?

Originally posted by dystoniac
Um...what kind of "intelligence" do you recommend?

I was deliberately using the word 'intelligence' in two aspects.

(1) Throwing bombs everywhere is not intelligent. You may hit the target (bin Ladin), but you will never know it. His remains can be deep down in the caves, noone will ever detect his DNA. During this procedure it takes a load of bombs, and a load full of innocent bodies in the process. Not very intelligent, indeed.

(2) Intelligence can also be 'gathering information'. If they've done that, all it would take is one bomb at the right spot. Perhaps it would be even more intelligent to bring him to trial. Now he is not but a hero, or worse, a dead one, a martyr.

But in both aspects of the word it is a lack of intelligence by the Americans.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I was deliberately using the word 'intelligence' in two aspects.

(1) Throwing bombs everywhere is not intelligent. You may hit the target (bin Ladin), but you will never know it. His remains can be deep down in the caves, noone will ever detect his DNA. During this procedure it takes a load of bombs, and a load full of innocent bodies in the process. N ...[text shortened]... a martyr.

But in both aspects of the word it is a lack of intelligence by the Americans.

And a lack of courage and bollocks by the Nords. How easy is it to infiltrate Al-Qaeda?...oh, that's right, you wouldn't know.

Originally posted by dystoniac
How easy is it to infiltrate Al-Qaeda?

How easy was it to set up Al-Qaeda?

Originally posted by FMF
How easy was it to set up Al-Qaeda?

All it took was one anorexic saudi billionaire and endless numbers of "yes" men....

Originally posted by FMF
How easy was it to set up Al-Qaeda?

Tell us, since you know everything.