India and Nukes

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

uhhh.. BMD is initially going to be a land based system....
only. The space thing may come in later, may not. The Idea is to get it on the ascent or descent. look it up.

Jesus, you mean you're talking about the juiced up patriot system? That thing has been a complete bust and has been even worse than anything they have tried to test that is space based. Also, the whole idea of the terrestrial project is completely flawed. How do you knock down a missile on its way up when it is thousands of miles away, and how doe you knock it down when it is moving at speeds where interception is impossible? The system is a dream as the capabilities of the technology they are trying to make work are not up to the task.

[HOZ]

Just before Lanny takes this discussion any further into the abyss...


Here is the most pressing reason the US would like India onside.
India and Iran finalise gas deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4089382.stm

With a billion customers and economy that looks to be rising for the forseeable future....yes they have a lot of pull with the Iranians.

Other than that it is always nioce to have the future biggest economy on your side.



As for Japan: ehem...yes they were "negotiatiing" for a peace deal. They were basically ****ing around hoping the mounting casualties would make the US give them a better deal. A invasion of Kyushu island would have cost millions of lives and they hoped the US would tire and sue for peace rather than demand unconditional surrender. The bombs hurried things along and saved millions from certain death.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Just before Lanny takes this discussion any further into the abyss...

Into the abyss? How so? By explaining the American motivations of playing India against Pakistan? Yeah, that's the abyss.

Here is the most pressing reason the US would like India onside.
India and Iran finalise gas deal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4089382.stm

With a billion customers and economy that looks to be rising for the forseeable future....yes they have a lot of pull with the Iranians.

Other than that it is always nioce to have the future biggest economy on your side.

WTF??? How does this deal help the United States in any shape or fashion? The United States is no longer an export economy, its a consumer economy. WTF does America make that Indians can't get elsewhere, and cheaper? Yeah, a developing economy is going to over-pay for inferior products from America. Brilliant thinking.

If anything this is a solid deal for stability in the region. Geo-politically this will give leverage to Pakistan. Iran and Pakistan are very close and Indian dependency on Iranian natural gas gives Pakistan a potential pressure point they can exploit. The most ironic thing is that this deal aids in the stabalization of a region that America has been the key player in destabilizing. Is there any wonder why 87% of respondents to a Time magazine international poll said The United States was the greatest threat to world peace?

And don't count the Indians on America's side. They have long been an ally of the Russians and continue to be so. As I pointed out, the deal swung with America was nothing more than a fall back position should Mussarif get assassinated and ISI take over the government. Its all a balancing act right now as America continues to try and manufacture support in a region where they are considered the greatest of all evils.

As for Japan: ehem...yes they were "negotiatiing" for a peace deal. They were basically ****ing around hoping the mounting casualties would make the US give them a better deal. A invasion of Kyushu island would have cost millions of lives and they hoped the US would tire and sue for peace rather than demand unconditional surrender. The bombs hurried things along and saved millions from certain death.

Pull your head out of your ass. The Japanese will had been crushed by the fire bombings of Tokyo and it was only a matter of time before the government folded the tents. The Japanese were the ones that had the mounting casualties. The Americans were building up steam and moving better than expected. The turning point of the war was the Battle of Guam, and Japan was scrambling to hold off "the sleeping giant" they had awoken. I mean, it was obvious the Japanese were in a position to play possum, using suicide missions to try and inflict damage on the Americans at this point. The Americans knew this, the Japanese knew this, and the Americans were waiting for the Japanese to capitulate. The Japanese government was trying to figure out the best way to save face and not end up falling on their collective sword. They were down to making home run swings with every pitch that was made. The dropping of Little Boy was more than enough to force the Japanese to surrender and everyone knew it. That is why the Soviets jumped in and declared war two days after the fact. They hoped to share in the war spoils, which the Americans wanted no part of. That is why Fat Man was dropped. Force the emporer to his knees and tell the Russians to backoff. If you want, I can send you plenty of game tape from the history channel that explains this fully.

[CaptainCrunch]

Geez, I see the impossibility of the BMD system, and I'm probably one of the biggest hawks on this board.

Realistically there are 4 main nuclear threats.

1) Ballistic missiles - The big one carries the biggest payload, for example the SS-19 carries of to 6 Mirvs with a yield of 750 kilotons to 5 megaton city busting warheads. The best way to deal with these is to bust thier bunkers before they can launch, however for example, the Russians and the middle eastern nations have put a great deal of money and research into developing a mobile launch system which reduces the effectiveness of a pre-emptive strike. The missile defense shield is probably the best way to deal with this since a first strike without conditions is a international no-no. The problem is that these warheads decend at a tremendous rate, you don't have a lot of time to shoot them down, and atmospheric(sp?) and rolling might prevent a good shooting solution. A single warhead simple missile could be taken out, but a mirv'd system with multiple decoys and more then one missile might be impossible. Besides the BMD is not designed along the same line as star wars which is knocking down hundreds of missiles, its designed to counter a unsophisticated attack by early generation technology (single missile, single warhead)

2) FOBS - Orbital bombardment by using a warheads that orbit 150 km's up. No nation legally uses these thanks to SALT II, however there is no warning time with these weapons.

3) Submarine launched Nuclear Warheads. By creeping up onto the continental shelf of a nation and launching a depressed trajectory shot there is literally one minute of warning before the target is hit. The BMD is useless against this because of lack of warning and the fact that a cruise missile basically flys between buildings. a phalax missile defense system could probably deal with this, but the patriots performance was terrible against it in tests.

smuggled devices/improvised devices - There is no defense against this due to the massive influx of containers, luggage, mail into the continental U.S., the task of detecting this is next to impossible and economically undoable, this is the likely way that any kind of terrorist is going to nuke the U.S.

The BMD shield is suppossed to be one part of the U.S. homeland securities holy trinity, knock down a simple missile attack by a rogue nation, improve intelligence to snuff out the attack before it can be born. Secure the ports and borders to prevent a device from being smuggled in. Currently the U.S. has badly failed on all three.

Lanny, on another note, I've noticed that you tend to argue based on absolutes (Are you sure your not a Sith Lord ) Your arguement on the U.S. use of the nuclear warhead is a bit extreme. The correct understanding on the situation lies somewhere between the point that you are making and the point that others are making.

The Japanese had sent out feelers about a negotiated settlement, however thier demands were unreasonable and represented a position that the allies could not agree on.

The allies were prepared to go as far as invading the home islands of Japan as intelligence at that point indicated that the Japanese military was content with fighting down to the last man, woman and child.

Would the firebombing had ended this, not really, did the firebombings in Germany and the destruction of thier industrial centers end resistance in Germany, and force the surrender of the third reich, they actually had to continue to slog into Germany as the Russians did even though there was no reason for the Germans to keep fighting.

The first Nuclear bomb was neccessary to force reality onto the mililtary leaders in Japan and more importantly shock the Emporer into facing the reality of the situation. The second bomb was more of a warning against Stalin himself that the American's were capable of building multiple bombs and deploying them. You also have to realize that the Japanese were given a warning about the use of the second bomb well in advance of its use demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese people, but they chose to gamble that the American's didn't have a functional second bomb or would not use it. A long war changes the decision making process, this was the ultimate corner cutter to end the war and save American lives because a invasion against a fanatical military on thier home field would have been a meat grinder for soliders and civilians alike.

[Kool Keef]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

WTF??? How does this deal help the United States in any shape or fashion? The United States is no longer an export economy, its a consumer economy. WTF does America make that Indians can't get elsewhere, and cheaper? Yeah, a developing economy is going to over-pay for inferior products from America. Brilliant thinking.

Umm, Lanny. The U.S. is the both the world's largest importer AND exporter. Seems to me people all over the world are already over-paying for inferior products -- why would India be any different?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Nice summary CC.

White, I'd have to disagree that the threat of force is the only way to give diplomacy any clout. What about the prospect of mutual benefit?

Imagine this, you're at a bar and you're trying to pick up a girl. Do you:
A) charm her and offer her a night beyond her wildest dreams, or
B) threaten to punch her in the face if she doesn't come home with you?

Conflict is inevitable, but violent conflict should not have to be. Perhaps it is my view of a futher evolved global society, but it sure would be nice to do away with all the waste of posturing.

Furthermore, the concept of one person wanting to rule the world is fairly outdated in my opinion. It is the way a caveman thinks... it is silly, unrealistic, and unnecessary.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Geez, I see the impossibility of the BMD system, and I'm probably one of the biggest hawks on this board.

Realistically there are 4 main nuclear threats.

1) Ballistic missiles - The big one carries the biggest payload, for example the SS-19 carries of to 6 Mirvs with a yield of 750 kilotons to 5 megaton city busting warheads. The best way to deal with these is to bust thier bunkers before they can launch, however for example, the Russians and the middle eastern nations have put a great deal of money and research into developing a mobile launch system which reduces the effectiveness of a pre-emptive strike. The missile defense shield is probably the best way to deal with this since a first strike without conditions is a international no-no. The problem is that these warheads decend at a tremendous rate, you don't have a lot of time to shoot them down, and atmospheric(sp?) and rolling might prevent a good shooting solution. A single warhead simple missile could be taken out, but a mirv'd system with multiple decoys and more then one missile might be impossible. Besides the BMD is not designed along the same line as star wars which is knocking down hundreds of missiles, its designed to counter a unsophisticated attack by early generation technology (single missile, single warhead)

2) FOBS - Orbital bombardment by using a warheads that orbit 150 km's up. No nation legally uses these thanks to SALT II, however there is no warning time with these weapons.

3) Submarine launched Nuclear Warheads. By creeping up onto the continental shelf of a nation and launching a depressed trajectory shot there is literally one minute of warning before the target is hit. The BMD is useless against this because of lack of warning and the fact that a cruise missile basically flys between buildings. a phalax missile defense system could probably deal with this, but the patriots performance was terrible against it in tests.

smuggled devices/improvised devices - There is no defense against this due to the massive influx of containers, luggage, mail into the continental U.S., the task of detecting this is next to impossible and economically undoable, this is the likely way that any kind of terrorist is going to nuke the U.S.

The BMD shield is suppossed to be one part of the U.S. homeland securities holy trinity, knock down a simple missile attack by a rogue nation, improve intelligence to snuff out the attack before it can be born. Secure the ports and borders to prevent a device from being smuggled in. Currently the U.S. has badly failed on all three.

Nice summation. Right on the money. The BMD shield/Star Wars/what ever the AMericans want to call it this week is a joke and nothing but a way of syphoning off billions of tax payer dollars and lining the pockets of the military complex.

Lanny, on another note, I've noticed that you tend to argue based on absolutes (Are you sure your not a Sith Lord ) Your arguement on the U.S. use of the nuclear warhead is a bit extreme. The correct understanding on the situation lies somewhere between the point that you are making and the point that others are making.

The Japanese had sent out feelers about a negotiated settlement, however thier demands were unreasonable and represented a position that the allies could not agree on.

Hence the comment about the government not being able to get their **** together. It was the internal failure of the Japanese to acknowledge the severity of the situation that dragged the war on, nothing more. The dropping of Little Boy was a kick in the balls to wake them up to the situation. The American military was also jonesing to use their new toy, so they made sure that the American government did not pursue negotiations too aggressively either. There was a documentary on the either the military or history channel that detailed the countdown to the dropping of the two bombs, and it focused on the politics of the situation and where the errors were made. The Japanese screwed up greatly, but the Americans did not encourage the Japanese to get a move on either. The Manhattan Project needed a proving ground and this was it.

The allies were prepared to go as far as invading the home islands of Japan as intelligence at that point indicated that the Japanese military was content with fighting down to the last man, woman and child.

Very true, but after the fire bombing of Tokyo the military was losing control of the war. The politicos were begining to take over. The military would have loved to have fought to the bitter end, but the people would not have stood for that. The emporer would not have stood for that.

Would the firebombing had ended this, not really, did the firebombings in Germany and the destruction of thier industrial centers end resistance in Germany, and force the surrender of the third reich, they actually had to continue to slog into Germany as the Russians did even though there was no reason for the Germans to keep fighting.

Good point, but allies also had to beat the Russians into Berlin. It was very evident that the Germans were toast and the last thing the war became was limiting the Soviet land grab. The Allies had to keep churning on to stop the Russians as well.

The first Nuclear bomb was neccessary to force reality onto the mililtary leaders in Japan and more importantly shock the Emporer into facing the reality of the situation. The second bomb was more of a warning against Stalin himself that the American's were capable of building multiple bombs and deploying them. You also have to realize that the Japanese were given a warning about the use of the second bomb well in advance of its use demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese people, but they chose to gamble that the American's didn't have a functional second bomb or would not use it. A long war changes the decision making process, this was the ultimate corner cutter to end the war and save American lives because a invasion against a fanatical military on thier home field would have been a meat grinder for soliders and civilians alike.

The first bomb was indeed a show of force. I don't think it needed to be used on a civilian center though. That was very calous IMO. They could have wiped out a small island instead, but that is hindsight. Destroying Nagasaki was just plain wrong. We both agree it was a warning to the Russians to back the hell off, but was it worth 125K people to make that show of force?

I used to be in the corner that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a requirement to end the war, but after seeing this documentary, and the evidence it presented (from both the American and Japanese side) it altered my view greatly. The politics of the day was something I was foggy on, but this cleared it up substantially. I'll have to see if I can find the title of it. It was very interesting and informative.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Kool Keef

Umm, Lanny. The U.S. is the both the world's largest importer AND exporter. Seems to me people all over the world are already over-paying for inferior products -- why would India be any different?

An emerging economy like India can't afford the majority of American products, plain and simple.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

Thats terrible, America only dropped bombs and killed countless innocent people because, the American Armed forces where spinless cowards and did not want to risk their own lives and invade Japan on land. Nuclear weapons are a cowards weapon. Whatever happend to facing your enemy face to face on the battlefield. Now its just some government lakey told to push a button.

Hilarious...dumbest thing ive seen on this board in years.

[Kool Keef]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

An emerging economy like India can't afford the majority of American products, plain and simple.

I guess you assume that will always be the case.

Edit: More info.

http://www.indianembassy.org/Trade/Trade05.htm

You're right about one thing. India is an emerging economy. They're growing very quickly and need U.S. goods and are importing them. Stuff like engineering equipment, planes and medical equipment.

Sure, the people of India aren't buying American toasters (does the U.S. even make toasters anymore?), but the middle class is developing in India and probably, some day very soon, will.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

The first bomb was indeed a show of force. I don't think it needed to be used on a civilian center though. That was very calous IMO. They could have wiped out a small island instead, but that is hindsight. Destroying Nagasaki was just plain wrong. We both agree it was a warning to the Russians to back the hell off, but was it worth 125K people to make that show of force?

I used to be in the corner that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a requirement to end the war, but after seeing this documentary, and the evidence it presented (from both the American and Japanese side) it altered my view greatly. The politics of the day was something I was foggy on, but this cleared it up substantially. I'll have to see if I can find the title of it. It was very interesting and informative.

My gut feeling is that the oppossition movement in the Japanese government had not progressed to the point that they had any real power to push things through (On a side note Lanny, if you can find the name of that documentary I would appreciate it).

The underlying feeling from the Japanese when they were interrogated after the war was that the first weapon was the only one that they had that was functional because at that time the materials needed to build a bomb (uranium) was in extremely short supply and the enrichment process was so inefficient that it would take a long time to build a second bomb. The Japanese Military would have also seen the dropping of that bomb on an island or deserted area as a sign of weakness or a lack of resolve by the American Military, therefore sadly, they had to use what the American's saw as a limited weapon in the most effective way. They demonstrated it on a city.

The Japanese screw up in all of this was that they didn't capitulate after the first bomb, again because they didn't believe that the American's didn't have a second one ready, and this would buy time to build defenses on thier remaining land holdings on the main islands.

Sorry to ramble, but lets play some what ifs

The American's drop the bomb on a deserted Island, the Japanese look at that as a weakness based around thier Militarys interpretation of war, therefore they believe now that the Yanks don't have the guts or the heart to carry through on thier threats, the war might drag on for years, there might be an invasion of Japan, but the American's will pay a incredibly steep price in blood and bodies and the war might turn unpopular forcing a quick diplomatic solution on Japanese terms.

The American's drop the first bomb on Hiroshima destroying it, they threaten a second bomb. The first natural inclination is that its a bluff. Remember that the Japanese had lost thier main source of intelligence in the U.S. when the third Reich fell, and the Japanese internment had one benefit in that it cut off a rich source of Intelligence in the states. So based on what is a wag (Wild ASSed guess) the Japanese Military decides to inform the Emperor that the Allies are bluffing, and encourage the Emperor that the only way out is to fight to the end, bloody the allies badly and then force a diplomatic solution on thier terms.

Meanwhile if the American's had wasted thier superweapon on an Island they would have lost faith with thier allies, particularly the Russians who were still angry at the mismanagement of the war at the start and the betrayal of the Germans. Stalin also saw a great opportunity with a new and weaker president, and Churchill who's only desire for Britain after the war was a quick exit from the European continent so the UK could lick its wounds and rebuild from a war that from every measure was particularly brutal to the British.

I don't see where the American's could have done much different when you consider who thier enemy was and how they had fought the war, and when you consider that one friend (Britain) was battered to the point where they were no longer going to be a strong influence in Europe, and another (Russia) who was using the end of the war to increase its buffer zone and spread its influence throughout Eastern Europe and Asia.

In a lot of ways the Japanese at the end of the war weren't so much a influence as a catalyst to how history would be shaped over the next 50 years.

But to put the blame of this all on the American's and to simply dismiss them as butchers and killers dosen't really describe the whole story.

Just my two cents.

Sorry for the ramble

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

Thats terrible, America only dropped bombs and killed countless innocent people because, the American Armed forces where spinless cowards and did not want to risk their own lives and invade Japan on land. Nuclear weapons are a cowards weapon. Whatever happend to facing your enemy face to face on the battlefield. Now its just some government lakey told to push a button.

Wow the American's had 300,000 casualites and another 300,000 wounded in the Second World War, Maybe you should curse the 6600 men that lost thier lives on the beaches on D Day.

How about the 60,000 people that died in the Pacific Campaign for the States, I'm sure that they all didn't die after being shot in the back.

Pretty shamefull comment, and it shows your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you should stick to hockey.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Captain, I think the documentary was called "Hiroshima: Why the bomb was dropped". It may also have been "Lifting the Fog: Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Those are the only productions I can find that ring true as to what the documentary was about.

You raise some good points in your situations. I think the Japanese may have also viewed this show of force (bombing an island) as a show of honor. I know after seeing that, given the option of kissing that person's ass or risking my city, I'd have kissed their ass. Jesus, if bombed Edmonton, and then said they were going to bomb Calgary, I think we'd all immediately surrender after seeing the damage of the first bomb (I mean after thanking them for whiping Edmonton off the globe).

I used to be really gung-ho about the military and was a real hawk about these things, but after living down here and being exposed to the ignorance associated with what the military can do, I just can't stomach it any more. Maybe its the daily exposure to the violence, but it gets old quickly. I'd much rather take the Canadian approach and talk things out than rush into something like that which happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You know, its funny, but times have changed. The Americans love their toys and they love to show them off. That's what is happening in the Islamic world to garner support. A show of their toys and what they can do. Jesus, I shudder to think how close Afghanistan was to tasting one of the new toys in the arsenal (a burrowing low yield bunker buster nuke). Sadly, that's what some of these cultures want to see and the Americans are all too ready to accomodate them. If the Americans had taken this attitude in 1945 hundreds of thousdands of lives may have been saved. I'm not saying dropping the bomb was right or wrong, I'm just saying I think there was a better way to do it and that people at the time thought the same thing.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Wow the American's had 300,000 casualites and another 300,000 wounded in the Second World War, Maybe you should curse the 6600 men that lost thier lives on the beaches on D Day.

How about the 60,000 people that died in the Pacific Campaign for the States, I'm sure that they all didn't die after being shot in the back.

Pretty shamefull comment, and it shows your ignorance on the subject.

Maybe you should stick to hockey.

I don't know if you've noticed, but he isn't that great with hockey either...

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Into the abyss? How so? By explaining the American motivations of playing India against Pakistan? Yeah, that's the abyss.



WTF??? How does this deal help the United States in any shape or fashion? The United States is no longer an export economy, its a consumer economy. WTF does America make that Indians can't get elsewhere, and cheaper? Yeah, a developing economy is going to over-pay for inferior products from America. Brilliant thinking.

If anything this is a solid deal for stability in the region. Geo-politically this will give leverage to Pakistan. Iran and Pakistan are very close and Indian dependency on Iranian natural gas gives Pakistan a potential pressure point they can exploit. The most ironic thing is that this deal aids in the stabalization of a region that America has been the key player in destabilizing. Is there any wonder why 87% of respondents to a Time magazine international poll said The United States was the greatest threat to world peace?

And don't count the Indians on America's side. They have long been an ally of the Russians and continue to be so. As I pointed out, the deal swung with America was nothing more than a fall back position should Mussarif get assassinated and ISI take over the government. Its all a balancing act right now as America continues to try and manufacture support in a region where they are considered the greatest of all evils.



Pull your head out of your ass. The Japanese will had been crushed by the fire bombings of Tokyo and it was only a matter of time before the government folded the tents. The Japanese were the ones that had the mounting casualties. The Americans were building up steam and moving better than expected. The turning point of the war was the Battle of Guam, and Japan was scrambling to hold off "the sleeping giant" they had awoken. I mean, it was obvious the Japanese were in a position to play possum, using suicide missions to try and inflict damage on the Americans at this point. The Americans knew this, the Japanese knew this, and the Americans were waiting for the Japanese to capitulate. The Japanese government was trying to figure out the best way to save face and not end up falling on their collective sword. They were down to making home run swings with every pitch that was made. The dropping of Little Boy was more than enough to force the Japanese to surrender and everyone knew it. That is why the Soviets jumped in and declared war two days after the fact. They hoped to share in the war spoils, which the Americans wanted no part of. That is why Fat Man was dropped. Force the emporer to his knees and tell the Russians to backoff. If you want, I can send you plenty of game tape from the history channel that explains this fully.

Lanny as always you seem to need someone to add 1 and 1 together for you.

India just signed a 40 billion dollar deal for gas with Iran. The pipeline crosses over Pakistan. Europe, US and andy other sane country has problems with Irans Nuclear developement. US looks to have closer ties to India. The MOST immediate reason is India's influence on Iran. The other is that it is nice to have a close relationship with the largest democracy in the world. The Nuclear technology exchange is one thing in the part and parcel of closer relations.


I see that you have come around to mine and the Captain's view of history with regards to Japan. I suggest you read about the Yamamoto. Japan's super battleship. Very interesting. It was used during the attack on Pearl Harbor...but was kept so far away to keep it safe from attack. They then basically kept it hid away for the war because it was too valuable to lose! They finally sent it down to Okinawa to deal the Americans the devastating blow that they needed to have an "honorable" peace. It never made it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Captain, I think the documentary was called "Hiroshima: Why the bomb was dropped". It may also have been "Lifting the Fog: Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Those are the only productions I can find that ring true as to what the documentary was about.

You raise some good points in your situations. I think the Japanese may have also viewed this show of force (bombing an island) as a show of honor. I know after seeing that, given the option of kissing that person's ass or risking my city, I'd have kissed their ass. Jesus, if bombed Edmonton, and then said they were going to bomb Calgary, I think we'd all immediately surrender after seeing the damage of the first bomb (I mean after thanking them for whiping Edmonton off the globe).

I used to be really gung-ho about the military and was a real hawk about these things, but after living down here and being exposed to the ignorance associated with what the military can do, I just can't stomach it any more. Maybe its the daily exposure to the violence, but it gets old quickly. I'd much rather take the Canadian approach and talk things out than rush into something like that which happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You know, its funny, but times have changed. The Americans love their toys and they love to show them off. That's what is happening in the Islamic world to garner support. A show of their toys and what they can do. Jesus, I shudder to think how close Afghanistan was to tasting one of the new toys in the arsenal (a burrowing low yield bunker buster nuke). Sadly, that's what some of these cultures want to see and the Americans are all too ready to accomodate them. If the Americans had taken this attitude in 1945 hundreds of thousdands of lives may have been saved. I'm not saying dropping the bomb was right or wrong, I'm just saying I think there was a better way to do it and that people at the time thought the same thing.

Thanks Lanny, I'll take a look for that documentary, I'll let you know what I think.

Your right, times have changed, if you remember the start of the war when the American's deployed the MOAB in Iraq, it was quickly forgotten about, the wrong weapon for the wrong war. Unfortunately, weapons like the bunker buster are going to become more of a necessary tool since the enemy is now more elusive, and piecemeal battles may become a thing of the past as mobility and precision striking capability become more important. There might be a better way to do things, but I think we are now beyond the hypothetical 12 on the clock, its unlikely that there is a diplomatic solution to the war on terror, or even a economic solution to the war on terror, and the American's aren't the only ones who should take thier share of the blame. However the American's have always been slow to get really angry, but when they do they have an all or nothing mentality, win at all costs screw the other guys. But where the world has changed is it used to be that you could fight a war and eventually become friends and allies, (see Russia, France, Germany and Japan), thats become a impossible solution as war no longer involves countries, but involves race, ideology and religion, and repairing relations between those lines is impossible and takes generations and not years.

I'm still a Military Hawk in that I've defended the need for the Canadian Military to be expanded and upgraded, for the protection of the people that serve, the people that need it and the international community. The ability for Canada to participate in UN peace keeping missions has degraded to the point where we actually only have a handful of troops deployed under the UN flag, imagine hearing that in the 60's and 70's where Canadian's wore the blue beret throughout the world. The Military also needs better transport and the ability to rapidly deploy itself as oppossed to needing other nations to transport and supply our troops.

But thats way off topic.

Thanks, I actually enjoyed this.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny as always you seem to need someone to add 1 and 1 together for you.

India just signed a 40 billion dollar deal for gas with Iran. The pipeline crosses over Pakistan. Europe, US and andy other sane country has problems with Irans Nuclear developement. US looks to have closer ties to India. The MOST immediate reason is India's influence on Iran. The other is that it is nice to have a close relationship with the largest democracy in the world. The Nuclear technology exchange is one thing in the part and parcel of closer relations.


I see that you have come around to mine and the Captain's view of history with regards to Japan. I suggest you read about the Yamamoto. Japan's super battleship. Very interesting. It was used during the attack on Pearl Harbor...but was kept so far away to keep it safe from attack. They then basically kept it hid away for the war because it was too valuable to lose! They finally sent it down to Okinawa to deal the Americans the devastating blow that they needed to have an "honorable" peace. It never made it.

I think I own that book and have it in storage, I'm going to have to find it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Lanny as always you seem to need someone to add 1 and 1 together for you.

Hmmmm, seems the opposite. When someone gives that equation you some how always come up with 11.

Check these out. They're not game tapes, but they should help you with you math challenges.

http://www.westshore.edu/webs/ltc/basic_math.htm

India just signed a 40 billion dollar deal for gas with Iran.

As I said earlier...

"If anything this is a solid deal for stability in the region. Geo-politically this will give leverage to Pakistan. Iran and Pakistan are very close and Indian dependency on Iranian natural gas gives Pakistan a potential pressure point they can exploit. The most ironic thing is that this deal aids in the stabalization of a region that America has been the key player in destabilizing."

This does not change anything between Pakistan and India, nor between Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan and Iran are still Islamic countries with a Shia foundation who see the Hindu Indians as infidels. If push comes to shove the religious alignment over rules the economic deal in a heartbeat.

The pipeline crosses over Pakistan.

Wow, no kidding? And I thought the Iranians had come up with a new delivery mechanism for natural gas.

So this pipeline, do you think it can used strategically as leverage against India? You think for a second that this pipeline will not be held over the heads of the Indians when push comes to shove? As soon as India becomes dependent on Iranian natural gas that pipeline is their life blood. Cut that off and you cripple a good chunk of India's industry. Gee, no benefit there for the Pakistanis!

Europe, US and andy other sane country has problems with Irans Nuclear developement.

And why? No one ****es and moans about the Israelis having nukes, and they are just as losse a cannon as any Islamic country. With the acquisition of the bomb comes the responsibility of the bomb. When you have it you immediately become a target for every nation on the planet that has one too. If your weapon is used, you have pretty well guaranteed that your country ceases to exist. I'd much rather have that situation that one where someone covertly buys one and has carte blanche to use it, knowing that it will be exceptionally hard to trace.

US looks to have closer ties to India.

As I said eariler...

"And don't count the Indians on America's side. They have long been an ally of the Russians and continue to be so. As I pointed out, the deal swung with America was nothing more than a fall back position should Mussarif get assassinated and ISI take over the government. Its all a balancing act right now as America continues to try and manufacture support in a region where they are considered the greatest of all evils."

India has been a long time ally of Russia, and will continue to be so. This deal does not sever decades of Indo-Russian democratic alignment. This deal was made to keep Pakistan in line. You remember Pakistan? The long time American ally (if you can call buying weapons an ally) who is fundamentally aligned with Iran and Al Qaeda. It will be interesting to see where the roaches scurry should the lights come on in the region. I suspect that India will revert back to their long time supporter (Russia) and the Islamic countries will side together (Iran and Pakistan) and the Americans will be left holding the bag, that will have Mussaraf's head in it.

The MOST immediate reason is India's influence on Iran.

The most immediate reason is Indians need for energy for their burgeoning economy. Indian influence on Iran will be minimal. India is another consumer of a product that Iran has to sell. If they don't want it, someone else will.

The other is that it is nice to have a close relationship with the largest democracy in the world. The Nuclear technology exchange is one thing in the part and parcel of closer relations.

A "close" relationship with the "largest democracy in the world". Wow, there's a load of bull****. Funny, but in one breath you **** and moan about Iran getting nuclear technology but have no problem with the United States sharing it with India. You're going to have to explain that brilliance. You claim the United States has to save the world from more nuclear weapons, but then say what a great thing it is that India is getting the technology. Wow!

[/quote]I see that you have come around to mine and the Captain's view of history with regards to Japan. I suggest you read about the Yamamoto. Japan's super battleship. Very interesting. It was used during the attack on Pearl Harbor...but was kept so far away to keep it safe from attack. They then basically kept it hid away for the war because it was too valuable to lose! They finally sent it down to Okinawa to deal the Americans the devastating blow that they needed to have an "honorable" peace. It never made it.[/quote]

Come around to it? In what way? I said that the dropping of Little Boy was unnecessary and that Fat Man was nothing more than over-kill and a warning to the Soviets. I stand by that. The war was essentially over when Tokyo was fire bombed. The Americans wanted to use their new toy (proof of concept for the billions they spent on it) and Japanese diplomats were dragging their heels on language of the surrender. Not much change.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Thanks Lanny, I'll take a look for that documentary, I'll let you know what I think.

I'm going to order those up and verify one of them is the documentary in question. Unfortunately I can't remember the name. It was broadcast around the aniversay of Hiroshima or Nagasaki last year, but I couldn't find the schedules of the stations that I might have seen it on to verify the title. If I come across it I will let you know. A very fascinating subject to say the least.

Your right, times have changed, if you remember the start of the war when the American's deployed the MOAB in Iraq, it was quickly forgotten about, the wrong weapon for the wrong war.

That happens all the time. The lack of vision by the military can be startling.

Unfortunately, weapons like the bunker buster are going to become more of a necessary tool since the enemy is now more elusive, and piecemeal battles may become a thing of the past as mobility and precision striking capability become more important.

I agree that they will become more necessary, but the use of nuclear bunker busters concerns me. Bunker busters have this terrible habit of not detonating. How would you feel if a nuclear tipped bunker buster did not go off. Now a nuclear weapon IS in play and its a race to see who can recover it first. Not a pretty picture.

There might be a better way to do things, but I think we are now beyond the hypothetical 12 on the clock, its unlikely that there is a diplomatic solution to the war on terror, or even a economic solution to the war on terror, and the American's aren't the only ones who should take thier share of the blame.

If there is no diplomatic solution to the war on terror, there is no solution. This is a battle of doctrine, and you cannot defeat that through a land war. The best weapon in this fight is education, plain and simple. Troops on the ground only exacerbate the situation and create more holy warriors. The way to fight this war is covertly and through economic and educational means.

However the American's have always been slow to get really angry, but when they do they have an all or nothing mentality, win at all costs screw the other guys.

Completely disagree. America has an itchy trigger finger and they love to squeeze a round off. What is ironic is that they don't believe anyone has the ability to beat them, so they keep the gun in the holster so to speak. What's interesting is that in America's 230 year history they have been either engaged in war or preparing for way 56% of that time. Doesn't seem like a slow to get angry mentality to me.

I'm presently reading a book on the intelligence community's involvement in the leadup to Iraq2. Pretty damning when you consider all the intelligence they ignored. Multiple nations gave the Americans intelligence that pointed to the 9/11 attacks (specifics) and the United States government chose to ignore those warnings.

What is very disconcerting is that in July of 2001 a bulletin was made to those bodies associated with public safety mechanism to be ready to deal with a terrorist attack. It was worded that it WOULD happen and to have contingency plans ready for such situations. It seems that the acknowledgement is now there that the government knew it was coming, they just did nothing to stop it.

But where the world has changed is it used to be that you could fight a war and eventually become friends and allies, (see Russia, France, Germany and Japan), thats become a impossible solution as war no longer involves countries, but involves race, ideology and religion, and repairing relations between those lines is impossible and takes generations and not years.

On the money. The game has changed. Can our western way of thinking adapt to the changes?

I'm still a Military Hawk in that I've defended the need for the Canadian Military to be expanded and upgraded, for the protection of the people that serve, the people that need it and the international community. The ability for Canada to participate in UN peace keeping missions has degraded to the point where we actually only have a handful of troops deployed under the UN flag, imagine hearing that in the 60's and 70's where Canadian's wore the blue beret throughout the world. The Military also needs better transport and the ability to rapidly deploy itself as oppossed to needing other nations to transport and supply our troops.

I think the Canadian military needs to retool as well. I think they need to start changing thier focus and adapt to the 21st century model. Canada is such a big country that the military could never stop an invasion force. The best way to deal with it is through a terrorist campaign. IMO the Canadian military should develop forces that are specialized in guerilla and urban warfare. They should specialize in small units that can deploy quickly and use the special skills in this type of fighting. They should have more sniper units like those in Afganistan. They should have snatch and grab teams. They should have insurgent fighting teams. IMO the Canadian military should retool to become a support body for other countries larger traditional forces. The Canadian military should fill in the gaps. I think they still need an airforce, but they should go to a light and mobile military that can react and deploy quickly. Lots of specialists and their support teams.

But thats way off topic.

Thanks, I actually enjoyed this.

Ditto.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Hmmmm, seems the opposite. When someone gives that equation you some how always come up with 11.

Check these out. They're not game tapes, but they should help you with you math challenges.

http://www.westshore.edu/webs/ltc/basic_math.htm



As I said earlier...

"If anything this is a solid deal for stability in the region. Geo-politically this will give leverage to Pakistan. Iran and Pakistan are very close and Indian dependency on Iranian natural gas gives Pakistan a potential pressure point they can exploit. The most ironic thing is that this deal aids in the stabalization of a region that America has been the key player in destabilizing."

This does not change anything between Pakistan and India, nor between Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan and Iran are still Islamic countries with a Shia foundation who see the Hindu Indians as infidels. If push comes to shove the religious alignment over rules the economic deal in a heartbeat.



Wow, no kidding? And I thought the Iranians had come up with a new delivery mechanism for natural gas.

So this pipeline, do you think it can used strategically as leverage against India? You think for a second that this pipeline will not be held over the heads of the Indians when push comes to shove? As soon as India becomes dependent on Iranian natural gas that pipeline is their life blood. Cut that off and you cripple a good chunk of India's industry. Gee, no benefit there for the Pakistanis!



And why? No one ****es and moans about the Israelis having nukes, and they are just as losse a cannon as any Islamic country. With the acquisition of the bomb comes the responsibility of the bomb. When you have it you immediately become a target for every nation on the planet that has one too. If your weapon is used, you have pretty well guaranteed that your country ceases to exist. I'd much rather have that situation that one where someone covertly buys one and has carte blanche to use it, knowing that it will be exceptionally hard to trace.



As I said eariler...

"And don't count the Indians on America's side. They have long been an ally of the Russians and continue to be so. As I pointed out, the deal swung with America was nothing more than a fall back position should Mussarif get assassinated and ISI take over the government. Its all a balancing act right now as America continues to try and manufacture support in a region where they are considered the greatest of all evils."

India has been a long time ally of Russia, and will continue to be so. This deal does not sever decades of Indo-Russian democratic alignment. This deal was made to keep Pakistan in line. You remember Pakistan? The long time American ally (if you can call buying weapons an ally) who is fundamentally aligned with Iran and Al Qaeda. It will be interesting to see where the roaches scurry should the lights come on in the region. I suspect that India will revert back to their long time supporter (Russia) and the Islamic countries will side together (Iran and Pakistan) and the Americans will be left holding the bag, that will have Mussaraf's head in it.



The most immediate reason is Indians need for energy for their burgeoning economy. Indian influence on Iran will be minimal. India is another consumer of a product that Iran has to sell. If they don't want it, someone else will.



A "close" relationship with the "largest democracy in the world". Wow, there's a load of bull****. Funny, but in one breath you **** and moan about Iran getting nuclear technology but have no problem with the United States sharing it with India. You're going to have to explain that brilliance. You claim the United States has to save the world from more nuclear weapons, but then say what a great thing it is that India is getting the technology. Wow!

I see that you have come around to mine and the Captain's view of history with regards to Japan. I suggest you read about the Yamamoto. Japan's super battleship. Very interesting. It was used during the attack on Pearl Harbor...but was kept so far away to keep it safe from attack. They then basically kept it hid away for the war because it was too valuable to lose! They finally sent it down to Okinawa to deal the Americans the devastating blow that they needed to have an "honorable" peace. It never made it.

Come around to it? In what way? I said that the dropping of Little Boy was unnecessary and that Fat Man was nothing more than over-kill and a warning to the Soviets. I stand by that. The war was essentially over when Tokyo was fire bombed. The Americans wanted to use their new toy (proof of concept for the billions they spent on it) and Japanese diplomats were dragging their heels on language of the surrender. Not much change.

Can you not reply to the post as a whole? The continual cutting of each individual sentence I post and replying to each as though they are separate entities is quite juvenile.

As for the pipeline....

You are the one who asked this.....
"WTF??? How does this deal help the United States in any shape or fashion? The United States is no longer an export economy, its a consumer economy. WTF does America make that Indians can't get elsewhere, and cheaper? Yeah, a developing economy is going to over-pay for inferior products from America. Brilliant thinking."

Hence my explanation. The 40 billion dollar gas deal was to show how close the Iranians and Indians are and how the US hopes they can get India to use their influence with Iran. Not Pakistan.

As for your moral equivalence with regards to Isreal and Iran I not sure how you can say this. This is just another example of how silly you have become.

1) Israel has never said it will wipe a country off the face of the world once they get a nuclear weapon like the Iranians have

2) Iran supports, monetarily and weapons, terrorist groups that explicitly state that their goal is to destroy Israel.

3) Since the Iranians obviously can't strike Israel or the US directly what is to stop them from handing a nuke over to a terrorist group to do the work for them?


As for your historical knowledge of WWII. I suggest more than a few good books that do not have the more recent additions of "The Nuke weren't necessary /I hate America" bent in them. The Americans looked on the bombs as deliverance from 4 costly years of war!

The Russians were not going to do anything until Hiroshima. August 8th Molotov called the Japanese Ambassador (Japan was still hoping even after Hiroshima to get the Soviets to negaotiate a more favourable peace deal) to inform him that on August 9th Stalin ordered the invasion East Asia and Japan. Now where the contraversy starts is that the US never really tried to find out if Hiroshima or the Soviet entry into the fight changed Japan's minds. But then no one in Japan stepped on the peddle either to speed things up. Truman was ready, and stated, to drop 2, 3 or more bombs on Japan to save American lives. August 8th the order to drop the second bomb was given. The bomb was dropped on August 9th on Nagasaki.

I provided the dates to show you that the second bomb had nothing to do with the Russians. Whether it was necessary or not...