[ohio]

That ought to protect a nuke from being smuggled into the country either through our ports or over our borders right? RIGHT?

 

[fluff]

oh yeah.
the united nations has done wonders living up to their potential, solving all the worlds problems through diplomatic channels.

when they're not raping little girls in africa and lining their dirty little pockets with oil for food $$$.

it may cause problems abroad, and no body has the answer for that.
but our big stick is all that keeps us from being attacked.

it's for darn sure kofi anan(sic) won't look out for us.

Well, if the US really wants a functional, effective UN perhaps it should stop undermining it and coughing up the funds that are owed.

It's more than a little hypocritical for the US to complain that the UN is ineffective when it is the US that does the most to ensure that it remains so.

 

[fluff]

I still don't see what the big problem is that people have with development of a defensive anti-missile system. What is the problem?

 

[valve bouncer]

I still don't see what the big problem is that people have with development of a defensive anti-missile system. What is the problem?

I think the problem that some people have is that it ratchets up the tension. In the bad old days we had "mutually assured destruction" which supposedly stopped people from launching their quiver as they knew that they'd get sand in their face back. A defensive weapons sysytems means that I can throw rocks at you and you can't do anything to me and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable especially the Russians and the Chinese.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I think the problem that some people have is that it ratchets up the tension. In the bad old days we had "mutually assured destruction" which supposedly stopped people from launching their quiver as they knew that they'd get sand in their face back. A defensive weapons sysytems means that I can throw rocks at you and you can't do anything to me and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable especially the Russians and the Chinese.

LMAO! Id rather NOT have mutual destruction Id rather they just get destructed...er...destroyed. **** the tension! If we have the skills and the tech, why not do all we can to be safe? That doesnt mean abandoning diplomacy.

 

[fluff]

I think the problem that some people have is that it ratchets up the tension. In the bad old days we had "mutually assured destruction" which supposedly stopped people from launching their quiver as they knew that they'd get sand in their face back. A defensive weapons sysytems means that I can throw rocks at you and you can't do anything to me and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable especially the Russians and the Chinese.

Weaponry never remains static, what do they expect? All nations that can will develop ways to defend themselves. Most of the criticism here has been that the system is not very efficient, not that it is too efficient.

I think people are just bagging on N8 for the sake of it in this thread.

 

[valve bouncer]

Weaponry never remains static, what do they expect? All nations that can will develop ways to defend themselves. Most of the criticism here has been that the system is not very efficient, not that it is too efficient.

I think people are just bagging on N8 for the sake of it in this thread.

I'm not taking a position one way or the other just explaining why some people get their noses out of joint. I agree with you though, sooner or later someone was bound to come up with it and now there'll be another arms race.(assuming the arms race ever stopped in the first place)

 

[N8 v2.0]

Mutual assured destruction was a dumb idea...

A missle shield is good!

Thanks Ronnie RayGun!!!

 

[valve bouncer]

Mutual assured destruction was a dumb idea...

A missle shield is good!

Thanks Ronnie RayGun!!!

The acronym was certainly fitting.

 

[dhbuilder]

Mutual assured destruction was a dumb idea...

A missle shield is good!

Thanks Ronnie RayGun!!!

man,
if we use that thing.
we better make darn sure it works.

 

[The Amish]

No it isn't. When some looney had a nuke tipped ballistic missle, nothing short of neutralizing the threat will do.

Talking/appeasing/dialoguing has been proven not to work.

It worked when Jimmy Carter was the one doing the talking........Oh wait, now the Koreans have a nuke. Best go wipe your ass with that peace prize. When ity comes to dictators nothin short of a good bitch slappin will do

 

[Echo]

I sure hope this magic defense system is better at crippling missiles than our military is at crippling insurgencies.

 

[dhbuilder]

I sure hope this magic defense system is better at crippling missiles than our military is at crippling insurgencies.

oh, i don't know about that.
a couple of 500lb.'rs didn't do such a bad job recently.

 

[DirtyDog]

oh, i don't know about that.
a couple of 500lb.'rs didn't do such a bad job recently.

So it's over huh? We'll remind you of this in a month or so.

 

[Slugman]

oh, i don't know about that.
a couple of 500lb.'rs didn't do such a bad job recently.

Tell that to the 2 marines that were tortured to death by al-Zarqawi's replaement...

 

[N8 v2.0]

Tell that to the 2 marines that were tortured to death by al-Zarqawi's replaement...

Shows just how well you are informed about the situation... they weren't marines...

 

[DirtyDog]

Shows just how well you are informed about the situation... they weren't marines...

You really are king of the idiots. If I could have it my way, we'd have loco back in your place.

 

[N8 v2.0]

You really are king of the idiots. If I could have it my way, we'd have loco back in your place.

Why thank you!!!

 

[Echo]

oh, i don't know about that.
a couple of 500lb.'rs didn't do such a bad job recently.

That could very well be the funniest thing that's ever been said in the political forum. And that's saying something.

 

[dhbuilder]

So it's over huh? We'll remind you of this in a month or so.

the key word was crippled not dead
we may never kill it.
but we're darn sure keepin it too busy to make its way to our shores en mass.
nobody wants our soldiers dying over there or anywhere for that matter.

but if we cower and run away.............

and you seem to be reminding me of my words a lot lately.
so i doubt i'll have to wait a whole month before i hear from you again.
but that's cool. it'd be boring if we were of all the same mindset.

 

[dhbuilder]

Tell that to the 2 marines that were tortured to death by al-Zarqawi's replaement...

the unfortunate fortunes of war. it sucks.
we have too many of our soldiers over there perched out like sitting ducks. and that's not what they should be over there for.
they should be allowed to take the fight to the enemy.
not present themselves as targets.

i have two people i care about over there.
they are both currently in their third tour of duty. i think of them every single day. and i hope they come home upright.

they couldn't wait to get back there both times. they want to be able to fight the war. and not have the politicians back here over riding the generals.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

the unfortunate fortunes of war. it sucks.
we have too many of our soldiers over there perched out like sitting ducks. and that's not what they should be over there for.
they should be allowed to take the fight to the enemy.
not present themselves as targets.

i have two people i care about over there.
they are both currently in their third tour of duty. i think of them every single day. and i hope they come home upright.

they couldn't wait to get back there both times. they want to be able to fight the war. and not have the politicians back here over riding the generals.

you could, instead of blaming politicians for restraining the military, blame them for putting the military in the first place.

 

[dhbuilder]

you could, instead of blaming politicians for restraining the military, blame them for putting the military in the first place.

like i said.
nobody wants our soldiers over there.
but the original job needed to be done(offing saddam) it's just that the operation got bogged down after that, and then came the usual game of guessing and second guessing. and fretting over political consequences.

our world is so damn complicated nowadays. everything that's done has global ramifications. good and bad.
the focus will always be on the bad, because that's the most obvious to see and report back to us about.

you have to wonder if bush sr. knew this was going to be the case back when he had his finger on the trigger. and decided not to pull it on saddam back when he was in his sights.

you can even go back to the fall of the iron curtain.
the soviet empire, ( before reagan drove it into bankrupcy with military spending)kept alot of the troubled regions in that part of the world under control.(afganistan etc...)

makes you wonder if "better the devil you knew" would apply.

it seems like warfare has evolved into no more than controlling massive civil unrest.
not the invasion of one country into another, which is what warefare has been back into the roman days and beyond.

ideology instead of territory.
i don't think anybody has a clue as to how to deal with that.
neither party in this country, certainly not the united nations.

 

[Toshi]

like i said.
nobody wants our soldiers over there.
but the original job needed to be done(offing saddam)

no it didn't. saddam was blowing smoke, had no WMDs, and the whole region, no, make that the world was more stable before we marched on in there.

 

[syadasti]

Probably another giant waste of money. The system failed to work in tests in 2002 and 2004. What have they done to get it working right in real life situations?

BBC Dec. 2004
Missile defence shield test fails
The first test in almost two years of the planned multi-billion dollar US anti-missile shield has failed.

The Pentagon said an interceptor missile did not take off and was automatically shut down on its launch pad in the central Pacific.

A target missile carrying a mock warhead had been fired 16 minutes earlier from Kodiak Island in Alaska.

The Pentagon is spending $10bn a year on the missile system, which was meant to be in operation by the end of 2004.

The Missile Defence Agency said an "unknown anomaly" was to blame for the system shutting down.

A spokesman said officials would now study data from the launch site at Kwajalein Atoll, in the Marshall Islands, to establish what went wrong.

In earlier tests, target missiles have been successfully intercepted in five out of eight attempts.

Wednesday's trial had been put off four times because of bad weather at launch sites and, on Sunday, because a radio transmitter failed.

A Pentagon spokesman told Reuters news agency the test had not been tied to the question of when the national missile defence system would be declared operational.

Philip Coyle, chief weapons tester under former US President Ronald Reagan, told Reuters: "This is a serious setback for a programme that had not attempted a flight intercept test for two years."

The goal, announced by US President George W Bush in 2002, was to have a basic ground-based shield in place by the end of this year.

The last test, in December 2002, failed when the interceptor missile did not separate from its booster rocket.

The programme has been nicknamed "son of Star Wars" after the original Strategic Defence Initiative - or "Star Wars" - outlined by President Reagan in the 1980s.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

no it didn't.

thats exactly the point.
even under a cynical pov, the us has gained very little so far, and compared to the cost, human and monetary, this war has to be THE worse investment of the last couple decades.

iraq has gained little too. the gains would only be substantial after (if?) the situation stabilized. but then, you´d have to factor the cost for them, and it would take a lot to reach parity.

the only way i see, cynically that is, the us comes out ahead in the deal, is if they leverage oil for a ridiculous low price from the new coming government. which in turn would be contrary to iraq´s interest to come out ahead of the war initial cost.

but seeing the current conditions, if you factor the new iran variable (which may well be a direct consequence of the engagement in iraq) the cost, even for that imaginary best case scenario would still make little sense to me.
specially if a real, measurable and substantial need for military action in iran arises in the near future.

 

[syadasti]

thats exactly the point.
even under a cynical pov, the us has gained very little so far, and compared to the cost, human and monetary, this war has to be THE worse investment of the last couple decades.

iraq has gained little too. the gains would only be substantial after (if?) the situation stabilized. but then, you´d have to factor the cost for them, and it would take a lot to reach parity.

the only way i see, cynically that is, the us comes out ahead in the deal, is if they leverage oil for a ridiculous low price from the new coming government. which in turn would be contrary to iraq´s interest to come out ahead of the war initial cost.

but seeing the current conditions, if you factor the new iran variable (which may well be a direct consequence of the engagement in iraq) the cost, even for that imaginary best case scenario would still make little sense to me.
specially if a real, measurable and substantial need for military action in iran arises in the near future.

Yeah too bad GWB couldn't read daddy's book:

Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.

 

[LordOpie]

I cast Magic Missle.

 

[Changleen]

Alexis, the current administration doesn't actually WANT super-cheap oil. They want it as expensive as possible whilst still being 'bearable' by the population.

Actually there is no immediate 'shortage' of oil at all. Proven reserves are at or near an all time high. From the POV of the oil companies, selling their product cheap is a dumb move.

 

[blue]

SDI/whatever this bull**** is doesn't work...

Please make something function correctly before claiming it's "operational".

 

[Silver]

Alexis, the current administration doesn't actually WANT super-cheap oil. They want it as expensive as possible whilst still being 'bearable' by the population.

Actually there is no immediate 'shortage' of oil at all. Proven reserves are at or near an all time high. From the POV of the oil companies, selling their product cheap is a dumb move.

Source for the proven reserves thing? I'd imagine that's counterbalanced by all time high demand though.

 

[luelling]

Funny thing, one of my professors was in the Navy and worked on the missle defense system. Their original idea was to have a missle "hit" a nuke while it was in outer space (they lob thru space and down to the US). They successfully proved that it was impossible to hit one missle with another missle. I guess the current system runs on the theory of getting reasonably close and blowing up the warhead. Reagans original system obviously didn't work I'm glad we have something though (although I doubt Oregon would rank high on the list of places to be nuked)

 

[Changleen]

Source for the proven reserves thing? I'd imagine that's counterbalanced by all time high demand though.

I'll dig it out. The figures were from the oil companies themselves though.

Edit: I'm having trouble finding it. I'm pretty sure it was on the USGS webpages somewere, but they have SO MUCH content. They had a comparison of their own estimates of reserves versus what oil companies claim. On top of that they are talking about new, untapped fields such as one in the Antarctic which may be freakin' vast.

Not that this changes our need to get away from burning hydrocarbons like neaderthals, but it was pretty solid evidence that basically what the oil companies like to do is use any possible device to increase hysteria about oil supply to drive up their prices. They have apparantly consistantly 'found' new resources whenever it's looking like actually damaging their share price.

Maybe DRB can comment?

 

[Changleen]

Yeah, I found another article talking about the article I originally read - The upshot of it is the Oil companies claim there are just over 1000 billion barrels of proven reserve, but the USGS showed that in reality there are more than 2000 billion. (Not including crappy shale oil and hard to recover as well.)

Again this does not mean we should not be developing alternatives so we can stop screwing the planet over, but it does mean we should be wary of what the oil industry lets us believe about it's product.

 

[Changleen]

http://geology.rockbandit.net/2005/04/13/usgs-oil-reserves-may-not-be-as-low-as-thought/

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2000/06jun/usgs_assess.cfm

Still can't find the original article I read. A pity, it was really good.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

http://geology.rockbandit.net/2005/04/13/usgs-oil-reserves-may-not-be-as-low-as-thought/

http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2000/06jun/usgs_assess.cfm

Still can't find the original article I read. A pity, it was really good.

i dont remember where i read, i believe it was here on ridemonkey, some interesting speculation on the reliability of the calculated reserves, and the reasons on why oil reserves could be exaggerated.

Now comes the interesting part. Many estimates been have made of the world Ultimate for oil, a recent example being the 1995 USGS global survey. The value they published was 2275 Billion Barrels (or Giga - barrels, Gb). These studies are always based on estimates of reserves taken directly from producing countries themselves. Therein lies the problem. Many OPEC countries have been announcing reserve numbers which are frankly very strange. Either their reported reserves remain the same year after year - suggesting that new discoveries exactly match production, or they have suddenly increased their reported reserves by unfeasibly large amounts. This is clearly shown in the following table:

.....

These data are less odd when one realises that OPEC takes into account a country’s reserves when fixing production quotas: the more oil you say you have, the more you’re allowed to sell. Additionally, oil reserves can be used as collateral for loans - an example of this is the $50 Billion loan from the USA to Mexico: in December 1994, the Mexican Peso fell by around 35%. As a result, the Mexican Central Bank's international reserves fell from $29 billion to $5 billion. To stave off a collapse of the Mexican economy, President Clinton signed a $50 billion "Emergency Stabilization Package" loan to the Mexican government on 31 January 1995. The collateral for the loan was Mexico's pledge of revenues from its future petroleum exports.
Another problem with surveys like that of the USGS (from which the US government takes its figures) is that they use very flexible definitions of the different types of oil involved when predicting the amount of oil remaining to be discovered. Briefly, these break down as follows:

* Conventional Oil (95% of all oil so far produced is conventional)
* Unconventional Oil
o Tar Sands
o Oil Shales
o Oil not recoverable with today's technology

This distinction is important, because the global economy is based on cheap pumpable petroleum which comes exclusively from conventional oil: there may well be sources of unconventional oil waiting to be found (ie Canada, Antarctica) but not at today’s prices, and not today, either. This counters the argument, often put forward by oil companies, that improvements in technology will prolong the lifetime of our oil resources: the cost of oil produced by these as yet uninvented technologies is likely to be astronomical by today’s standards. It is therefore misleading not to consider these resources as separate from conventional oil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubberts_peak
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/summary.htm

 

[DaveW]

Yeah... it is entirely possible to talk a dictator out of power.... human history is full of such examples...

Perhaps if you stopped installing and supporting them in the first instance.....

 

[DaveW]

And look what it got them ... Freedom Fries with that?

heh heh reminds me of a Tshirt design I did a lil while back.....

 

[DRB]

Chanqleen,

Peak oil makes baby Jesus cry.

Sincerely,
DRB

 

[fluff]

Oddly I was reading about this yesterday, something about peak production expected in the next 10-50 years and reserves between 1 billion and 1.6 billion, including sand/shale oils.

Seems you get a different story everywhere.

I wonder if baby Jesus made any other babies cry?