AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2013-02-28, 22:04   Link #481
monsta666
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat View Post
The temptation to use the so called tactical warheads ("small" nuclear weapons) is going to be too big in any major conflict. With just one bomb you can obliterate the enemy naval fleet before they even reach your fleet. Even better, use a neutron bomb and the fleet might even by recovered as a war bounty (and the damage to the ecosystem is not long term). So the reason no nuke have been used is because there has been no need, I bet that if the first Iraq War had the amount of causalities feared at first, a nuke would probably had been used.
The tactic is only practical if it is a significantly stronger state attacking a weaker one for example the US, Russia or China could do this against a nation such as Iran. However if the powers are more evenly matched such as US vs Russia or/and China then the amount of collateral damage inflicted through tactical nuclear weapons would be too great. For this reason they would be avoided unless one of these powers major faced an existential threat. Unlikely for that to happen in the near future. Greater chance of there being massive political unrest/upheaval or civil war than those scenarios.
monsta666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 22:07   Link #482
KiraYamatoFan
Crazy World Cup!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
Okay, now you've ruined whatever points you might have had.

There are problems with America. But they are nowhere near the issues a country like Iran has. There is no freedom of speech. There is no rule of law. The women are repressed to the point where a girl can be raped and then be found guilty in a court of law for inviting the rape since she wasn't out with a man and had her ankles uncovered.
This.

It's too easy to bash America of this and that because we can do so without getting arrested and tortured because of our opinions. People who do that for the sake of bashing are as stupid as that group of wankers named Anonymous, who should be digging up and hit hard countries like Iran instead of having the usual hard-on against the West. Just for a question of tuition hikes in Quebec, Anonymous showed up while they never showed up to call out on the war in Syria, repression in Iran, famine in country x, and many more things deserving of public attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
If you want to measure hostile intent, Iran hasn't invaded anyone for hundreds of years. America invades anyone who isn't nuclear armed.
For your information, although no one's a good guy in geopolitics, Iran created A HISTOTICAL FIRST by storming an embassy during what was deemed a time of peace and DE FACTO invading a sovereign territory according to all existing conventions. Flushing out the Shah should have been enough for Iran, but pushing on with the embassy was absolutely stupid and no wonder why Iran doesn't deserve any respect from anybody.

For the record, how would you feel if one of your own embassies was stormed by a bunch of people disregarding all international conventions? If we were not that civilized and self-restraining in the Western world, Japan and Australia, I would be eating popcorn while watching Iranian embassies getting burned to the ground and Iranian diplomats being humiliated in public as a response for 1980.

Seriously, Vallen, you have gone down by several points in my esteem with your comments.
__________________

Last edited by KiraYamatoFan; 2013-02-28 at 22:24.
KiraYamatoFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 22:23   Link #483
mangamuscle
formerly ogon bat
 
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by monsta666 View Post
For this reason they would be avoided unless one of these powers major faced an existential threat.
You only need one side been being badly beaten by new technology, i.e. if somebody invents a functional MASER you could potentialy disable ANY aircraft and naval vessel at several kilometers of distance. So even an small army could humiliate a bigger army, then only a EMP attack might disable the enemy weapons (maybe not, you only needed adequate grounding to render such attack useless) but they would try nonetheless.
mangamuscle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 22:58   Link #484
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan View Post
For the record, how would you feel if one of your own embassies was stormed by a bunch of people disregarding all international conventions? If we were not that civilized and self-restraining in the Western world, Japan and Australia, I would be eating popcorn while watching Iranian embassies getting burned to the ground and Iranian diplomats being humiliated in public as a response for 1980.

Seriously, Vallen, you have gone down by several points in my esteem with your comments.
Feel free to burn Iranian embassies to the ground, if you are prepared for the consequences.

If you think we have to THANK you for not acting like lunatics, that's your opinion. Iran had its entire government removed and replaced by a brutal dictatorship under the orders of the CIA. As far as I know Americans never felt bad about that. They just assume "Iran is evil so it is okay". Nevermind that the only reason the religious extremists are running the place was because of their need to overthrow the dictatorship.

You want Iranians dead? Then say so. Have your holy war. Don't make up excuses about "they might get nukes".

And I am sorry I won't be joining you for popcorn while watching buildings burn. I don't consider that enjoyable. But I understand that a lot of Americans do think it is fun these days.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:14   Link #485
KiraYamatoFan
Crazy World Cup!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Montreal, QC, Canada
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Feel free to burn Iranian embassies to the ground, if you are prepared for the consequences.

If you think we have to THANK you for not acting like lunatics, that's your opinion. Iran had its entire government removed and replaced by a brutal dictatorship under the orders of the CIA. As far as I know Americans never felt bad about that. They just assume "Iran is evil so it is okay". Nevermind that the only reason the religious extremists are running the place was because of their need to overthrow the dictatorship.

You want Iranians dead? Then say so. Have your holy war. Don't make up excuses about "they might get nukes".
That's exactly what the scum working for that government deserve for creating a precedent. In history books, it could have happened but for the SAS in London.

The Ayatollah and his folowers were effete a-holes in 1979/80 to begin with. There are other US-supported regimes that were thrown out, but the locals had enough brains to not attack embassies the way they did because they knew the bad press they'd get if they did. You haven't answered my question: did they really need to attack a sovereign territory (the definition of an embassy) because they feel like it? Overthrowing the government should have been enough while Americans had no longer reason to stay there with the Shah gone (see about Saigon 1975).

I want that regime down and those extremist religious scum flushed out by the people in the same manner the King of France was rightfully thrown out by the angry mobs, not the citizens that have shown a significant pulse in desiring change.

You have a problem with the West, then YOU say so! I can't stand ungrateful people speaking ill on about the country (or countries) that give those same people the right and tools to speak out freely while other countries are cutting that right short within their borders.
__________________

Last edited by KiraYamatoFan; 2013-02-28 at 23:51. Reason: for politically correct purposes
KiraYamatoFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:16   Link #486
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Considering that since 1980, the United States has not invaded Iran, despite the suggestion that the only contries the US doesn't invade have nukes, should point to the ones being at least slightly more reasonable.

We've embargoed them. Supplied their Iraqi enemy in a war (and got bit my it), sold weapons to them (reportedly in exchange for hostiges) post-1980 (we sold weapons to them before 1979 as they were an ally against the Soviets. We'd been building them four modern destroyers and sold them F-14 Tomcats with Phoenix missiles just before 1979). The loss of Iran as an ally likely lead to the Soviets getting cocky and invading Afghanistan in 1980. The US attacked Iranian naval vessels and platforms i the 1980s in responce to attacks on oil shipping in the Gulf by Iran, and an attack on a US Navy frigate.

The responce we get from Iran usually sounds like we are the most evil thing on the planet next to Israel (which got lumped in with us after 1979 as well). The question is if they just mean our government (which in some respects changes every several years by vote), or out people and culture as well. The head of state for Iran has changed once due to death. Their President is elected and has term limits...and I will be happy once their current president is out of office, since he's come across as a shit disturber ever since he go into a position anyone in the West might hear him.

VCV - I seem to recall you mentioning that if Romney was elected there was no hope left for America. Well we didn't elect Romney. Now what?
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:19   Link #487
Kaijo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow, in a house dropped on an ugly, old woman.
Send a message via AIM to Kaijo Send a message via MSN to Kaijo
Unfortunately, Iran is a simple thing where you can state a simple position. Did the CIA help overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran, and replace it with the Shah? Yes, but they didn't do it alone. There were plenty of elements within Iran that wanted it. Douche move on our part still? Yes. Iran has the rights to be ticked at us? Hell yes.

However, Iran hasn't exactly shown itself to be a benevolent country since then. With their funding of Hezzabollah and Hamas (both money and arms), they have made life nightmarish for several Middle East countries; not just Israel, but Saudi Arabia, too. There is literally no country in the middle east that likes Iran. They've earned their reputation with douche moves.

So why are nukes important in this scenario? Without friends, Iran (rightly or wrongly) believes the only way to protect themselves is to have nukes. Standard MAD tactics, really. However, such a move would drive many other Middle East countries like Saudi Arabia to get nukes.

Now you have a bunch of extremely religious fundamentalist countries with nukes, whose people believe in the concept of martyrdom and holy war. You just tossed a match into a tinderbox. If you thought the standoff between the US and the USSR was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet. At least with the USSR, they weren't fanatical about destroying their enemy. They had a strong sense of self-preservation, and jealously guarded their nukes (well, until the money ran out; it's the USSR didn't lose any of it's nukes).

With the middle east, you have many groups (not just the government) who wouldn't mind setting off a bomb somewhere. And they don't care about their country much. MAD only works if one side is vulnerable because they have a nation state to preserve. Al Quada doesn't. Pakistan almost lost control of some of their military bases to extremists, and the sole reason we support them and give the secular government aid, is so they don't get overrun by the religious nutcases.

The last thing we want to do, is take that situation and multiply it by 10.
Kaijo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:20   Link #488
ganbaru
books-eater youkai
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
Blame game gets louder with budget cuts looking inevitable
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...91P0W220130228
__________________

ganbaru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:27   Link #489
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
VCV - I seem to recall you mentioning that if Romney was elected there was no hope left for America. Well we didn't elect Romney. Now what?
If Romney won, it means the voters are stupid. But the fact that he didn't win does not mean the voters are righteous.

Doing the smart thing doesn't make you right. Obama isn't some saint, he is just better than the other guy.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:44   Link #490
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 24
Not everyone in America is a war-mongering backward idiot. That's kind of the tone you're giving off. I, for one, actually agree that much of the relational problems with Iran are blowback due to American interference.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-02-28, 23:54   Link #491
monsta666
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 27
It is unlikely the US would attack Iran as the consequences would be too great. The US could defeat Iran but I don't think they could do it fast enough to stop the Iranians causing mayhem in the Strait of Hormuz and bombing several critical oil pipelines/refineries in the surrounding region. That would be their "nuke" if things got really out of hand.

I would say that it is likely that the Iranian's will get their nuke; they are just doing it the painful way. I do wonder though whether these sanctions placed on Iran could work in their long-term interest in the future as it forces them to "conserve" their remaining oil reserves. Once US allies such as Saudi Arabia pass their peak in oil production (it is likely they have already peaked in net exports) then the game and shift in power will change in the region. You can't really talk about Middle-East politics and the US without speaking about the elephant in the room that is oil. Let's not kid ourselves that the US has many bases installed in that region to protect everyone's freedom. If that were the case the whole of Africa would be littered with US military bases.
monsta666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 01:55   Link #492
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Depends on which part of America when it comes to women.
Coming from the country that just rated Atelier Totori Plus R18+ for "sexual violence"
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 02:11   Link #493
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Coming from the country that just rated Atelier Totori Plus R18+ for "sexual violence"
They are putting 18+ on everything. It makes them feel like they are doing something moral. People are crazy like that. But at least I can still buy them.
__________________
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 02:37   Link #494
Demi.
Ass connoisseur
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Florida
Age: 27
More like Australias ban on pornography featuring flat chested woman.

Small boobs are wrong and evil. Obviously.
__________________
Demi. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 03:39   Link #495
Archon_Wing
Hater
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lion's Arch
Age: 30
Send a message via MSN to Archon_Wing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
Depends on which part of America when it comes to women. You DO have plenty of religious fundamentalists who loves violence and encouraged the recent wars.
You know, notches on stuff like rulers and other measuring tools were invented for a reason.

Anyhow, I think the American's use of the barbaric imperial system should give you yet another angle to rant at. Yet that would be more legitimate.
__________________
What appears to be a moment for the helper feels like an eternity to the helpee.
Avatar and Sig courtesy of TheEroKing
Guild Wars 2 SN: ArchonWing.9480 (Stormbluff Isle)
MyAnimeList || Reviews
Archon_Wing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 03:48   Link #496
Vallen Chaos Valiant
Logician and Romantic
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archon_Wing View Post
You know, notches on stuff like rulers and other measuring tools were invented for a reason.

Anyhow, I think the American's use of the barbaric imperial system should give you yet another angle to rant at. Yet that would be more legitimate.
It depends on if you think you want America to attack Iran to "free the women".

I am no fan of the Iranian government. But any talk of attacking it for WMDs or human rights just don't stand up. Iran justifiably have good reason to think America want them dead. The question is if Americans want to prove them right.

p.s. There are two simple ways America can discourage nuclear weapon proliferation:
1. Stop invading countries who don't have nukes.
or
2. Start invading countries who do have nukes.
Just pick one. It's easy.
__________________

Last edited by Vallen Chaos Valiant; 2013-03-01 at 03:58.
Vallen Chaos Valiant is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 09:41   Link #497
ArchmageXin
Master of Coin
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant View Post
It depends on if you think you want America to attack Iran to "free the women".

I am no fan of the Iranian government. But any talk of attacking it for WMDs or human rights just don't stand up. Iran justifiably have good reason to think America want them dead. The question is if Americans want to prove them right.

p.s. There are two simple ways America can discourage nuclear weapon proliferation:
1. Stop invading countries who don't have nukes.
or
2. Start invading countries who do have nukes.
Just pick one. It's easy.
True words.

I think the problem is America never really had an real war on its soil (Pearl Harbor don't count). It has never faced civilians being killed at a mass scale (sorry 9/11, it is peanuts compare to Dresiden, Stalingrad, Nanjing, London, Saigon etc) and its people never really faced horror of war at close range.

Even it is own troops gets written off by the media because they are "volunteers", as if their rights get written off as soon as they sign on the dotted line.

America might be less inclined to go to war if their chronic defeats actually have any lasting impacts on its people.
ArchmageXin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 11:08   Link #498
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArchmageXin View Post
True words.

I think the problem is America never really had an real war on its soil (Pearl Harbor don't count). It has never faced civilians being killed at a mass scale (sorry 9/11, it is peanuts compare to Dresiden, Stalingrad, Nanjing, London, Saigon etc) and its people never really faced horror of war at close range.

Even it is own troops gets written off by the media because they are "volunteers", as if their rights get written off as soon as they sign on the dotted line.

America might be less inclined to go to war if their chronic defeats actually have any lasting impacts on its people.
Maybe not in the modern age, but the American Civil War was extremely bloody and one could argue the beginnings of modern warfare to begin with.
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 11:24   Link #499
ArchmageXin
Master of Coin
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChainLegacy View Post
Maybe not in the modern age, but the American Civil War was extremely bloody and one could argue the beginnings of modern warfare to begin with.
But that was pretty much an self-inflicted wound. No real foreign army have landed on U.S soil since 1812 I believe. I am the last person to invite a military conflict on U.S of A, but I couldn't have but wonder but the


1) lack of experience with being invaded and citizens detached from warfare (I seem to recall the author of hunger games wrote she found how disturbing to channel surf and see reality TV and war in Iraq at the same time)

+

2) Supersized military-industrial complex hunger for more weapon contracts

+

3) Idiotic supremacy complex (We must save the world, only evil people blame America for anything wrong)


=A recipe of disaster for the rest of the world.
ArchmageXin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-03-01, 11:49   Link #500
ChainLegacy
廉頗
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts, US
Age: 24
I think America's foreign policy stems from a combination of antiquated Cold War systems propelling the military's involvement across the globe, and the decision to 'take the reigns' from the British after the World Wars and continue their legacy of policing in global politics. These are completely modern developments, however. They are certainly at odds with the original philosophies of the nation's founders. While I don't advocate isolationism, and I'm fine with alliances, I do think there was a lot of wisdom in Washington's advice to stay out of foreign conflicts. Yes, we're in a global village now, so we can't stay in our own corner away from everyone else, but there's no concrete benefit in being the police of the globe. It stems from some misguided moral duty that the British originally used to justify the creation of their empire.

Thing is, a lot of Americans feel this way... Don't get me wrong, there are hawkish, uninformed people too, but there's a large diversity of opinion and competing traditions now of this global police sect vs the original 'no foreign entanglements' philosophy. It's close-minded to think that there aren't Americans that still subscribe to the latter. One needs only realize the massive power of the military industrial complex (which Eisenhower warned us about, unfortunately, to no avail) to understand how their monetary influence can steer our policy and drown out the voice of those who think things that aren't convenient to their agenda. That's why it's a little frustrating to hear anti-American sentiment that doesn't acknowledge the variety of opinion on the issue, or at least acknowledge that there is serious propaganda going on that guides the "less intelligent" into their foolish opinions (for instance... there's a commercial currently airing in the US on television that shows the US navy in various heroic situations and then boldly proclaims their motto - "The US Navy - A global force... for good". I feel like vomiting every time I see it.)
ChainLegacy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 18:09.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.