News Stories

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Welllllllllll.... several trillion dollars wasted sez the US may not be so clear on limits either but yeah on the scale of "limits? we don't have no steenking limits!" ......... meh.

I don't think the US government runs and sanctions national campaigns promoting religious supremacy and bigotry.....yet. Neither had US picked a all-out fight with a nation whose military is superior or equal to theirs (not even the Cold War - they sent weapons to their proxies to fight on their behalf).

Though the last major one I heard is a politician named George Wallhead who tried to prevent black students from enrolling in a white school......personally.

[MrTerrorist]

Should animals be stunned before slaughter?

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I don't think the US government runs and sanctions national campaigns promoting religious supremacy and bigotry.....yet.

The US gouvernment, no. Some politicians, yes.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by MrTerrorist

Should animals be stunned before slaughter?

I find that debate a bit distasteful. I'm all for prohibiting animal torture, and general mistreatment or neglect, but I don't think we should be legislating how to kill an animal on "humanitarian" grounds. Either way, the animal isn't going to like it. It's a bit absurd saying "we're going to kill you, but we're going to do it in a nice way ". If you don't like Animal slaughter, don't eat meat. We shouldn't try and dress it up and pat ourselves on the back for being so enlightened.

Now me, I eat lots of meat, and I don't really care how the animal is killed, and while I would prefer it to be quick and painless for the animal, I don't see why it should absolutely be so. For one thing, in the wild, animals don't die in a nice quick and painless manner, and the lion doesn't say it's only going to kill antelope in a certain way in order to be nice to the antelope. It kills the antelope at it's own convenience, in a long, painful and lingering manner. Frankly, Halal or Kosher butchering is positively nice in comparison (being that it's one quick stroke). We should not put ourselves above our fellow animals, and so I see no ethical problem with eating meat, or killing an animal in any particular way. We do not expect it of carnivorous animals, and I don't see why we should expect it of ourselves.

I don't think the issue is worth making waves about. Let people slaughter and eat their animals however they like. There are much more important things. In this case, religious freedom trumps animal welfare. Now if they were torturing or mistreating animals otherwise, I would say otherwise. In terms of "the great evils of our time" this is pretty far down the list. For one thing, should we really be taking up our courts time with this kind of thing? What kind of message do we send over this? That we put animal welfare(of animals who are about to die anyway...) ahead of people's freedom?

[AnimeFan188]

"The Chinese have called it their "Underground Great Wall," a vast network of
tunnels designed to hide their country's increasingly sophisticated missile and
nuclear arsenal.

For the past three years, a group of Georgetown University students has called it
something else: homework."

See:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...secrets01.html

[flying ^]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"The Chinese have called it their "Underground Great Wall," a vast network of
tunnels designed to hide their country's increasingly sophisticated missile and
nuclear arsenal.

For the past three years, a group of Georgetown University students has called it
something else: homework."

See:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...secrets01.html

this revelation should serve as a wake up call for democrats (especially the california variant) NOT to gut national defense!

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by AnimeFan188

"The Chinese have called it their "Underground Great Wall," a vast network of
tunnels designed to hide their country's increasingly sophisticated missile and
nuclear arsenal.

For the past three years, a group of Georgetown University students has called it
something else: homework."

See:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...secrets01.html

There's some argument againt that study and it's results but the up to 3000 warhead might not be as ridiculous as some said. But I would wish some of their source would be more fiable.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It's a bit absurd saying "we're going to kill you, but we're going to do it in a nice way ".

Actually the remarkable Temple Grandin took exactly that point of view. Her efforts to build "humane" slaughterhouse facilities and her battles with autism form the substance of both her memoir, Thinking in Pictures, and the excellent HBO adaptation with a stellar performance by Claire Danes. (I'm good friends with one of Grandin's cousins who, with his wife, watched the film with us. After brushing away some tears at the end he remarked on the accuracy of Danes's performance.)

[AnimeFan188]

"Here’s the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the
Senate has tucked into next year’s defense bill: They don’t force the military to
detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do
that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have
said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as
tonight."

See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...ary-detention/

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by flying ^

this revelation should serve as a wake up call for democrats (especially the california variant) NOT to gut national defense!

Democrats aren't the ones trying to slash the defense budget these days though.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by flying ^

this revelation should serve as a wake up call for democrats (especially the california variant) NOT to gut national defense!

... ... ...
1) Its the *libertarians* that want to dramatically reduce national defense spending. Like Ron Paul...
2) Both Democrats and Republicans often pork-barrel defense spending into their districts and push them whether they are needed or not.
3) The DoD is often being forced to take or keep weapon systems they don't want.
4) A major cost of the volunteer military is *people* - educating them, providing medical care, paying insufficient wages, etc.

"Gutting" national defense? Hell, as former Cold War defense contract engineer who keeps up with the sector, I can tell you they could eliminate a third of the systems budget with no discernible difference if the revolving doors of lobbyists/officials and their profits were normalized and accounted for.

[Ithekro]

One wonders..how much defense would be cut? Or would it be all "offensive" capabilities that are cut?

It seems there is little difference in light that the country's enemies are generally thousands of miles away across oceans. Thus in general the best defense would be ways to keep them across the ocean and prevent attacking missiles and aircraft from coming close to the nation. This would generally be the job of the Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard. The Army and Marines would be of less use unless someone actually invaded the country, or the country needed to invade someplace to ensure our defense (such as knocking out an enemies ability to make war against us, like we did to Japan and Germany in the Second World War).

Back in TR's time, the Navy was the main intrument of national power projection, prestige, and defense. If they can't get past the US Navy, they can't get to America, was the general idea. The ideas of the American Captain Alfred T. Mahan would be the basis for Naval Power at that time. (oddly, it seems it was Mahan that coined the term "Middle East" as we know it today).


Today it is Air Power rather than Sea Power. The Air Force and the Navy's Aircraft Carriers are the main instruments of defense for the United States. Along with that are the numbers of Nuclear Missiles used as a deturent against mass aggression. In addition there is the Anti-Ballistic Missile System concept to backup the deturent should someone actually push the button. Mutually assured destruction is one thing, but some would rather not be destroyed.

Another possible area is Space. The X-37B is setting a record for days in space for a returnable spacecraft at present. It is a military project. One that we can't be sure what it will be carrying once in full operation. I have an old book, I think from 1980 or so about Space War and the likely tactics that would be used by the Americans and Soviets in the age of the Space Shuttles. The X-37B fits well in that narrative.

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Today it is Air Power rather than Sea Power. The Air Force and the Navy's Aircraft Carriers are the main instruments of defense for the United States. Along with that are the numbers of Nuclear Missiles used as a deturent against mass aggression. In addition there is the Anti-Ballistic Missile System concept to backup the deturent should someone actually push the button. Mutually assured destruction is one thing, but some would rather not be destroyed.

Nitpick: The carriers and SSBNs are "Sea Power." We still need ships to transport fighters and submarines to hide our nukes.

[Ithekro]

The SSBNs would be for offensive action and would be counted with the nuclear missiles for deturrent use. I mentioned the Carriers. They move the aircraft, but the aircraft...the Air Power, is the main weapon for defensive action to prevent other counties bombers and ships from getting close to the United States. Gone are the days of ship to ship warfare for the most part. (I was pointing out defensive weapons for the nation, much like the old American Battleline was the main defense against naval aggression back around the time of the Great War).

The last battleship in mothballs (USS Iowa) is currently in Richmond, California, being repainted for her last sea trip to become a museum in Southern California. Their days are done.

[justsomeguy]

I get your meaning, but classifying parts of the military as "offensive" or "defensive" doesn't go anywhere, since the best defense is a good offense. Even the "offensive" stuff is defensive, since their presence intimidates others and prevents violence. Deterrence is defense.

[Ithekro]

Offense and defense can go either way. It depends on design and tactical sense.

The American battleships of the early part of the century were actually defensive in design. Sure they were an offensive weapon in war, but their designs style points to a defensive mindset. The entire fleet was designed to operate around a common speed. Most of the fleet tactics were for long range fire and the ships were designed with the heaviest armor possible in vital place, yet next to none everywhere else (All or Nothing style from USS Nevada onwards). The concept would be that if an enemy wanted to attack a US city, they would have to get past the US Battleline first. They might be able to outrun the Americans, but your target is in one location (a city) then running does you no good. It might get you to the next city, but you still have the American battleships to defeat.

British battleships were more offesive minded. Some of the fleet operated at slower speeds but they had several classes that had a great range of different speeds. They tended to go for speed and heavy guns, but their armor might not be the thickest. If it came down to a war between the US and UK in the 1920s, the Americans defensive minded battleline could pretty much stop anything in the Royal Navy. The majority of the American fleet used 14 inch guns while the British used 15 inch guns, but their performance was about the same relative to what they would be shooting at. The British had three ships the American would be worried about at the time. The battlecruisers Repulse, Renown, and the Hood. Nelson and Rodney with their 16 inch guns could be handled by the Colorado-class ships with their 16 inch guns. Repulse and Renown were not so much a problem as they had thinner armor, so the American guns would hurt them even if those two ships could easily outrun anything the Americans had. It was Hood that was the greatest fear. It not only could outrun anything in the US Navy (save some destroyers and light cruisers), it was also heavily armored, so it could take on the American battleships one on one and hope to win. (Glorious and Couragious are not a real threat as they were armored like light cruisers and only had a few heavy guns (4 each), which cuts the amount of hits they can possibly get verses the much more numerous guns on American battleships (typically 12 guns each). They were both converted to Aircraft Carriers later on to match their near sistership Furious.)

However, because the American battleline was defensively designed, it would probably not be able to take the war to the British. They would not be able to draw the Royal Navy into battle on their terms in such an operation. They could not operate effectively divided as the Royal Navy could easily out flank them and destroy the smaller sized units with their superior speed battleships and battlecruisers. The American battleline was designed to work as a large unit. The Japanese battleships of similar age found this out at Leyte Gulf when two were blow to pieces by the old American Battleline (and lots of destroyers and PT boats)

[Ithekro]

Double post for actual news:

Senate approves $662 billion defense bill
Bill would require military to hold suspected terrorists even if captured on U.S. soil
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45517917...-capitol_hill/

"I have a bad feeling about this."

If I read that correctly, a veto will do nothing as Congress can overturn a veto with those numbers (93-7). Unless the House numbers are different than those of the Senate.

Also how often do you see a 100-0 vote? Sanctions on Iran got full approval of the entire Senate.

There is one important thing missing from the article...the actual name of the bill (and thus the actual text of the bill).

[ganbaru]

Pakistan planes would have engaged NATO in attack
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7B00UH20111202

[Tom Bombadil]

Originally Posted by flying ^

this revelation should serve as a wake up call for democrats (especially the california variant) NOT to gut national defense!

Come on, do you really believe that this bunch of people can find out more about the Chinese nuclear arsenal than the CIA, comparing the resource disparity available to them?

I doubt this "revelation" will be anything more than spreading the Chinese threat theory and drumming up more support to the budget cut resistance. Besides, whatever those numbers are, a nuclear war between the major nuclear powers (coincidentally, also the permanent UN security members) will be disastrous for human civilization, if not completely ruinous.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the different story,

米、イランへの圧力強化　日本などに原油輸入削減要請へ

American put pressure on Iran and ask Japan and others to reduce their oil import from Iran.

What's interesting is the following:

日本は昨年、原油の約１割をイランから輸入。サウジアラビア、アラブ首長国連邦、カタールに次ぐ第４位の調 達先だ。

Last year, Japan imports about 10% of crude oil from Iran, its the fourth largest supplier behind only Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

I doubt this "revelation" will be anything more than spreading the Chinese threat theory and drumming up more support to the budget cut resistance. Besides, whatever those numbers are, a nuclear war between the major nuclear powers (coincidentally, also the permanent UN security members) will be disastrous for human civilization, if not completely ruinous.

You could ask our older forum members, especially those who lived through the Red Scare, Cuban Missile Crisis and Ping Pong Diplomacy, if anybody actually cared about that point.

Most people often think "Nuke first, think later" instead of vice-versa - makes me wonder if dysgenics is at play on the human civilisation here.

On the different story,

米、イランへの圧力強化　日本などに原油輸入削減要請へ

American put pressure on Iran and ask Japan and others to reduce their oil import from Iran.

What's interesting is the following:

日本は昨年、原油の約１割をイランから輸入。サウジアラビア、アラブ首長国連邦、カタールに次ぐ第４位の調 達先だ。

Last year, Japan imports about 10% of crude oil from Iran, its the fourth largest supplier behind only Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar.

If I am not wrong, China still pays them for oil. And they have lots of dosh.