User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 10:01:23 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every potential ally of the US must be taught that agreements with the US are not worth the paper they are printed on. We will abandon our friends faster than deny aid to our enemies. TRUTH!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 10:14:04 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds really familiar to me.... "You don't need that capacity rifle, the police is here to protect you" And if they don't protect you, what are you going to do? Retaliate? How are you going to do that; They've got all the weapons. "...you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You fucked up. You trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 10:17:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US only walked out Japan's bombing because no one really knew exactly what was the outcome of using the bombs. (by the way, I'm not saying we should not have used at that time). However, in 1945 the global situation as completely different than today's. Unless the guy ordering the use of such weapon is completely insane and wants to wipe out his/her own country and people no one will use one. The same applies on using them on the enemy. So, those things just sit there and I still do not believe they deter anything. Only exception are terrorists who want to inflict the most damage to their targets. And considering how easy it is to get one and sneak one anywhere in the world we just need to wonder why none have been used yet. So, I do not buy the need for nuclear weapons. In the end of the day it's the conventional weapons that will cut it. Yup... I keep waiting for the shoe to drop. But IF it happens, I don't believe that it'll just drop in one large U.S. city. I think it'll be coordinated and in several. And it'll make 9-11 look like a summer picnic. Just pondering the implications and effect on lives around the planet is sobering to the point that you have to stop your mind from racing at the thoughts of all of the dominoes that would fall world-wide. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 10:25:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Amazing, you can think strategically this far and yet you still believe that Infantry has a place in the world... It's like watching a Dog that's been taught to play Mozart on the Piano but it's still barking along with the tune. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lets take Iran and Saudi Arabia both nuclear armed, shall we. 5 minute time of flight to hit eithers' capital. So, things get hot, they start posturing. Typical nuke, only top executives can order the launching. No early warning. Whoever launches first knocks out the C2 for the others retaliatory strike. Better yet, if you have 4 or 5. Whoever launches first knocks out both the C2 AND their retaliatory capability. Free rider bonus. Remember, existential threats here. US used nukes. What happened? If Saudi Arabia launches first and knocks out the mullahs AND their nukes. Oh boo hoo. Whole world gets weepie eyed? WE gonna stop buying oil? Would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up Riyadh to avoid a tersely worded letter from the UN? But who knows? Amazing, you can think strategically this far and yet you still believe that Infantry has a place in the world... It's like watching a Dog that's been taught to play Mozart on the Piano but it's still barking along with the tune. well, see, in the absence of big wars being a legitimate option due to airpower (read: nuclear warfare), countries will still try to forward their interests in a sub-existential manner. korea vietnam el salvador/Nicaragua. Grenada Cuba all over the world. these conflicts of influence within the human domain require those who live and fight in that domain. aka infantry. it is because of the nuclear deterrence that infantry is so important. now, once the AF figures out that manned air craft are a tool of "air support" and not "airpower" we can start getting somewhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:04:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Fixing this thing. Posted from my Android tablet earlier today and it messed everything up.
Quote Historyb]Quoted:[/b]
North Korea and Iran say you are wrong. And their opinion matters more than yours or mine. Quote Historyb]Quoted:[/b]
North Korea and Iran say you are wrong. And their opinion matters more than yours or mine. [b]Quoted:[/b]
NK falls in the category of the insane. And if that lunatic decides to use it anywhere else than SK he will need a one-way-trip aiplane that will likely be shot down before going too far. So, will he use it on his own people? And if he uses them in SK the US' (or anyone else's) will be bombing NK back with nuclear ordnance also? Something tells me it would not happen. Iran does not fall much far from that. And how do you see nuclear weapons making any difference on what's going on in Ukraine? Even their militaries are using sticks and old sunken boats against each other. I am probably missing something... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:13:33 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BTW, Obama went to the Ukraine in 2006 (when he was a SENATOR) along with Mccain to push through the disarmament signed in '96. Signed it again in 2009. They promissed Ukraine that their borders will be secured and protected after they gave up their weapons. Nothing says F%#& YOU UKRAINE better than this... Wait....FBHO actually DID something as a senator? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:14:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup... I keep waiting for the shoe to drop. But IF it happens, I don't believe that it'll just drop in one large U.S. city. I think it'll be coordinated and in several. And it'll make 9-11 look like a summer picnic. Just pondering the implications and effect on lives around the planet is sobering to the point that you have to stop your mind from racing at the thoughts of all of the dominoes that would fall world-wide.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The US only walked out Japan's bombing because no one really knew exactly what was the outcome of using the bombs. (by the way, I'm not saying we should not have used at that time). However, in 1945 the global situation as completely different than today's. Unless the guy ordering the use of such weapon is completely insane and wants to wipe out his/her own country and people no one will use one. The same applies on using them on the enemy. So, those things just sit there and I still do not believe they deter anything. Only exception are terrorists who want to inflict the most damage to their targets. And considering how easy it is to get one and sneak one anywhere in the world we just need to wonder why none have been used yet. So, I do not buy the need for nuclear weapons. In the end of the day it's the conventional weapons that will cut it. Yup... I keep waiting for the shoe to drop. But IF it happens, I don't believe that it'll just drop in one large U.S. city. I think it'll be coordinated and in several. And it'll make 9-11 look like a summer picnic. Just pondering the implications and effect on lives around the planet is sobering to the point that you have to stop your mind from racing at the thoughts of all of the dominoes that would fall world-wide.
Not an implausible scenario. It just reinforces my point but in a much larger scale. If a country is "bombed" will it also bomb the enemy? MAD scenario. If anything was left of the first one then them after "their turn" there will be nothing left when the new wave from the first attacker comes. If it's a Ukraine case, will it "bomb" itself to get rid of the invaders? So, the atomic bombs are really final measure weapons. Total annihilation. Literally MAD. I can understand conventional weapons race but do not see how in a Ukraine scenario having them would make any difference. Israelis have it but I doubt they would use it for similar reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2014 5:15:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Iraq learned this lesson the hard way, and North Korea is certain to be watching. I suspect a lot of other countries are paying closer attention, too. Japan S. Korea Australia Saudi Arabia Germany Poland Czech Republic Thats the short list who have the ability now to have a nuclear weapon within a year if they so choose and have the security reasons to do so. Only one on that list that slightly worries me is Saudi Arabia. If Saudi Arabia on slightly worries you then you don't know much about Saudi Arabia. Those fuckers are bat shit crazy muslims. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 12:19:22 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Their choice appears to have been give them up or be a pariah both east and west. Unlikely they had the logistics to launch on day 1 of ownership, must less the $ to maintain them. If they could have kept them and kept even a few operational, they'd not be where they are today. There's a reason we went to Afghanistan and not Pakistan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wiki On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling. Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time? Their choice appears to have been give them up or be a pariah both east and west. Unlikely they had the logistics to launch on day 1 of ownership, must less the $ to maintain them. If they could have kept them and kept even a few operational, they'd not be where they are today. There's a reason we went to Afghanistan and not Pakistan. Ukraine never actually owned the weapons. They were Russian weapons on Ukrainian soil. Any debate along those lines was on how much the Ukrainians could milk out of the Russians to get their weapons back, not on if the Russians would get them back, period. If Ukraine had actually tried to keep even one of them, the Russians would have been doing this whole invasion thing 20 years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 3:29:21 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ukraine never actually owned the weapons. They were Russian weapons on Ukrainian soil. Any debate along those lines was on how much the Ukrainians could milk out of the Russians to get their weapons back, not on if the Russians would get them back, period. If Ukraine had actually tried to keep even one of them, the Russians would have been doing this whole invasion thing 20 years ago. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wiki On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling. Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time? Their choice appears to have been give them up or be a pariah both east and west. Unlikely they had the logistics to launch on day 1 of ownership, must less the $ to maintain them. If they could have kept them and kept even a few operational, they'd not be where they are today. There's a reason we went to Afghanistan and not Pakistan. Ukraine never actually owned the weapons. They were Russian weapons on Ukrainian soil. Any debate along those lines was on how much the Ukrainians could milk out of the Russians to get their weapons back, not on if the Russians would get them back, period. If Ukraine had actually tried to keep even one of them, the Russians would have been doing this whole invasion thing 20 years ago. Unless Ukraine indicated they were willing to use one to keep the russians out. 20 years ago the russians didn't have the will. fact is ukraine didn't want them, didn't have the support infrastructure and needed money. but possession being 9/10ths of the law, they could have probably kept them |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 3:33:24 AM EDT
[#11]
Did they really think we'd go head to head with the Russians?
 Ain't ever going to happen even with a strong president. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 3:34:04 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did they really think we'd go head to head with the Russians?
Ain't ever going to happen even with a strong president. 2400 F35s says we will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 3:52:33 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wiki On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling. Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time? DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar... Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious... Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ... per WiKi "Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996" Illinois state senate candidates do not dabble in foreign policy. They steal votes from their primary opponents. They collect campaign contributions. They promise to get contributors lucrative contracts. They promise to get campaign workers patronage jobs. The current President has done many blameworthy things. This does not happen to be one of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 10:02:14 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless Ukraine indicated they were willing to use one to keep the russians out. 20 years ago the russians didn't have the will. fact is ukraine didn't want them, didn't have the support infrastructure and needed money. but possession being 9/10ths of the law, they could have probably kept them Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wiki On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling. Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time? Their choice appears to have been give them up or be a pariah both east and west. Unlikely they had the logistics to launch on day 1 of ownership, must less the $ to maintain them. If they could have kept them and kept even a few operational, they'd not be where they are today. There's a reason we went to Afghanistan and not Pakistan. Ukraine never actually owned the weapons. They were Russian weapons on Ukrainian soil. Any debate along those lines was on how much the Ukrainians could milk out of the Russians to get their weapons back, not on if the Russians would get them back, period. If Ukraine had actually tried to keep even one of them, the Russians would have been doing this whole invasion thing 20 years ago. Unless Ukraine indicated they were willing to use one to keep the russians out. 20 years ago the russians didn't have the will. fact is ukraine didn't want them, didn't have the support infrastructure and needed money. but possession being 9/10ths of the law, they could have probably kept them Ukraine COULDN'T use them. Positive control codes were Russian. Manned with Russian crews. Guarded by Russian soldiers. Not happening. Hell, until the early 1990s, the Ukrainians didn't even know the weapons were there. in 1993 the 20th Air Force commander told me a story about being on a START inspection trip to the Ukraine. He was talking to the locals through an interpreter. They asked why he was there. Told them he was there to inspect one of the SS19 units. Suddenly a flurry of VERY angry Russian between locals and Russian army escort. Russian turns to Gen Parker and says "they're upset because they didn't know we had nuclear vweapons here. Was state secret." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 10:06:32 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ukraine COULDN'T use them. Positive control codes were Russian. Manned with Russian crews. Guarded by Russian soldiers. Not happening. Hell, until the early 1990s, the Ukrainians didn't even know the weapons were there. in 1993 the 20th Air Force commander told me a story about being on a START inspection trip to the Ukraine. He was talking to the locals through an interpreter. They asked why he was there. Told them he was there to inspect one of the SS19 units. Suddenly a flurry of VERY angry Russian between locals and Russian army escort. Russian turns to Gen Parker and says "they're upset because they didn't know we had nuclear vweapons here. Was state secret." Not immediately, and I am far from an expert on how the codes work. but they had the physics packages and the pits. they could have had them with some smart dudes. but, probably russia would have just flown them out and never relinquished the guards over them one way or the other. In the chaos, I'm surprised they kept them around long enough. Just strip the warheads off the missiles and truck them over the border. I'm curious why they didn't get the warheads out immediately. ETA. How did the timeline work? From Independence to the warheads being back in Russian territory? Why did russia even play any games with sovereignty negotiations and what not? Just momentary diplomatic weakness? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 10:14:39 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wiki On June 1, 1996 Ukraine became a non-nuclear nation when it sent the last of its 1,900 strategic nuclear warheads to Russia for dismantling. Considering current events, was this a bad idea? Did they have a choice at the time? DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO WAS THE ARCHITECT OF THIS PLAN? None other than Sen Barack H Obama and Sen Lugar... Funny, one of Obama's first acts as President was to classify his masters thesis on Nuclear Disarmament? Curious... Not to put too fine a point on it but Obama wasn't a US Senator in 1996 ... not only that, but the disarmament was agreed to in december of 1994 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2014 5:46:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not immediately, and I am far from an expert on how the codes work. but they had the physics packages and the pits. they could have had them with some smart dudes. but, probably russia would have just flown them out and never relinquished the guards over them one way or the other. In the chaos, I'm surprised they kept them around long enough. Just strip the warheads off the missiles and truck them over the border. I'm curious why they didn't get the warheads out immediately. ETA. How did the timeline work? From Independence to the warheads being back in Russian territory? Why did russia even play any games with sovereignty negotiations and what not? Just momentary diplomatic weakness? Took about five years to denuclearize. Why did they play games? Because Russia was TRYING to be diplomatic and Western (Boris Yeltsin era). The current sheriff doesn't necessarily subscribe to that newsletter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2014 5:19:31 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Took about five years to denuclearize. Why did they play games? Because Russia was TRYING to be diplomatic and Western (Boris Yeltsin era). The current sheriff doesn't necessarily subscribe to that newsletter. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not immediately, and I am far from an expert on how the codes work. but they had the physics packages and the pits. they could have had them with some smart dudes. but, probably russia would have just flown them out and never relinquished the guards over them one way or the other. In the chaos, I'm surprised they kept them around long enough. Just strip the warheads off the missiles and truck them over the border. I'm curious why they didn't get the warheads out immediately. ETA. How did the timeline work? From Independence to the warheads being back in Russian territory? Why did russia even play any games with sovereignty negotiations and what not? Just momentary diplomatic weakness? Took about five years to denuclearize. Why did they play games? Because Russia was TRYING to be diplomatic and Western (Boris Yeltsin era). The current sheriff doesn't necessarily subscribe to that newsletter. thank you for the correction. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
