Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2006-04-26 07:23:02
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076

B.Schuss wrote:

well, in that case, the "truth" is relative to the efforts you undertake to verify what you put forward as the "truth".

Still, I do believe there is a difference between what can be validated through research ( with more or less effort, depending on the topic at hand and everyone's possibilities ) and what is purely opinion ( and can therefore never be validated ).

The important thing is, of course, to be able to distinguish between the two...
This is getting surreal...

B.Schuss wrote:

the "truth" is relative to the efforts you undertake to verify what you put forward as the "truth".
Wrong
By that argument if I saw an 8 foot shark and measured it, it would be a lie if I didn't send you a photo?
I think not.
Also, I never verified that there may be sharks off of the Outer Banks, NC.
But I find sharks teeth walking down the beach and I don't go in the Ocean.
I look at the ocean and swim in my shark free pool.

I can't verify it But...I KNOW there are sharks out there.

It is " your opinion " that I may have seen an 8 foot shark, That I concede. I know it is a fact. thus truth.
All my efforts at validation can do is make You believe. I do not wish to teach a history class.
So hear my truth and make it your opinion If you wish.
I have no desire, inclnation, energy or motive to lie in BF2S Forums. Sorry for the Shark parallel.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-04-26 07:25:31)

2006-04-26 10:07:52
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7080|Cologne, Germany

nothing surreal here at all.

All I am saying is that if there is no indepedent way to verify what you say/write here, I'll have to take your word for it. To stay with the shark parallel, even if the shark really was 8 feet long, how am I supposed to know if I only have your word for it ?

So until there is conclusive evidence brought forward, whatever you say remains "your" truth, so to speak.
Same goes for me, of course. As you say, I might chose to believe you ( and thereby make your truth my truth ) or I might chose not to believe and stick to my own version of the truth. Some would even argue that there is an "eternal" truth to everything, which we cannot understand, and that in the end, we both could be wrong.

Horseman 77 wrote:

Wrong
By that argument if I saw an 8 foot shark and measured it, it would be a lie if I didn't send you a photo?
I think not.
why would that be a lie ? a lie is stating the opposite of what you know is true. So if you measured the shark but didn't take a photo, you'd still be speaking the truth if you said to me it was 8 feet long. The concepts of  Truth and Lie are personal things, depending on the knowledge base each person has.
For example, I think we both agree that 2+2 = 4. But if I told someone who has no knowledge about math that  2+2 =6 and he believed me, it would become the truth for him.
You can see this phenomenon displayed at every quiz show on TV. People randomly saying things that they think are "true", but prove to be "wrong" when put into broader perspective. Are those people lieing ? Of course not. They just don't know better.

There is another aspect here. To stick with the parallel, saying that a shark was 8 feet long, might be a personal observation at first, but at least it can be verified.
But when you say something like

Horseman 77 wrote:

When the biggest impact your country has had on modern history is " The Death Camp " I would think you would be more tolerant when a nation at least tries to do it correctly.
it has nothing to do with anything that could be verified. It covers such a big period in time and involves so many complex issues. It is purely your interpretation, your opinion about what happened, and can never be verified. It cannot be measured, or scaled, or weighed.

So when you say something like that, it has nothing to do with honesty. It is an insult, and derogatory of my country.
2006-04-27 19:55:56
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
Sorry I understand completly your point here,  but it is becuase I feel my country has had a lot of insults also, Thats why I am overly defensive, agresive, offensive etc. about it.
The Trashing of the USA is completely out of control here.
Yet every other country reaps the benifits of what we are acomplishing there.

My shark thing was a rebutel  ONLY to the statement.

the "truth" is is relative to the efforts you undertake to verify what you put forward as the "truth".

Also...
You got to admit WWII was probebly the Biggest thing to Happen from 1900 to 2000.
The death camps were probebly the Biggest most shocking thing to happen in WWII.
In actuallity I like and respect your country very much.
and If I didnt respect you I wouldn't spend so much time responding.
I apologize for getting carried away. I meant it more like a " Zinger " A thing we do hear is try and " Rank out people " a insulting contest meant in more like a competitive spirit of humor.
Again you are right though and I apologize about the remark.
2006-04-27 21:19:12
sfg-Ice__
Member
+4|6892
OK fellas..sub guy here..us navy.  Yeah a boomer (Ohio Class) carries four 6-packs.  But I wouldn't assume they are all nukes.  Fully loaded back in the cold war days they could wipe clean the world in a bath of fire and death.  Thank god that crap is over of rht most part.  Now we can move on to the next chapter of this horror book.

The nuke they are talking about using on iran is a low yield bunker buster.  Since Iran decided to build thier "Energy" plant underground its the only way we can ensure utter and complete destruction of the target without the feel of radiological release of the fuel into the atmosphere.  Also, since the explosion is under ground, the radiological fallout would be extremely reduced to the local area.  I for one feel that this would save tens of thousand of lives with minimal costs and investment.

If there is a ground war with iran be sure it won't be another iraq. These people are better armed and trained.

One last thing...whoever wrote something along the lines if they nuke us once we'll nuke them 7 times.  Then we'll see whose point got across or something like that.  Dude, you really need to understand what will happen when the first one goes up...here is a run down:

First strike-
Nuclear balistic missle is launched from country A toward country B.  Countries B,C,D,E,F, and G start shitting themselves as soon as they detect it.  They take about 4 minutes to reverify its true (this time could drasticly change, I am assuming a delivery time of aprox 30mins.  If missle is launched from a off shore SSBN (ohio class sub) then the first indications of launch MIGHT be a blip on the radar followed by the loss of conns with a large city and a large explosion. 
Now assuming we have time to react, our missle defenses will kick in and attempt to take the target down.  Assuming that fails, we would then rely on fighters to attempt to intercept the missle or something similar.   These anti missle attempts drasticly are reduced by the number of missles in the air.   Worse case senerio, country A dumps thier payload into the attack.  We retaliate.  then thier alies retalitate, ours.....

Imagine a room filled with mouse traps that are all set.  Now take a bouncy ball and throw it into the room.  I wonder how many mouse traps will still be untouched..

Now alittle on how a nuke does what it does.  A ICBM  releases multi warheads over a large area.  At aprox .5 to 1 mile above the surface they explode for maximum destruction.    Everything on and within 5miles or so of ground zero vaporizes.   The next ten miles the oxygen in the air ignites.  And so on.  Pretty much if your within 50 or so miles your dead.  100 miles mostly dead...200 miles expect to die soon...200+ you might live till the winter...

Thats the nuke we all fear...
2006-04-29 05:50:26
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076
No longer an aplicable anology. If israel nukes Iran, Korea isn't going to panic and nuke China. Its laughable.
2006-04-29 08:16:35
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

sfg-Ice__ wrote:

OK fellas..sub guy here..us navy.  Yeah a boomer (Ohio Class) carries four 6-packs.  But I wouldn't assume they are all nukes.  Fully loaded back in the cold war days they could wipe clean the world in a bath of fire and death.
A couple things i would like to add to this. Yes in the height of the cold war the US had that many Warheads but it should be noted the Soviet Union surpassed the USA by an incredible amount. (But does it really matter ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_a … kpiles.png

Any ways as far as the missile defense you speak of it should also be noted that it is still in it infancy. This system is only distributed in AK and CA. At this point it is a means of developmental testing.  The United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system. You may want to check out this site http://www.missilethreat.com/ . They have good articles on the front page.

They have a detailed section on all the missiles of the world. http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/

Check this one out, read the second paragraph on it. http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/ss-27_russia.html
Now that’s scary stuff.

Point is this guys the USA does indeed have allot more nuclear weapons, however while it is still unlikely that anyone would survive a total Nuclear war there is no doubt that Russia has the upper hand in Nuclear warfare technology.

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-04-29 08:30:39)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-04-29 16:17:36
raz
Member
+22|6903|England, UK
As soon as a nuc is fired, the world will be destroyed.

So the answer SHOULD be.. NEVER.

Last edited by raz (2006-04-29 16:17:59)

2006-04-29 18:34:19
-101-InvaderZim
Member
+42|7083|Waikato, Aotearoa
I seriously cant see Iran using a nuke. IMHO If Iran got caught using a nuke on anybody then the USA would prolly drop 1 on Tehran, and Iran would be trated like lepers by the rest of the world, and ignored (or be turned into a parking lot/hole in the ground).

My 2 cents
2006-04-29 19:03:41
Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6827|Allentown, PA, USA
russia and the US is not producing anymore nuclear biological or chemical weapons BUT the US is producing a defense system mounted on a 747 that will be able to shoot down ALL ICBMs and the first will be delivered to the military in 2008 and they plan to have 14 by 2015 located in the world hot spots
aka North Korea, China, Russia, 2 in the middle east, 2 in alaska, 1 in australia and more according to the History Channel BUT.... because this information might be less then is true so it is not known to our enemys what our capabilitys are
2006-04-30 00:45:41
BVC
Member
+325|6935

Capt. Foley wrote:

russia and the US is not producing anymore nuclear biological or chemical weapons BUT the US is producing a defense system mounted on a 747 that will be able to shoot down ALL ICBMs and the first will be delivered to the military in 2008 and they plan to have 14 by 2015 located in the world hot spots
aka North Korea, China, Russia, 2 in the middle east, 2 in alaska, 1 in australia and more according to the History Channel BUT.... because this information might be less then is true so it is not known to our enemys what our capabilitys are
Is that the energy weapon?  I saw a video of that being tested in discovery a few years ago, from memory it scored 6 or 7 hits on a test missile in the space of a few hundred metres.  I can't say I blame the US for wanting it.  I'm anti-nuclear, but missile defence is a completely different ball-park as far as I'm concerned.  Banning missile defense is as stupid as banning locks on houses, its an invitation for disaster.+
2006-04-30 03:33:25
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

Pubic wrote:

Capt. Foley wrote:

russia and the US is not producing anymore nuclear biological or chemical weapons BUT the US is producing a defense system mounted on a 747 that will be able to shoot down ALL ICBMs and the first will be delivered to the military in 2008 and they plan to have 14 by 2015 located in the world hot spots
aka North Korea, China, Russia, 2 in the middle east, 2 in alaska, 1 in australia and more according to the History Channel BUT.... because this information might be less then is true so it is not known to our enemys what our capabilitys are
Is that the energy weapon?  I saw a video of that being tested in discovery a few years ago, from memory it scored 6 or 7 hits on a test missile in the space of a few hundred metres.  I can't say I blame the US for wanting it.  I'm anti-nuclear, but missile defence is a completely different ball-park as far as I'm concerned.  Banning missile defense is as stupid as banning locks on houses, its an invitation for disaster.+
Russia is most definitly producing missle defense, in fact it's way more advanced than the US's program.
See this post in this forum
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=22492

Or

http://www.missilethreat.com/

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-04-30 03:34:08)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-04-30 08:37:18
Sh1fty2k5
MacSwedish
+113|6949|Sweden

B.Schuss wrote:

well, the reason why the bomb was used in WWII was mainly to avoid having to sacrifice a large number of US soldiers in an attempt to conquer the japanese mainland. It is argued that tens of thousands of american soldiers lifes' were saved because of the bomb.
More importantly, millions of civilian japanese lives.
2006-04-30 08:46:18
Sh1fty2k5
MacSwedish
+113|6949|Sweden

Horseman77 wrote:

5 You will notice these peace keeping missions are performed by Predominately if not always by US Forces.
That is an insult to the rest of the world, infact very few peace keeping missions are performed by US forces. Sure they might be fighting in the name of the UN, but they sure as hell aint working for Peace.
My country, sweden, has lost perhaps 500-1000 soldiers during the 20-century in peace keeping missions. BTW 2 were killed in afghanistan 2 weeks ago, one of them from my town. This is how it works, the US and UK go in, shoot at everything that moves and later on call in the smaller nations to clean up the mess.

Last edited by Sh1fty2k5 (2006-04-30 08:49:41)

2006-04-30 08:50:18
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6893

Kmarion wrote:

Russia is most definitly producing missle defense, in fact it's way more advanced than the US's program.
See this post in this forum
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=22492

Or

http://www.missilethreat.com/
What?  Where does it say anything about missile defense?
2006-04-30 08:54:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Russia is most definitly producing missle defense, in fact it's way more advanced than the US's program.
See this post in this forum
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=22492

Or

http://www.missilethreat.com/
What?  Where does it say anything about missile defense?
Are you kidding?(God I hope so) First line of the first story posted in the middle of the page.
Russia on Saturday test-launched a new warhead designed to penetrate U.S. missile defenses.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-04-30 08:55:04
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6893

Kmarion wrote:

Are you kidding?(God I hope so) First line of the first story posted in the middle of the page.
Russia on Saturday test-launched a new warhead designed to penetrate U.S. missile defenses.
And that means they are producing missile defense because...
2006-04-30 08:57:29
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

Dude .. Your question
What?  Where does it say anything about missile defense?

Now did you find where it talks about missle defense?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-04-30 09:02:49
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6893

Kmarion wrote:

Dude .. Your question
What?  Where does it say anything about missile defense?

Now did you find where it talks about missle defense?
Okay, obviously you didn't work out the context from my last two posts, so I'll make it very explicit for you:

Where does it say anything about Russia producing missile defense?
2006-04-30 09:23:41
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

No I didn't work them together..lol
I read them indivdually and i was confused as to why you posted where does it talk about missle defense when it's practicaly the name of the site.

It is kinda hard to navigate to where i was tryin to show you. Russia is far more advanced in missle defense and missle penetration technology than the US. Not bad when half of the workers work for 60 USD a week.

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/ss-27_russia.html
The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-04-30 09:29:48
Capt. Foley
Member
+155|6827|Allentown, PA, USA
no the defense system i was talking about uses a lazer that will melt through the missle casing and destroy it
i cant remeber the exact power of it but it was supposed to be able to go through430ft(i think) of aliminum in under2.5sec
dont ask me how the hell they figured that out cause i have no clue
2006-04-30 09:33:16
tvmissleman
The Cereal Killer
+201|6898| United States of America
if t3h U.S. 3v3r u53s 4 nuk3 t3h wh0l3 w0rld i5 t3h 5cr3w3d
2006-04-30 09:37:02
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6840|132 and Bush

Capt. Foley wrote:

no the defense system i was talking about uses a lazer that will melt through the missle casing and destroy it
i cant remeber the exact power of it but it was supposed to be able to go through430ft(i think) of aliminum in under2.5sec
dont ask me how the hell they figured that out cause i have no clue
Not this one

Russian Designation: RS-12M1/-12M2 Topol-M

The Russian SS-27, or Topol-M, is an intercontinental-range, ground-based, solid propellant ballistic missile. It represents the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology, incorporating modern fuel and warhead designs, as well as being capable of being launched from both missile silos and Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Current Russian accounts stress that the SS-27 is invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Yuriy Solomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology and designer-general of the Topol family of missiles, has stated that the SS-27 will be the foundation of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal by 2015.

The SS-27 is currently portrayed by Russian accounts as being immune to any ABM defense the United States can put into being. The missile is capable of making evasive maneuvers as it approaches its target, enabling it to evade any terminal phase interceptors. It almost certainly also carries countermeasures and decoys to decrease the chances of a successful targeting. The missile is shielded against radiation, electromagnetic interference and physical disturbance; previous missiles could be disabled by detonating a nuclear warhead within ten kilometers. This vulnerability is the basis behind the use of nuclear ground-based and orbital interceptors, to detonate or damage the missile before it reaches its target. However, the SS-27 is designed to be able to withstand nuclear blasts closer than 500 m, a difficult interception when combined with the terminal phase speed and maneuverability. While the boost phase is the most vulnerable time for the SS-27, it remains protected. Hidden safely within missile silos and mobile launchers, a successful boost-phase interceptor would have to be fired from near or within Russian borders or from space. And the SS-27 is also designed to survive a strike from any laser technology available, rendering any current space-based laser useless. The missile highlights the need for considerably more research into missile defenses, as the United States is currently defenseless while Russia is protected by a functional defense system.

The SS-27 can strike any target within the continental United States. The deployment from hardened silos and hidden TEL vehicles makes it nearly impossible to successfully prevent launch and current ABM technology is insufficient to prevent its successful impact. As a solid propellant design, it can be maintained on alert for prolonged periods of time and can launch within minutes of being given the order. Its confirmed single 550 kT warhead is sufficient for the depopulation of cities, which combined with its survivability, makes it an ideal retaliatory weapon. The SS-27 enables Russia to guarantee a successful nuclear response.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2006-05-01 08:40:34
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6997|MA, USA
That is a missile system, not a missile defense system

sfg-Ice__ wrote:

If there is a ground war with iran be sure it won't be another iraq. These people are better armed and trained.
It wouldn't be like this iteration unless we decided to stick around, but I suspect strongly it would be like the 1990's iteration if we didn't.  In any case, let's hope we don't have to find out.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-05-01 08:42:55)

2006-05-01 10:06:05
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076

rdx-fx wrote:

Iran gets it's weapons-grade enrichment facilities online.
Israel launches another 'reactor bombing raid', like they did against Iraq in the 80's
Shhhhh pleases !

We are not supposed to know that Iraq was trying to acquire WMDs Since 1979 and probably was successful by 2000. 

Now say Bush sux 100 times as punishment for your Faux pas.

Dam !,  six years of Liberal spin down the drain, TY dude.

Last edited by Horseman 77 (2006-05-01 10:06:48)

2006-05-01 10:23:23
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076

Horseman77 wrote:

You will notice these peace keeping missions are performed by Predominately if not always by US Forces.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

That is an insult to the rest of the world,.
No it is not. But if the Shoe fits, Wear it by all means.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

infact very few peace keeping missions are performed by US forces..
Nonsense.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

Sure they might be fighting in the name of the UN, but they sure as hell aint working for Peace..
Catchy Jingle, However it is over simplistic Recycled Garbage. Get your own material at least.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

My country, sweden, has lost perhaps 500-1000 soldiers during the 20-century in peace keeping missions. .
I mourn the loss of any life.  But "500-1000 soldiers during the 20-century"  Get some perspective please.

Sh1fty2k5 wrote:

This is how it works, the US and UK go in, shoot at everything that moves and later on call in the smaller nations to clean up the mess.
More garbage. Keep your arguments Reality based if you truley desire to make a point.

PS I had the displusure to play with you. You are a selfish non team player to boot. Driving of in Vehicles alone while we all called for pick ups in Vain. It figures tho.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard