Make conscripts into pogs lel11 Bravo wrote:
i agree. bring back the draft.
i think turq should be drafted. would do him some good. force him to live with dark people lels.Cybargs wrote:
Make conscripts into pogs lel11 Bravo wrote:
i agree. bring back the draft.
If the US believed that all it needed was nukes, then that is all we would have. The US does not want to use nukes because it knows it would mean mutual destruction. No one is interested in that. We know everyone else has nukes as well, we also know about little things like the jet stream now. Nukes are not the answer and never really has been for anything other than posturing.Spark wrote:
If you're thinking about needing to defend against China then you are forgetting one rather important thing - nukes. America has the ability to wipe the country out within minutes, hours at most. China does not - it keeps its warheads and launchers separate.lowing wrote:
Dunno about that, but if that were to be true the only reason it would be so is because China would bank on over welming numbers of cheap units vs our high cost technology. THis was also proven in WW2 Germany's equipment 1 on 1 was far superior. They were just out numbered by the sheer amount of units we had to throw at them. Sherman tank vs Panzer as one example.Turquoise wrote:
I don't see it as letting our guard down though. For example, we could cut our military budget in half and still spend 5 times more than the next biggest spender -- China.
There is no rational justification for maintaining such a wide spending berth between us and China, because even if we spent the same amount militarily, it would not be in China's best interests to attack us. They wield far more power against us through purchasing our debt.
Your second paragraph is a different matter, and one I can agree with.
I didn't say nukes were everything.lowing wrote:
If the US believed that all it needed was nukes, then that is all we would have. The US does not want to use nukes because it knows it would mean mutual destruction. No one is interested in that. We know everyone else has nukes as well, we also know about little things like the jet stream now. Nukes are not the answer and never really has been for anything other than posturing.Spark wrote:
If you're thinking about needing to defend against China then you are forgetting one rather important thing - nukes. America has the ability to wipe the country out within minutes, hours at most. China does not - it keeps its warheads and launchers separate.lowing wrote:
Dunno about that, but if that were to be true the only reason it would be so is because China would bank on over welming numbers of cheap units vs our high cost technology. THis was also proven in WW2 Germany's equipment 1 on 1 was far superior. They were just out numbered by the sheer amount of units we had to throw at them. Sherman tank vs Panzer as one example.
Your second paragraph is a different matter, and one I can agree with.
I'm saying that the fact there exists a nuclear imbalance between China and the US is a major, major part of any military strategy. Namely, that China will definitely come off second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) best in a total war with the US.
Don't really understand the jet stream comment.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
any nukes that are set off will eventually be blown over areas not meant or targeted for destruction, including ourselves. The jet stream will carry radiation all over the world. Nukes will affect everyone even those that launched them. Not a desirable prospect. This is why China being 3rd 4th or 5th means nothing.Spark wrote:
I didn't say nukes were everything.lowing wrote:
If the US believed that all it needed was nukes, then that is all we would have. The US does not want to use nukes because it knows it would mean mutual destruction. No one is interested in that. We know everyone else has nukes as well, we also know about little things like the jet stream now. Nukes are not the answer and never really has been for anything other than posturing.Spark wrote:
If you're thinking about needing to defend against China then you are forgetting one rather important thing - nukes. America has the ability to wipe the country out within minutes, hours at most. China does not - it keeps its warheads and launchers separate.
I'm saying that the fact there exists a nuclear imbalance between China and the US is a major, major part of any military strategy. Namely, that China will definitely come off second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) best in a total war with the US.
Don't really understand the jet stream comment.
Hmmm... I would think that it's highly unlikely unless you set off a really, really, really big nuke that something like that would occur.lowing wrote:
any nukes that are set off will eventually be blown over areas not meant or targeted for destruction, including ourselves. The jet stream will carry radiation all over the world. Nukes will affect everyone even those that launched them. Not a desirable prospect. This is why China being 3rd 4th or 5th means nothing.Spark wrote:
I didn't say nukes were everything.lowing wrote:
If the US believed that all it needed was nukes, then that is all we would have. The US does not want to use nukes because it knows it would mean mutual destruction. No one is interested in that. We know everyone else has nukes as well, we also know about little things like the jet stream now. Nukes are not the answer and never really has been for anything other than posturing.
I'm saying that the fact there exists a nuclear imbalance between China and the US is a major, major part of any military strategy. Namely, that China will definitely come off second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) best in a total war with the US.
Don't really understand the jet stream comment.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If they're gonna nuke China... yeah...Spark wrote:
Hmmm... I would think that it's highly unlikely unless you set off a really, really, really big nuke that something like that would occur.lowing wrote:
any nukes that are set off will eventually be blown over areas not meant or targeted for destruction, including ourselves. The jet stream will carry radiation all over the world. Nukes will affect everyone even those that launched them. Not a desirable prospect. This is why China being 3rd 4th or 5th means nothing.Spark wrote:
I didn't say nukes were everything.
I'm saying that the fact there exists a nuclear imbalance between China and the US is a major, major part of any military strategy. Namely, that China will definitely come off second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) best in a total war with the US.
Don't really understand the jet stream comment.
Might wanna read up on MT St. HelensSpark wrote:
Hmmm... I would think that it's highly unlikely unless you set off a really, really, really big nuke that something like that would occur.lowing wrote:
any nukes that are set off will eventually be blown over areas not meant or targeted for destruction, including ourselves. The jet stream will carry radiation all over the world. Nukes will affect everyone even those that launched them. Not a desirable prospect. This is why China being 3rd 4th or 5th means nothing.Spark wrote:
I didn't say nukes were everything.
I'm saying that the fact there exists a nuclear imbalance between China and the US is a major, major part of any military strategy. Namely, that China will definitely come off second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) best in a total war with the US.
Don't really understand the jet stream comment.
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.lowing wrote:
Might wanna read up on MT St. HelensSpark wrote:
Hmmm... I would think that it's highly unlikely unless you set off a really, really, really big nuke that something like that would occur.lowing wrote:
any nukes that are set off will eventually be blown over areas not meant or targeted for destruction, including ourselves. The jet stream will carry radiation all over the world. Nukes will affect everyone even those that launched them. Not a desirable prospect. This is why China being 3rd 4th or 5th means nothing.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
you mean those terrorist scumbags?CameronPoe wrote:
The Irish Republican Army?Trotskygrad wrote:
never.
Cut down on immigration limits and beef up the IRA to hunt down Tax Evaders.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w286 … H/ira_.jpg
Resist.LostFate wrote:
you mean those terrorist scumbags?CameronPoe wrote:
The Irish Republican Army?Trotskygrad wrote:
never.
Cut down on immigration limits and beef up the IRA to hunt down Tax Evaders.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w286 … H/ira_.jpg
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.Spark wrote:
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.lowing wrote:
Might wanna read up on MT St. HelensSpark wrote:
Hmmm... I would think that it's highly unlikely unless you set off a really, really, really big nuke that something like that would occur.
All the US has to do is hit Guanzhao, Suzho, Dalian and Beijing and 90% of china's industrial area is dead.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.Spark wrote:
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.lowing wrote:
Might wanna read up on MT St. Helens
I believe current defense spending is ~4% of GDP, is it not?Turquoise wrote:
The current level of military spending is mostly a repercussion of the Cold War. Since we're starting to realize we don't need such massive levels of defense now, the budget does need to be cut there just like everywhere else.lowing wrote:
no it doesn't, what needs to be cut is entitlement spending. A strong national defense is a function of our govt. Wealth redistribution is not.Trotskygrad wrote:
mandatory conscription/drafting will not go over well tbh.
However, defense spending does need to be shrunk.
Not to say spending overall doesn't need to be cut (to include defense), but there are just as large, if not larger targets out there (entitlement programs).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Yes all with no fallout to Japan, or Korea, or the PI, or other parts of Asia and without pissing off any of them. Good luckCybargs wrote:
All the US has to do is hit Guanzhao, Suzho, Dalian and Beijing and 90% of china's industrial area is dead.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.Spark wrote:
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.
When push comes to shove... You gotta do what you gotta do. But eitherway the US can China back to the Stone Age.lowing wrote:
Yes all with no fallout to Japan, or Korea, or the PI, or other parts of Asia and without pissing off any of them. Good luckCybargs wrote:
All the US has to do is hit Guanzhao, Suzho, Dalian and Beijing and 90% of china's industrial area is dead.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.
I don't you understand the meaning of the word "ludicrous". In pure explosive energy terms it would need hundreds of nukes to even achieve parity - and Mt St Helens wasn't an especially big eruption, having little impact outside its local area.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.Spark wrote:
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.lowing wrote:
Might wanna read up on MT St. Helens
And another reminder again that China's MAD capacity is very, very limited.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
little impact because the ash cloud is relatively harmless compared to fuckin radioactive fuckin fallout!...Look at mount gjejgdglkbegiosjfoejgwosfokvvbobvmdovcmosmvov in Iceland last month, look what the ash did in Europe, and THAT was harmless. Make it radio active and you just might have a problem.Spark wrote:
I don't you understand the meaning of the word "ludicrous". In pure explosive energy terms it would need hundreds of nukes to even achieve parity - and Mt St Helens wasn't an especially big eruption, having little impact outside its local area.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.Spark wrote:
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.
And another reminder again that China's MAD capacity is very, very limited.
Urgh.lowing wrote:
little impact because the ash cloud is relatively harmless compared to fuckin radioactive fuckin fallout!...Look at mount gjejgdglkbegiosjfoejgwosfokvvbobvmdovcmosmvov in Iceland last month, look what the ash did in Europe, and THAT was harmless. Make it radio active and you just might have a problem.Spark wrote:
I don't you understand the meaning of the word "ludicrous". In pure explosive energy terms it would need hundreds of nukes to even achieve parity - and Mt St Helens wasn't an especially big eruption, having little impact outside its local area.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.
And another reminder again that China's MAD capacity is very, very limited.
1. Ash is not harmless - it's sharp and coarse. Shorts out electrical circuits, plays bloody havoc with anyone with respiratory issues (And those without)
2. Aircraft really don't like ash for the simple reason that the heat from engines turns it into glass. Glassing an engine is not a good thing. It's nothing to do with its toxicity or otherwise (the amount of ash we're talking about here is really, really minute).
3. In the local area, the destructive power of St Helens was staggering. It basically annhilated everything for about 10km around it - it would take an immensely powerful nuke to do that.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
As lowing said, it'd fuck over US allies in the area... India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (limited ally lel) and Singapore.Spark wrote:
I don't you understand the meaning of the word "ludicrous". In pure explosive energy terms it would need hundreds of nukes to even achieve parity - and Mt St Helens wasn't an especially big eruption, having little impact outside its local area.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.Spark wrote:
Unless we drop a truly ludicrous amount of nukes upon China we're not talking the same scale.
And another reminder again that China's MAD capacity is very, very limited.
Doubtless it would, but ignoring it completely is just silly.Cybargs wrote:
As lowing said, it'd fuck over US allies in the area... India, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (limited ally lel) and Singapore.Spark wrote:
I don't you understand the meaning of the word "ludicrous". In pure explosive energy terms it would need hundreds of nukes to even achieve parity - and Mt St Helens wasn't an especially big eruption, having little impact outside its local area.lowing wrote:
If we are going to Nuke China, it better be all or nothing, or do you think if we leave them standing they will not hit back? Ya see how the term escalation comes into play? There is no such thing as dropping a small nuke on anyone and have that be the lesson and declare a victory. ANY nukes will ensure mutual destruction. Any nukes powerful enough to take out a nation is powerful enough to cover any allies if not the one who launched the damn things.
And another reminder again that China's MAD capacity is very, very limited.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
YOu did take note that I said relatively harmless compared to RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT, right? Please use your imagination and turn the ash cloud from MT gejhgefigjefgbfeidkvbmfbfmbiefijbeijfr in Iceland into radio active fallout, and add the jetstream. DO we really need to argue that any nukes launched would have global environmental and social rammifications? Really?Spark wrote:
Urgh.lowing wrote:
little impact because the ash cloud is relatively harmless compared to fuckin radioactive fuckin fallout!...Look at mount gjejgdglkbegiosjfoejgwosfokvvbobvmdovcmosmvov in Iceland last month, look what the ash did in Europe, and THAT was harmless. Make it radio active and you just might have a problem.Spark wrote:
I don't you understand the meaning of the word "ludicrous". In pure explosive energy terms it would need hundreds of nukes to even achieve parity - and Mt St Helens wasn't an especially big eruption, having little impact outside its local area.
And another reminder again that China's MAD capacity is very, very limited.
1. Ash is not harmless - it's sharp and coarse. Shorts out electrical circuits, plays bloody havoc with anyone with respiratory issues (And those without)
2. Aircraft really don't like ash for the simple reason that the heat from engines turns it into glass. Glassing an engine is not a good thing. It's nothing to do with its toxicity or otherwise (the amount of ash we're talking about here is really, really minute).
3. In the local area, the destructive power of St Helens was staggering. It basically annhilated everything for about 10km around it - it would take an immensely powerful nuke to do that.
I seriously doubt the effects would be significantly worse than the radioactive effects of the many, many, many nuclear explosions that have already happened within the continental US.
Global radioactive spread is obviously a concern, but more a long term one which in the middle of a war is less in the mind.
Global radioactive spread is obviously a concern, but more a long term one which in the middle of a war is less in the mind.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
ooooooooooooooooook if you say so.Spark wrote:
I seriously doubt the effects would be significantly worse than the radioactive effects of the many, many, many nuclear explosions that have already happened within the continental US.
Global radioactive spread is obviously a concern, but more a long term one which in the middle of a war is less in the mind.
Where does the money the government spends come from? They either borrow it against the future or they tax you. In both cases they are pulling money from elsewhere in the economy in order to redistribute it to a job sector they wish to build up. It's a wealth transfer, something you claim to be adamant against.lowing wrote:
Sure seemed to during WW2. Not really sure how you can say that national defense does not create jobs.JohnG@lt wrote:
It doesn't create jobs...Trotskygrad wrote:
a lot tbh, I'm against it, but it creates a sh*tload of jobs.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat