You are not logged in.
hundreds of British and French ships led by aircraft carriers? Even if we ignore the fact that Arab countries don't have missiles capable of reaching Europe, the Britain and France could respond to a chemical weapon attack with submarine-launched nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles that would destroy all of the Arab's major population centers. And in case you haven?t noticed, Japan is remilitarizing. They are the #3 military spender in the world, behind only the US and Russia. In addition, Japan is an island, and their military capability is quite sufficient to prevent China's small navy from being too much of a threat. The truth is, our allies are much stronger than our potential enemies, and most of them would remain quite safe without our military.
Wow, lot's of fallacies there. Erm, they do have nuclear weapons capable of reaching Europe, and Britain and France combined don't have "hundreds" of warships-we don't even have that many.
Second, North Korea only has to launch a nuclear missle at china, and it could take out a city. No need for an invasion. China can overrun Japan...no number of Japanese could stop such a close Chinese military. And, in case you don't know, Japan can't do anything with that military-by virtue of the WW2 peace treaty, it is strictly defenseive, and limited.
Arab nations don't have missiles that could reach Europe, hah, good one!
oh, and I wouldn't say European military technologies "rival" America's, the only European equipment on par with ours is the planes we sell them.
Offline
So you're suggesting that without the USs intervention, the Arab world could successfully invade Euorpe? Even if they would, what's the justification? Historically, they have only fought when their resources were threatened.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
The Yom Kippur war? Historically, the Arab nations have teamed up on Israel-if you go back into history, and objectively analyze it, Israel has never launched a pre-emptive war.
Iraq attacking Kuwait? Iran vs. Iraq? Pakistan and India standoff?
I'm not saying that we necessarily stop intervention-what I'm saying is the presence of our military allows Europeans to focus less on maintaining their own military. Another Germany can spring up at any time.
Offline
According to the Center for Defence Infromation, http://www.cdi.org/products/almanac0102.pdf, the UK and France together have 96 warships and 111 support ships. The US has 200 warships and 200 support ships. NATO has a total of 660 warships and 858 support ships.
Why would North Korea launch a missile at China? China could easily defeat North Korea.
Japan's military is supposedly designed for "defense", but then again so is America's military... which hasn't stopped us from participating in at least 193 military interventions since WWII.
Which Arab countries have missiles that can reach Europe? Iraq's longest ranged missile, the Al Abbas variation of the Scud-B, only has a range of 500-560 miles.
Europe's military technology is not quite as good as ours, but the difference between Europe and the Arab countries is much larger than the difference between the US and Europe.
The Arab countries' militaries are a joke. The only countries that they are a serious threat to are each other and Israel (and Israel has consistently defeated them). China and North Korea pose more reasonable threats, but even if we downsized our military considerably, we could protect our Asian allies. In addition, we are currently on good terms with China, while North Korea is impoverished and struggling to feed it's people.
Offline
According to the Center for Defence Infromation, http://www.cdi.org/products/almanac0102.pdf, the UK and France together have 96 warships and 111 support ships. The US has 200 warships and 200 support ships. NATO has a total of 660 warships and 858 support ships.
That sounds like less than "hundreds" to me.
I don't know if they're technically "Arab" but Egypt and Libya could probably reach Europe with missiles.
Why would North Korea launch a missile at China? China could easily defeat North Korea.
If they were going to lose a war anyway, why not?
Japan's military is supposedly designed for "defense", but then again so is America's military... which hasn't stopped us from participating in at least 193 military interventions since WWII.
The difference is, their military is restricted to this role by treaties that they signed-ours is not. But apparently, as shown by a few nations recently, treaties are only as good as the money you can get by breaking them.
At least Bush got Putin's consent before stepping out of the ABM treaty, and didn't demand money to adhere to it.
Offline
Why would North Korea launch a missile at China? China could easily defeat North Korea.
If they were going to lose a war anyway, why not?
Your still not making any sense with this North Korea v China thing. It seems that North Korea has two choices: to launch a nuclear missile at China and be massacred by swarms of angry Chinese, or not attack China and live in peace. Which would you chose?
Offline
Has North Korea been rational with the United States? They've shot test missiles towards the US. The US could certainly massacre North Korea, yet they did it anyway. And besides, a few nuclear missiles would make an advance by China impossible. What could China do? Send nukes back? What about South Korea?
I am just showing a possibility-not something I think could happen. But the presence of an untrustworthy, nuclear weapon-possessing country in that region is destabilizing. China has not complained about our presence in South Korea.
Offline
But apparently, as shown by a few nations recently, treaties are only as good as the money you can get by breaking them.
Amen.
At least Bush got Putin's consent before stepping out of the ABM treaty, and didn't demand money to adhere to it.
I think Putin wanted to get out of it too. Even if he didn't, I see no reason for Bush to have had offered money to adhere to it, since that would have actually put him in a position to. He wouldn't have wanted that.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
North Korea has been rational with the US. Or at least not completely irrational. They are developing nukes and missiles with the idea that they can use them as bargaining chips in an attempt to get financial assistance from the US. They did not shoot missiles at the US, they shot them into the Pacific Ocean. Would you rather have them test the missiles by launching at a land target? They do not yet have the capability of even getting them to the US. North Korea is not one of the friendliest countries in the world, but they are not insane enough to attack China for no reason.
With regards to Egypt and Libya's missile capabilities, Libya's longest ranged missile has a range of 590 miles. This means that southern Italy, Greece, Albania, parts of Bulgaria, and parts of what used to be Yugoslavia are potentially within missile range. Egypt is not even on our "potential enemies" list. Their best missiles have a range of 300 miles, though they may be working on an 800 mile missile. The new missile would essentially allow them to attack the same areas of Europe that Libya can attack.
While they can indeed attack parts of Europe, they cannot attack Germany, France, or the UK. Of course, France and the UK both have the capability of nuking any city in the world.
What you don't seem to understand is that governments usually try to act in their own self interest. Just because a country can attack a much more powerful country, doesn?t mean they will. If a country has nothing to gain and a lot that they almost certainly will lose as a result of a war, they will try and avoid the war.
Offline
Germany vs. Russia. hmmm.
Japan vs. US. hmmm.
US vs. Britain. hmmm.
Offline
I think an Arab threat is sufficiently debunked, though. I mean, the Yom Kippur War was generally over Israeli control of strategic positions being increased or whatever. And the Six Year War five years or so earlier didn't help matters (people were still quite peeved as can be expected)!
Both sides in the middle east push each others buttons. This is no justification for saying that one side is any more prone to do so than the other.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
A threat doesn't have to be from a nation. Turn on NBC, Josh. One guy harbored by a country can cause chaos and damage. Should we really be cutting back our military as hostility increases?
Offline
I don't see Hussain being hostile. Indeed, he's cooperated quite well the past few months. Most of Powell's evidence is total crap.
Any hostility I see, so far, is on behalf of the US and Britian.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
There's this guy named Osama.
Offline
And he has a role in Iraq, how?
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
One guy harbored by a country can cause chaos and damage. Should we really be cutting back our military as hostility increases?
There was my quote. Where do you see Saddam or Iraq?
Offline
Oh, I see what you were trying to say...
How has bin Laden changed the way the Arab world is functioning? Is the Arab world overthrowing Israel? Nope, the only people out there pulling crap are the fundamentalists. Is the Arab world, in general, trying to kill all the infidels? Nope...
Again, the only increase in hostility is with the US.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Hi all,
This is the french speaking. This is going to be right ? the war, no matter what.
50 years ago, french believed in a pacific resolution of the european crisis and they payed for it by preparing the war too late and loosing it: do the french have to be guilty to believe that peace and reason should always prevail ? anyway, as 50 years ago, I think we gonna be wrong.
At this point anyway, does it make a difference ?
George Bush, with its politic inspired by God, according to himself, has settled a long term hatred or at least incomprehension, against the US in the thirld world and many european nations. War or no War, that gonna be like that.
Now, how the US are going to deal with this situation ?
Bush considers the whole world EVIL (except UK, Spain, Portugal, Ouganda, because of course Ouganda cares a lot about Irak...this is just a big joke). And the whole world consider Bush and the US citizens EVIL. Congratulation. Now every US citizen is a target outside its country. Lets face it, the next vacation spot for the US are going to be reduced:
France, hmmmm, at best you gonna have to wait 2 hours at a cafe before you can be served, and the french babes won't smile anymore.
Germany, German are organized people, they gonna assigned the polizei to protect the tourists, so dont' worry about that guy following you, it's just a policeman for your protection.
The tropics for diving, well this is already reduced, nothing changes here.
What's left are the pubs and restaurant in England, don't go to Spain and Italy, they say they support the US, but can you trust them ?
The war gonna be 2 weeks I've heard, allright, lets watch this on CNN.
Offline
Where is this thread going? Nevermind.
Egypt, she is one of the largest recepiants of US foreign aid, next to Isreal. Most of our aid comes in the form of military aid.
Huh?
North Korea, they are currently in the midst of a bad winter. The army has to keep reducing the minimum height requirement for troops due to the prolonged malnourishment of its people. They are effectively cut off from the entire world due to previous sanctions. The only countries that still trade with them are South Korea, out of pragmatic neccessity, and China, to reduce the inflow of North Korean illegal immigrants into China.
Since all of you seem to like playing game theory regarding Arab military capability versue the US (or anyone for that matter) I suggest you take a look at what the US military is capable of (this is what our enemies look at). Next, look at the inherent weakness of the systems and structures of our capability.
One or two low grade nuclear weapons detonated in the upper atmosphere, in the correct location, could do one of two things:
Detonate above the continental US, say goodbye to our economy, and our technological infastructure as every transistor and electronic system burns out from the EMP pulse.
No more cars, TV's, radio's, electricty, water, transportation, etc. Poof. All gone with a high altitude emp blast.
OR
Detonate in the upper atmosphere near the bulk of our military- while I hope that most of our military is hardened against emp pulse, it will more than likely reduce our capability by knocking out the sattelites we rely on for our modern army. All our guided munitions are made "dumb" in one go. Our information awareness- our force multipliers that make us 'better' than our advesaries, all gone.
Determination and imagination are a bitch.
Here are some links for a little background info:
http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/1999/FCW_101899_42.asp
Offline
One or two low grade nuclear weapons detonated in the upper atmosphere, in the correct location, could do one of two things:
Since clark has opened the door on speculation for the use of rouge nukes - here is my pet paranoid fear:
Within a week after US forces nab the "real" Saddam Islamicist forces detonate a nuclear bomb smuggled inside a commercial airliner as it passes near US Central Command and Camp Dosa in Qatar. Maybe some Pakistani traitors allow one of theirs to be used or maybe its a Russian black market bomb.
Our high command is incinerated along with a few billion dollars of ammunition and supplies.
The Abrams battle tank and Apache helicopter are fearsome weapons unless they run out of bullets and shells. And if the Saudis decided to turn against us they could use F-15s and AWACs to disrupt our AWACs and air to air refueling tankers meaning greatly reduced US air power over the Persian Gulf.
A Saudi sneak attack using F-15s to target US refueling tankers and AWACs and B-52s while staying away from US combat aircraft could do a lot of damage while Saudi ground forces nab as many US logistical, support and headquarters people as possible from bases in Qatar, Bahrain, etc. . . While US combat forces scour Iraq, Saudi forces take prisoner as many US logistical and headquaters units as possible - hostages for the coming peace negotiations.
Unlikely? Sure thing - very unlikely indeed - but more likely IMHO that North Korea launching a nuclear weapon at Beijing. . .
Offline
Clark,
The main nuclear problem is China. US can't do nothing about it if they get nervous. Even in the case where there is no war in Irak, It seems to me that a crisis can be triggered by the current India/Pakistan problem.
I don't know why but everybody is nervous those days. We have never been in a worst situation since 1939:
Israel/Palestinian, the worst IMO
North Corea/US allied
India/Pakistan
China is quiet as long as the US don't bother them to much,
And the Islamic thread is expanding world wide. Another big attentat in the US and nobody can support peace anymore.
I probably forgot some. It's really time to think about terraforming Mars.
Offline
I don't know why but everybody is nervous those days. We have never been in a worst situation since 1939:
It all rather reminds me of what I have read about the period just before 1914 with 11 September being like the killing of that Serbian prince; and
Our invasion of Iraq also reminds me of the Athenian invasion of Syracuse as described in Thucydides. Athens was the unrivaled military power of all of Greece and Sparta was in serious decline until Athens suffered a major setback on what is modern day Sicily fighting what historians generally agree was an unnecessary campaign.
Hopefully my fears are mere paranoia. :-)
Offline
Bill, your imagination rivals mine...
What you point out is something on par with Pearl Harbor, only vastly worse.
I'm less inclined to believe that Saudi Arabia would openly challenge the US in such a way- but the overall scenerio you describe is likely manuever, just with terroist actors, not state actors. I just think that Saudi Arabia leadership derive to much power from the US to risk engaging in such a high risk gamble- and for what?
What needs to be considered is objectives- what would be the aim of a significantly inferior enemy when facing us?
Our main source of power is arguably at the end of a gun. ur guns derive their power from the technological edge, and is supported by a highly dependant technological economy.
One nuclear blast in the upper atmosphere reduces our technology by 100 years. One nuclear blast degrades all of our communication, transportation, and power generation ability.
Our hospitals, police, and other "first responders" will effectively be shut down.
Trains, trucks, and shipping all come to a halt. Our mega cities will no longer be able to function since food and products can no longer be stocked.
Our federal government will be useless becuase they rely on a working communication system to coordinate responses. Our over seas military will be unable to communicate with most of the US.
Trillions, not millions or billions, will be lost as the economy stops, and electronic currency is lost from the intitial EMP blast.
All of the commerical planes in the sky at the moment of the EMP pulse will fall like rocks. The sky will literaly rain with planes, it would make 9/11 pale in comparison.
GPS gone. The internet gone (no one would have a working computer). Weather sats, and communication sats, all gone.
Everyone with a pacemaker would probably die as a result.
Even if only portions of the US are targeted with smaller versions, the effects will not be negligible.
Offline
Bill, your imagination rivals mine...
*IF* Sam Huntington is right and underneath everything is actually the Islam vs Christianity "clash of civilizations" *THEN* the western removal of Saddam is profoundly stupid no matter how evil he is and no matter how much Saddam deserves to go.
bin Laden's true goal with the 11 September attacks may well have been to provoke the US to remove Saddam - so he and his fellow Islamicists do not have to do it themselves. bin Laden hates Saddam as much as he hates America and for America to kill Saddam, well I guess we are doing his work for him.
I believe bin Laden's writings - rather like Mein Kampf - do outline an involved master strategy to create precisely this Islam vs Christianity warfare and since bin Laden believes Islam is the true religion he *knows* Islam will win that war.
Offline
Well, according to what's happened in the UN Security Council today, if the US wants to go to war with Iraq, they're going it alone.
I personally don't see it happening at all, but perhaps I'm optimistic.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline