Obama, Russian president sign arms treaty - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/08/obama.russia.treaty/index.html?npt=NP1)

So,

we score a decent victory as a species, towards a goal of REGAN's to have less nukes, w/o limiting our ability to defend/keep Iran, NK, etc in check.

But of course, he is a horrible president, America is ruined, so it is not worth mentioning... :smash:

Obama, Russian president sign arms treaty - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/08/obama.russia.treaty/index.html?npt=NP1)

So,

we score a decent victory as a species, towards a goal of REGAN's to have less nukes, w/o limiting our ability to defend/keep Iran, NK, etc in check.

But of course, he is a horrible president, America is ruined, so it is not worth mentioning... :smash:

Yup, We are all set now. All Praise Obama. Let me just check the Doomsday Clock. Now you trust the Russians:rotf2: Haven't we been through this enough. Remember them invading Georgia just a few short months ago?

Remember them invading Georgia just a few short months ago?
While that was a huge (and calculated) over reaction, I'd note that the Georgians did fire first.

We're always going to see conflict in the Caucasus. It's just too strategic an area.

This seems like a good treaty. Long-term it will help reduce the number of nukes, mid-term it will help additional effort for non-proliferation and short-term it will cause Republicans to make really dumb statements :hihi:

-spence

While that was a huge (and calculated) over reaction, I'd note that the Georgians did fire first.

We're always going to see conflict in the Caucasus. It's just too strategic an area.

This seems like a good treaty. Long-term it will help reduce the number of nukes, mid-term it will help additional effort for non-proliferation and short-term it will cause Republicans to make really dumb statements :hihi:

-spence

Russia will get rid of some old nukes, we'll get rid of some new ones and we won't build any more. Proliferation is taking place, you just refuse to see it.

I'd note that the Georgians did fire first.

:

-spence

That's what Russia said:biglaugh:

Russia will get rid of some old nukes, we'll get rid of some new ones and we won't build any more. Proliferation is taking place, you just refuse to see it.

The Russians will just ship the nukes they are "getting rid of" to Iran or North Korea under cover of night. This type of treaty is worthless paper. All attention should ne on Iran...period.

Russia will get rid of some old nukes, we'll get rid of some new ones and we won't build any more. Proliferation is taking place, you just refuse to see it.

Yes, I'm sure the Pentagon/DoE will recommend we decommission our best and most advanced weapons first.

See, it's happening already :uhuh:

and short-term it will cause Republicans to make really dumb statements

-spence

Yes, I'm sure the Pentagon/DoE will recommend we decommission our best and most advanced weapons first.

See, it's happening already :uhuh:



-spence

And Russia is doing the same thing:rotf2::rotf2: It cracks me up too.

The reason Obama gets away with the crap he does is that the people who voted for him are for the most part, too pompous and arrogant to admit they just might be wrong for once.

The reason Obama gets away with the crap he does is that the people who voted for him are for the most part, too pompous and arrogant to admit they just might be wrong for once.

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

"I'd like to buy the world a home...and furnish it with love...grow apple trees and honey bees and snow white turtle dove" :rotf2:

remember when Obama said " I'm not naive" ?.... he was lying then too...:uhuh:

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

All the while effin hard working Americans. I believe you are listening to too many old Beatle songs:love: And what a beautiful world it will be.:love:

So only having 1500 nukes, still enough to destroy the entire planet, on top of the most powerful armed forces ever on earth ...

That's screwing the hard working American?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So only having 1500 nukes, still enough to destroy the entire planet, on top of the most powerful armed forces ever on earth ...

That's screwing the hard working American?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are other planets ya know :uhuh:

TEHRAN (Reuters)today – Iran will lodge a complaint with the United Nations about what it sees as U.S. President Barack Obama's threat to attack it with nuclear weapons, the foreign ministry said on Sunday.

Obama made clear last week that Iran and North Korea were excluded from new limits on the use of U.S. atomic weapons -- something Tehran interpreted as a threat from a long-standing adversary to attack it with nuclear bombs.

"The recent statement by the U.S. president ... implicitly intimidates the Iranian nation with the deployment of nuclear arms," Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a televised meeting with military and security officials.

:rotf2::rotf2: war monger cowboy

:rotf2::rotf2: war monger cowboy

Nope, but he's not the Pussy the right makes him out to be either.

I didn't start this thread to say we should softball NK or Iran.

Nope, but he's not the Pussy the right makes him out to be either.



potty mouth....yes he is:uhuh:

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama nuclear policy is strategically loopy
April 9, 2010 12:00 A.M.
Nuclear Posturing, Obama Style

There is no greater spur to hyperproliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow.

Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one’s ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.

Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That’s why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that “includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,” said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve-gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up to date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs, and other conventional munitions.

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?

The naïveté is stunning. Similarly stunning is the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads — indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.

On the contrary. The last quarter-century — the time of greatest superpower nuclear-arms reduction — is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons.

It gets worse. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.

This is deeply worrying to the many small nations that for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture — and for them it’s not posture, but existential protection — what are they to think?

Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation.

But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have agreed to forgo the acquisition of deterrent forces — nuclear, biological, and chemical — precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power, and reliability of the American deterrent.

Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyperproliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010, The Washington Post Writers Group.

I didn't start this thread to say we should softball NK or Iran.

Obama made clear last week that Iran and North Korea were excluded from new limits on the use of U.S. atomic weapons


I wonder why we reserved the right to Nuke these guys...I thought they were ...
"Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama said.


I guess tea and talks without pre-conditions is not gonna happen:rotf2:

Obama made clear last week that Iran and North Korea were excluded from new limits on the use of U.S. atomic weapons
This is absolutely true...while each could be a menace, none will ever be able to project substantial power beyond their own borders...

-spence

This is absolutely true...while each could be a menace, none will ever be able to project substantial power beyond their own borders...

-spence


:rotf2:

:rotf2:
Do you doubt me?

-spence

Do you doubt me?

-spence

regarding most things....yes :)

Israel should be happy to hear your opinion .....though....I doubt they're buying it either.....

Do you doubt me?

-spence

I have issue with a few things,

1st: "while each could be a menace, none will ever be able to project substantial power beyond their own borders". They may not be able to project power in the way we do, say sailing a Carrier Strike Group off PainInTheAssStan but they do project in levels above menace (Hamas, Hezbolah, groups in Iraq, AFG), and if they do develope nuke and pass said bigbang device to a terrorist group, they go significantly above menace.

2nd: Due to NPR changes, the vagueness that was the trigger on when the US would consider nuclear retaliation is now gone / lessened. The bad guys can theoretically play a lot closer to the line. the deterrent factor has been greatly diminished.

I miss the Cold War....Things were so much simpler then.

1st: "while each could be a menace, none will ever be able to project substantial power beyond their own borders". They may not be able to project power in the way we do, say sailing a Carrier Strike Group off PainInTheAssStan but they do project in levels above menace (Hamas, Hezbolah, groups in Iraq, AFG), and if they do develope nuke and pass said bigbang device to a terrorist group, they go significantly above menace.
That's not a projection of substantial power, while Hamas and Hezbolla are certainly a threat and a menace, neither stands a real chance of ever threatening Isreal's existance.

Nor ours...

Iran only persues such smaller measures because anything stronger would be countered, and countered hard.

2nd: Due to NPR changes, the vagueness that was the trigger on when the US would consider nuclear retaliation is now gone / lessened. The bad guys can theoretically play a lot closer to the line. the deterrent factor has been greatly diminished.
I don't believe this at all. No country really believes we'll nuke them as we still operate under the rules of MAD.

What they fear, are the US Marines.

-spence

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

Kum bi ya messiah Obasm Kum bi ya..all together now sing it with me, drink the Kool aid, heads in the sand or your option up you own Arse. all together now.

As for your statement Iran & NorKo "not being able to project power" I think your one dimensional thinking should embrace the threat of asymetrical warfare in our hemisphere. It can be effective, see 9/11, Spain Transit, Kubar Towers etc for its use & results, sometimes quite effective. Chem/Bio weapons in the modern sense, not the WWI crap, have a very aggressive lethality and the skillset is available to steal, develop & deploy said weapons. Hmmm a highly agressive, high mortlality viral plague oh where can we find one.

Now here is a lesson in self defense and nuclear deterrent; strategic ambiguity - a very powerful weapon where the aggressor does not know if/when/how you-the victim(mark) would respond and use your nukes. Kind of like the " armed concealed carry citizen" who conceals his weapon and only demonstrates its usage as a last resort and does not broadcast his having one. Or go announcing it on every street cormer in a tough neighborhood(world); "don't you worry I will not use it unless XYZ happens.


And one from the "Godfather", Sonny, Come here. Whatsa matta with you, Never tell anyone outside the family what your thinking" No truer words have been spoken.


Where have you gone Gen. Curtis LeMay?

TT

Get's away with what? Working to make the world a better place?

-spence

and this gets right to the point. His constitutional duty is to make AMERICA a better place!
it wont win you a noble peace prize but its his JOB!!

What they fear, are the US Marines.

-spence

really? WHy? All they have to do is hide in a Mosque and the marines cant touch them or all they need to do parade civilan casualties on the news and the Marines will be paralyzed.

Kum bi ya messiah Obasm Kum bi ya..all together now sing it with me, drink the Kool aid, heads in the sand or your option up you own Arse. all together now.
Brilliant analysis. And I thought the Liberals were the touchy feely ones.

As for your statement Iran & NorKo "not being able to project power" I think your one dimensional thinking should embrace the threat of asymetrical warfare in our hemisphere. It can be effective, see 9/11, Spain Transit, Kubar Towers etc for its use & results, sometimes quite effective. Chem/Bio weapons in the modern sense, not the WWI crap, have a very aggressive lethality and the skillset is available to steal, develop & deploy said weapons. Hmmm a highly agressive, high mortlality viral plague oh where can we find one.
Asymmetrical warfare isn't very useful in projecting power as it typically requires a indigenous population with some good percentage that's either coercable or cooperative. It can be very effective when trying to repell or stall an offensive campaign, which is how we've almost always seen it used.

Could Iran project power using asymmetrical warfare to dictate the American position or take over our territory?

Not really.

Perhaps they could use it to irritate US interests, but only where the situation would allow it, usually an established defensive or perceived defensive front.

As for terror, if you think the bombings in Madrid or the African embassys were a "projection of power" then you must have a pretty weak view of what power really is. It's precisely because al Qaeda lacks the ability to project power that they've failed in their objective to establish a new Caliphate.

To project power you must be able to sustain and coordinate your efforts away your home. None of these enemies have the resources or relationships to do this effectively.

Now here is a lesson in self defense and nuclear deterrent; strategic ambiguity - a very powerful weapon where the aggressor does not know if/when/how you-the victim(mark) would respond and use your nukes. Kind of like the " armed concealed carry citizen" who conceals his weapon and only demonstrates its usage as a last resort and does not broadcast his having one. Or go announcing it on every street cormer in a tough neighborhood(world); "don't you worry I will not use it unless XYZ happens.
Nuclear deterrent has a lot more to do with MAD than it does spoken or written words. The recent shift in policy has everything to do with improving collaboration with those we're not going to nuke anyway, to increasing leverage against those who we see as real threats.

The issue of course is that building and using a nuclear bomb are dramatically different things.

This may look strange to you, it's called negotiation.

And I seriously doubt our spoken or written position on using nuclear weapons means much as a deterrent. Everybody knows we're not going to use them, except in the most dire of circumstances, and probably only if nuked ourselves. We simply have too many other viable options using conventional means.

So no, I don't think Iran or North Korea has much of an ability to project power now or will in the future. Given that, how we deal with their very real threats should be taken in context. This is the failure of Bush era policy during his first term. Treat every big issue as an existential threat to our survival you have very limited options. When reality further erodes those options down do nothing you're frozen.

And when you're not moving you can't steer.

-spence

and this gets right to the point. His constitutional duty is to make AMERICA a better place!
it wont win you a noble peace prize but its his JOB!!
America won't be successful unless there's enough global stability to let our economic system work. We simply can't consume enough to continue to scale.

really? WHy? All they have to do is hide in a Mosque and the marines cant touch them or all they need to do parade civilan casualties on the news and the Marines will be paralyzed.
Because the US can project a lot of force when offensive force is desired. Hiding in a mosque is a tactical issue, we're talking strategy here.

-spence

America won't be successful unless there's enough global stability to let our economic system work. We simply can't consume enough to continue to scale.


Because the US can project a lot of force when offensive force is desired. Hiding in a mosque is a tactical issue, we're talking strategy here.

-spence

and a US Marine invasion is a more threatening strategy than a nuclear deterant?
I think you need to compare Japan to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Don't you know Jim. Our boys can only shoot after they have taken fire first. And even then they have to be prepared to prove it, maybe a couple casualties or the like.

See, you have to learn to trust a country like North Korea or Iran. I think it was last week or so that we were on alert because a boat from Tiawan, sank in North Koreas waters and no one knew what happened. IMO, it's just a matter of time before they "project their power". I'm thinking 2012.

Asymmetrical warfare isn't very useful in projecting power as it typically requires a indigenous population with some good percentage that's either coercable or cooperative. It can be very effective when trying to repell or stall an offensive campaign, which is how we've almost always seen it used.

Could Iran project power using asymmetrical warfare to dictate the American position or take over our territory?

Not really.

This is the failure of Bush era policy during his first term. Treat every big issue as an existential threat to our survival you have very limited options. When reality further erodes those options down do nothing you're frozen.

And when you're not moving you can't steer.

-spence

Please oh please the "BLAME BUSH" cry ...really brilliant & precise/concise ...sheez get a new line, the crybaby & chief has worn that one down.

As for strategic thinking, Do not engage in this activity, your obtuse focus is detrimental to society at large.

indigenous pop...oh you mean homegrown terrorists..Have you ever been to Dearbornistan or noted some past events where some terrorists are US citizens??
Sometimes you have got to grab them by the belt and fight them close inorder to deny them the use of their strategic power...hmmm where does this come into play??

You should be flexible in your thinking of "projection of power" & its application and goal...

TT

That's not a projection of substantial power, while Hamas and Hezbolla are certainly a threat and a menace, neither stands a real chance of ever threatening Isreal's existance.

Nor ours...

Iran only persues such smaller measures because anything stronger would be countered, and countered hard.


I don't believe this at all. No country really believes we'll nuke them as we still operate under the rules of MAD.

What they fear, are the US Marines.

-spence

Hezbolla or Hamas could easily launch an attack greater than a menace against Israel with the assistance of Iran. And just because a lot of Iranians are stable does not mean their leadership is. Though I am pretty confident that if H or H were to "menace" Israel with any NBC class weapons Israel's "strategic ambiguity" (I decided not to use that term yesterday, props to TT for using it) would no longer be a question and the response would be nuclear. Our posture was that there was a very real risk we would respond to WMD with WMD and seeing we no longer deploy much B&C of NB&C that at best our response would be heavily conventional and at worst, nuclear. If the attack were against the US or our citizens abroad by a terrorist group by proxy or with support of a nation state we have made it at least less likely that our response would be devastating - decapition of leadership / nation state as a whole. Remember, previous administration was for potential use of WMD to the perpetrators or the nations that harbored them. So now, deterrence is reduced. The non-power-projecting-menaces may feel a little extra comfort that they might not be glassed over. Yes, I understand that Iran and the NORKs may be ignored by the changes in the posture review but this is one step closer to them not facing a permanent retaliatory strike / regime elimination. They can survive a conventional strike.

Yes, I would hope that this can spur negotiations but I always thought that in negotiating you show your cards slowly while negotiating, not flipping them over before the others stroll up to the table.


As for your statement Iran & NorKo "not being able to project power" I think your one dimensional thinking should embrace the threat of asymetrical warfare in our hemisphere. It can be effective, see 9/11, Spain Transit, Kubar Towers etc for its use & results, sometimes quite effective. Chem/Bio weapons in the modern sense, not the WWI crap, have a very aggressive lethality and the skillset is available to steal, develop & deploy said weapons. Hmmm a highly agressive, high mortlality viral plague oh where can we find one.

Now here is a lesson in self defense and nuclear deterrent; strategic ambiguity - a very powerful weapon where the aggressor does not know if/when/how you-the victim(mark) would respond and use your nukes. Kind of like the " armed concealed carry citizen" who conceals his weapon and only demonstrates its usage as a last resort and does not broadcast his having one. Or go announcing it on every street cormer in a tough neighborhood(world); "don't you worry I will not use it unless XYZ happens.

And one from the "Godfather", Sonny, Come here. Whatsa matta with you, Never tell anyone outside the family what your thinking" No truer words have been spoken.

Where have you gone Gen. Curtis LeMay?

TT

Though I'm glad we had Curtis LeMay and I'm also glad he is water over the dam.

Asymmetrical warfare isn't very useful in projecting power as it typically requires a indigenous population with some good percentage that's either coercable or cooperative. It can be very effective when trying to repell or stall an offensive campaign, which is how we've almost always seen it used.

Could Iran project power using asymmetrical warfare to dictate the American position or take over our territory?

Not really.

Perhaps they could use it to irritate US interests, but only where the situation would allow it, usually an established defensive or perceived defensive front....

Nuclear deterrent has a lot more to do with MAD than it does spoken or written words. The recent shift in policy has everything to do with improving collaboration with those we're not going to nuke anyway, to increasing leverage against those who we see as real threats.

The issue of course is that building and using a nuclear bomb are dramatically different things.

This may look strange to you, it's called negotiation.

And I seriously doubt our spoken or written position on using nuclear weapons means much as a deterrent. Everybody knows we're not going to use them, except in the most dire of circumstances, and probably only if nuked ourselves. We simply have too many other viable options using conventional means.

So no, I don't think Iran or North Korea has much of an ability to project power now or will in the future. Given that, how we deal with their very real threats should be taken in context. This is the failure of Bush era policy during his first term. Treat every big issue as an existential threat to our survival you have very limited options. When reality further erodes those options down do nothing you're frozen.

And when you're not moving you can't steer.

-spence Assymetrical warfare is being dealt at the menace level, We can't just limit the discussion to the menace level. So no, Iran / NORKs cannot project power and occupy US soil, they can make it so we can not occupy it for a while.

America won't be successful unless there's enough global stability to let our economic system work. We simply can't consume enough to continue to scale.

Because the US can project a lot of force when offensive force is desired. Hiding in a mosque is a tactical issue, we're talking strategy here.

-spence

And we are limiting ourself strategically now and at the same time due to optical rectumitis of current and previous administrations, limiting our ability to promote and maintain Pax Americana. The Chinese are loving it though, while we spend ourselves off to the poorhouse, we keep their Lines of Communication open and they don't foot the bill, other than helping us spend into the poorhouse. but that is another story and I have to get back to work.

Don't you know Jim. Our boys can only shoot after they have taken fire first. And even then they have to be prepared to prove it, maybe a couple casualties or the like.

ROE can change in the blink of an eye.
But you wouldn't know that.

ROE can change in the blink of an eye.
But you wouldn't know that.

Yes I would. I saw it happen Jan. 20th:biglaugh:

gut feeling says don't trust the russians as far as you can pee...what did patton say in regards to them...? nukes ARE here to stay. nothing will deter the human need to war -check our entire history from the start. i don't think the annointed one can achieve that.

Asym warfare is designed to keep the opponent off balance, as they will not know when/where/how the action will be from or form. The acceleration of asym onto a national level could adds significantly to the menace effect and is not beyond some groups or nation states limits to wage on our soil.

I dare say to risk ignoring the potential is weak deterence.

LeMay, last of the Bomber Generals, yeah he is over the dam but, he did know what deterence was and how to use the pointed end of the stick. Best kept on a leash though; from reading bios/books not to be let loose etc.

China, is a dragon-they have been building their forces for the last 20yrs-naval, air. Their land force is rather large. Best to keep an eye on, though they most likely will act through NorKo proxy. Iran, eh two years from now they'll be glowing & Israel will no longer have strategic ambiguity.

They all know Obasm is weak and smell the weakness and if you rely on his stated exceptions, hope is all you got-cause he does not have the stones; gird your lions folks.

TT

They all know Obasm is weak and smell the weakness and if you rely on his stated exceptions, hope is all you got-cause he does not have the stones; gird your lions folks.

TT

You couldn't have said it better... you know, with the significant increase of drone attacks he's ordered and renewed focus of assaulting the mountainous areas of Afghanistan - the real location of the war on terror.

What a P#$@y he is.

And its great the Pakistan is increasing weapons grade uranuim production too.

And Karzi an over zealous warlord with little power other than to hold his hand out

and a US Marine invasion is a more threatening strategy than a nuclear deterant?
I think you need to compare Japan to Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence

See, you have to learn to trust a country like North Korea or Iran. I think it was last week or so that we were on alert because a boat from Tiawan, sank in North Koreas waters and no one knew what happened. IMO, it's just a matter of time before they "project their power". I'm thinking 2012.
End of times? :devil2: :jester:

-spence

Please oh please the "BLAME BUSH" cry ...really brilliant & precise/concise ...sheez get a new line, the crybaby & chief has worn that one down.

As for strategic thinking, Do not engage in this activity, your obtuse focus is detrimental to society at large.

indigenous pop...oh you mean homegrown terrorists..Have you ever been to Dearbornistan or noted some past events where some terrorists are US citizens??
Sometimes you have got to grab them by the belt and fight them close inorder to deny them the use of their strategic power...hmmm where does this come into play??

You should be flexible in your thinking of "projection of power" & its application and goal...

TT

I love these threads that smoke out people's true colors. You have nothing constructive or useful to say and take great pride at denigrating fellow Americans becasue of their culture and religion.

Hell, even ScottW can manage an unintended point now in then.

Granted, 100 word cut 'n pastes will often do that :hihi:

So nice.

-spence

Hell, even ScottW can manage an unintended point now in then.

Granted, 100 word cut 'n pastes will often do that :hihi:

So nice.

-spence

you just made my whole day!!!:jump1:

I only cut 'n paste to annoy JD :rotf2:

Hezbolla or Hamas could easily launch an attack greater than a menace against Israel with the assistance of Iran.
Without the coordination of Syria, Jordan and Egypt I don't see any chance they could really threaten Israel, and I don't see any chance of this happening in the next few decades. Could they give terrorists a nuke? It's not likely unless you believe in the crackpot 12th Imam stuff.

It is quite likely that the states in the region will start to come together over time, but from what I've read it's Turkey who will be running the show.

And just because a lot of Iranians are stable does not mean their leadership is. Though I am pretty confident that if H or H were to "menace" Israel with any NBC class weapons Israel's "strategic ambiguity" (I decided not to use that term yesterday, props to TT for using it) would no longer be a question and the response would be nuclear. Our posture was that there was a very real risk we would respond to WMD with WMD and seeing we no longer deploy much B&C of NB&C that at best our response would be heavily conventional and at worst, nuclear. If the attack were against the US or our citizens abroad by a terrorist group by proxy or with support of a nation state we have made it at least less likely that our response would be devastating - decapition of leadership / nation state as a whole. Remember, previous administration was for potential use of WMD to the perpetrators or the nations that harbored them. So now, deterrence is reduced. The non-power-projecting-menaces may feel a little extra comfort that they might not be glassed over. Yes, I understand that Iran and the NORKs may be ignored by the changes in the posture review but this is one step closer to them not facing a permanent retaliatory strike / regime elimination. They can survive a conventional strike.

I could only see Israel going nuclear if their existance was really on the line. And even then, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where they could nuke themselves out of it. Perhaps they could light up Tehran and scare the pants off of everyone else to stand down, but the chances of this erupting into a regional war are pretty good. They can't nuke everybody.

As to the eye for an eye position. I think this was all rhetoric and little reality. The US is not going to respond with Chemical or Bio weapons if we're attacked with the same. I definately could see us using a nuke to respond to the same. But nearly all situations are going to require the use of conventional forces, which is why we're in all these deadlock situations around the world.

I don't see any strategic ambiguity in our position. We are quite predictable. Israel wants everybody to be terrified of them (and they are) but this also limits their ability to operate. If they show the slightest sign of weakness it could erode the image. Not much ambiguity here.

Yes, I would hope that this can spur negotiations but I always thought that in negotiating you show your cards slowly while negotiating, not flipping them over before the others stroll up to the table.
I think Obama's strategy is to provide a clear direction then work others towards a common goal. If people think that something will happen, they will often times more than not side with who they believe to be the winner.

I'd note that he does appear to be making more progress than Bush.

Assymetrical warfare is being dealt at the menace level, We can't just limit the discussion to the menace level. So no, Iran / NORKs cannot project power and occupy US soil, they can make it so we can not occupy it for a while.
Ours or theirs? When was the last time a US territory was under foreign occupation?

And we are limiting ourself strategically now and at the same time due to optical rectumitis of current and previous administrations, limiting our ability to promote and maintain Pax Americana. The Chinese are loving it though, while we spend ourselves off to the poorhouse, we keep their Lines of Communication open and they don't foot the bill, other than helping us spend into the poorhouse. but that is another story and I have to get back to work.
China is pretty fragile as a nation. I think they're scared of their own long-term prospects.

-spence

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

So, then, maybe, we should "project" that we will use them instead of promising that we won't.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

Geez, I wonder how they got that impression.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence

Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?

Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it? And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?

very true. Our Nukes are not taken seriously, while the threat of a suitcase nuke in the hands of a jhihadist can bring a country to it's knees. Why? Everyone knows we would never use ours agianst anyone, unless attacked by a legitimate enemy nation, but a few crazy jhihadists would

You're comparring apples and oranges. Nuclear deterrants don't mean much to non-nuclear countries who know we're not going to use them.

We have demonstrated that the USA can topple just about any country at will, using conventional means and with limited (relatively speaking) collateral damage.

This is what terrified Iran in 2004, before the civilians effed up the occupation.

-spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Without the coordination of Syria, Jordan and Egypt I don't see any chance they could really threaten Israel, and I don't see any chance of this happening in the next few decades. Could they give terrorists a nuke? It's not likely unless you believe in the crackpot 12th Imam stuff.

It is quite likely that the states in the region will start to come together over time, but from what I've read it's Turkey who will be running the show.

I could only see Israel going nuclear if their existance was really on the line. And even then, it's difficult to imagine a scenario where they could nuke themselves out of it. Perhaps they could light up Tehran and scare the pants off of everyone else to stand down, but the chances of this erupting into a regional war are pretty good. They can't nuke everybody.

As to the eye for an eye position. I think this was all rhetoric and little reality. The US is not going to respond with Chemical or Bio weapons if we're attacked with the same. I definately could see us using a nuke to respond to the same. But nearly all situations are going to require the use of conventional forces, which is why we're in all these deadlock situations around the world.

I don't see any strategic ambiguity in our position. We are quite predictable. Israel wants everybody to be terrified of them (and they are) but this also limits their ability to operate. If they show the slightest sign of weakness it could erode the image. Not much ambiguity here.


I think Obama's strategy is to provide a clear direction then work others towards a common goal. If people think that something will happen, they will often times more than not side with who they believe to be the winner.

I'd note that he does appear to be making more progress than Bush.


Ours or theirs? When was the last time a US territory was under foreign occupation?


China is pretty fragile as a nation. I think they're scared of their own long-term prospects.

-spence

Not talking occupation. Talking a nuke / chem / bio weapon going off in Manhattan. Different stuff. Different scenario. "Occupation" by foreign forces is not what I mean. Not having New Yorkers occupy New York is what I mean.

I'm talking rational people and not so rational people. for all of MAD in the bad old days (good?) the Russians were rational. They new first strike would be devastating to them and same for us. MAD against nuclear peers / near peer is not the problem. It's some crazy mullah or desperate despot or their proxy that is the problem.

Didn't the terrified Iran have a lot to do with the "civilians" effing up the occupation?
I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

Since we haven't taken using nukes against Iran off the table if they continue with their nuclear program, does that mean that they'll be terrified into quitting it?
Probably not, hence my multiple comments above.

And if cutting our nuclear armaments by a third inspires others to do so, why not go all the way--get rid of the entire cache?
I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence

Not talking occupation. Talking a nuke / chem / bio weapon going off in Manhattan. Different stuff. Different scenario. "Occupation" by foreign forces is not what I mean. Not having New Yorkers occupy New York is what I mean.
In the mind of al Qaeda this would be a defensive strike, as they believe 9/11 was. It's not a sustained effort to influence but rather a lashing out. Granted, it would be terrible none the less.

I'm talking rational people and not so rational people. for all of MAD in the bad old days (good?) the Russians were rational. They new first strike would be devastating to them and same for us. MAD against nuclear peers / near peer is not the problem. It's some crazy mullah or desperate despot or their proxy that is the problem.

During the Cold War many seriously questioned that the Soviets were indeed rational people. I think Sting even wrote a song :devil2:

But while there are crazies out there, I think a lot of the Islamic leadership is quite more rational than people might like to believe. Of course, they might want you to believe they are irrational, it works both ways :)

That being said, there's a combination of zealotry and available nuclear fuel which seems to be at a flash point right now, and is a huge problem.

All the more reason to praise Obama's efforts to contain the flow of nuclear materials going on...today.

-spence

I love these threads that smoke out people's true colors. You have nothing constructive or useful to say and take great pride at denigrating fellow Americans becasue of their culture and religion.

So nice.

-spence

Smoke out, hhmmm no smoke needed you display your colors (rainbow) in true foaming at the mouth liberal fashion and I am okay with that. As for you crying RACIST as per the liberal handbook to avoid the truth or evade being engaged in civil discourse which will reveal your agenda-you got that rule down pat- you got me, I'm done; no more rolling with the pig.

Bye
TT

Smoke out, hhmmm no smoke needed you display your colors (rainbow) in true foaming at the mouth liberal fashion and I am okay with that. As for you crying RACIST as per the liberal handbook to avoid the truth or evade being engaged in civil discourse which will reveal your agenda-you got that rule down pat- you got me, I'm done; no more rolling with the pig.

Bye
TT

welp....there goes another one....Spence...you sure know how to chase em' away :rotf2:

I believe Iran was intimidated by the ability of a limited US force to so quickly assert themselves in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Certainly this was driven by civilian policy and executed by the military.

The same civilians also led the policy which didn't plan for the next day, and in this often differed from the advice of the Generals.

So yes and no.

Neither you nor I know if Iran was intimidated by US force, limited or otherwise. I would think they were more intimidated by a "democratic" Iraq even more than a Sadaam Husein Iraq. They were certainly bold enough to instigate and aid the "insurgents" that tried to destroy the democracy. The imperfect "civilians" may not have calculated that at first, but were flexible enough to change tactics. Such is war. No doubt, Obama is perfect and won't make any mistakes. As for apples and oranges, Bush faced a different world than Obama is facing now. Before his, what you consider, blunder, NOTHING of substance was being done to check an emboldening radical Islam. His "blunder" flushed out the rats and created a new face in the middle east. I believe that new face is the real threat to the Mullahs of Iran, not our nukes or marines. And the fence sitting royals of Saudi Arabia, etc. now must not only fear Al Quaeda influence in their population, but an even greater menace of democratic yearnings. If they are any students of history, I would think that they will prepare for some orderly democratization rather than a surrender to Iranian dominance.

I think we'd all agree that nuclear capability is important to maintain. We would also probably agree that excess nuclear stockpiles are harder to control and work against efforts for non-proliferation.

-spence

There is no way to erase the existence and knowledge of nuclear power. Even if all present stockpiles were eliminated, the knowledge is there for an "evil" presence to use it. So we would probably all agree (except for the dreamiest peace mongers) that we should maintain a strong nuclear capability. If Obama believes in, supports, maintains, and provides for a STRONG US military, in all phases, and continues to use that power in our interest, I have no quarrel with him in that respect. His mission to fundamentally change America is another matter. Our foundation is our strength. Please, leave that alone.

Smoke out, hhmmm no smoke needed you display your colors (rainbow) in true foaming at the mouth liberal fashion and I am okay with that. As for you crying RACIST as per the liberal handbook to avoid the truth or evade being engaged in civil discourse which will reveal your agenda-you got that rule down pat- you got me, I'm done; no more rolling with the pig.

Bye
TT

http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2007/11/crybaby.jpg

Smoke out, hhmmm no smoke needed you display your colors (rainbow) in true foaming at the mouth liberal fashion and I am okay with that.
Foaming at the mouth...I love it...from the author of

Kum bi ya messiah Obasm Kum bi ya..all together now sing it with me, drink the Kool aid, heads in the sand or your option up you own Arse. all together now.

Which I'd note doesn't even rhyme very well.

As for the rainbow, I often argue that reality does indeed lie on a spectrum. This is perhaps the first responsible thing you've actually said.

As for you crying RACIST as per the liberal handbook to avoid the truth or evade being engaged in civil discourse which will reveal your agenda-you got that rule down pat- you got me, I'm done; no more rolling with the pig.
Wow, you called racism faster than Al Sharpton at a NYC police convention :uhuh:

I guess I just found it funny that you'd lable Dearborn, MA a "stan" when most of the muslims there are Arabs...and should probably be expelled you know...

-spence

if all the nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes

http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2007/11/crybaby.jpg


This kid just found out that Madoff mde off with his Etrade account and PIN number

Neither you nor I know if Iran was intimidated by US force, limited or otherwise. I would think they were more intimidated by a "democratic" Iraq even more than a Sadaam Husein Iraq.
From what I've read it's been about the force. I think Iran knows pretty well how a democratic Iraq would behave. Considering the demographic alignment with their own people and culture, a democratic Iraq might actually be far more desirable than a Sunni dictator.

They were certainly bold enough to instigate and aid the "insurgents" that tried to destroy the democracy.
The insurgents weren't trying to destroy "democracy", they were mostly in a sectarian power grab and trying to settle old scores.

The imperfect "civilians" may not have calculated that at first, but were flexible enough to change tactics. Such is war.
The reporting on this is pretty clear. Rumsfeld wanted nothing to do with post invasion planning. The ideologues were convinced that their understanding of human nature was pure. Clearly nobody in charge bothered to study the founding fathers or pick up a history book.

No doubt, Obama is perfect and won't make any mistakes.

Non sequitur?

As for apples and oranges, Bush faced a different world than Obama is facing now.
True, the Dow was nearly 12,000 :hihi:

Other than that it's pretty much the same world, aside from little being done to curb North Korea or Iran.

Before his, what you consider, blunder, NOTHING of substance was being done to check an emboldening radical Islam. His "blunder" flushed out the rats and created a new face in the middle east.
And in the process convinced a huge number of mice that they were in fact rats!

The "new face" is more opposition to Western values. Is the world more or less democratic because of Bush's policies? Looking at Egypt, Russia, Iran etc... there's not a good story.

I believe that new face is the real threat to the Mullahs of Iran, not our nukes or marines. And the fence sitting royals of Saudi Arabia, etc. now must not only fear Al Quaeda influence in their population, but an even greater menace of democratic yearnings. If they are any students of history, I would think that they will prepare for some orderly democratization rather than a surrender to Iranian dominance.
There is no surrender of Sunni's to Iran. The US policy is firmly in the camp of Sunni Islam. al Qaeda influence is small at best and getting weaker. The real threat is from the more legitimate issues that al Qaeda also used to gain acceptance, and that other actors will also exploit to legitimize their own political ambitions.

is no way to erase the existence and knowledge of nuclear power. Even if all present stockpiles were eliminated, the knowledge is there for an "evil" presence to use it. So we would probably all agree (except for the dreamiest peace mongers) that we should maintain a strong nuclear capability. If Obama believes in, supports, maintains, and provides for a STRONG US military, in all phases, and continues to use that power in our interest, I have no quarrel with him in that respect.
Obama seems quite content to spend billions on defense and kill enemies at will. He's no pacifist...BTW the Left hates him for this.

His mission to fundamentally change America is another matter. Our foundation is our strength. Please, leave that alone.
It's not a surprise that conservatives would take issue with a remark like this. After all, conservatives are about conservation, change must be bad...if it's not broke, don't fix it...right?

Perhaps this was a mistake in it's ambiguity, it certainly left the tin foil hat crowd an opportunity to interpret it however they like. I think the Obama Administration has made this same mistake many times.

But Obama hasn't said anything that indicates he wants to "change" the fabric of America. Liberal and Conservative positions are all a part of who we are. A spirit of innovation and growth is a part of who we are.

-spence

From what I've read it's been about the force. I think Iran knows pretty well how a democratic Iraq would behave. Considering the demographic alignment with their own people and culture, a democratic Iraq might actually be far more desirable than a Sunni dictator.

The insurgents weren't trying to destroy "democracy", they were mostly in a sectarian power grab and trying to settle old scores.

It's not how a democratic Iraq would behave to which I refer. It's how Iranian's and others in the region would react, in time, to seeing their neighbors, who once were under autocratic rule, now choosing leaders. The need of mullahs to suppress such ideas has been difficult enough in Iran without having the citizens of a once mortal enemy now having a freedom that many Iranians wish they had. Even, and especially, in dictatorships and theocracies, the people are a constant threat.

The reporting on this is pretty clear. Rumsfeld wanted nothing to do with post invasion planning. The ideologues were convinced that their understanding of human nature was pure. Clearly nobody in charge bothered to study the founding fathers or pick up a history book.

I believe that the reporting is pretty clear that Rumsfeld was removed and direction was changed.

Non sequitur?

With a point.

True, the Dow was nearly 12,000 :hihi:

Yeah, Georgie got it up there, didn't he? No doubt it will get there again. The Dow has been rising the past 40 years as well as the National Debt. The rise in Government spending has been incessant, a constant setting of records from one administration to the next. And the value of the dollar has correspondingly fallen. But that's a little non sequitur of your own. You know that I was referring to radical Islam, not the economy. What is the connection between a 12,000 Dow and the invasion of Iraq?

Other than that it's pretty much the same world, aside from little being done to curb North Korea or Iran.

No, the world was forced to see a threat that it ignored.

And in the process convinced a huge number of mice that they were in fact rats!

They were already rats and had acted as such for a long time. They were not, in their eyes, mice. Nor rats, for that matter. Their Jihad was roiling in relative anonymity, with occasional outbursts, worldwide. There was planning to create cells, worldwide, cadres that would replace those who died, and the West's perception that they were insignificant, if they were perceived at all, allowed them to gather for a future storm in relative security. They, actually, perceived the West as mice. And thought that a 9/11 attack on the epitome of Western power would frighten us into retreat and embolden their followers by showing how weak we were. Afghanistan, Iraq, then who knows next, prematurely flushed them out into open combat, and it exposed how rat-like and defeatable they are--IF WE PERSIST. And a democratic Iraq, with the life of individual citizens actually improved, would be a substantial threat to their ambitions.

The "new face" is more opposition to Western values. Is the world more or less democratic because of Bush's policies? Looking at Egypt, Russia, Iran etc... there's not a good story.

What Bush policy has changed Egypt, Russia, Iran? They were somehow better before Bush policies? I suppose you've read some books that proved how they were just swimmingly going along till Bush policied them and they just decided to retaliate and become . . . what? Iraq is definitely better because of Bush policies. Anyway, what are you looking for, overnight perfection? After 230 years the U.S. is still bickering, and due to Obama policies, about to lose some more of its individual liberties.

There is no surrender of Sunni's to Iran. The US policy is firmly in the camp of Sunni Islam. al Qaeda influence is small at best and getting weaker. The real threat is from the more legitimate issues that al Qaeda also used to gain acceptance, and that other actors will also exploit to legitimize their own political ambitions.

Al Qaeda is getting weaker because it was forced to actually fight. They, and "other actors" were and will be exploiting to "legitimize" their political ambitions. That certainly happens here in the good ol' US of A. As the "people" get wind of resisting being oppressed by these "actors" and enjoy the ability to vote them out, their lot will improve.

Obama seems quite content to spend billions on defense and kill enemies at will. He's no pacifist...BTW the Left hates him for this.

Good.

But Obama hasn't said anything that indicates he wants to "change" the fabric of America.

-spence

Yes he has.

So much for Iran not being a nuclear threat to the US.

Reported today they will have the ICBM capabilities to
hit the US by 2015.

So aside from negotiation what is our military contingency?