Azarkon Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 (edited) Good God, Arkazon. This topic had nothing to do with the awful USA, frankly. I realize it's your favorite subject, but let's not derail everything into the same-old, same-old, m'kay? What, because kumquatq3 didn't start off the post by suggesting we invade Iran after practicing battleship diplomacy against China and Russia? 1. I never said invade China and Russia I didn't suggest you did. However, battleship diplomacy involves showing off your military dominance to those countries in question in order to force their compliance. You recognize the fact that China and Russia will veto any attempt to sanction Iran, and that without their support any sanction will be largely pointless... In that case, what's the only option we have, other than to go to war with the entire SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), which Iran will soon be part of? btw, you underestimate our air dominace. Which is why I suggested that an air strike (or tactical nuclear weapons) to take out Iran's nuke sites is the only practical military recourse? Of course I recognize US air supremacy. My point was that battleship diplomacy against Russia and China won't work, nor will invading Iran. A preemtive air strike to take out their nuke sites is about the extent of what we could do - after which, we'll have a pissed off Iran on us for decades to come. 2. Who are we to say they can't have nukes? Just one country I guess. But the UN said they can't too. Yes, but the UN is practically giving Iran nuclear weapons by offering them nuclear reactors. Wasn't that your point? Edited May 17, 2006 by Azarkon There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Lets unleash all the nukes in the world upon ourselves and let it be done with. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> After you! Seriously, you are advocating an isolationalist policy AND a unilateral ELE forced-termination policy. Simultaneously. Okay, maybe this is more appropriate for you ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Xenophobia? Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Stupidity? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Not really. Too each their own. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 (edited) Good God, Arkazon. This topic had nothing to do with the awful USA, frankly. I realize it's your favorite subject, but let's not derail everything into the same-old, same-old, m'kay? What, because kumquatq3 didn't start off the post by suggesting we invade Iran after practicing battleship diplomacy against China and Russia? 1. I never said invade China and Russia I didn't suggest you did. However, battleship diplomacy involves showing off your military dominance to those countries in question in order to force their compliance. There is NO WAY Russia and China declare war over Iran. No way. But again, I wasn't talking about them, nor do I see the need or the situation arise were we would need to flex military muscle. Which is why I suggested that an air strike (or tactical nuclear weapons) to take out Iran's nuke sites is the only practical military recourse? Of course I recognize US air supremacy. My point was that battleship diplomacy against Russia and China won't work, nor will invading Iran. A preemtive air strike to take out their nuke sites is about the extent of what we could do - after which, we'll have a pissed off Iran on us for decades to come. 1. Battleship diplomacy doesn't nessasarily mean actual battleships. So, as you say, using the threat of force eventually. Carrier battle groups in the area, etc, etc. 2. China is in no shape to defeat the US militarly....yet. We couldn't occupy them, but we could beat the living hell out of them. Even on their shores. 3. Wait, are we worried about pissing off a country that's already pissed at us? I vote pissed without nukes, please. but the UN is practically giving Iran nuclear weapons by offering them nuclear reactors. Wasn't that your point? Not the UN, Europe. The UN includeds Russia and China, for the record. Edited May 18, 2006 by kumquatq3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azarkon Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 I recall that Russia and China supported Iran's "civilian" nuclear program as well... There are doors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 (edited) I recall that Russia and China supported Iran's "civilian" nuclear program as well... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As I recall, no one opposes their civilian nuclear program, but they say that their intentions are not as such hence the offer by the Euros, give them Civilian technology that is heavily heavily monitored and regulated. Which, for the record, Iran laughed at and I still think was ill conceived. My point is that appeasement hasn't worked in the past for these matters and I feel it only encourages such situations. Edited May 18, 2006 by kumquatq3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atreides Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Almonds and chocholates! Spreading beauty with my katana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 Almonds and chocholates! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dear god, that's it!!! You have solved the diplomatic impasse, you sir are the great communicator. Almonds and chocholates indeed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 It's simple really. They've all been out in the sun too long, and probably don't get much sleep. Buy them some hats and horlicks and the world will have peace. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Tac strikes would only work if we had accurate intel on the locations of tehir materials and workshops. Since we can't even get accurate strategic level intel on what their objectives are, I doubt we will have the former. Tac strikes would simply kill a bunch of their people, and kill a bunch of our pilots. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Do they have oil? We desperately need to secure their fields if they have, my SUV is expensive to drive. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreptishus Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Yes, they have plenty of oil and natural gas... which is why they don't need a nuclear power programme. As for making tactical strikes, aren't all the facilities deep underground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 As for making tactical strikes, aren't all the facilities deep underground? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Last year Lockheed Martin was already working on a new supercavitating bomb capable of reaching 10x the depth of the current U.S. Air Force record holder, the BLU-113 bunker buster that can break through nearly 25 feet (7 metres) of concrete or nearly 100 feet (30 metres) of earth. So that's 1/3km of depth penetration... their facilities aren't safe, even underground. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Almonds and chocolates! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Do they have oil? We desperately need to secure their fields if they have, my SUV is expensive to drive. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I thought Denmark had plenty of oil. Now that I think of it, I think America wants to be your friend. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 The facilities are perfectly safe provided they are under ground we don't know about. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Because espionage never goes on in these parts of the world? I'm willing to bet the U.S already has every facility mapped exactly. Pass a few of the newly developed bunker busters to Israel and airstrike by proxy. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 No Norway has plenty of oil, Denmark doesn't have that much. DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Denmark has nice biscuits There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 No Norway has plenty of oil, Denmark doesn't have that much. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whale and Fish oil doesn't count I'm not against putting boots on the ground, but not to occupy. Also, remember, as far a bunker busters goes, the Bush Administration was/is working on tactical nukes. And you know we is crazy enough (and ironic enough) to use them in this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moose Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 A nuke will never be fired unless the president and vice president are both incapacitated, leaving some crazy general guy in charge of the military. The cliche sort you see in Hollywood films. I mean let's face it, 9/11. Need I say more? If a nuke wasn't fired then, then a nuke will never be fired short of the previous paragraphs premises being fulfilled. There are none that are right, only strong of opinion. There are none that are wrong, only ignorant of facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucius Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 No Norway has plenty of oil, Denmark doesn't have that much. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Whale and Fish oil doesn't count I'm not against putting boots on the ground, but not to occupy. Also, remember, as far a bunker busters goes, the Bush Administration was/is working on tactical nukes. And you know we is crazy enough (and ironic enough) to use them in this situation. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But can't we just occupy their oil fields? DENMARK! It appears that I have not yet found a sig to replace the one about me not being banned... interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Don't tactical nukes already exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkan Posted May 18, 2006 Share Posted May 18, 2006 Don't tactical nukes already exist? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I've always thought so. Tactical isn't in the warhead itself, but the missile on which it is delivered. Am I mistaken? "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts