Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 People pick fights with big guys because they are big. It happens. I didn't say it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that it is natural instinct for MOST people to go after things they believe they can achieve easier. A good big guy will usually beat a good smaller guy, most people in bars aren't good fighters, alot of big guys arent that great of fighters either, but usually fights are won before they even start, simply because of fear, big guys usually intimidate smaller guys. Big guys in more cases than not feel as if they can intimidate people more so than smaller guys, so when you get people drinking, and you get superiority complexes that are multiplied with alcoholic machismo you will see in more cases big guys picking on smaller guys than the other way around. That's just how it is.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Not true in the world at large and not true in a bar. The big huge country (and guy) is always a target. I disagree with the Bar part. As an ex owner of a night club that averaged over 500 people a night on the weekends and a billiards bar, working 6 nights a week over a 6 year period, You're wrong. Big guys in most circumstances picked on guys that they believed they could take down, why? Because in their mind they knew they could. People pick fights with big guys because they are big. It happens. bull ****. Big dudes seldom if ever get !@#$ed with. I know a lot of guys under 6' in the 140-170 lb range that have to deal with over aggressive types periodically. Those of us over 6' & over 200 lb never have to deal with that ****. As far as countries go, I'm not the authority on nukes, nor do I know the "right" number, but I do know it's retarded to think reducing your arsenal will lead to peace. If professional military strategists believe that we can make that kind of reduction without compromising our military effectiveness that's one thing. But to make the assumption that one of us has that knowledge is beyond stupid. I didn't say it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that it is natural instinct for MOST people to go after things they believe they can achieve easier. A good big guy will usually beat a good smaller guy, most people in bars aren't good fighters, alot of big guys arent that great of fighters either, but usually fights are won before they even start, simply because of fear, big guys usually intimidate smaller guys. Big guys in more cases than not feel as if they can intimidate people more so than smaller guys, so when you get people drinking, and you get superiority complexes that are multiplied with alcoholic machismo you will see in more cases big guys picking on smaller guys than the other way around. That's just how it is. Where are all these Old West saloons? I hit the bars a few times every month and I can't remember seeing anything beyond a couple skinny dudes pushing and shoving. And that was only once.
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Where are all these Old West saloons? I hit the bars a few times every month and I can't remember seeing anything beyond a couple skinny dudes pushing and shoving. And that was only once. That's because you frequent bars where dudes strictly eat lentils and study journalism. Edited February 15, 2012 by Magox
ieatcrayonz Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 So what is the minimum number of nuclear warheads that is a "credible deterrent"? That depends on whether the President is a Los Gatos at the time. You know when you'd know if you didn't have enough Nukes to be a deterrent? When your head was rolling down a flight of stairs, that's when.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 That's because you frequent bars where dudes strictly eat lentils and study journalism. It's the hard knock life. Fighting can lead to unexpected bowel movements on the lentil diet.
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 It's the hard knock life. Fighting can lead to unexpected bowel movements on the lentil diet. Or what is known as the "nuclear option" in lentil bars. Mutually assured pants-shitting.
3rdnlng Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Or what is known as the "nuclear option" in lentil bars. Mutually assured pants-shitting. Turd missiles?
IDBillzFan Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 People pick fights with big guys because they are big. It happens. I imagine a big guy in a sweater vest is just begging to get his ass kicked. (Oh, relax. I'm just screwing around.)
Dante Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 No one here has enough strategic knowledge to even guess at a number. If the russians are building more and the iranians are trying to build some, i'd rather err on the side of caution and at least keep what we have.
erynthered Posted February 15, 2012 Author Posted February 15, 2012 That's because you frequent bars where dudes strictly eat lentils and study journalism. Please explain how that's foolish... So what is the minimum number of nuclear lentils that is a "credible diarrhea deterrent"? That's inaccurate in too many ways to even list. Get a real source. And are we talking about lentils now? I thought we were talking about diarrhea. Based on what strategic lentil calculus? I've always called everyone an idiot just because they're wrong. DiN, for example, is an idiot even when he's right. "Idiocy" is the inability to think correctly, it's the inability to think coherently. You want to discuss nuclear lentil strategy with me, then do it. Don't make ridiculous statements justified with an "lentil" prejudice. No one here has enough strategic knowledge to even guess at a number. If the russians are building more and the iranians are trying to build some, i'd rather err on the side of caution and at least keep what we have. Sounds like a good idea to me! But be careful, the nitpickers are here today.
Adam Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 bull ****. Big dudes seldom if ever get !@#$ed with. I know a lot of guys under 6' in the 140-170 lb range that have to deal with over aggressive types periodically. Those of us over 6' & over 200 lb never have to deal with that ****. As far as countries go, I'm not the authority on nukes, nor do I know the "right" number, but I do know it's retarded to think reducing your arsenal will lead to peace. If professional military strategists believe that we can make that kind of reduction without compromising our military effectiveness that's one thing. But to make the assumption that one of us has that knowledge is beyond stupid. most people on message boards make those assumptions, whether they have the real info or not. To me, reduction is mote about cutting costs. You won't have peace without deterrence, no matter what some may want to believe.
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 most people on message boards make those assumptions, whether they have the real info or not. To me, reduction is mote about cutting costs. You won't have peace without deterrence, no matter what some may want to believe. There's a lot more to deterrence than "we have more bombs," though. Even at the height of the Cold War, there was a lot more to it.
LeviF Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I'm not a pro war sort of dude at all, and I know I'm oversimplifying things here, but common sense tells me that if someone is gonna pick a fight, they usually will pick the smaller dude. I'm sorry, but when it comes to the difference between having 350 nuclear warheads and 1,550 nuclear warheads, that analogy isn't just oversimplified, it's plain ****ty. Also: the AP has updated the story posted in the OP. On the 80% figure: Dempsey declined to comment on that figure. He said talks are ongoing in anticipation of negotiations with Russia. The AP reported that the administration is considering at least three options for lower numbers. The potential cuts would be from the current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. Edit: missed this the first time: maintaining the status quo is still an option. Edited February 15, 2012 by LeviF91
Adam Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 There's a lot more to deterrence than "we have more bombs," though. Even at the height of the Cold War, there was a lot more to it. Couldn't agree with you more. Bombs aren't the only deterrence between us and China right now, either- look at all of the economic ties. Number of weapons probably doesn't mean as much as it once did, now that they are much more powerful than they used to be. You have to look at type of weapons (chemical, biological and nuclear) as well as range. And people who won't be deterred by anything need to be taken into account, which van change the equation.
IDBillzFan Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Couldn't agree with you more. Bombs aren't the only deterrence between us and China right now, either- look at all of the economic ties. Number of weapons probably doesn't mean as much as it once did, now that they are much more powerful than they used to be. You have to look at type of weapons (chemical, biological and nuclear) as well as range. You likewise need to consider who is behind the weapons. Everyone feared Reagan. Ahmadinejad simply looks like a madman who would blow something up just to see what would happen. Assad slaughters his OWN people And Obama...well...ummmm....he's got that whole Sally Fields thing still being tried out.
Magox Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 I'm sorry, but when it comes to the difference between having 350 nuclear warheads and 1,550 nuclear warheads, that analogy isn't just oversimplified, it's plain ****ty. Also: the AP has updated the story posted in the OP. On the 80% figure: Edit: missed this the first time: Listen, you nor anyone here is qualified to give a substantive answer regarding how many warheads is enough. What's ****ty is that you somehow believe that you are.
DC Tom Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Couldn't agree with you more. Bombs aren't the only deterrence between us and China right now, either- look at all of the economic ties. Number of weapons probably doesn't mean as much as it once did, now that they are much more powerful than they used to be. You have to look at type of weapons (chemical, biological and nuclear) as well as range. And accuracy. And purpose. And your overall strategy. And how it's deployed (SLBMs can be a bigger deterrent than ICBMs, if you can't kill the subs).
LeviF Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 Listen, you nor anyone here is qualified to give a substantive answer regarding how many warheads is enough. What's ****ty is that you somehow believe that you are. Yeah, that's what I said Try again. The idea that having 350 nuclear warheads makes us the "little guy" is what's laughable, along with the idea that the only thing that counts in military "muscle" is nuclear weapons.
erynthered Posted February 15, 2012 Author Posted February 15, 2012 We should modernize our nuclear weapons stockpiles. This includes developing and testing weapons to be sure that they work. We should develop a range of “bunker busters” and “mini” nuclear weapons that are capable of destroying deeply buried WMD facilities or striking at hidden terrorist bases. We should continue to develop a National Missile Defense (NMD) to protect us from smaller attacks. We should recognize that nuclear proliferation is inevitable and work to see that it is managed carefully. We should keep all of our nuclear options open, including the possibility of preemptive strikes to protect the United States. I wonder how many of the ones we now have would even work. Sure there are systems checks and such, but they had those in the Shuttle program too. Look what happened there. As far as how many, I've read a couple of thing that sugest the number be 500. But there's the rub, how many would work.
IDBillzFan Posted February 15, 2012 Posted February 15, 2012 But there's the rub, how many would work. I think we only really need just one to work.
Recommended Posts