N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Do you think he really knew where Mecca was when he made the comment? I say it is about 50-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 2. What do you think we should do in such a circumstance? 384305[/snapback] Why even bother with nukes? There's only about four countries in the world the US couldn't utterly wreck with conventional forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Isn't Mecca pretty well a "spot on the ground"? Seems they could re-build it. 384177[/snapback] They don't really do anything with it, they just need a direction to pray in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philburger1 Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 As I said, it looks like the Congressman got advice from some of the mental-giants around here. The problem with your analysis is that you only account for "hard-power" and completely neglect the more important facet of international relations, "soft-power." The stupid statement by the Congressman affects the "soft-power" analysis. 384195[/snapback] So if nuke explodes in the US, thanks to Jihad Johnies, we should explore the facets of 'international relations'? It's not a country vs another country. It s one philosophy and belief system verses another. If a nuclear bomb went off on US soil you could pretty much kiss bye any notion of western society continuing to function as it does now. I know you might consider yourself to be some type of intellectual powerhouse, but if you believe that global militant islam is something that dealt with treaties and diplomacy, you are not any brighter than the "metal-giants" you mock on this board. Let me guess, you think it is only a handful of muslims in the world that believe that philosophy? And that it is only a result of American Imperialism or Zionist tyranny? Oh boy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 So if nuke explodes in the US, thanks to Jihad Johnies, we should explore the facets of 'international relations'? It's not a country vs another country. It s one philosophy and belief system verses another. If a nuclear bomb went off on US soil you could pretty much kiss bye any notion of western society continuing to function as it does now. I know you might consider yourself to be some type of intellectual powerhouse, but if you believe that global militant islam is something that dealt with treaties and diplomacy, you are not any brighter than the "metal-giants" you mock on this board. Let me guess, you think it is only a handful of muslims in the world that believe that philosophy? And that it is only a result of American Imperialism or Zionist tyranny? Oh boy..... 384329[/snapback] Wish it were that simple. Know it wasn't my question, but a lot of the real successes dealing with these people are through venues other than direct military action. Thoughts of treaties and diplomacy with the TERRORISTS accomplishes nothing, but treaties and diplomacy, along with other actions with the people who have them living in their backyards can accomplish a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted July 18, 2005 Author Share Posted July 18, 2005 you are not any brighter than the "metal-giants" you mock on this board. No, I was only mocking you. Let me guess, you think it is only a handful of muslims in the world that believe that philosophy? And that it is only a result of American Imperialism or Zionist tyranny? Oh boy..... 384329[/snapback] Don't get yourself all worked up - I did not mention "Imperialism" or Zionist tyranny" anywhere (in fact you can search all my posts and I am pretty sure I have never used those terms). If you believe that the problem of Islamic Extremism can be shot from the barrel of a gun then they have already won! Hard power will not win this for us, rather our cultural and economic forces have to win over a new generation. Cause cultural conflict among generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Wish it were that simple. Know it wasn't my question, but a lot of the real successes dealing with these people are through venues other than direct military action. Thoughts of treaties and diplomacy with the TERRORISTS accomplishes nothing, but treaties and diplomacy, along with other actions with the people who have them living in their backyards can accomplish a lot. 384341[/snapback] Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 No, I was only mocking you. Don't get yourself all worked up - I did not mention "Imperialism" or Zionist tyranny" anywhere (in fact you can search all my posts and I am pretty sure I have never used those terms). If you believe that the problem of Islamic Extremism can be shot from the barrel of a gun then they have already won! Hard power will not win this for us, rather our cultural and economic forces have to win over a new generation. Cause cultural conflict among generations. 384349[/snapback] That's not the right answer either. It usually takes pressure, not winning hearts and minds. There's just different ways of exerting pressure besides an air strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Isn't Mecca pretty well a "spot on the ground"? Seems they could re-build it. 384177[/snapback] Sure. It would be the same ol' spot on the ground...just deeper. Much deeper. Anyway...if the terrorists really value their holy sites, why does it seem that mosques are one of their top hiding spots/fighting positions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Sure. It would be the same ol' spot on the ground...just deeper. Much deeper. Anyway...if the terrorists really value their holy sites, why does it seem that mosques are one of their top hiding spots/fighting positions? 384393[/snapback] Because they know the western press will make us look like monsters (along with Al Brassier) if we look cross-eyed at one? They know the ROE probably better than most of our troops do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Contrary to the movies, they don't glow all that long. Off the top of my head, you can apply the 7/10's rule. For every 7 periods of time, the residual radiation decreases by a factor of 10. Some neutron induced activity in the vicinity of ground zero will last longer, but still not that much of an issue. One would use an airburst, anyway. Go for the static overpressure blast effects, and better thermal. Wouldn't be that much residual to start out with. 384227[/snapback] Cladding. And if things pop, it's the Ar Megiddo prophesy come, and the list probably includes 50+ cities. The Congressman merely voiced an undercurrent...how could response not happen?... the gloves would be off. To remind about the effects of a pop, click on this Penn State scenario: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/p/b/pbw1..._explosion.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Cladding. And if things pop, it's the Ar Megiddo prophesy come, and the list probably includes 50+ cities. The Congressman voiced an undercurrent. To remind about the effects of a pop, click on this Penn State scenario: http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/p/b/pbw1..._explosion.html 384403[/snapback] 20 megs is a pretty big "pop".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 20 megs is a pretty big "pop".... 384426[/snapback] The deed gets done regardless; it's not a mine-is-bigger thing. One could make a case for a 0.5 kt yield being more debilitating because of more wounded. Let's not get into a discussion of killing efficiency and bang for the buck... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 The deed gets done regardless; it's not a mine-is-bigger thing. One could make a case for a 0.5 kt yield being more debilitating because of more wounded. Let's not get into a discussion of killing efficiency and bang for the buck... 384433[/snapback] I was thinking more about what might be considered "realistic", in a terrorism scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Look, we all know you're a militant anti-Islamic xenophobe who deals only in absolutes. 384274[/snapback] Aw, shucks. You say the sweetest things. I think I've got a mancrush. Call up John Adams, I bet he could do the "life affirmation" ceremony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Look, we all know you're a militant anti-Islamic xenophobe who deals only in absolutes. 384274[/snapback] He ain't afraid of no Xenoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 You seemed to gloss over the fact that he is a Republican. No worries, it's all good. 384296[/snapback] Bet'cha a buck, had Hillary said that, he wouldnt have posted it. Most know the Slothdog is a left leaning tree hugger, catch up, will ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Aw, shucks. You say the sweetest things. I think I've got a mancrush. Call up John Adams, I bet he could do the "life affirmation" ceremony 384438[/snapback] You have said some creepy things in the past Joe, but this has to be number one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 I was thinking more about what might be considered "realistic", in a terrorism scenario. 384434[/snapback] Yes, I know. But it is the beginning... "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein. Yet, there are many here, and much of Europe, who think their charm and powers of pursuation and "by-gosh-I-know-I'm right" logic will induce organisms cultivated from birth to kill you and me will miraculously see some sort of amicable light. Propaganda works. The globe is awash with the buried bones of such optimists. The current crowd is similar, and are cluless, and actually contemptuous of those who don't want to share their unknowing fate. It pays to strike first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 You have said some creepy things in the past Joe, butthis has to be number one. 384452[/snapback] SARCASM, poindexter. Throwing out a little sarcasm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts