[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]
Not sure who brought up the “dirty nuke” but I agree with you here. Afghanistan could have been a success. Iraq…not as likely. However, my opinions have changed and likely will continue to do so concerning that sandbox.[/quote]
USMC. Along with something about the “Taliban” taking control of “Baghdad”. It would be interesting if we could take away Iraq and see what effects it’s absence had upon the course of events in Afghanistan.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think we need to worry about being careful I think we need to be prepared.
[/quote]
Is there any reason to assume that a country that spends almost double of the next ten biggest spenders combined and has been at that rate for a while is not prepared in any sense? We have vastly more than any of our potential opponents I’m not exactly sure what we have to be afraid of.
No developed country is stupid enough to pick an actual fight with the United States because they understand how much stronger we are than them. Some people may posture, but financially we are in the NFL and everyone else is DII college teams.
Russia and China COMBINED don’t even begin to get close to us in terms of spending over the last 20 years. We would need to be seriously ganged up on to have anything to worry about and the odds of that happening in a time where all superpowers have nukes is not a rational fear.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think we need to worry about being careful I think we need to be prepared.
[/quote]
Is there any reason to assume that a country that spends almost double of the next ten biggest spenders combined and has been at that rate for a while is not prepared in any sense? We have vastly more than any of our potential opponents I’m not exactly sure what we have to be afraid of.
No developed country is stupid enough to pick an actual fight with the United States because they understand how much stronger we are than them. Some people may posture, but financially we are in the NFL and everyone else is DII college teams. [/quote]
Ya, I agree. The military is on the chopping block though. That much is clear. One of the reasons the cost of the wars in the Middle East was so high was because of the downsizing after desert storm.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Russia and China COMBINED don’t even begin to get close to us in terms of spending over the last 20 years. We would need to be seriously ganged up on to have anything to worry about and the odds of that happening in a time where all superpowers have nukes is not a rational fear. [/quote]
Well, you do have to figure in #'s to an extent. I mean China can throw a lot of people at us if they wanted to.
We only have something like 1.5 million active duty personnel. Plus reserves (not sure on the #'s).
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t think we need to worry about being careful I think we need to be prepared.
[/quote]
Is there any reason to assume that a country that spends almost double of the next ten biggest spenders combined and has been at that rate for a while is not prepared in any sense? We have vastly more than any of our potential opponents I’m not exactly sure what we have to be afraid of.
No developed country is stupid enough to pick an actual fight with the United States because they understand how much stronger we are than them. Some people may posture, but financially we are in the NFL and everyone else is DII college teams. [/quote]
Ya, I agree. The military is on the chopping block though. That much is clear. One of the reasons the cost of the wars in the Middle East was so high was because of the downsizing after desert storm. [/quote]
We could chop a lot and STILL be the biggest spender by far.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Russia and China COMBINED don’t even begin to get close to us in terms of spending over the last 20 years. We would need to be seriously ganged up on to have anything to worry about and the odds of that happening in a time where all superpowers have nukes is not a rational fear. [/quote]
Well, you do have to figure in #'s to an extent. I mean China can throw a lot of people at us if they wanted to.
We only have something like 1.5 million active duty personnel. Plus reserves (not sure on the #'s). [/quote]
#'s is less important in a time of drone strikes, nuclear weapons, and air strike capabilities.
And it would be easy to increase if we NEEDED to do so.
Other developed countries are very aware of our large advantages in technology and our spending over the last 30 years in regards to the military. No smart developed country actually wants to fuck with us right now in the least bit.
The potentially lunatic countries would worry me far more. Russia and China are far too intelligent and developed to even consider doing something that would lead to really pissing us off.
They may try and get away with all sorts of annoying shit, but no one wants a full scale conflict with us and we are as prepared as any country in the world could ever be.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]
A dirty nuke is essentially a radioactive dispersion device. Their main purpose is to spread radiation about a certain area. They are really only useful as an area denial measure, but if the dispersion mechanism is combined with conventional explosives you get the added benefits of equipment/building damage and immediate human casualties, as well as area denial.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]
A dirty nuke is essentially a radioactive dispersion device. Their main purpose is to spread radiation about a certain area. They are really only useful as an area denial measure, but if the dispersion mechanism is combined with conventional explosives you get the added benefits of equipment/building damage and immediate human casualties, as well as area denial. [/quote]
Good information.
Ironically now weapons of mass destruction can even include pressure cookers. So by this measure Iraq was loaded with them and actually so was my grandma.
Maybe invading countries to search for WMD’s should start in the kitchen? By this type of logic almost every place is worth invading if we judge the threats by all the things that COULD be used to make something bad.
Yay, now government has a ready excuse for any military action. After all a country with a chemical or cooking agent now can be classified as using those to make weapons of mass destruction.
The age of paranoia and security to fight the myriad of “bad guys” is interesting indeed.
[quote]H factor wrote:
We do know the effect of going in before we knew whether or not they had WMD’s. They did not ultimately and our justification for that action was completely lost at that point. We had an opportunity to wait for confirmation before acting and we ignored it.
[/quote]
Here’s the thing, and I know it’s going to sound full retard, but it’s the truth.
Iraq had chemical weapons and I know people that they were used on. You will never hear about it in the news or official acknowledgement by our gov. but people were and are currently being treated for “Gulf War Syndrome” which just so happens to match very closely with the symptoms of having been hit with nerve gas.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
We do know the effect of going in before we knew whether or not they had WMD’s. They did not ultimately and our justification for that action was completely lost at that point. We had an opportunity to wait for confirmation before acting and we ignored it.
[/quote]
Here’s the thing, and I know it’s going to sound full retard, but it’s the truth.
Iraq had chemical weapons and I know people that they were used on. You will never hear about it in the news or official acknowledgement by our gov. but people were and are currently being treated for “Gulf War Syndrome” which just so happens to match very closely with the symptoms of having been hit with nerve gas.
[/quote]
I don’t think it’s full retard. I think it is unfortunate we went over thinking Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and in response maybe some people got attacked in unjustifiable ways.
This is the risk with invading a country. It’s a really good reason not to invade unless absolutely necessary. Iraq was not a threat in any sense of the word. We made them into a threat. They were far from the only country out there with a psycho leader and the potential for doing bad things. We have to decide if we are going to invade every country that fits those descriptions or not. If so then why in the hell aren’t we in Syria?
We have no shortage of places in the world where bad things are happening to people that we may be able to prevent with our massive military might. Do we invade every country where these things are taking place? Some people may argue yes and that is fine, I just happen to disagree big time.
Would those people you know have been attacked if they had stayed home? Would my college roommate’s best friend still have two legs? Is it a stretch to come to the conclusion at this time that certain leaders on both sides of the aisle REALLY wanted to find a reason to get there? You can always find the reasons to get in a fight if you go around trying to find a place to fight.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]
A dirty nuke is essentially a radioactive dispersion device. Their main purpose is to spread radiation about a certain area. They are really only useful as an area denial measure, but if the dispersion mechanism is combined with conventional explosives you get the added benefits of equipment/building damage and immediate human casualties, as well as area denial. [/quote]
I was questioning his choice of words. A nuclear weapon which is “dirty” is a given. He was reaching for dirty bombs, which many analysts believe would be a waste of highly enriched radioactive material gained at very great expense for such a cumbersome and largely ineffective weapon. The most tangible damage would be economic and psychological in the wake of a terrified populace.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Wasn’t Baghdad recently retaken by the Taliban (I think I read that somewhere)?
[/quote]
Fallujah.
[/quote]
- Al-Qaida. I don’t know how he could have came to that conclusion.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
We do know the effect of going in before we knew whether or not they had WMD’s. They did not ultimately and our justification for that action was completely lost at that point. We had an opportunity to wait for confirmation before acting and we ignored it.
[/quote]
Here’s the thing, and I know it’s going to sound full retard, but it’s the truth.
Iraq had chemical weapons and I know people that they were used on. You will never hear about it in the news or official acknowledgement by our gov. but people were and are currently being treated for “Gulf War Syndrome” which just so happens to match very closely with the symptoms of having been hit with nerve gas.
[/quote]
That’s a stretch and more likely the result of the use of depleted uranium weapons. So what if Iraq did use VX or sarin nerve agent? People are irrationally afraid of chemical weapons because of how they kill their victims. They get lumped into the WMD category not because of their capability, but by virtue of being unconventional. WMD itself is a political construct that has no place in positivist analysis. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear weapons (CBRNs) is the metric that should be standard terminology.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]
A dirty nuke is essentially a radioactive dispersion device. Their main purpose is to spread radiation about a certain area. They are really only useful as an area denial measure, but if the dispersion mechanism is combined with conventional explosives you get the added benefits of equipment/building damage and immediate human casualties, as well as area denial. [/quote]
Good information.
Ironically now weapons of mass destruction can even include pressure cookers. So by this measure Iraq was loaded with them and actually so was my grandma.
[/quote]
An improvised explosive device facilitated with a pressure cooker is still a conventional weapon.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Oops. I quoted the wrong post. That was directed towards the intervention crowd, not you.
[/quote]
Who is the intervention crowd here? Name them.[/quote]
Pat, USMC, probably a few others. I’m not lumping you into that category, though I do know ou find the actions of the Russian Federation morally repugnant.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Would my college roommate’s best friend still have two legs? [/quote]
Perhaps, but I don’t know what good they would do him while he was being forced to learn Arabic, worship Allah, wear turbans, etc.