Here's a scary one for ya . . .

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Or very possibly weapons in the megaton (million tons of TNT) range, Pat. Tactical nukes normally run in the 5 to 10 kiloton (thousand tons of TNT) range, in other words, about a quarter to a half of the power that blew apart Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is possible to harden a site to the point where a very large weapon would necessary to destroy it with certainty, which is why we developed the 300 megaton weapons I mentioned above. One of those, it was estimated, would create a crater six miles in diameter.

And you're right. In the scenerios we've been discussing here, words would have no power, much as I love the damn things. Personally, I see very little point in fighting with words or "economic sanctions" while mushroom clouds rise up over Chicago or Houston, or our citizens are dying from anthrax or botulism poisoning.

Absolutely correct, Pistol.

If Hitler had the bomb, would he have hesitated to use it? The Iranians are just as nuts and just as blood thirsty as he was. If we knew Hitler had it, and would drop one on us at his first opportunity, wouldn't it be the height of stupidity to do nothing but offer flowery platitudes about peace and negotiations? Remember Neville Chamberlin?

If we would stop Hitler from dropping one, why wouldn't we prevent the Iranians from wiping us out?

[TTUshooter]

Well since I'm apparently a big f'ing idiot to some people here, I guess here was the original point of my post which i guess I really didnt get across, no matter what, America if threated with nukes from a foreign power,will use nukes in return. And thats pretty much it. But I think the big risk is not terrorists building a nuke from scratch. What I think is more likely is a terrorist organization will procure a weapon from the black market. One That our soviet friends seemed to have missplaced. And that the nuke will not be launched by an ICBM from terrorists, but just lit off from inside a uhaul truck. At that point where do we launch our nukes at? At what uranium enrichment facility will we need to take out if they are buying the entire weapon off the black market?? That is why i think the notion of a nuclear strike is one of almost an archaic nature. I really dont think Iran is the biggest threat of nuclear attack, cause if they do, they will be erased off of the face of the earth. Along with North Korea, and along with most of the rest of modern civilization.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by TTUshooter

But I think the big risk is not terrorists building a nuke from scratch. What I think is more likely is a terrorist organization will procure a weapon from the black market. One That our soviet friends seemed to have missplaced. And that the nuke will not be launched by an ICBM from terrorists, but just lit off from inside a uhaul truck.

TTU, I cannot fault your reasoning under the scenerio you describe. I grant you that a nuclear attack against us is more likely to occur surreptitiously using a device purchased or stolen from an already existing nuclear power, smuggled in, and activated with no warning. So, do we need more sources of nuclear weapons, especially those with governments steadfastly inimical to us and headed by fundamentalist megalomaniacs? I, for one, do not think so. Nonetheless, you raise a very relevant point. For the sake of argument, let's take your scenerio one step further. What would be the likely reaction of the American people were that to happen? Unless I miss my guess, there would be an overwhelming and irresistible outcry (except for pusalanamous fools like Kennedy, Clinton, and Peolosi) to turn the Bekka Valley, together with any other known stronghold of terrorists, into a nuclear wasteland. Any American president who refused would likely be impeached, convicted, and hung up by the short curlies. My point is that our only hope to prevent that might well, at some point, come down to preventing those weapons from being built in the first place, and that could conceivably necessitate a first strike with our own nuclear weapons. I will even make you a prediction, TTU. If Iran, for example, is not stopped, shortly before they deploy an operational nuclear weapons system, the Israelis will strike them, and it won't be with conventional weapons. Frankly, I would find it difficult to blame them; the very survival of their nation would then be at stake. It's a frightening possibility, but a very real one I believe.

[Popgunner]

Pat
you were asking what we would use to destroy heavily fortified underground installations. Here in Utah we've been listening to folks throw a fit against testing/developing a new form of bunker buster that's to be tested at the old nuclear site. It's a fertilizer w/diesel bomb that weighs 200 tons. Supposed to be able to take out targets way down under ground. They chose a site 1.5 miles away from where any nuclear matter would be left from those tests & dug a hole 150 feet deep to test it. Now we have everyone who has ever heard of the downwinders & their problems yelling that there'll be radioactive leftovers thrown up in the air from this test.

I wish I could rely on complaining against something like this that would make me feel warm & fuzzy enough to not worry about bad things that may happen. I just can't figure out which cause will will get me to nirvana

[click]

The problem when discussing anything concerning the "Jihadists" is that anything we have learned in our lifetimes about morals or politics or whatever must be thrown right out. What kind of rules govern people who blow themselves to kingdom come in the middle of a funeral or wedding ceremony or invade school houses? Do they think they're going to get a quick ticket to those 72 (73?) virgins in heaven, are they demonstrating their hatred of the Isrealis, or are they just friggin insane from all the sand? In any event, i being of rational mind and peaceful goals vote to Nuke the Bastards in Mecca at the time of Rammadan(not sure of the spelling) reload and never look back!.......................

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by click

Do they think they're going to get a quick ticket to those 72 (73?) virgins in heaven . . .

According to Islamic tradition, Click, it's 72. Interestingly enough though, a specific number is never actually mentioned in the Koran, though there are several references to "houris" being available to any faithful Moslem male, and they may be either male or female, depending on one's taste. OK, so much for the lesson in comparative religions!

Make a parking lot out of Iraq , Iran, n. Korea and be done with it. I guess that's why I could not be a president.

[catfish83861]

Pistolenschutze; Just thought I would mention that Pokeittoya is normally very liberall. So eliminating some of the less conservative individuals here in Idaho would be , well lets say some sort of OK Nah lets just send them to New York City.

[catfish83861]

Kar, You left out China and our not really friends in Saudia Arabia. We should all note that Saudia Arabia is very quick to cut production on oil so that they keep the world hostage. Their schools teach anti American classes daily. Our government needt to get off their political butts and get the alternate fuels vehicles on the road. Just my two cents again.

[click]

You know Pistol when you think about it, there are a lot worse fates than meeting 72 virgins................but i digress As you so eloquently put it "don't wish ill for your enemy, plan for it" I would hope at this point that the Pentagon has indeed planned for it and has a nuclear option as part of that plan. If they don't, we are already doomed. I was there on Sept. 11, i saw it, smelled it, felt it and know in my heart that the World Trade Center was just another round in the continuing escalation of this war. This is a very formidable enemy we are facing and i believe it is naive to wait for the next salvo to land. We as a nation should preempt our enemies (plurally) with our overwhelming might. I'll leave the specifics of the plan to the Generals. As a citizen i would demand nothing less from my countries leaders.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by catfish83861

Kar, You left out China and our not really friends in Saudia Arabia. We should all note that Saudia Arabia is very quick to cut production on oil so that they keep the world hostage. Their schools teach anti American classes daily. Our government needt to get off their political butts and get the alternate fuels vehicles on the road. Just my two cents again.

Don't get me started on the Saudis, Cat. They're no more our friends than the French . . . except, of course, when they need us desperately to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.

[Marlin]

With friends like the Saudies,

who needs ENEMIES??????????

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by click

As you so eloquently put it "don't wish ill for your enemy, plan for it" I would hope at this point that the Pentagon has indeed planned for it and has a nuclear option as part of that plan. If they don't, we are already doomed. As a citizen i would demand nothing less from my countries leaders.

I think we can rest assured they have such theoretical plans, Click. Indeed, the so-called "War Book" contains plans to strike virtually every place on earth with the possible exception of Antarctica and the North Pole, complete with casualty and damage estimates. A legacy of the Cold War . . . .

[delta13soultaker]

Trying to express my opinion gingerly here...

First...
If Iran and N. Korea are the target (no pun) of your focus, we do not need to use any nuclear weapons to neutralize them in most foreseeable situations. By that I mean they have put themselves out there in such a way collectively that a blow to their government would cause social collapse etc etc. And we can at anytime tip their governments. However, we DO NOT want to be the dummy holding the broom to sweep up the mess when it all falls down! So we all keep playing the games we're good at. Example: We tip NK like a cow in a pasture one night. Funny at first? But millions of refugees pile onto China's border, think Hurricane Katrina times 100, and you have one big red pissed off China! Sorry to say it'll be awhile before we want to take China on over anything unnecessary. Iran same dynamics but different players.

Second...
Do not kid yourself about the readiness of the U.S. when it comes to WMD on any level. We can and will put a miniature nuclear sun above or a cloud of persistant nerve gas on everything they know quicker than most banks can close on a big loan. We constantly refine, update, and improve our ability, at great financial costs, to destroy a whole bunch of people at one time. Thank God that we are not a tyrannical state! But do not fool yourself into thinking that if it were the only reasonable option or if we had solid justification we would not use WMD. Anyone who does not believe we can and will is insane.

Third...
Tactical nuclear and chemical weapons have always been about escalation of force. Sort of like a cop going from verbal warning, to spray, to baton, to pistol, to shotgun. Strategic WMD are what is likely used to retaliate on a government who uses tactical WMD. It's in our policies, and theirs, to respond with the next level of force.

Fourth...
The whole world knows in the back of their head that at the end of each day so far, the U.S. is the only nation to drop a nuclear device on a real city. Twice.

[Pat Hurley]

Originally Posted by click

You know Pistol when you think about it, there are a lot worse fates than meeting 72 virgins................but i digress As you so eloquently put it "don't wish ill for your enemy, plan for it" I would hope at this point that the Pentagon has indeed planned for it and has a nuclear option as part of that plan. If they don't, we are already doomed. I was there on Sept. 11, i saw it, smelled it, felt it and know in my heart that the World Trade Center was just another round in the continuing escalation of this war. This is a very formidable enemy we are facing and i believe it is naive to wait for the next salvo to land. We as a nation should preempt our enemies (plurally) with our overwhelming might. I'll leave the specifics of the plan to the Generals. As a citizen i would demand nothing less from my countries leaders.

How right you are. You made my day. Brilliant stuff you wrote. If I ever bump into you at a bar - the drinks are on me.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Third...
Tactical nuclear and chemical weapons have always been about escalation of force. Sort of like a cop going from verbal warning, to spray, to baton, to pistol, to shotgun. Strategic WMD are what is likely used to retaliate on a government who uses tactical WMD. It's in our policies, and theirs, to respond with the next level of force.

Fourth...
The whole world knows in the back of their head that at the end of each day so far, the U.S. is the only nation to drop a nuclear device on a real city. Twice.

Delta, that is a very well thought-out and extremely well-written post. My compliments, sir. And besides, I mostly agree with you.

You are quite correct. Nuclear weapons have essentially been--at least since the two we dropped on Japan--political rather than military weapons. Even with those two, the same destruction could have been accomplished using convential weapons; it would have simply taken longer and would not have had the positive (from our perspective) psychological effect a single aircraft dropping a single bomb created.

In essence, the basic fabric of the MAD doctrine was based on precisely the reasoning you describe: "You use an WMD and we will return the favor, only using a bigger one." However insane it sounds, we must never forget that the concept worked successfully for over half a century in our standoff with the Soviet Union. Yet, I think it was successful in large part only because the Soviets, whatever else they may have been, were essentially rational beings. Can that truly be said with regard to some of the potential enemies we now face? Fanatical religious belief is as dangerous as fulminate of mercury, and just about as unstable. Otherwise rational people often do highly irrational things while in its grasp. It's almost like the serial killer who claims, "God told me to kill those 98 prostitutes because of their evil ways. I am only doing God's will and therefore anything I do is just and righteous." Insane? Stupid? Not in the mind of a man who truly believes in the Godliness of his action, however delusional it may actually be.

Yes, we are the only nation to ever actually drop a nuclear weapon. In that time and place it was, I will always believe, the correct and rational thing to do. Time and societal change have since altered the mindset of my fellow citizens and its political leaders. Would we really have the cajones to take that same action again, however necessary it might be? Perhaps, but I must admit to serious doubts on that issue.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Would we really have the cajones to take that same action again, however necessary it might be? Perhaps, but I must admit to serious doubts on that issue.

I understand your doubt. There's always doubt.

First, I'll say what I know from "wargaming" and "warfighters" back in the 90's. Once tactical options are expended or resources depleted, a strategic handoff of responsibility will occur immedietely. That's if here ever was a tactical option too. But it will occur without hesitation and will be handed back if it can.

Second, there's a rigidly designated forum of very smart people who keep real time options on the table. We are lucky that because of our technology, allies, extremely competent agencies/branches, and plain old fashioned ability to get s*** done...that we normally have enough options to develope situations a long time.

Third, defense is a huge machine that is now truely joint between agencies, offices, branches, detachments, allies, individuals, and corporations. If the table is ever empty of options...then it's because there really is no reasonable choice.

Fourth, even under the liberal Clinton administration, after the "Cold War", WMD was still very much on the table as an option, not a possible, but a very real option to defend this country and our interests. The rehearsal, preperation, planning, expense, researching etc etc is as intense as it always has needed to be. The nuclear platform is a weapon we collectively inspect, clean, load, and put in it's holster every day. I mean that on every level. Delivery systems changed, but the bullets are the same.

Fifth, luckily we have plenty of precise and even quiet ways to protect our interest. WMD is a loud messy option. A nuclear strike/response of any type is like throwing a grenade in our own living room. But if the there is no option otherwise, you can be damn certain we will pull the pin and buy new furniture later.

Last, I don't know how else to say this...deployment of our weapons is a straightforward process with carefully placed control measures. BUT doing what we have to do to defend our people/constitution/interests is never an optional choice. If options fail leading up to rocks...we will use rocks. If options fail and lead up to a nuclear strike...we use the nuke.

If there is ever need,
Until peace is restored,
Until the threat is removed or destroyed,
Until security is possible again,
Not taking action is illegal, unlawful, not allowed.

If we are put on the spot we will fire.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by click

You know Pistol when you think about it, there are a lot worse fates than meeting 72 virgins................but i digress

Here's why joint U.S. forces are not the enemy you want.

Just after 9/11, DoD recognized that we were about to increase the population in the afterlife.

Army, Navy and Marine PsyOps formed a special team dressed in Armani with a case of Hennessy and a combat load of Exstasy pills and powder. Music still classified until NLT 2021.

Air Force was tasked with a plane that could ascend to heaven.

In less than 100 operational hours the objective was cleared.

Allah no longer has any virgins in heaven.

Success of the operation greatly dissolves enemy morale while having a low impact on our own force readiness because our personnel have a long tradition of getting our 72 before we do a permanent change of station of the planet

[Pistolenschutze]

Very interesting post, Delta, and I think your conclusions are pretty much right on the money.

I got interested in the subject of tactical and strategic nuclear war back in the '70s. I've often asked myself why. The only conclusion I've been able to come up with is that it is so morbidly fascinating . . . kinda like Hitler, the Holocaust, and poisonous snakes. All are repulsive subjects, but somehow they are also intensely interesting from an intellectual point of view.

You talk of wargames, Delta, and that is precisely how the topic of nuclear war has always been approached, at least on our side of the "pond." Moves and counter moves. "So many megatons on this target will produce "X" amount of casualties and damage and inhibit the enemy's ability to do "X" or "Y." It reminds me of the famous line by Matthew Arnold in "Dover Beach":

And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

The scenarios are virtually endless. According to one highly reliable source I know personally (Air Force officer, highly involved in designing our secondary and tertiary strike options in the event of a full-scale nuclear war), there is a "PLAN" in place designed to cover every conceivable scenario from a full nuclear strike on the continental U.S. to a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem. That plan, according to him, would take over automatically and be followed explicitly if the National Command Authority ever issued the release order for nuclear weapons.

Of course, some scenarios are a bit more complex and difficult than others. The one that has always fascinated me the most revolves around the issue of "counter force" v. "counter value" targeting. Counter force targets are, of course, things like military complexes, missile farms, and the like. Counter value targets are mostly population centers such as cities. Which should be our focus of response in a given situation? At first glance, the choice seems simple: we respond based on the enemy's attack, counter force for counter force, counter value for counter value. Yet is it so simple? What do we hit if virtually all our enemy's counter force targets have already expended their force, as in already released their missiles? Do we respond by intentionally targeting a population center? Even worse, what if an enemy declares that he will limit his attack to valid military (counter force) targets only, and then hits the naval base at, say, Bremerton, Washington? Such would certainly be a valid counter force target, yet it would also rather handily take out the City of Seattle! Are we to respond with a ten-megaton device over Tehran? The real crux of the argument, of course, is that it is possible any nuclear attack would quickly spiral out of control.

[delta13soultaker]

Yeah "out of control" is right.

There's an immense ammount of effort that's been dedicated over the last half-century to degrading an enemy's ability to strike first or retaliate after. Mostly electronic warfare etc...all those satellites up there are damn sure not for TV, plenty are for locating mobile missle platforms on land and under sea. But also hardware...stealth aircraft came from a need to bust ICBM sites and any mobile platforms that could be caught...before a mass launch.

Although there are safety nets in place, a real safety measure is long over due. We need a no BS defense system with multiple layers.

But on the one-time bang thing...10 meg over Tehran, Pyongyang etc...
Even if it's a strategic/tactical success you still have one hell of a mess.

The medical relief drain would be a giant strain on everyone. Bigger than probably any valcano, earthquake, tsunami, or hurricane the world's relief agencies have ever experienced. Then compound the effort for the safety/health of anyone trying to relieve survivors/victims.

Refugees. This is a big problem. You may never grasp how serious if you've never seen a human flood of displaced peoples. Who ever owns the borders of where you struck is going to be in for Hell and they are going to be Pissed! Imagine hosting MILLIONS of foreigners against your approval that you are not prepared to recieve. Who is going to pay for it?

A nuclear blast goes outwards very fast, then sucks back to ground zero even faster. Everything sucked back into the inferno burns into ash that spirals up into the jetstream and any other wind currents. The ash carries radiation and toxins that contaminates whatever it falls on. There's a few remote Pacific islands or inside a few mountains in the world you can kinda-sorta safely blow a 10 meg nuke, but most places you are going to piss off 1,000,000-1,000,000,000 peoples. Citizens of a country 1,000 miles away may suffer unthinkably for something another country did.

The whole world would go to fullest alert. Diplomatic services, in places that don't stonewall them, will be working 25 hours a day trying to avert unnecessary...ummm mishaps. Foreign relations, already a very dynamic endeavor, would get very complicated where is shouldn't be. Diplomatic efforts in a lot of places would probably look a lot like a property discussion during a nasty divorce.

Even if you were justified in striking...the UN would be locked up over the issue. Anything else important on the floor there would gather a thick layer of dust, meanwhile the issues still go on. Nobody has time for this nightmare. We are a busy planet...lol.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Yeah "out of control" is right.

There's an immense ammount of effort that's been dedicated over the last half-century to degrading an enemy's ability to strike first or retaliate after. Mostly electronic warfare etc...all those satellites up there are damn sure not for TV, plenty are for locating mobile missle platforms on land and under sea. But also hardware...stealth aircraft came from a need to bust ICBM sites and any mobile platforms that could be caught...before a mass launch.

Even if you were justified in striking...the UN would be locked up over the issue. Anything else important on the floor there would gather a thick layer of dust, meanwhile the issues still go on. Nobody has time for this nightmare. We are a busy planet...lol.

Yeah, the sats, especially the Keyholes, would definitely come in handy if we thought someone was planning a strike. I doubt very few outside the Pentagon really really understands how precise those birds are. Rumors float around of course, but I suspect even they are conservative as to their true capabilities. I cannot help but wonder sometimes just what we really have up there. Placing warheads in orbit would not be particularly difficult, and just think, launching from orbit would eliminate the entire boost phase of a nuclear strike, no fuss, no buss, so to speak. No one would know the birds are coming until the warhead exploded 10 or 15,000 feet above its target.

As for the UN, who cares what they do? If the situation were desperate enough to use weapons of that kind, I seriously doubt we would be listening to any dithering fools on the Security Council, or give their resolutions much heed either!

I still think Ronald Reagan was right in his approach. The only real way to deal with nuclear missiles is to make them impotent and obsolete. A bomb truck carrying a city buster can be found and destroyed. A nuclear warhead coming down at 30,000 MPH is another story entirely.

[delta13soultaker]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

The only real way to deal with nuclear missiles is to make them impotent and obsolete. A bomb truck carrying a city buster can be found and destroyed. A nuclear warhead coming down at 30,000 MPH is another story entirely.

Yeah, there's no telling what's up there. We've had a long time to use that space...sorry for pun Mostly electronic warfare stuff...thing fry command and control from miles above. Sorta like the stuff they gave us in Iraq that jams stuff that can set off remote activated IED's (I can't say specifically anything but you get the idea.) That stuff didn't come from radio-shack. It was pushed down (another pun huh) from another field of use.

Don't kid yourself about stopping missles. Been plenty of time to figure it out. An ICBM blasting skyward is traveling so fast by the time it starts running out of atmosphere, an alloy ball the size of a golf ball (just 1) striking it will turn it into a swirling pile of junk. You don't think we haven't figured out a long time ago to put mil-spec thermal seeking baseball auto-pitchers up there in NASA space cans looking down? If you know where they're launching from, and generally where they're going to...it's inside our ability to put things in the way up there. lol

Hunter killer satellites, the ones who bust other satellites, were made to take out stuff like that before an ICBM strike...not just bring down GPS and commo cans. Clear air space, ya know. USSR invested a lot in hunter/killer satellites because we invested a lot in more than satellite TV.

The UN thing. It's hard to be an American and like such a thing. We've stood alone enough times before as the lone symbol of liberty while the rest of the world was submerged in ****. We know we can get things done on our own. But they do have a purpose and they do have influence...good and bad. It's easy to say, "Screw em, damn the guns, flank speed ahead with operation Blazing Freedom!" The world is smaller than it used to be though. It's good sometimes to let other countries fix something once in awhile

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Don't kid yourself about stopping missles. Been plenty of time to figure it out. An ICBM blasting skyward is traveling so fast by the time it starts running out of atmosphere, an alloy ball the size of a golf ball (just 1) striking it will turn it into a swirling pile of junk. You don't think we haven't figured out a long time ago to put mil-spec thermal seeking baseball auto-pitchers up there in NASA space cans looking down? If you know where they're launching from, and generally where they're going to...it's inside our ability to put things in the way up there. lol

The UN thing. It's hard to be an American and like such a thing. We've stood alone enough times before as the lone symbol of liberty while the rest of the world was submerged in ****. We know we can get things done on our own. But they do have a purpose and they do have influence...good and bad. It's easy to say, "Screw em, damn the guns, flank speed ahead with operation Blazing Freedom!" The world is smaller than it used to be though. It's good sometimes to let other countries fix something once in awhile

Yes, we almost had a workable anti-ballistic missile system developed, at least in theory, during the Reagan years. The key, as I understand it, was to get as many missiles as possible in the boost phase using laser weapons. Any leakers were to be stopped using the so-called "Brilliant Pebbles" idea. I think it would likely have worked, not 100% perhaps, but enough to make a first strike against us survivable. Of course, soon as Clinton got into office the program was pretty much shelved. Gotta have funds for all those social giveaway programs, you know, keep the peons happy with sufficient bread and circuses. Funny thing, I seem to remember that one of the sworn duties of a president was to "preserve and protect" the citizens of this country. Clinton apparently didn't bother listening to that part of his oath.

On the UN issue, in principle, I tend to agree with you Delta. Unfortunately, the UN is rapidly developing into effectively an anti-US organization. More and more often the measures it seeks to take are directly contrary to our own national interests and designed only to benefit our enemies. I find that totally unacceptable and an anathema to the citizens of this country. It's like putting the rabbit in charge of the carrot farm! So far, we have been able to thwart the most extreme of those measures because we hold a veto power in the Security Council, but should that ever change, Lord help us. What the UN members fail to undertand is that, in a very real way, the U.S. IS the UN in very large part. Our contributions currently constitute more of the UN's total funding than all of the other 177 nations combined, and if troops are committed, guess who supplies the vast majority of them? Without us, they are as impotent as the old League of Nations--nothing but a debating society. And let's not forget the corruption that has become rampant within that organization. The liberals try to suppress it, of course, but much of it leaks out anyway. Remember Kofi Annan's "minor faux pas" when he was Secretary General? That sucker should have ended up making big rocks into little rocks. Much of the money we contribute for third world assistance (over 13 billion dollars annually) goes to countries who despise our nation and who vote against us 74% of the time! It's like playing in a poker game where the dealer makes up the rules as he goes along and marks the cards to boot! Pay attention to the desires of the UN? No, I don't think so; I say get the hell out and let them worry about what we might do next to protect our interests, while they go on peddling their soft soap to third-world dictators.

OK, end of polemic.

Oh, and by the way, I'm really enjoying this conversation, Delta. You're a bright guy with intelligent things to say.

[delta13soultaker]

Pistol man, shucks bro, you're okay too...I don't care what them gals downtown say about ya Them broads don't know, man

Yeah the missle defense thing got shelved by Clinton, but that don't mean it was shelved by everybody else. Hey, you been in this country long enough to know how things work.

Two factors:
1. A program that required technology that will cost a bunch of money to develope, train, deploy and maintain/upgrade. You're talking a bunch of banana peels to pay for that...a big slice of the 'ol $500+ billion defense budget. And one day, someone WILL use the technology. The development of that type of thing shelved? No, sir. (When the day comes, and it will, for the official program, would you want to have to watch your competitors compete for a bid while you never moved forward to bring a product to trials?)

2. Those people in position to do things that have that certain mix of being as hard headed as they are smart. The ones that go the long way around to get their way.

You can beat the UN thing with your head all day. It just is what it is. Thinking too hard about it will disgust any redblooded American.

When things get really bad, the 'ol USA rolls up her sleeves and jumps in it with both feet. Always has. We've stepped in for everyone. "Sit down France, don't exhaust youself sweetheart, let us kick Germany's tail on your behalf...again."

When the whole damn world was screwed...the USA was the only hope. And did we let anybody down? Nope. Did they forget later? Yep. But that's fine. They don't owe us crap, cause we ain't never asked for a thing.

When times are sorta okay, who catches hell from the wannabee's? Of course the US of A. Cause we can't help but make their peckers feel shorter so it's all our fault for being the biggest rooster in the hen house. They just don't like the pecking order...cause they know deep down if they peck this bird we'll kick their damn beak

We are loved when needed, and despised when not. It's just a fact. Like, the sky is blue. Rain is wet. The most beautiful women are kinda crazy. It just is what it is.

The UN has more problems than we can describe here, aside from that mentioned so far. But hey, I've had to do with a rifle for what someone failed to do with diplomacy, so I've no problem with them atleast trying. To many times we went from alert to staging, to find out UN or state dept or you name it resolved things...talk about instant relief...but a few times it got cleared up violently...if there's live ammo at the ramp and OPORD after lift it ain't a rehearsal...so to me I think it's good to fix with words before rifles etc. If it's the UN or State Department or Jessie Jackson or 4-H club or 33rd and Olive Street New Revival Babtist Holy Church don't matter to me.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

Pistol man, shucks bro, you're okay too...I don't care what them gals downtown say about ya Them broads don't know, man

I only said what I thought, Delta. Last time I checked, they don't generally assign knuckle-dragging idiots to Delta Force, only to football teams. Now, as to those fine ladies of the evening, you know how girls will talk. I strongly suspect it is merely a bad case of what Freud called, "penis envy" anyway.

Originally Posted by delta13soultaker

We are loved when needed, and despised when not. It's just a fact. Like, the sky is blue. Rain is wet. The most beautiful women are kinda crazy. It just is what it is.

The UN has more problems than we can describe here, aside from that mentioned so far. But hey, I've had to do with a rifle for what someone failed to do with diplomacy, so I've no problem with them atleast trying. To many times we went from alert to staging, to find out UN or state dept or you name it resolved things...talk about instant relief...but a few times it got cleared up violently...if there's live ammo at the ramp and OPORD after lift it ain't a rehearsal...so to me I think it's good to fix with words before rifles etc. If it's the UN or State Department or Jessie Jackson or 4-H club or 33rd and Olive Street New Revival Babtist Holy Church don't matter to me.

I believe a great measure of the reason the U.S. is held in such odium by so many small (and some larger) nations worldwide comes down to little more than simple envy. We are, in fact, the 800 lb gorilla in the phone booth to many of them. Where does the 800 lb gorilla sleep? Any damn place he wants to! We are immensely wealthy; they are often woefully poor, and our economic and military power makes it difficult, if not impossible, for them to substantially improve that condition by force of arms. In my view, that's just tough. See the chaplain at 8:00 AM for a TS chit. We live in the real world, and if your mama told you it was fair, she lied! As you point out though, the U.S. has, time and time again, been the only force that has kept this world from destroying itself, or falling under the dictatorial control of a madman like Hitler or Stalin. That should count for something, but of course it doesn't. It is not truly the collective nature of human being to feel gratitude or remember past favors for very long. As you say, life's a b***h and then ya die, and we have little choice but to accept it for what it is.

Now, having said that, I agree wholeheartedly that words are much cheaper than casualties. If they're talkin' they ain't usually shootin'! But as you well know from your line of work, diplomacy is only as good as the diplomat's hole card. If the force, and the willingness to use it, are not present, words are just so much hot air coming out both ends. The UN does at times serve a useful purpose, if for no other reason than to provide a forum for debate of issues and time for a dissipation of anger. I've always believed that use of military force is much like a civilian who carries a personal defense weapon. Use of a gun (or military force) should be the last resort, not the first, else you're swatting flies with a sledge hammer. Karl von Clauswitz probably said it best with his remark, "War is merely a continuation of diplomacy by other means." In those cases, it's folks like you (and me many years ago) who end up on the sharp end of the stick and give truth to the diplomat's words.