Second Worst President in US History.

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

Very well reasoned and I cannot critique it, but I wonder about this bit.

ladajo wrote:Also, don't forget that Israel will not tolerate any real capability by Iran, so this fight would be a sooner rather than later, and also would thus inherently limit Iranian ability to escalate horizontally by trying to drag in third parties with kinetic actions. This would only hasten the end of Iran anyway.


Iran already has substantial capability. They can put satellites into orbit, so presumably they can make an ICBM. They will continue to develop their own homegrown nuke technology, and they could potentially buy material from other sources.


At what point is Israel going to assert it's lack of tolerance? Do they trust their spies sufficiently to know when the Iranians are building a weapon, or are they going to take a chance on getting a nasty surprise?


I've read about the variant of Islam favored in some Iranian circles regarding the return of the Mahdi, and how some see it as their duty to bring him out of occlusion. They believe that once the final war is started, the forces of Allah will insure their victory. (Which was the same battle strategy they attempted to use in the Iran/Iraq war)


In other words, they may think a single weapon will be sufficient, because Allah will save them in the response. I don't even think they would be dismayed about losing cities, because they would see it as their version of "the rapture" where Allah calls the souls to him.


My point is, they aren't rational players, and it should be our strong and public position as well as that of the Israelis, that they won't be allowed to get anywhere near a Nuke ICBM. I'm thinking the clock should be already ticking on an Israeli response, if it is their intention to stop it.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by paperburn1 »

Personally I don't see it escalating into anything super bad, unless one of the big three, America, China, Russia decide to throw a few nukes around to help out the cause. This would be a big mistake for whichever country did that and I could see her or second worst president in history doing exactly that thinking he/she was saving the day and in fact running us down to the road of ruin
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

mvanwink5
Posts: 2143
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:07 am
Location: N.C. Mountains

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by mvanwink5 »

As I see it, to understand Islam is to know what Mohammed did and then use that as the guide to understand what he said. Unfortunately, then, Jihad looks consistent with ISIS's violent and unrelenting world conquering version. Further to the point is to acknowledge that ISIS's leader is a Phd degreed Islamic scholar. Apparently there is a wordy dispute though, but that is not my business to referee. Muslims are going to have to deal with this and then convince us non Muslims (and all Muslims) that Mohammed's actions and violent teachings have been completely rejected. Good luck on that.

Thus, the nuclear bomb, bio-weapons, and terror campaigns becomes the ultimate undeniable issue with Islam and its spread. Call it 'radical Islam' if you want, but how is it different from what Mohammed taught????

Russia, China, etc are not the issue.
Counting the days to commercial fusion. It is not that long now.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

Diogenes wrote:Very well reasoned and I cannot critique it, but I wonder about this bit.

ladajo wrote:Also, don't forget that Israel will not tolerate any real capability by Iran, so this fight would be a sooner rather than later, and also would thus inherently limit Iranian ability to escalate horizontally by trying to drag in third parties with kinetic actions. This would only hasten the end of Iran anyway.


Iran already has substantial capability. They can put satellites into orbit, so presumably they can make an ICBM. They will continue to develop their own homegrown nuke technology, and they could potentially buy material from other sources.


At what point is Israel going to assert it's lack of tolerance? Do they trust their spies sufficiently to know when the Iranians are building a weapon, or are they going to take a chance on getting a nasty surprise?


I've read about the variant of Islam favored in some Iranian circles regarding the return of the Mahdi, and how some see it as their duty to bring him out of occlusion. They believe that once the final war is started, the forces of Allah will insure their victory. (Which was the same battle strategy they attempted to use in the Iran/Iraq war)


In other words, they may think a single weapon will be sufficient, because Allah will save them in the response. I don't even think they would be dismayed about losing cities, because they would see it as their version of "the rapture" where Allah calls the souls to him.


My point is, they aren't rational players, and it should be our strong and public position as well as that of the Israelis, that they won't be allowed to get anywhere near a Nuke ICBM. I'm thinking the clock should be already ticking on an Israeli response, if it is their intention to stop it.
Think of it in terms of bench depth. Iran, while having some kit, does not have (IMO) expertise or capacity to bring real hurt to third parties. All it would do is piss the third party(s) off, and hasten the end of Iran given the essentially guaranteed active retaliation efforts by the third party(s).

Regarding a nuke, making high yield is hard and expensive for beginners. Even with a 'big pop', there is a mythology regarding the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. They don't, in reality, have the effects that Hollywood likes to represent. While a single large weapon would train wreck Israel as an economy for a period of time, it would not "wipe them from the face of the earth".
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by paperburn1 »

Agreed a single nuke against Israel, even a large one would probably not be the ruin of Israel. Good example would be Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I visited both in 1980 and one would never believe that 30 some years later they were describing this ground zero of an atomic bomb.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:
Think of it in terms of bench depth. Iran, while having some kit, does not have (IMO) expertise or capacity to bring real hurt to third parties.

Unless they hit New York. (You know, sail a freighter in and blow it up.) I can imagine serious financial repercussions, not to mention massive loss of life if they hit that place. Obviously Bin Laden thought the same thing, and were it not for prompt action by the Federal Reserve, they say our finances would have collapsed.


We have this man (Roger Ferguson,vice chairman of the Fed) to thank for his quick thinking and quick action in making liquidity available and thereby soothing the markets.

Image

ladajo wrote: All it would do is piss the third party(s) off, and hasten the end of Iran given the essentially guaranteed active retaliation efforts by the third party(s).

Maybe, but I think a hit on New York would be more than just a bloody nose. It would be a near knockout. I do not put it past the Iranians to either think of it, or to try it. I think we are insane to even allow them such an opportunity.


ladajo wrote: Regarding a nuke, making high yield is hard and expensive for beginners. Even with a 'big pop', there is a mythology regarding the effectiveness of nuclear weapons. They don't, in reality, have the effects that Hollywood likes to represent. While a single large weapon would train wreck Israel as an economy for a period of time, it would not "wipe them from the face of the earth".

I never thought it would. I thought it would come closer to wiping Iran from the Earth, and then who knows what the fallout will be? All I know is that the consequences of tolerating Iran working towards a bomb is likely to be horrifically bad. Maybe not WWIII bad, but very very bad.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:A European Shield cannot prevent Iran from dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III. Iran should have been smashed back in 1979, and the Islamo-Kooks kept from power in the first place.
How do we not know (although not mentioned in the article) that elements of this "European Shield" aren't stationed in or at least in a strategic position to defend Israel as well? This system is deployable by land and sea. No telling how many units we have on ships in the Mediterranean for instance. They may simply be choosing to keep that defending Israel aspect quiet. After all as far back as the Gulf War Israel had access to US patriot missiles didn't they? The ones that stopped Saddam's Scud missiles?

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

a hit on New York would be more than just a bloody nose. It would be a near knockout.
A ship borne weapon would not do near as much damage as you think. Surface bursts, especially water surface bursts are really inefficient. Lots of wasted energy. In any event, national financial systems are no longer single points of failure. So this would be more of a pride and real estate issue. Personally, I think NYC real estate needs its bubble popped anyway. But that is an aside. I am reasonably sure that the 295 million americans not directly impacted by the detonation would be looking for some payback. I imagine that within 30 minutes of attribution, things would not go well for Iran. That said, establishing attribution on a rogue clandestine attack would probably not be instantaneous. May also be a decent chance that the retribution would include some of those who enabled Iran. So there is the possibility based on that of horizontal and vertical escalation. However, again, if Israel got any wind of Iran going final in a weapons program, it would be really hard for them not to preempt the argument. If there is anything they are paranoid of, that is it. I imagine they have come close several times now to executing the decisive option.
The are 6 million ways to die in the west.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by ladajo »

How do we not know (although not mentioned in the article) that elements of this "European Shield" aren't stationed in or at least in a strategic position to defend Israel as well? This system is deployable by land and sea. No telling how many units we have on ships in the Mediterranean for instance.
You don't know because you are not paying attention. There are four ships doing missile defense in the mediterranean.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=65393

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=91243
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:A European Shield cannot prevent Iran from dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III. Iran should have been smashed back in 1979, and the Islamo-Kooks kept from power in the first place.
How do we not know (although not mentioned in the article) that elements of this "European Shield" aren't stationed in or at least in a strategic position to defend Israel as well? This system is deployable by land and sea. No telling how many units we have on ships in the Mediterranean for instance. They may simply be choosing to keep that defending Israel aspect quiet. After all as far back as the Gulf War Israel had access to US patriot missiles didn't they? The ones that stopped Saddam's Scud missiles?

Acquiring a Shield is no reason to allow your enemy to have a gun. That is just foolhardy, even if the shield works. It is insanity if it doesn't.


Supposing such a shield exists, and that it can take out ICBMs, I would suppose the next step for the Iranians would be to launch an orbiting missile, call it a satellite, wait a few weeks and then bring it down where they wanted.


I think the shield system needs the fact of launch to figure out that it's a missile, and without that, it is likely unprepared to respond to the threat. Can the thing realize something is in a descent phase quickly enough to hit it?


I didn't read the details on the thing. Perhaps I should go back and see what they are claiming it is capable of.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:
a hit on New York would be more than just a bloody nose. It would be a near knockout.
A ship borne weapon would not do near as much damage as you think. Surface bursts, especially water surface bursts are really inefficient. Lots of wasted energy. In any event, national financial systems are no longer single points of failure.


Those are two ideas that I would prefer not to see tested.


ladajo wrote: So this would be more of a pride and real estate issue. Personally, I think NYC real estate needs its bubble popped anyway. But that is an aside. I am reasonably sure that the 295 million americans not directly impacted by the detonation would be looking for some payback. I imagine that within 30 minutes of attribution, things would not go well for Iran. That said, establishing attribution on a rogue clandestine attack would probably not be instantaneous. May also be a decent chance that the retribution would include some of those who enabled Iran. So there is the possibility based on that of horizontal and vertical escalation.

I have got to a point where I think the bulk of our population are not reasonable, thinking beings, but are now mostly knee jerk emotional reactionaries. I think I am going to quit predicting that they won't do something stupid. After all, we got the most inexperienced and unqualified man in History as our President.


I nowadays just assume "worst case" as my starting point.


ladajo wrote: However, again, if Israel got any wind of Iran going final in a weapons program, it would be really hard for them not to preempt the argument. If there is anything they are paranoid of, that is it. I imagine they have come close several times now to executing the decisive option.

I've seen articles to that effect. It's like we all know there is a gunfighter over there who wants to go for a gun, but we are going to wait (as in a duel) to shoot him after he goes for it.

Image


As a follower of the Curtis LeMay school of thought, my thinking is "Why wait"? Get him before he has a chance to go for his gun.

ladajo wrote: The are 6 million ways to die in the west.

Yup, and Marquess of Queensberry style dueling is one of them. :)
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:A European Shield cannot prevent Iran from dropping a Nuke on Tel Aviv and thereby starting World War III. Iran should have been smashed back in 1979, and the Islamo-Kooks kept from power in the first place.
How do we not know (although not mentioned in the article) that elements of this "European Shield" aren't stationed in or at least in a strategic position to defend Israel as well? This system is deployable by land and sea. No telling how many units we have on ships in the Mediterranean for instance. They may simply be choosing to keep that defending Israel aspect quiet. After all as far back as the Gulf War Israel had access to US patriot missiles didn't they? The ones that stopped Saddam's Scud missiles?


Yeah, it appears that it can only deal with a launched missile, not an orbiting one. Probably not enough time to intercept it if it is fired from space.
The shield relies on radars to detect a ballistic missile launch into space. Tracking sensors then measure the rocket's trajectory and intercept and destroy it in space, before it re-enters the earth's atmosphere. The interceptors can be fired from ships or ground sites.

That would be my stab at it if I was an Iranian. Sure, it's more work, but I think they will eventually get there.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by williatw »

ladajo wrote:You don't know because you are not paying attention. There are four ships doing missile defense in the mediterranean.

Four ships that we know of...wouldn't assume those 4 "hosted" by Spain were the only four of the kind in the entire Mediterranean. To say nothing of ground deployed systems possibly deployed in or around Israel and who knows where else
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced Feb. 16 the four Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers which will be forward deployed to Rota, Spain.

The four include three from Norfolk, Va; USS Ross, USS Donald Cook, and USS Porter, and one from Mayport, Fla., USS Carney. The ships are in support of President Obama's European Phased Adaptive Approach to enhance the security of the European region.

"We welcome Spain's partnership in stationing four U.S. Navy Aegis ships at Naval Station Rota," said Mabus. "We have a long history of cooperation between our two countries and we have developed significant interoperability between our naval forces."

These multi-mission ships will perform a myriad of tasks, including the full spectrum of maritime security operations, bilateral and multilateral training exercises, NATO operations and deployments, and NATO missile defense.

Ross and Donald Cook will arrive in fiscal 2014 and Carney and Porter in fiscal 2015.

Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta initially announced the stationing of four Aegis ships to Rota Oct. 5, 2011, in Brussels, Belgium.

"By hosting these ships, Spain will continue its vital role in enhancing the security of the European region, the Mediterranean Basin, and the Atlantic Ocean," said Panetta in an Oct. 5, 2011, statement. "The agreement also enables the United States to provide rapid and responsive support to the U.S. Africa and U.S. Central Commands, as needed."

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by williatw »

Israel to launch one of the most advanced missile defense systems in the world, with U.S. help


Image
A photograph provided by the Israeli Ministry of Defense shows a launch of the David’s Sling missile defense system.
The United States has provided more than $3.3 billion over the past 10 years to support the defensive system, which will be able to knock down ballistic missiles.
TEL AVIV — A joint exercise now being conducted between thousands of Israeli troops and the U.S. European Command represents a final test before Israel begins to deploy one of the most sophisticated missile defense systems in the world.

When it is complete, Israel’s multibillion-dollar rocket and missile air defense system will be far superior to anything in the Middle East and will likely rival, and in some ways surpass, in speed and targeting, air defenses deployed by Europe and the United States, its developers say.

The United States has provided more than $3.3 billion over the past 10 years to support the defensive system, which will be able to knock down ballistic missiles.

Although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama have had a strained relationship, rubbed raw by their deep disagreement over the Iran nuclear deal, U.S. ­spending on Israel’s air defenses has soared in the past decade, from $133 million in 2006 to $619 million in 2015.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mi ... story.html

DeltaV
Posts: 2245
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:05 am

Re: Second Worst President in US History.

Post by DeltaV »

Diogenes wrote:Yeah, it appears that it can only deal with a launched missile, not an orbiting one. Probably not enough time to intercept it if it is fired from space.
Yeah, it is a quick jump from orbit for a propelled weapon, especially if they fake a failure to attain a stable altitude.

Image

But it is even quicker for a focused EMP. They might put up something which overflies Wall Street weeks or months down the road, to reduce suspicion.

Post Reply