Dems, Dem-lites and Independents, who ya backing at this point and why?
POSTED BY: WISHIMAY
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:53
VIEWED: 19566
PAGE 22 of 24
Quote:
Get me to post my link so you can be sure it's gone, right?
Well, WISHY, YOU can fix that if you "reply with quote". But, since I don't trust you not to post-edit the quote, get some neutral third party- JO for instance - to "reply with quote" because we can be pretty certain he won't post-edit it. PM him.
But, you DO realize what you sound like, don't you? Claiming that something is there that you refuse to show anybody? Kinda paranoid and cray-cray, huh?
Quote:Only you can deal with the voices there, kiddo. We're not responsible for what goes on up there.
But how you gonna delete it from MY HEAD?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
No link?
I know you can delete or change the content of a post - you can even erase the title of the thread if you're the author - but THAT a post or thread exists can't be changed. It has a location in a database. And those are accessed by identifiers. So - let's see it. Get that link.
Quote:You've lost me. This is about what Signy (or I) posted - right? You need to post the link to OUR posts and/or 'reply with quote' to OUR posts, not post link to yours. You do understand it - right? And - no one can erase a link, not even the author. And if you 'reply with quote' neither of us can access your content. Or, as Signy suggested, have some neutral third party do the posting.
Originally posted by WISHIMAY:
Get me to post my link so you can be sure it's gone, right?
But how you gonna delete it from MY HEAD?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think this is the post that TWITCHY is fantasizing about. I've re-posted in here, with added emphasis and explanation because maybe TWITCHY didn't get it the first time thru
Quote:You will note that it's "first strike" [offensive] capability being discussed. You DO know what "first strike is", right? This was further developed with
abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option-RUE
Quote:Did you get that, TWITCHY?
maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent - RUE
Quote:So I proposed submarine-based nuclear weapons because land-based nuclear weapons are too easy to locate and destroy, and there is so far no defense against MIRVd hypersonic warheads.
All of these are technically do-able, and well within the purview of a President. But the way this is phrased gives rise to a few questions ...
Nuclear capability ... in order to be credible, it's my understanding that the warheads need to be tested from time to time as the nuclear "fuel" degrades; also the explosive which rams the nuclear material together also degrades.
A "defensive" nuclear posture would probably require submarine-based nuclear weapons because land-based nuclear weapons are subject to a first-strike attack. I think that's do-able and would be credible, but maybe someone with more info on nuclear strategy can help out.- SIGNY
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=63022&p=1
Was that it, TWITCHY? Was this the post that you fantasize is somehow treasonous?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's also these
Quote:
I'm not saying that the US should disarm its nuclear weapons or let them deteriorate past the point they can be used. I believe we need to keep an honest threat of retaliation.
I agree that the most credible threat is from submarine-based nuclear missiles.
Quote:
've proposed changing our nuclear stance from giving ourselves offensive 'first use of nuclear weapons' rights (first strike), to defensive posture only; reducing our nuclear arsenal to one capable of destroying the entire planet only twice; permanently banning so-called 'limited' nuclear weapons; and banning the 'nuclearization' of space.
But I've also proposed reconfiguring our missile systems so that retaliatory strikes will be devastatingly complete and guaranteed. A nuclear attack on the US will result in the complete annihilation of the attacker.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You two are HILARIOUS, tripping over yourselves to explain away and cover up. 
Are you so brainwashed you can't even see what you look like??
You know that other people here were in that thread, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TWITCHY ... we posted what we posted. Nobody cared to discuss it at the time, not even you. Apparently it didn't "look like" anything in particular, and there is nothing to "explain away" ... we were simply discussing nuclear strategy from (in my case) an admittedly not very knowledgable POV.
A few thoughts occurred to me afterwards, having to do with ... how do you distinguish a "first strike" weapon from a credible deterrent? What makes a "first strike" weapon, anyway? Are hypersonic MIRVed warheads "first strike"? Did we provoke an arms race by forward-positioning our missiles on Russia's border which closed the moment of meaningful negotiations?
If you are to negotiate offensive weapons, do submarine-based weapons have first-strike capability? If so, that would mean that credible negotiations couldn't take place because there is no way to locate, count and control them.
*****
I wasn't just blowing smoke when I said that [one of your many] problems was your inability to distinguish between offense and defense.
There is a saying that "the best defense is a good offense" but anyonewho follows sports knows that isn't true. Even more so in warfare.
If you are small and weak, and if you'r existentially threatened, then you MIGHT gain advantage through the element of surprise. But, if you attack first, you have to be sure to completely wipe out the enemy's capability of meaningful retaliation since otherwise your larger stronger enemy will wipe the floor with you.
It's an all-or-nothing approach, very risky and very costly, and shouldonly be considered in the event of an existential threat. Hybrid war, guerilla war, low-level conflict, outlasting the enemy ... these tend to be more successful in the long run. Because the USA is so large, I don't see nuclear "first strike" capability as being useful; it's more of a threat (We're the craziest motherfuckers on the planet and are willing to destroy ourselves as well as you, so don't cross us) but it puts Russia on a hair trigger and puts everyone at risk, including us.
Now, the only reason to hold the threat of nuclear annihilation over ... everyone ... is if we want to control the world, not just defend our borders and our allies.
Is controlling the world in my interest, and in yours? Maybe to a frightened child it might look like a beneficial idea, but I don't think it is and I don't think it's worth nuclear Armageddon. HOWEVER, it might be in the interests of people who are psychopathic enuf and have an unquenchable thirst for control that they would risk everyone in order to get their way.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A whole page of nothing relating to the thread title?
Did Wishi derail a Wishi thread?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"how do you distinguish a "first strike" weapon from a credible deterrent? What makes a "first strike" weapon, anyway?" Unless you're talking about missile-killer missiles afaik the only difference between a first strike missile and a retaliatory missile is policy.
I read somewhere that Obama had personally adopted a no-first-strike policy, but that statement wasn't linked to any source and I haven't checked up on it.
eta
Obama considering no first strike policy
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/nuclear-obam
a-north-korea-pakistan/499676/
Refusing to Nuke First
quelle horreur!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/no-first-use-nuclear-w
eapons-policy-a-dangerous-ob/
'No first use' nuclear weapons policy a dangerous Obama idea
just kidding!
https://www.districtsentinel.com/obama-stick-first-strike-nuclear-war-
doctrine-claiming-deterrence-value/
Obama to Stick With “First Strike” Nuclear War Doctrine, Claiming Deterrence Value
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A First-strike Missile only needs to be capable of eluding the countermeasures active at the moment. A submarine in NY Harbor or Chesapeake Bay could launch against NYC and DC without effective reaction time. Decapitating the Command Structure is a top goal.
Originally posted by rue:
"how do you distinguish a "first strike" weapon from a credible deterrent? What makes a "first strike" weapon, anyway?" Unless you're talking about missile-killer missiles afaik the only difference between a first strike missile and a retaliatory missile is policy.
I read somewhere that Obama had personally adopted a no-first-strike policy, but that statement wasn't linked to any source and I haven't checked up on it.
eta
Obama considering no first strike policy
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/nuclear-obam
a-north-korea-pakistan/499676/
Refusing to Nuke First
quelle horreur!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/no-first-use-nuclear-w
eapons-policy-a-dangerous-ob/
'No first use' nuclear weapons policy a dangerous Obama idea
just kidding!
https://www.districtsentinel.com/obama-stick-first-strike-nuclear-war-
doctrine-claiming-deterrence-value/
Obama to Stick With “First Strike” Nuclear War Doctrine, Claiming Deterrence Value
Treasonous Hilliary was thrilled to broadcast to all of our enemies what our Classified response time was.
Retaliatory must Elude all countermeasures activated following the first Strike Launch.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"how do you distinguish a "first strike" weapon from a credible deterrent? What makes a "first strike" weapon, anyway?" Unless you're talking about missile-killer missiles afaik the only difference between a first strike missile and a retaliatory missile is policy.
I read somewhere that Obama had personally adopted a no-first-strike policy, but that statement wasn't linked to any source and I haven't checked up on it.
eta
Obama considering no first strike policy
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/09/nuclear-obam
a-north-korea-pakistan/499676/
Refusing to Nuke First
quelle horreur!
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/1/no-first-use-nuclear-w
eapons-policy-a-dangerous-ob/
'No first use' nuclear weapons policy a dangerous Obama idea
just kidding!
https://www.districtsentinel.com/obama-stick-first-strike-nuclear-war-
doctrine-claiming-deterrence-value/
Obama to Stick With “First Strike” Nuclear War Doctrine, Claiming Deterrence Value
Quote:Thanks for the info.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
A First-strike Missile only needs to be capable of eluding the countermeasures active at the moment. A submarine in NY Harbor or Chesapeake Bay could launch against NYC and DC without effective reaction time. Decapitating the Command Structure is a top goal.
Treasonous Hilliary was thrilled to broadcast to all of our enemies what our Classified response time was.
Retaliatory must Elude all countermeasures activated following the first Strike Launch.
AFAIK the Russians have a cruise missile capable of flying at treetop level and so evading detection.
They also have hypersonic missiles, too fast for anti-missile missiles.
AND submarines capable of launching nuclear-armed missiles.
And there's a rumor that they have a 'dead-man' system buried somewhere (the Urals?).
To be an effective retaliatory weapon, I believe the US needs nuclear-capable subs. Also, it needs to be capable of striking even if the command structure is taken out.
ETA
Well DANG! I purposefully didn't post links because I was hoping Wishi would come back and challenge me as a 'Russian' for knowing this stuff.
But it's no secret.
You can find this information in such nefarious places as Popular Mechanics
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19121693/russia-int
roduces-two-new-nightmare-missiles/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a25684396/zircon-hy
personic-missile/
and Veterans Today
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2019/02/09/russian-nuclear-submarines-we
apons-of-global-war/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24216/pentagon-conf
irm-russia-submarine-nuke/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME