WAR! What is it good for?

[Kinetic]

A very valid point PJ, Seoul would cease to exist. However under the terms of the SIOP or Single Integrated Operating Plan for the use of nuclear weapons, an attack on Seoul is grounds for the launch of a nuclear strike on the DPRK. It takes maybe 14 minutes for a Minuteman 2 to make the flight from North Dakota to Pyongyang. You can't level Seoul that fast and Pyongyang would essentially cease to exist. And with no command and control from the top, the theory is that the artillery would stop and the rout would be on as whatever troops we have left would sweep in.

Most people don't even know about the SIOP, there are publications and books that are very enlightening on the subject. And since Bush took office, the SIOP has been revised with even more nuclear flexibility. Kim might have the power to order that artillery barrage on Seoul and it will be a tragedy. But make no mistake, that's about all he'll be able to do except for one other little thing.

Kim could also launch a handful of missiles at the US Mainland, intelligence reports suggest an approximate range for thse missiles that puts cities as far East as Chicago in harm's way. I live kinda close to Whiteman AFB (home of the B-2 Spirit) which is a nuke target...I pay attention to such things.

[PJ]

...an attack on Seoul is grounds for the launch of a nuclear strike on the DPRK. It takes maybe 14 minutes for a Minuteman 2 to make the flight from North Dakota to Pyongyang. You can't level Seoul that fast and Pyongyang would essentially cease to exist. And with no command and control from the top, the theory is that the artillery would stop and the rout would be on as whatever troops we have left would sweep in...

Good point.

But I'm guessing that, in the unlikely event that a nuclear strike on Pyonyang was ordered, that it'd come from a ballistic missile submarine instead of a CONUS silo. Cheaper, quicker, no hazardous object traversing the US, and not as alarming to the Russians and Chinese missile tracking teams.

And in any case I doubt it'll ever come to that. Kim is a psycho, but he wants to live a long time and keep on drinking expensive scotch and porking Scandinavian babes. FWIW the South Koreans don't think he's crazy enough to start a war. He's weird but even regular South Koreans aren't like us--the belligerence you read from of Kim's PR staff is similar to the typical crap you have to deal with when selling to Korean big business representatives. They're just different over there. Even the Japanese think Koreans are generally nuts.

The real problem with Kim is he's eager to export his missiles and warheads for cash.

[Kinetic]

Sheesh, there I go talking about the SIOP and I forget about the subs. That cuts flight time to 7 minutes, maybe as low as 4. So much for that shelling / rebuilding Seoul problem.

The exporting is a big problem, and it seems that a lot of shipments from the DPRK seem to be heading towards the Middle East......

Ok if we ignore Kim, that leaves one hell of a wild card with Iran. I'm not sure what to think about that mess. It would be interesting to see an old war plan out of Leavenworth for how they thought of handling Iran even 10 or 20 years ago, then add in what we know about modern day weapons and techniques after GWI and II and extrapolate it out. Since you can't exactly waltz into the war college at Leavenworth and see the plan this would be about as close as it gets.

And any discussion on Iran has to account for the new balance of power with their intermediate range missiles that they just showed off...missiles that put Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in range. And if there's ever a wild card country it's Israel. Israel is sitting on a nice pile of nukes, despite what the official line is that they neither confirm or deny their existance. And their conventional ability is unquestioned. If provoked, they could go a long ways to solving our problems....as they would fanatically take so much stuff out we would be coming in for mop up duty....or at least have a lot of work taken off our plate. Anyway that is an interesting tangent on it's own. If the US decided to go it alone, Iran is a very difficult situation. Granted we have the ability to move any assets we want into Iraq, but still...how do you do it? It's not like you can but armor and infantry on the ground and occupy the place, and air power can't do it alone...you need boots on the ground to really do it. And we don't have enough boots now. We're over stretched. Even if you called up every part of the reserves, there are not enough bodies to do it.

Somebody at the War College earns their pay thinking this shit out. I'm glad it's not me. But it is interesting to think about.

[Gizmo]

The # 1 rule of politics.....shit floats.
Regardless of the country or the political system, the
assholes rise to the top. That is why the world is so fucked up.

[lurker]

secret agent?

aha! so I'm not crazy. Lance Link, Secret Chimp. Whatever happened to that show? Is there a DVD collection somewhere? Utterly bizarre. Talking chimpanzees in clothes.

Patience, this has always bugged me...

For example, after the 2000 election was stolen, I would have loved to see an uprising in this country that tossed Bush out on his ass. I would still love to see something like that happen.

There is such a fervent belief in this that the simple logic of the situation seems to elude people completely.

Clinton was president. Clinton. Bush wasn't anything. If the election could have been demonstrably proven to have been stolen why didn't the CinC do something about it? That always bothered me.

All these people, so sure that the presidency of the United States had been usurped. And they did nothing. Except whine...and whine....and whine.

You know why they didn't do anything, risk anything, to set things to rights?

Because it didn't really happen. No one 'stole' anything. They knew that even as they were saying it. But they wanted you to think that it was true--and they wanted you to believe that they thought it was true. But they didn't risk a damned thing.

They voted for all kinds of things the supposed 'usurper' wanted. They met with him, ate with him, treated him like the president of the United States--but they kept the notion that he was (s)elected alive.

Not because they believed it, but because it put a question mark beside his legitimacy--the same legitimacy they affirmed when they okayed the Patriot Act--the same legitimacy they affirmed when they voted to allow the war with Iraq.

'They' sounds like I mean some big conspiracy, doesn't it? But it isn't. Call it a 'talking point' in the DNC and you're closer to the mark.

But, the next time you're going off about the 'stolen' presidency, consider the fact that everyone saying it's stolen isn't willing to risk anything to correct it.

Oh, if you poke around a bit on the subject--or if you can find some people on the far right you can discover that there was, after the 2000 election, a not too small movement to risk it all in the event that the Florida Supremes handed it to Gore. They were stockpiling ammo.

They knew that someone powerful enough to usurp the presidency wasn't going to be removed from that office with petitions.

Think about it

[PJ]

...if you poke around a bit on the subject--or if you can find some people on the far right you can discover that there was, after the 2000 election, a not too small movement to risk it all in the event that the Florida Supremes handed it to Gore. They were stockpiling ammo...

Cites?

[Patience]

There is such a fervent belief in this that the simple logic of the situation seems to elude people completely.

Clinton was president. Clinton. Bush wasn't anything. If the election could have been demonstrably proven to have been stolen why didn't the CinC do something about it?

Can the president overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court? Besides, had Clinton done anything to aid Gore it would have been a gross misuse of his power as President, even worse than Katherine Harris' abuse of her power as Secretary of State. Unlike Harris, Clinton stayed out of the whole mess in any official capacity, because he was unquestionably biased.

All these people, so sure that the presidency of the United States had been usurped. And they did nothing. Except whine...and whine....and whine.

And protest in the streets, and get arrested, and get beaten, and file lawsuits, and file appeals, and write books, and make films... Sure, there are lots of whiners out there. But there are also a great deal of real activists out there as well, and they put themselves on the line over this thing. If you would like to see my photos from the USSC protest or the Washington protest, say the word.

You know why they didn't do anything, risk anything, to set things to rights?

Because it didn't really happen. No one 'stole' anything.

This is not simple logic. It is false logic. Whatever the reactions of the people or the politicians, they prove nothing about the events the preceded.

We don't know who had more votes in Florida, and we probably never will. What we do know is that whoever did have more votes was the rightful winner of that election, and that the Supreme Court decided to block the process necessary to determine the result. In a very real sense, they selected the winner of the election. This isn't hype. It is just what happened.

Please read the dissenting opinion of Justice John Paul Stevens on this matter.
http://www.americanpolitics.info/news/2 ... 2-12.shtml

More interestingly, in the official decision of the U.S.S.C., they make a provision so that their decision cannot set any precedent for future decisions. "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." If their decision was just, why can't its principles be applied elsewhere? The "many complexities" thing is a collossal cop-out.

Perhaps it is wrong to say Bush stole the election. The Supreme Court gave it to him, violating the constitutional rights of thousands of voters to have their legally cast ballots be counted.

That the people of the U.S. didn't try to overthrow Washington when this happened speaks to the character of the people and the reality of power politics, not to the facts of the case.

[/url]

[stuart]

Kim is a psycho, but he wants to live a long time and keep on drinking expensive scotch and porking Scandinavian babes.

that does not seem like entirely irrational behavior to me. Should I seek help?

[stuart]

re: election


thousands of folks were incorrectly purged from the voting roles. Statisics shows that 90% of them would have lined up behind Al. These facts are not controversial. The connection of the firm doing the purge and JEB is quite clear. JEB even admitted that it was a big mistake after the fact. Oh, he would fix it though he said, right after he got re-elected months later. The person who really fucked up during the crisis was Al Gore. He was so busy trying to distance himself from Clinton and his BJ. He also chose the wrong battles in the re-count war. Plenty of civil rights leaders were locked and loaded, willing to go into the streets to do battle but Gore called them off because he thought it would reflect poorly on him. Meanwhile, the GOP is flying hundreds of congressional staffers down to Fl. for protests and to intimidate the vote counters.

Now, no one can say what the outcome would have been if it all went off squeeky-clean like. But what anyone should be able to deduce is that it absolutely did not go off squeeky-clean like. As far as the supremes are concerned, I was sure Scalia and Rhenquist had been whining about states rights for decades. Did I miss something?

[lurker]

Risk was my point, Patience.

These people didn't take any risk. If you truly believe that your government's been taken over by a usurper you don't petition the usurper for a redress of grievances.

Is your brain stuck in a rut? Anything happens that you don't like and it's 'alert the protesters' and 'organise a black bloc' and 'let's get those petitions circulating'. It's like your records' been skipping at 1969 for over thirty years now.

There was no popular insurrection because the populace didn't support one.

No one felt strongly enough to take that next step.

[stuart]

there was no popular support because the facts of the case were quite neatly suppressed for months. This admin is absolutely brilliant at it. See Iraq.

[lurker]

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn. My ideal politician is the one that leaves me the hell alone

But, this thread is called 'WAR! What is it good for?' so, in an attempt to radically shift the thread back to it's underpinnings (if not the lunatic cut'n'pasting Chimp intended) I put it to you...

What IS war good for? What do you consider worth dying for? Worth dying en masse for? What is worth the supreme sacrifice?

[PJ]

Kim is a psycho, but he wants to live a long time and keep on drinking expensive scotch and porking Scandinavian babes.

that does not seem like entirely irrational behavior to me. Should I seek help?

Depends. Got hair like his?

[Patience]

Is your brain stuck in a rut? Anything happens that you don't like and it's 'alert the protesters' and 'organise a black bloc' and 'let's get those petitions circulating'. It's like your records' been skipping at 1969 for over thirty years now.

I don't give a rat's ass about 1969. I care about now, and I care about the future, and that is why I take the risk of protesting and standing up against injustice. Do you have any suggestions about what people should be doing, or are you just whining yourself? The methods of the anti-war movement may be imperfect, but at least it is an attempt at making a positive difference in the world.

What you describe above is called participating in democracy. That's how it works. Are you actually against citizens letting their leaders hear their opinions? Or are you suggesting that subjecting oneself (variously) to discredit, arrest and bodily harm isn't going far enough, isn't enough of a "risk?" Do you grab a gun and call for revolution every time you think justice is not being served?

There was no popular insurrection because the populace didn't support one.

No one felt strongly enough to take that next step.

And that is exactly why people have a duty to speak their minds, to protest when their leaders act unjustly, and to educate themselves and others. Otherwise, democracy is useless. But much of this begins with grassroots organizing.

Call me a hippie and send me to hell, but I believe people with enough conviction, courage and patience can make a real difference, without violence.

[PJ]

...The methods of the anti-war movement may be imperfect, but at least it is an attempt at making a positive difference in the world...people have a duty to speak their minds, to protest when their leaders act unjustly, and to educate themselves and others. Otherwise, democracy is useless...I believe people with enough conviction, courage and patience can make a real difference, without violence.

Traditionally losers learn more from a war than do the winners. US warmaking techniques have changed tremendously since 1975. Because of WWII successes, the US military thought it knew best and hadn't evolved at all through 'Nam, where the US got its ass kicked good by little old General Ho who ran the whole thing from his jungle hooch using several-thousand-old Chinese war theory. (Which book, incidentally, is now mandatory reading even by new enlisted recruits in the USMC as well as by Colonels in the War Colleges.)

Now the US military works extremely hard to minimize losses on all sides of a battle (as Sun Tsu taught thousands of years ago) and works as hard to provide aid to civilian populations as to its own casualties. This didn't happen just because present US commanders were once mis-used junior field officers in the badly-run Vietnam war--it's also due in no small measure to a generation of war protesters helping shape American public opinion.

[Kinetic]

And that is exactly why people have a duty to speak their minds, to protest when their leaders act unjustly, and to educate themselves and others. Otherwise, democracy is useless. But much of this begins with grassroots organizing.

Call me a hippie and send me to hell, but I believe people with enough conviction, courage and patience can make a real difference, without violence.

People can and do make a difference if they make their voices heard. For example I specialize in transportation issues, and MODOT, our version of Caltrans tried ramming a freeway interchange redesign project down our throats. The original design was about as screwed up as the mess it is replacing, and would have done little to alleviate bottlenecks that would come about in growth projections for the next 20 years. In other words, don't put down 40 year concrete if the design won't even function in 10.

Several like minded people including myself started bitching to the media and then to the state legislators and we ended up getting a meeting with MODOT and their engineering staff. To make it short, I have 2 of my personal ideas incorporated into the new design, we got 3 lanes each direction and helped cut the total number of traffic movements in the interchange from 114 to 64. We also addressed the installation of ITS sign boards and lobbied for a federal grant to pay for them. And we got bicycle lanes added to the plan, the replacement of a low railroad bridge that was originally considered outside the scope of the project, and a redesign of one smaller interchange from an underpass to an overpass which also eliminates a grade which causes truck slowdowns and more bottlenecks.

Let no one tell you that a few voices can't make a difference. I can provide proof that they can. And I drive through the results of that work almost every day.

http://www.kctriangle.org

[blyslv]

[quote="Patience"]

Can the president overturn the ruling of the Supreme Court? /quote]

No it takes a specfic act of congress.

[Chimp]

Lurker wrote

"There was no popular insurrection because the populace didn't support one. No one felt strongly enough to take that next step."

Brings me and Patience back to an earlier point I think -

'Lazy, apathetic and uninformed'

What is all this stuff about 1969? The way you talk about it its not only as if if the people protesting about vietnam were in some way 'dumb hippies' but as Patience pointed out it bringing it up bears no direct relation to what is happening now - What is important right now is the future - look, everyone knows about the bullshit that went down in Florida, Bush would never have lasted in power without massive backlash and criticism were it not for 9/11 and the way that tragedy united a nation behind their leader, something like that would make a nation support whoever was in power. A terrible event that was helpful for an administration made up of the people who drafted the PNAC manifesto, something they were already busy putting into practice. Jesus, before 9/11 there were massive gatherings of people over here to protest against the US ripping up of the Anti - Ballistic Missile Treaty that had secured the non proliferation of nuclear weapons for thirty years (everyone in Europe, Russia, China, you name it asked Bush not to do that). It was seen as the single biggest threat to global stability the world had seen since Oppenheimer became 'The bringer of death'. However the US scrapped the ABM Treaty to pursue NMD (Star wars) and in doing so triggered the arms race that has led to Pakistan and India acquiring the bomb and making atomic threats and no doubt has at least in part inspired North Korea to do the same thing. Lets just for one second also consider Iraq and the WMD question, 1.200 inspectors have now spent 90 days in Iraq, costing the US a cool 300 million, the number of weapons they have found are zero. On top of this, and you won't like this at all, but the truth is that civilians are being blown away or locked up by nervous troops daily and your government will not release the figures, on top of this half of the new Iraqi 'police force' is being made up of the old 'police force' - the US are re-instating officers who terrorized people under the old regime, fact - and if you want me to cut and paste the news articles I will.

The people of Iraq simply do not trust what is happening out there Lurker, there is painfully obviously another agenda - the next stop on Bush's tour is possibly going to be Iran, now Iran is not North Korea. It has no bomb and has consistently said it has no plans for one. It has a nuclear power programme and plans for full-cycle fuel enrichment, but one reason for its drive towards self-sufficiency is that its world trade already suffers from US sanctions. Yet, as the LA times reported in August, the CIA has already briefed friendly foreign intelligence services on a contingency plan for air and missile strikes on Iranian nuclear installations. Surely this kind of 'pre-emptive' warfare is simply madness, bound to engender hatred and suspicion of your leader the world over. Please as well realise that in all of these countries there is a variety of people of different faiths, they are not all lunatic fundamentalist suicide bombers. in fact in Iraq there are a sizeable contingent of Christians. everyone is wondering what the hell America is up to, just yesterday France, Russia, Germany and Kofi Annan all rejected the US proposal for the hand over of control to the Iraqis because it is disingenuous, utterly. It is becoming clearer everyday now that the US intends to try to remain in control as long as possible to secure her oil interests. As to your question Lurker "What is war good for, what would you die for etc." (The question I posed in the thread), well obviously as the song states it is good for absolutely nothing. Also - what is it worth dying for? Well it depends what side of the fence you are on doesn't it, a Palestinian might say it is worth dying for vengeance after their home has been destroyed and their family killed, an Iraqi might say it is worth dying to oust an invader.

It's all fucked up right now Lurker and an America that takes unilateral 'pre - emptive' action without any support from her allies unfortunately is not helping one iota. A terribly sad fact as she is perhaps the one country which has the potential to do so much good in the world.

Hail to the thief

[Kinetic]

Chimp, not to go on the defensive but the India / Pakistan nuclear weapons mess was going on long before Bush dropped the ABM treaty. India's had the nukes for at least a couple of years prior to the ABM drop, and Pakistan was not far behind.

And North Korea has been chasing after a stronger deterrent for years, obviously they had this in mind back when Clinton was in office and we had the last little confrontation.

ABM only sped up a showing of the cards in play, the cards had already been dealt long before. If you need links I can scan my archives of notes over here and create a timeline for you if you want facts, otherwise you raise some valid points and I'm like let the discussion continue. I just had to call you on one point that I have studied up on for years. Anything nuclear scares the fuck out of me. I try and pay close attention to it.

One last thought...when China launches their Taikonaut (Shenzhou V) this month, remember that they are using the clean version of the CSS-3 to get to orbit. That same CSS-3 variant is sitting out in the vast outback of China with MIRV'd warheads ready to obliterate US target coordinates already locked and loaded. 14 minutes after the button gets pushed it might be arriving over head. It's something to think about. Most people never consider China a threat...when they go into space shortly, I hope people wake up!

[stuart]

Kim is a psycho, but he wants to live a long time and keep on drinking expensive scotch and porking Scandinavian babes.

that does not seem like entirely irrational behavior to me. Should I seek help?

Depends. Got hair like his?

If that is a requirement for the above activity I will go see my barber straight away.

[Bob]

<img src="http://www.mullings.com/il.jpg">
Caption:
Yow!!! PJ, mind warming up that glove next time?

[Kinetic]

(snort)

or as DJ Big E would put it, I'm lmao.

I'll never look at Kim the same way again after that quote. Thanks Bob.

[Patience]

Kinetic,

I'd like to see those links and that timeline, if you wouldn't mind.

Not that I don't believe you. I just am interested to see what your research turned up. Save me some work.

[Kinetic]

Kinetic,

I'd like to see those links and that timeline, if you wouldn't mind.

Not that I don't believe you. I just am interested to see what your research turned up. Save me some work.

I will dig it up but I am going to delay you, and not for the reasons you expect. I'm fighting off a bad case of bronchitus and I'm on 2 kinds of antibiotics as I'm getting my ass kicked by this stuff. When I can put together something presentable it will be done. And if I forget, remind me. Right now I'm just sitting here resting, tossing out posts, and hoping the antibiotics kick the hell out of this stuff. It's no fun.

[Kinetic]

To kinda get you started though, I have a couple of quick links:

The Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/chron.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/index.html

They have a lot of good facts on weapons systems and the like, I use them as a fact checker. They are biased of course but on raw numbers they make it easy to cross reference things.

India / Pakistan nuclear ambitions:
The Center for Non-proliferation studies:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/india/

Another reference with links back to some of the above:
http://www.nci.org/ind-pak2.htm

Sorry, it's not a detailed timeline but the raw details are there. Now I'm going to read more posts and enjoy my hot spiced chai tea.

[PJ]

...Iran is not North Korea. It has no bomb and has consistently said it has no plans for one. It has a nuclear power programme and plans for full-cycle fuel enrichment, but one reason for its drive towards self-sufficiency is that its world trade already suffers from US sanctions...

Why would a country that has enough oil to last for thousands of years of domestic use (or a hundred to hundreds of years of export use, depending on the rate of extraction) need any nuclear energy for anything? (Other than to enrich U238 to U235 for nuclear weapons use.)

[Kinetic]

...Iran is not North Korea. It has no bomb and has consistently said it has no plans for one. It has a nuclear power programme and plans for full-cycle fuel enrichment, but one reason for its drive towards self-sufficiency is that its world trade already suffers from US sanctions...

Why would a country that has enough oil to last for thousands of years of domestic use (or a hundred to hundreds of years of export use, depending on the rate of extraction) need any nuclear energy for anything? (Other than to enrich U238 to U235 for nuclear weapons use.)

One possiblity....the environment. Do you really want to burn that crud in your backyard? It's not as nasty as coal, but it still sucks as a powerplant fuel. Of course a meltdown and the radiation problem it could create are a bitch, but that's more controllable than conventional power plant pollution. There's also the footprint of the plants to consider, and the prestige of being technical enough to lift yourself to such a level. When the rest of the world thinks your still burning camel dung for light, any PR boost is good. It also keeps your Russian connections open. You sell that oil you have and you can't buy an F-15? Go buy a nice Mig-29 instead.

[PJ]

One possiblity....the environment. Do you really want to burn that crud in your backyard? It's not as nasty as coal, but it still sucks as a powerplant fuel.

Bullshit. It's easier to have a clean-running petroleum-fueled power plant than to have millions of clean-running automobiles. Anti-pollution measures always scale well and are easier to implement for a static purpose as opposed to mobile applications.

And speaking of environmental considerations, talked to anybody from the Kiev neighborhood lately? Meltdowns suck big-time. And for a long time afterward.

No, Iran only wants a reactor for one reason: it's extremely obvious that, if you want to be left alone by major powers, you have to be believed to at least possibly have nuclear weapons and in addition being crazy enough to use them. (IE: nobody worries about being nuked by England, however everybody worries about Pakistan using theirs.)

[Kinetic]

It's starting to become obvious that I am taking a very liberal / green party slant over here lately. It's even coming up in posts like this. Damn.

All valid points, PJ. I'm hoping they are building for peaceful purposes....I don't want to see another war. But then again if I were the Israelis I'd keep those pilots flying simulated missions and have a few choice weapons at the ready....my hunch is Israel, not the US will launch the first strike on Iran when the time comes. And it will be pulled off even better than the Osiraq raid was. They have a high level of expertise when it comes to these kinds of missions.

[Chimp]

Good Link

This is a four part radio programme about the UN, its role in world affairs and the damage the war on Iraq has done, interviews with Kofi Annan and many other diplomats, some of whom died in the bombing in August

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/un/programme2.shtml